Does he believe these words? Or do they ring hollow? As in the Marc Rich pardon?

One peasant is wondering?

Holder should trump Rahm if he actually believes the words that he repeated many times during his nomination hearing “no one is above the law”

The American public does not believe this. Holder proved that Marc Rich was above the law and “Rich’s” last name and those who lobbied for his pardon prove just why he was pardoned.

Will Holder roll over again. Will Rahm keep protecting crimes that need to be exposed?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/c…..index.html
The real reason Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich

During Eric Holder’s confirmation hearing, Arlen Specter scolded the attorney general-designate, but no one mentioned Israeli pressure.
Still, it would have been a refreshing change from the usual confirmation minuet if instead of humbly apologizing, Holder had tartly instructed the buffoonish Specter, his fellow senators, the press, and the public about the actual circumstances of the Rich affair. He might have started with the fact that continuous lobbying on Rich’s behalf from the highest Israeli leaders and their American friends — among whom Specter no doubt counts himself — became even more intense in the days before Clinton left office. He could have noted that such pressures coincided with Clinton’s efforts to conclude a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. And he could have explained to Specter that Rich’s deals in Iran and Iraq were often related to his other role — as an asset of the Mossad who gathered intelligence and helped to rescue endangered Jews from those regimes.

It is clear that Holder and his colleagues in the Justice Department had ample reason for concern over the proposed pardon, in part because pardoning a fugitive violated precedent. But for the Post to call him “the pardoner” in a front-page headline directing readers to the editorial was grossly unfair. Clinton had sole constitutional discretion to grant the pardon, and he would have done so whether Holder liked it or not.

But Holder understood that there were deeper reasons why the pardon was likely to be approved, which had nothing to do with the political and charitable contributions of Rich’s ex-wife, the Manhattan socialite Denise Rich. The New York Times offered just a hint in a front-page story that appeared shortly after the Holder nomination was announced. Only at the very end did the Times mention the pressure from “the Israelis” that had persuaded Holder not to oppose the pardon — as he told Beth Nolan, then the White House counsel.

Just that this is my top, #1, do-or-die issue: The Rule of Law.

Thera, I so much agree with you.

Without our constitution and the law, who are we as a country?

(2) Holder has taken the temp of the political environment and understands that the GOP in its current form is not willing to support any of the administrations agenda. Consequently, there is no real damage done to the agenda by pursuing the ‘torture trail’.

I wish someone would write that in large block letters on some Day-Glo poster board and tack it up around the White House.

That’s what has stuck in their craws. And Leon Panetta has probably advised that murders must not be ignored. CIA is in the clear on this, so it’s not contradictory to the Obama meme of amnesty for agents.

Rahm really ought to be replaced. He doesn’t have the bearing or the intelligence to parse the subtleties of investigation and prosecution. He would be much better heading up political affairs. Obama needs a wiser counsel as COS, and Rahm isn’t it.

Or the view is this inclusive, but very opaque.