- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
If Holder's representation of Chiquita was based upon the law(s) of the country involved, I don't have a problem with that. However, if Holder used his past associations with high ranking US or foreign government officials to secure a settlement favorable to Chiquita, I believe that's a horse of a different color.
I'm not sure how possible it is to draw this distinction. Is there evidence that Holder did anything improper or exerted influence within the DOJ?
The Chiquita agreement with the DOJ was reached in 2007 -- 7 years after Holder last served in the DOJ. How likely is it that Bill Clinton's DAG had real influence, 7 years later, inside the Bush DOJ?
Was Holder's prior position inside the Justice Department a factor in some clients' desire to retain him? Probably. But that is hardly unique to Holder. That is the way of Washington. Obama is surrounded by all sorts of people who made money in the private sector after leaving the Clinton administration.
Rahm Emaneul made $16 million in 3 years after he left at Wasserstein, Perella. Are people going to hire Tom Daschele's lobbyist wife now -- or John Podesta's lobbyist brother (and former lobbying partner) -- because of their influence in the Obama administration? Probably.
If there is evidence that Holder asserted influence over prior subordinates and the like, that would be relevant. But absent that evidence, this looks to me like ordinary lawyering. If you were in trouble with the DOJ, wouldn't you want to hire someone who has an intimate knowledge of how it works?
