Graham grills Holder: Does Bin Laden need to be given his Miranda rights?
posted at 4:47 pm on November 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Per the last post, here’s how “carefully” Holder consulted the law before pulling the trigger on KSM. Not only does Graham have to tell him that there’s no precedent for trying battlefield detainees in civilian court, but Holder’s emphasis on how we don’t need a confession to convict Bin Laden completely misses the larger point Graham’s trying to make. The real worry in a district-court trial isn’t what’ll happen to archterrorists like Osama or KSM, whose perpetual detention is assured; the worry is that those trials will establish precedents that’ll be exploited by lesser jihadis at their own trials later on. KSM won’t be released because the political consequences to the administration are too dire, but what about some other terrorist who’s less well known to the public and whose guilt, while certain to the CIA, is less provable under normal evidentiary rules? A confession in a case like that might be critical — but what if he wasn’t Mirandized before he confessed? What then? That’s Graham’s point, and Holder seems to want nothing to do with it.
Another thing. He refers here to the DOJ’s “protocol” for deciding which terrorists get civilian trials and which get military tribunals. Did he happen to mention at any point today what that protocol might be, precisely? Graham seems to think it’s “civilian trials for terrorists who kill civilians, military trials for terrorists who kill soldiers,” which would, of course, be utterly perverse. There’s another possibility, though, and one which jibes with Holder’s dopey fixation on not needing a confession to convict Bin Laden. Maybe they’re simply looking at the pile of admissible evidence they have for each detainee and deciding that guys with big piles go to civilian court, where they’re likely to be convicted anyway and The One can crow about “due process,” while guys with smaller piles go to military court, since a civilian trial might well result in them getting off. If that’s what they’re doing — i.e. a two-track justice system designed purely to maximize the government’s odds at conviction while minimizing the political risk of acquittal — then, like Patterico says, KSM’s trial is even more of a show trial than we thought. Presumably, if Holder thought we did need confessions to convict him and/or Bin Laden, the plan to try them in Manhattan would be scuttled and they’d be off to a tribunal to make things easier on the prosecution. The decision on what “due process” is due, in other words, is based not on the nature of the underlying act — war perpetrated by a foreign enemy — but on the outcome The One wants to achieve, with Holder actually going so far today as to say, I kid you not, “Failure is not an option.” Isn’t failure always an option in a true due-process regime?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
KSM will be judged by a jury of his peers?
crash72 on November 18, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Holder is bringing Martial Law to the American Civil Legal System!!!!!!
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10193.html
Unless KSM immiediately is set free and Obama doesn’t re-arrest(double Jeopardy).
jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM
If failure is not an option, then it’s not a fair trial.
Daggett on November 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM
This is a nightmare they are going to have to walk back. Seriously, there are far reaching legal consequences here that are no one has thought through. Nightmare.
elduende on November 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Um… didn’t Grahmasty vote to CONFIRM HOLDER!?
The moron.
Warner Todd Huston on November 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM
But don’t worry ya’ll; Grahmnesty had his wise Latina moment this year and Soto should correct any lower court mistakes.
/s
Branch Rickey on November 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Yes, ostensibly the Obama administration.
Daggett on November 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM
“This is not the Holder I knew…..”
search4truth on November 18, 2009 at 4:53 PM
“Graham seems to think it’s “civilian trials for terrorists who kill civilians, military trials for terrorists who kill soldiers”
Even if he were trying to weasel around with this argument, I do seem to remember a soldier or two being murdered in the attack on the Pentagon.
UncleOlaf on November 18, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Dare I say “Fail” this early?
Branch Rickey on November 18, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Can’t quit thinking about “a nation of laws, not of men.”
Oh, and John Adams defended a Redcoat.
Holder would’ve apparently guaranteed his conviction before the jury heard the evidence.
cs89 on November 18, 2009 at 4:54 PM
The integrity of our Legal System and Civil Liberties as Citizens of the USA is dependent now on KSM beign set free ASAP as soon as this is brought into court and Obama not then re-arresting(double Jeopardy)!
jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I thought Kyl was more to the point: How can they be MORE sure that they will get a conviction in a civilian court than the agreement they all ready have that he pleas guilty and is executed?
Not only is it stupid to bring this to NYC it is a waste of time and money.
So if their best case works out he will get executed 10 years from now instead of next year!
He already pled guilty and was willing to be executed!
This has got to be the most boneheaded move a President has ever made.
If this doesn’t go perfectly????? Well, hopefully the American people will hold Obama and Holder responsible!
Idiots!
petunia on November 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Keith Ellison and CAIR will be on the jury I see?
jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Wow. Just wow. I can’t stand Graham, but he exposese Holder here.
clorensen on November 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM
To Big to Fail mantra for the justice system.
