First, in spite of all the ink and air time spent on this issue, I still honestly don't know why the Republicans think the pardon of Rich was the equivalent of a high crime.
Who was this guy? What was the pardon for (what crimes)? Who requested the pardon?
Beyond those important basics, however, Holder's answers appear evasive because he has focused on the fact that the decision "was a mistake". He made assumptions that he should not have made. Etc., etc.
Holder seems to assume that the members of the committee already know all the details (probably true) but the public audience probably doesn't.
What he needs to do and what he has yet to do is to explain how the the process works, how the issue came before him and what criteria he used to approve the pardon. Just saying that he made a mistake or that he made erroneous assumptions, however correct as far as those statements go, simply makes him sound evasive.
I, BTW, believe this is all a red herring raised by Republicans who still hate Bill Clinton and who want to cause trouble for Obama (for whom I did not vote), and seriously doubt that it deserves the attention it has been given (given all the pardons issued by all past Presidents), but it does bother me that Holder seems so locked into planned responses that he is unable to hear what he is being asked and to respond in a way that would explain why he acted as he did.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment