- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I had the good fortune to read the NYT article after reading Mr. Greenwald's blog entry. There are some misleading points in the blog article that should be made more clear. First, in the dinner conversation with Rich's PR agent, the NYT article clearly states that Holder didn't know it was Rich who needed the help. When asked what someone (not Rich specifically) in that situation should do, Holder recommends getting a good lawyer who knows the system. Sounds like pretty plain vanilla, dinner conversation advice to me, not the blatant influence peddling that Mr. Greenwald indicates. Second, the article also states that much later, Holder was probably played by Jack Quinn, who gave the impression that he had indeed gone through the normal channels. At worst, Holder allowed himself to be duped by Quinn. Regardless, Holder himself isn't allowing Rich to cut in line in any case; he's simply replying with his opinions to Quinn, not to government officials on Rich's behalf. The handful of contacts over the course of two years between Holder and Quinn listed in the article do indeed sound "peripheral" to me. They certainly don't indicate any "intense" interest on Holder's part as Mr. Greenwald states. In fact, the NYT article specifically states that Holder used the word neutral in his recommendation because he didn't really know that much about the case. Finally, the main reason we know so much about this pardon is because of the obsession of Republicans for investigating everything Clinton, and the hearings they conducted after the pardons which, of course, ended without finding any wrongdoing. So is this where we are headed again with Obama? Investigate any and every little thing? This is the perfect way to get that ball rolling; misrepresent a minor incident and blow it up into some grave error.
