Making History

Covington & Burling partner Eric Holder--cochair of Barack Obama's campaign--has made a career out of breaking barriers. Will he be the first African American attorney general?

The American Lawyer, By Andrew Longstreth, June 01, 2008 (see sig)

Eric Holder knows a lot of important people. In particular, he knows a lot of successful African Americans, starting with his ob-gyn wife, Sharon Malone. Together the couple has an impressive set of friends with enough lofty credentials and titles to fill up a few boardrooms. To name a few: Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan trial attorney William "Billy" Martin; former U.S. Department of Labor secretary Alexis Herman; and Antoinette Bush, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, whose stepfather is another of Holder's friends: Vernon Jordan, Jr., former adviser to President Bill Clinton and now senior counsel at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. "All black people that finish college know one another," jokes Jordan.

Given Holder's social circle, it was perhaps inevitable that soon after Barack Obama became the lone African American in the U.S. Senate, they would meet. In 2004 Holder was invited to a small dinner party hosted by Ann Walker Marchant, a niece of Vernon Jordan and a former Clinton administration White House aide. The gathering was planned to welcome Obama to Washington. Obama and Holder, seated next to one another, found that they had a lot in common. The two men, both tall and thin, each had immigrant fathers, went to Ivy Leagues schools (both attended Columbia College as undergraduates), played basketball, and, of course, believed passionately in public service. "We just clicked," says Holder matter-of-factly.

Holder says he immediately sensed Obama's talent. And despite the ten years that separated them, he found someone who thought similarly about race. "I think we share a worldview," he says. "[Obama] is not defined by his race. He's proud of it, cognizant of the pernicious effect that race has had in our history but not defined by it."

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202421743636

Thanks for the linky to Dr. Murphy's post.

Helluvan indictment.

The Chiquita deal was a seriously nasty piece of business.

I haven't been through all the comments yet, so if someone has asked and it has been answered, please forgive.

When was the Eric Holder statement on CNN in April 2004? I can't find it.

I did find this, however:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/cheney.gonzales.indicted/

Good luck defending "justice is blind," Glenn. As numerous folks come forward to defend some defendants as more worthy of defense, and others less so. And, by dint of who they defend, some lawyers GOOD and others BAD. And, most recently, the new wrinkle of who can afford what kind of defense.

Yeah, I'm surprised at how many people here want to judge lawyers based on the sins of their clients.

Usually, it's the argument you hear from the Right: He defended a child molester! A rapist! A terrorist!

Sure, those scum are entitled to lawyers, but Lawyer X wasn't forced to represent them. He chose it!!!!

Somehow this idiotic claim is magically transformed into something valid if the defendant in question is rich? It's OK to defend a poor child molester but not a rich one? It's OK to defend a bankrupt corporation but not a thriving one? All absurd.

The transcript you're looking for is here and at my sig:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/19/ip.00.html

"Good luck defending "justice is blind," Glenn. As numerous folks come forward to defend some defendants as more worthy of defense, and others less so. And, by dint of who they defend, some lawyers GOOD and others BAD. And, most recently, the new wrinkle of who can afford what kind of defense.

Periodically, I engage in this fantasy that all the authoritarians who need Black and White distinctions are deep in the bowels of the lunatic Right, but reality always comes roaring back, doesn't it?"

Is a sort of high-minded conception of justice really being defended here? It is not as if Holder is acting the role of Atticus Finch, defending a client before a hostile or even impartial judge or jury. He is a powerbroker. Is it even doubtful that he used his connections to get a light sentence for his client? If justice were blind, Chiquita would no longer be in operation. If we lived in a sane world even, that would be so. It seems like your defense of Holder would apply in a perfect system. As it is not some of us tend to look past the black and white distinctions that are trying to be drawn here.

I like the point that someone made about defending the mafia. So how about Bruce Cutler for AG? Does anyone seriously think that someone could defend people like that for profit and be seriously considered for a top governmental post?

When in April 2004?

I haven't been through all the comments yet.

4/19/2004

I found it via Nexis.

CNN

April 19, 2004 Monday

SHOW: JUDY WOODRUFF'S INSIDE POLITICS 15:30

why is it that nobody ever considered treating these guys, and other al-Qaeda types, as common criminals, and the struggle against them as a simple law enforcement battle, sort of like dealing with the mob? That strikes me as the correct posture. There is an international aspect to terrorism, of course, but there are international criminal organizations too.

John Kerry proposed this when he was running in 2004. He was laughed off the stage.

Of course, the reason he was laughed off the stage was because the idea was sensible. Sensible isn't fun and macho, and doesn't involve torture and blowing things up. Ergo, everyone hated it.

Glenn and others are incorrectly criticizing the remarks Holder made about the likes of Atta in the wake of 9/11. Holder was very clear and repeatedly said that such people are *NOT* POWs and he is 100% correct about that!

A person that qualifies as a POW is given protections and rights that go far beyond what non-combatants and illegal combatants are given in a time of war. For example, a POW is only bound to give their name, rank and serial number under interrogation.

He went on to say that even though such people are NOT POWs they should get most of the treatment and rights specified under the Geneva Conventions. I think he was speaking in shorthand to all the people that reflexively think GCs = POW treatment and was saying they should be treated in accordance with common article 3 and under the 4th Geneva Convention, probably as saboteurs and/or spies.

Of course, all of this criticism depends on the assumption that the Geneva Conventions apply to our conflict with al-Qaida. Common Article 2 is quite clear that "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." Al-Qaida is not a party to the conventions and is certainly not accepting and applying the provisions of the conventions to its conduct. Therefore, the GCs do not apply at all to anyone that identifies themselves as belonging to al-Qaida. The only way the GCs come into play at all is in our occupation of countries that are party to the GCs, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.