Powered by Topple

The case against Eric Holder: Sheer incompetence

Powered by Topple

Conservatives have many reasons not to like or trust Attorney General Eric Holder on political grounds, but Washington Post columnist David Ignatius produced a column on Saturday that should convince even liberals that the guy doesn’t belong in the country’s top law enforcement post.

He’s incompetent.

ericholderIgnatius put it a little more mildly, “mediocrity” being his word of choice. But the column reprised some of Holder’s less memorable decisions, such as trying former Democratic senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards on campaign finance charges for supporting the mistress he got pregnant. Then there was unsuccessful prosecution of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican.

And remember when Holder wanted to put 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial in New York City? Whatever the legal points involved, it would have been a logistical nightmare for the Big Apple and made a circus of the American justice system.

Ignatius quoted one Washington lawyer as saying, “Holder substitutes his political judgment for his legal judgment, and his political judgment isn’t very good.”

As Ignatius’s column made pretty clear, Holder’s legal judgment isn’t very good either.

Among conservatives, Holder’s failure to prosecute the New Black Panther for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, the way he stonewalled Congress over Fast and Furious, his legendary inability to enunciate the words “radical Islam” during a House hearing on the Times Square bombing attempt (by a radical Islamist) and other sins have made Holder an object of derision – and possible impeachment.

Ignatius made the case against Holder from a different viewpoint, and with a sad recital of Holder’s performance since Obama elevated him to the nation’s chief prosecutor.

The man is simply too incompetent – or “mediocre,” if you will – for the job.


Latest Articles