Specter Announces Support for Eric Holder

Press Conference

Specter Announces Support for Eric Holder

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today announced that he will support the nomination of Eric Holder to the position of U.S. Attorney General. Senator Specter's remarks from a press conference held earlier today follow:

"I have decided to announce my position on Attorney General-designate Holder a day in advance to give my colleagues some notice as to my thinking on the subject.

"I begin with the proposition, as I've said publicly, that I want to help President Obama organize his new administration. After considerable thought and analyzing a lot of factors I've decided to vote in favor of the confirmation of Mr. Holder.

"The constitutional duty on advice and consent requires an examination of the candidate's qualifications. I believe that it is necessary to ask questions, pointed questions, to try get a good line of all the nominees. That is especially true with the Attorney General. Unlike other cabinet officers, the Attorney General does more than carry out the President's policy; the Attorney General has an independent duty to the American people to uphold the rule of law.

"Mr. Holder comes with an excellent resume, excellent educational background, excellent professional qualifications; United States Attorney to the District of Columbia, D.C. Superior Court judge, Deputy Attorney General. And, in an extensive career, there have arisen issues that I thought Mr. Holder had to respond to.

"I had particular concern about the Rich pardon because I chaired the Judiciary Committee hearings on that issue back in the year 2001. I similarly had special concerns about the refusal of the Department of Justice with Mr. Holder's concurrence and input not to appoint independent counsel to investigate the allegations of campaign finance violations by Vice President Gore. With respect to those issues and the FALN commutation of sentence, there are very, very serious questions.

"The issue of independence is one of really great importance. The Attorney General has traditionally been in a critical spot on that issue on independence. Attorney General Daugherty in the Teapot Dome case, Attorney General Cummings in the Court Packing plan with President Roosevelt - two examples where Attorneys General failed to live up to the duty of independence. Eliot Richardson, Attorney General under Nixon, showed the kind of independence on the Saturday night massacre, as did Griffin Bell when President Carter wanted him to get up to prosecution and Attorney General Bell said if you want that conducted, find yourself a new Attorney General.

"These hearings are important markers. They are important for the individual who is being questioned and they are important for people who watch the hearings, so that one day someone who may be in a lesser position in government, or may not be in government at all, or may be in school will think twice about how he or she conducts himself or herself one day with the prospect of being before a confirmation hearing.

"I think the hearings will have an impact into the future on Mr. Holder. I've been a party to many hearings, and I've heard decades later people, including Supreme Court Justices, comment about what went on at a hearing. It's an important matter and it does make a mark. Mr. Holder was candid in conceding with respect to the Rich pardon that he made a mistake.

"Weighing heavily in my mind were recommendations of people who know him very, very well. Know him beyond what we can determine in the course of a confirmation hearing. I know Eric Holder to some extent, having worked with him over the years, but I do not know him as well as Louis Freeh, Former Director of the FBI. I don't know him as well as James Comey, who was United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and later Deputy Attorney General. I don't know him as well as William Coleman, former Secretary of Transportation. Those three men spoke very highly of Mr. Holder, as well as some others.

"I thought that Director Freeh's comments were especially weighty. And I thought that because he was very, very critical of what Eric Holder had done. Mr. Freeh characterized the Rich pardon as a "corrupt act." Not saying that Mr. Holder is corrupt, but the pardon itself was corrupt. We know that Mr. Holder made a recommendation of neutral-leaning-positive, going against the recommendation of the pardon attorney. And for Director Freeh to still recommend Mr. Holder is highly significant.

"Similarly Director Freeh was critical of what the Department of Justice did in declining the appointment of independent counsel in the Gore matter. Director Freeh characterized it in terms that he hadn't seen the application of the need for independent counsel more decisively stated than in that matter. Also on the FALN matter where 16 Puerto Rican terrorists were let out of jail - people involved in murders and bank robberies. Again, it was condemned by Director Freeh, but he made the recommendation in the face of all of that to recommend the confirmation.

"I think that Mr. Holder is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the context of the excellent record that he has and those recommendations weighed against the issues which were of concern to me.

"Beyond the hearings I had a lengthy meeting with Mr. Holder last Thursday where I was able to discuss quite a number of issues with him. Having an informal meeting has both plusses and minuses. It's a plus in the sense that you can say some things and get some responses of a more candid nature without being in front of the television cameras. And the disadvantage is that it is not on the record for other people to read and see. But it's a customary thing to have the informal sessions.

"Coincidentally, the Freeh issue is coming up at the same time as the new Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner. The difference there, I think, is worth just a moment or two. I had initially been inclined to vote for the Secretary of the Treasury and after taking a closer look at it and discussing the matter with the Ranking Member on Finance, I decided to vote against him because in his situation he knew specifically and had made an acknowledgment and an understanding to pay the taxes. And, in fact did not pay monies which had been allocated to him for the specific purpose of paying the taxes. The International Monetary Fund for whom he worked does not pay the social security or payroll tax, but gives him the specific sum of money to pay. When he was audited he paid for two years - 2003 and 2004 - which were within the statute of limitations. He had a similar obligation to pay for 2001 and 2002. The statute had run and he didn't pay. He really held that money in the form of a trust and it should have been paid. He had a specific acknowledgment of that obligation, which I think is a very different situation from Holder where there is an issue of judgment.

"At no time did I challenge Mr. Holder's integrity. It was a question of judgment and a question of independence and all factors considered, as I say, I decided to vote for him."

Source