WashJeff on November 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM
A point lost on Obama.
petunia on November 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM
The only positive thing that could possibly come from this is that there will hopefully be an increase in battlefield justice.
jack herman on November 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Over/Under on Holder serving out the term?
jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM
For omama failure is not an option , it’s a feature.
the_nile on November 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Eric Holder should recuse himself from this trial.
mizflame98 on November 18, 2009 at 4:58 PM
What’s that got to do with the judiciary? If you give a damn about turning murderers loose, you never make it to the federal bench.
Chris_Balsz on November 18, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I took one thing away from this:
Lindsey Graham is a red herring.
Nice to see that the Attorney General has decided that the evidence is so overwhelming that a conviction is probably guaranteed. Is that the definition of a fair trial or what? He better hope and pray that they get a judge that Bush appointed and not a Clinton appointee……..
JeffinOrlando on November 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Please, please, please let KSM walk. Finally teach the imbeciles who vote Dem what it really means.
angryed on November 18, 2009 at 5:01 PM
The same bleeders that complained how expensive and wasteful of resources when it comes to Polanski are all for “due process” here. LOL!
yubley on November 18, 2009 at 5:01 PM
What Grahamnesty doesn’t get (and it’s clear why he isn’t getting it) is that he’s taking these answers seriously…Holder will say whatever he has to say to justify the decision ex post facto. This was an entirely political decision made by Obama and Holder to appease the nutroots and server Obama’s own personal political ends. The assumption that this has anything to do with the best interests of the United States is, in itself, idiotic. But then, we’re talking about Graham here, aren’t we?
AUINSC on November 18, 2009 at 5:02 PM
To anyone paying attention, it should be pretty clear–Holder is a moron and is way over his head. So is his boss.
james23 on November 18, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Gotta give it to Grahmnesty, when he’s not stabbing us in the back, he has his moments
MyImamToldMeToDoIt on November 18, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Did you notice the guy behind Lindsay? He kept laughing and covering this mouth when Holder would talk. Too funny. BTW I have to hand it to Lindsay, today and maybe only for today, he found his balls and hammered Holder.
milwife88 on November 18, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Trying enemy combatants in a civil court is the functional equivalent of publishing a “Take no prisoners” order.
The Rock on November 18, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Graham made bad history when he voted to confirm Holder.
Brat on November 18, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Please, please let the uproar make Holder and Obama have to say, “Never mind.”
kingsjester on November 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Too true, unfortunately.
Jeff2161 on November 18, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Even Ms Lindsey doesn’t believe anything he says
Why should we
macncheez on November 18, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Its those dang perverse incentives and unintended consequences liberals always fail to understand.
Firefly_76 on November 18, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Well, it is NYC.
Aviator on November 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM
jp on November 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Easier to allow bail. Let the victims bail him out.
Jeff2161 on November 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Failure comes standard on the Obama model. You want to purchase the extended warranty?
BobMbx on November 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Lindsey was very good in questioning Holder.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM
..buttwipe Holder’s Ralph Kramden moment: “humina..humina..humina..humina..humina..humina..I core a apple..humina..humina..humina..”
VoyskaPVO on November 18, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Why not just put this trial on Broadway? It’ll be the best show of the year.
thevastlane on November 18, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Holder is one of those people that look like they need to be slapped repeatedly.
SirGawain on November 18, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Ouch. And we (okay, I) thought the Bush Administration was incompetent (they were).
Holder makes Gonzalez seem like a combination Oliver Wendell Holmes and Learned Hand.
Yeah, odd combo, that.
SteveMG on November 18, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Holder is an idiot. Maybe he should go back to selling pardons. He excelled at that.
GarandFan on November 18, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Holder really had no answers. I’ve never seen such a weak presentation, particularly given that the audience knows exactly what all was involved every step of the way.
I can only conclude that this is to provide a format so that the focus is back on waterboarding and Cheney/Bush. That’s quite politically cynical. But he had a chance today to make the thinking clear if it’s not that, and he failed.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 5:16 PM
This decision ultimately is just political and throwing the Bush Administration’s policies under the bus-plain and simple. Any other explanation is total BS by Holder.
Static21 on November 18, 2009 at 5:17 PM
That’s a thread winning comment right there!
!!!111!!!!11!1
SnowSun on November 18, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Generally speaking, its much easier to prosecute and obtain conviction in a military court. Just seen too much in my 22 years of service.
The size of the pile is irrelevant. Most of that pile (in a normal case) would probably get thrown out or not even used due to procedural stuff and other motions in a civlian court.
In a military trial, the pile doesn’t need to be big because there wouldn’t be a trial (in most cases) unless the government KNEW it was slam dunk. There are exceptions of course, but that “size of pile” line of reasoning is a pile in and of itself. Sorry, AP.
catmman on November 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Who’s the bald dude behind Graham who appears to be so delighted by seeing Holder squirm that he can hardly contain himself? This is awesome. I mean, the guy at one point is smiling so broadly as to almost be laughing, that he eventually covers his mouth. It’s nice to see one of Obummy’s dutiful worms squirm under fire. Way to go Lindsey, even if you did vote to approve his confirmation. Heck, we all make mistakes, just like all of those Catholics, Jews, Protestants, atheists, independents and other misguided souls who voted for the Obamination a year ago this November.
