Eric Massa has issues. So does The Other Eric:
Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t tell the Senate Judiciary Committee about seven Supreme Court amicus briefs he prepared or supported, his office acknowledged in a letter Friday, including two urging the court to reject the Bush administration’s attempt to try Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant.
Powerline has more on Forgetful Eric.
Say bye, bye. (To what little credibility The Other Eric had left.)
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Don't judge all Eric's by their Democratic counterparts.
One is tempted to ask what has to be the obvious and quite risible rhetorical question — the one that I imagine has to be on nearly everyone's mind under the circumstances.
So, I will play the wag . . . just for the fun of it:
"Was there something embarrassing in his briefs that caused Eric Holder to fail to disclose them to the Judiciary Committee?"
Of course, we already know that there was in the Padilla case.
But seriously, let us consider just the numbers.
According to the Politico article you linked to, above, there were a total of seven additional briefs he failed to acknowledge to the Judiciary Committee in the questionnaire he filed.
He voluntarily disclosed a total of three! So with all the time in the world to get it right, he forgot seven out of 10 — 70% wrong!
How is that possible?
A questionnaire of that sort is a bit like a take home exam, in the sense that you can take your time and check your resources to be sure to supply correct and complete information to the committee.
But rule number one always is, you better get it right!
And, when you give it a little thought, it is actually quite a bit easier than a "take home" in the sense that it is about YOU. Take homes are about others.
Even forgetting one, or even two briefs that you participated in over the years during the course rapid fire oral questioning could be an embarrassment, but it would likely not be a basis (standing alone) for rejection of a nomination.
However, forgetting all about 7 out of 10 briefs in a questionnaire, is a sign of either outright deceit, or perhaps at best mendacity.
It is hard for me to imagine worse qualities in an Attorney General of the United States.
I think, in fairness, anyone would have to rule out utter stupidity at that level, though that too would be a sound basis for removal.
Coupled with the fact that we already know that he lacks sound judgment, based on his insistence on trying KSM in New York City, this guy should be sent home immediately.
What, pray tell, is the counter argument?