- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn, what I am getting at is that we are supposedly a nation of laws, not of influence. If Holder's representation of Chiquita was based solely upon his knowledge of, and usage of the law at the time, I have no problem with that.
However, if the new administration's promise of "Change" is sincere, then I would find it rather disconcerting to have his choice of AG be a person who has a history of gaming the system - utilizing inside connections rather than purely legal means to secure favorable treatment of his clients. I have no information which would tend to prove or disprove that Holder's legal representation of Chiquita was anything other than straightforward but I believe that we should know the ins and outs of this representation before we bestow knighthood on him.
I guess it's philosophical. Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation which subscribes to the Who You Know theory of law.
I'm not against Holder, per se. I would be against his nomination if I thought he utilized other than legal (and I don't mean illegal) means to represent him.
I thought Obama promised something along those lines but maybe I am mistaken. I'm just getting a whiff of Versailes here and it makes me uncomfortable.
