Report: Holder Asked White House To Unmuzzle Him
By Joe Palazzolo | February 15, 2010 11:34 am

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder (White House photo).

We recently wrote about the Attorney General’s communication strategy over the past several weeks, as Republican criticisms of his national security decisions intensified. Holder’s approach had been very low-key — to a fault, his supporters told us — until about two weeks ago, when the Attorney General wrote a pointed letter to Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) defending  his decision to charge the alleged Christmas Day bomber in the criminal justice system.

The New York Times today has a story that sheds more light on Holder’s messaging since his November announcement that the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four other alleged conspirators would be tried in federal court in Manhattan. The plan crumbled in the face of intense criticism, but Holder never reemerged to explain himself — by White House design.

The Times reports:

The White House, wanting to move on quickly, overruled Mr. Holder’s request for more public appearances to explain the decision, administration officials said. In the resulting vacuum, critics denounced the civilian trial plan as a soft-on-terror capitulation to liberals.

Two weeks ago, probably just before the Feb. 3 letter to McConnell, Holder met with White House advisers “to discuss how to unite against common foes,” as the Times describes the meeting. The advisers agreed to let Holder speak out more — as we noted, he has not appeared on a Sunday talk show since his confirmation and has given few extended interviews, until this point — and Holder agreed to allow the White House to help sharpen his message.

Holder told the Times in an interview last week that the political attacks were “starting to constrain my ability to function as attorney general.”

“I have to do a better job in explaining the decisions that I have made,” he said, adding, “I have to be more forceful in advocating for why I believe these are trials that should be held on the civilian side.”

The Times story begins with an anecdote that highlights Holder’s shifting views of his role as department spokesman. (It also touches on his strained relationship with David Ogden, who stepped down as Holder’s deputy this month.)

After Holder gave a speech last year calling the United States a “nation of cowards” for avoiding discussions on race, President Obama distanced himself the remark. But his advisers went much further. According to the Times:

Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina, the White House chief and deputy chief of staff, proposed installing a minder alongside Mr. Holder to prevent further gaffes — someone with better “political antennae,” as one administration official put it.

When he heard of the proposal at a White House meeting, Mr. Holder fumed; soon after, he confronted his deputy, David W. Ogden, who knew of the plan but had not alerted his boss, according to several officials. Mr. Holder fought off the proposal, signaling that his job was about the law, not political messaging.

His most important plan — to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, in federal court in Manhattan — collapsed before it even began, after support from the public and local officials withered.

A year later, he is no longer so certain.

It appears we’ll be seeing a lot more of the Attorney General.



  1. John says:

    I am very happy that Mr. Holder will be more public. I think he is an honest man. He will not be as prone to lie or deceive about his agenda as will the Whitehouse. He will try to explain why he feels certain things should be done a certain way. This is a good thing. The true agenda of this administration, who are obviously pursuing their jobs from a perspective that is not in alignment with the majority of Americans, needs to be public on every possible occasion. If actions speak louder than words, then I fear that all the accusations the Republicans make may well be true. Simply put, you cannot judge others based on their actions while you judge yourself based on your intentions. This is a lesson the Obama administration and the entire Congress need to learn. They are all out of touch ideologues, even when they say they are not. Representing people requires dropping bad policy when the people obviously don’t want it.

  2. gracchus says:

    I could not disagree more with Patriotson.

    I am concerned, however, with the scope of White House involvement with and oversight of the AG. What sort of “message” help shoudl Justice get from the White House? And what is the President’s role in selecting a trial site for those accused of terrorism? If the White house is establishing a general policy on the circumstances under which terror suspects iwll be tried in US courts, in military tribunals, inregualr courthouses, on military bases, etc., fine. If the President is going to make that decisioninspecific cases, that is political interference

  3. Patriotson says:

    Mr. Holder needs to go. He is not a qualified attorney general. His passions are for the terrorist. He does not recognize that we are at war with terrorist. He believes terrorist are nothing but wayward criminals. Doesn’t matter that 1 in 5 turned lose are now back on the battle field. Holder is a radical liberation army pardoner. He has questionable ties to corrupt dealings with the Brown death. He should not be sitting at the highest seat for law enforcement. Since his appointment, less intel information is being gathered.

The Senate Democratic leader describes the Republicans' refusal to hold hearings on President Obama's eventual Supreme Court nominee "historically unbelievable and historically unprecedented."