By 2008 Socialist Party USA Presidential candidate Brian Moore. Forwarded to contact.ipr@gmail.com by former IPR correspondent Peter Orvetti, and posted here by Paulie. Disclosure: I worked as an independent contractor to help Moore get on the ballot in several states in 2008.

U.S. Attorney General Nominee Opposed; Support and Rationale By Senators Of Candidate Is Weak–Claims Civic Critic

Access to Voice Dissent on Eric Holder Nomination Blocked at Almost Every Turn

SPRING HILL, FLORIDA, Friday, January 30, 2009 — A blistering letter of criticism for “unfair access to the nomination process” and “shaky support of the candidate by senators of both major parties” was faxed today from a civic activist in Florida to Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, regarding the nomination hearings of Eric H. Holder, Jr. for United States Attorney General.

The letter was sent after the Senate Judiciary Committee’s near unanimous vote (17-2) on Wednesday to recommend Eric H. Holder, Jr. as the United States Attorney General.

The letter was faxed and mailed by a civic activist, and former presidential candidate in the Socialist Party USA, Brian Moore, who resided in Washington, DC during 22 years of the 24 year- span of Eric Holder’s employment with the U.S. Justice Department in the District of Columbia (1976 to 2001). Moore is now a resident of Florida. The activist communicated his comments as a former citizen and a former local candidate in Washington, DC. Moore was careful to state that his comments were “not in the name of his minor political party nor any other individuals.”

On December 19, 2008, Moore sent a request to the Minority Office of the Senate Judiciary Committee to appear at the January 15th and 16th, 2009 hearings for U.S. Attorney General, in opposition to Mr. Holder’s candidacy.

Moore was not told until the day before the hearings, January 14th, by the Minority Office of the Committee, that Senator Arlen Specter’s request for 12 witnesses was relegated to only three persons by Chairman Leahy. Thus, Moore’s request to appear could not be considered. Statements “for the record” were initially ended by Chairman Leahy on January 16th, the second day of the hearings, but apparently that was rescinded allowing Moore’s statement to be posted on the Committee’s official website for the record—on the chronological list January 23, 2009 marker. See the following link:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/AttorneyGeneral-EricHolder-Letters.cfm

In Moore’s written four-page opposition statement, which he faxed and overnight mailed on Wednesday, January 21st, to both the Majority and Minority offices of the Senate Judiciary Committee (see attachment), Moore expressed concern that throughout Holder’s roles as a government lawyer in Washington, DC, for the U.S. Justice Department’s Public Integrity section (1978 through 1988), as a Superior Court Judge of DC (1988-1993), as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (1993 to 1997) and as Deputy United States Attorney General (1997 to 2001) Mr. Holder “appears to have been either silent or low-key in his approach to malfeasance in the District.”

Moore contrasted his opposition to Holder’s inaction in local District of Columbia matters as a different area of criticism, while Republican members of the committee focused only on the national issues of Marc Rich and Puerto Rican FALN pardons made by President Bill Clinton.

Moore continued in his January 21st statement, which he addressed to both Senator Democratic Chair Patrick Leahy, and Republican Ranking Member Senator Arlen Specter, reminding them that the District of Columbia, from the “late 1970’s into the 1990’s, under the administrations of Mayor Marion Barry, and his other mayoral successors, descended into rampant political, criminal and financial corruption involving elected and appointed public officials.” Moore said this corruption included voter and financial fraud, bribe-taking, flagrant mismanagement by government officials and blatant cronyism. The former civic activist, and Independent candidate for D.C. City Council and D.C. Mayor, from 1984 thru 1998, further reminded the senators and their committee that the “nation’s capitol also turned into rampant lawlessness, high drug abuse…gang violence ….and record killings.” Moore said the shootings involved black-on-black crime, mostly among young adult blacks, even affecting public high schools.

Moore continued in his statement that the District actually became “the murder capital of the world” in the early 1990’s and one of the 10 most corrupt cities in America “while Mr. Holder was its United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in that period.”

Moore also took a swipe at the U.S. Congress for neglecting its oversight responsibilities by keeping a “hands off” policy toward the District, thus allowing the city to “teeter on the verge of bankruptcy.” Moore said his early advocacy of a DC Control Board, when Moore was an Independent mayoral candidate in DC in 1993 and 1994, became a reality through congressional legislative action in 1995.

