Is This Why Eric Holder Isn't Going After Bush Officials?
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
It seems that Attorney General Eric Holder may be yet another manifestation of Obama-style "bipartisanship" that favors Republicans above all others.
So far, Holder has intervened in federal prosecutions involving Republicans, most notably the case of former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Why does Holder seem content to let the Siegelman and Minor cases languish? Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson says she might have the answer.
Simpson, a former opposition researcher for the Republican Party in Alabama, is skilled at tracking down information. She learned that Holder, before being named Barack Obama's attorney general, worked for a Washington, D.C., law firm called Covington & Burling. And what did Simpson discover about that august firm?
The tip I got was that the firm had a very important client. His name was George W Bush. And they represented a very important organization . . . called the Republican National Committee. I was in shock when I checked it--and it was true.
My favorite research item I ran across is when they were protecting the RNC from having to turn over Karl Rove's e-mails that were run on the RNC servers. It shocked me. Plus I found it mighty interesting that AG Eric Holder never enlightened anyone about his conflicts of coming from a big Washington, D.C., law firm that represented the National Republic Committee and George W. Bush in the 2000 election contest.
Simpson notes that Holder's favorable treatment of Republicans hardly stops with the Stevens case. She lists the Tobin phone-jamming case in New Hampshire, the Kott case in Alaska, and the Abramoff/Feeney case in Florida as examples of the Holder DOJ killing GOPers with kindness. What does Simpson make of it?
It has long been reported that the expenses in those cases were picked up by the RNC. That same RNC paid AG Holder's law firm, and that law firm paid AG Holder more than $2 million last year.