Moore emphasized in his statement that Mr. Holder “demonstrated a lack of courage and/or independence to take on political leaders of his own Democratic Party.” Moore referred to a critical Washington City Paper article in March, 1997, by reporter Stephanie Mencimer, criticizing the D.C. government’s reputation as a “culture without consequence,” and of Mr. Holder’s inability or unwillingness to take prosecutorial action to hold those responsible for their criminal behavior. Moore further quoted Ms. Mencimer that Mr. Holder has a reputation, despite his popularity and “kid-glove treatment by the press,” that Holder “hasn’t produced many visible results” [for the District in his legal leadership capacity].

Moore went further in his statement echoing reporter’s emphasis of why did Mr. Holder “fear DC juries or [why] was he intimidated by its political officials.” The implication was not only partisan but appears to be racial as well (blacks holding their own race accountable).

Moore criticized Holder by stating that he “will not take forceful action unless it does not jeopardize his own political position, [or] and that it is a safe action [for Holder to take].” Moore ratcheted up his criticism further stating that “Mr. Holder’s lack of leadership, his inaction and ineffectiveness, and apparent lack of a moral barometer, especially against officials of his own political party and of his own African-American race, should raise serious concerns about his candidacy for United State Attorney General.”

Moore concluded his critique of Eric Holder’s leadership abilities and personal character by stating that he [Moore] is “raising a flag as to whether Mr. Holder has the strength of character to not only stand up to the President’s authority, if necessary, but also whether Eric Holder has the strength to stand up for the rule of law as well.” Moore added that Mr. Holder’s quiet and inactive history and unimpressive prosecutorial track record, other than his impressive academic and government credentials, “should raise serious concerns and worries for the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the United States Senate as a whole.”

The former D.C. resident also included critical statements in his letter to Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy, of both Republican and Democratic Senators, on their various justifications and rationale in supporting Mr. Holder’s nomination to the full Senate. The full Senate vote is expected to be taken on Friday, January 30th, supposedly after three hours of “limited debate.”

Moore blasted many of the Senators for their stated need to “give deference” to President Obama to the extent that they were willing to overlook Mr. Holder’s lack of independence and serious character flaws. Moore was especially critical of Republican Arlen Specter, who acknowledged ex-FBI director Louie Freeh’s statement that the Marc Rich pardon was a “corrupt act” but that both Freeh and Specter “placed the blame on President Clinton, and not on his Deputy US Attorney General, who made the recommendation!”

Moore concluded his strongly worded letter to Chairman Leahy by criticizing the “justification or illogical reasoning” used by other U.S. Senator members of the Committee in voting for Mr. Holder’s nomination. Community activist Brian Moore blasted liberal Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, for his “euphoric” support of Eric Holder because he said that “Water boarding is torture,” and “No one is above the law,” both antithesis references to the Bush Administration. Moore said he too was pleased with those statements, but did not justify “as examples of his character or independence.” Feingold’s only reference to Holder’s so-called “Independence” was his pursuing several corrupt Democratic congressmen from Illinois and Texas—-from Holder’s own political party.

Moore went on the attack also of Alabama Republican Senator Sessions’ support of Holder despite Sen. Sessions’ criticism of Holder that he “Should have dug in his heels,” regarding the Rich and the FALM pardons, along with Holder’s silence when AG Janet Reno stopped President Clinton from bombing Osama Ben Laden in 1998.

Moore added, while he sympathized with Senator Feingold’s comments, and understood, although disagreed with Sessions’ comments, Moore said both senators appeared to be hypocritical in their support of Mr. Holder.

Moore concluded his letter to Chairman Leahy lambasting Republican Senator Orin Hatch’s vote for Eric Holder despite Hatch’s scathing criticism of Eric Holder in previous hearings in the 90’s over Mr. Holder’s endorsement of the Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican FALN pardons. Mr. Hatch’s “deference to the president” smacked of senate collegiality instead of accountability and serious candidate analysis. Moore did concur with Hatch’s opening comments that the hearing was conducted “in about half the time” that his own party held theirs, and “fewer witnesses against the candidate were invited,” supporting Moore’s contention that the hearings were “contrived and manipulated.”

Moore’s parting comments in his letter to Mr. Leahy were that he “endorses” the Christian Science Monitor’s editorial of January 29th by Nick Robinson, who stated that the “AG’s job [is] to enforce the law, so it’s a conflict of interest to have him [the AG] appointed by the president.”