Goldy1 on November 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Yeah, and I remember Grahamnesty’s “gruelling” and “incisive” cross examination of Sotomayor too. If only his objections to her judicial style were as strenuous as his final vote in opposing her nomination….oh wait….
No.
Graham’s rhetorical objections to Obama’s agenda’s have shown to be little more than exactly that: rhetorical. He embodies the polluted RINO echelon of the Republican establishment and ___NOONE____ should be surprised if he finds some “prosecutorial” reasons for trying KSM in NY at the end of the day.
Graham and the other disingenuous RINOs like him and McCain’s entire campaign management team need to be purged and opposed as loudly and spectacularly as we oppose incumbent democrats in 2010.
No more moderates.
Khorum on November 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I’d like to be a fly on the wall when Holder talks to Rahm. “You promised me this wouldn’t happen!”
a capella on November 18, 2009 at 5:19 PM
That is the real danger — the question is, is that intentional?
rbj on November 18, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Well, just think how many more people here and around the world now realize beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is not only a fraud, but an idiot.
How the hell is he going to walk back this one, when the walkback is to straight to the position adopted by the Bush administration that he excoriated? Think you have seen world-class sophistry? You ain’t seen nothing yet!
Hey, how’s that being a locked-up vote for any breathing Dem working out for all you NYC’ers, anyway?
drunyan8315 on November 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM
You can say what you want about Graham, but this is his area of expertise. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to both the civilian and military justice systems. The truth is this decision has nothing to do with the law, it is all political. Every bit of it and it might just backfire on these guys.
Terrye on November 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I am taking just a wee bit of pleasure in noting that Lindsey ‘DeDe’ Graham, who has here exposed Holder as an incredible dunce with bad judgment, voted for the same Holder and lashed out at folks who criticized the choice. Welcome aboard ‘DeDe,’ if only momentarily.
james23 on November 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM
According to the Weekly Standard, Holder said this:
So, if I read it correctly, there’s some classified information that will be revealed during the trial that makes this an open and shut case. And Holder thinks that’s a good thing.
hawksruleva on November 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM
We had established procedures, court rulings, executive branch decisions, congressional authorization that set into place military trials for these types of individuals.
It served us well – it gave some rights to the defendants while making sure that we were not endangered – and was suited, however imperfectly in an imperfect world with imperfect human beings, to these types of situations.
It worked, why break it?
SteveMG on November 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I’m really struggling with a moral dilemma here.
Everything about this mess is very bad for the United States, yet the worse it gets, the more it bloodies Obama and his minions.
And I’m happy about that.
Is this the moral equivalent of the Donks and the Lefties who cheered the bad news in Iraq because they hated Bush so much it made the nuts with BDS?
I want the country to be safe, to have KSM and his ilk dead and to have the country open it’s eyes to what a sham and fake Obama is/was/shall ever be.
But damn, this is so bad. I don’t want to cheer for disaster (unlike the Left) but I can’t help gloating now that The One is being unmasked, albeit at the expense of the country.
Any suggestions/prayers/therapy advice?
Bruno Strozek on November 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Thanks again, 52 percenters. It’s so comforting to have the adults in charge.
Cicero43 on November 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I had to add the s.
Johan Klaus on November 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Vitenam?
This is a POLICE ACTION. Of course his Miranda Rights need to be followed. He has the same rights as you and me. Thanks Obots.
CTSherman on November 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM
It’s already a debacle. Good on Grahamnesty.
WisCon on November 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Loose lips sink ships.
Johan Klaus on November 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM
My God, Holder is way over his head. And the guy behind Graham makes the entire clip even better.
Graham is not exactly articulate or commanding but runs circles around Holder who actually reminds me of Obama. Maybe he needs a teleprompter.
ORconservative on November 18, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Maybe Holder is just positioning KSM to extort a nice fat contribution to the Obama campaign fund. Pardon to follow immediately. KSM can then start hanging out with Marc Rich.
Cicero43 on November 18, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Yes, Bin Laden should get Miranda. We’re not in a “war.”
If they can’t convince a jury of Americans of his guilt, then that means he’s free to go.
Spathi on November 18, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Kid-Look, Mommy! A RINO with ba!!$!
Mom- No Honey. That’s just a pair of golf balls to be used after the meeting.
A RINO is always a RINO.
So he gets one right now & then.
Whooppee.
I still don’t trust him.
Glad he’s not my Congressman
I’ve already got enough bozos to worry about there here in ND.
Badger40 on November 18, 2009 at 5:28 PM
No, he says it won’t come out until we are in a trial setting. KSM will have access to it all through discovery, anyway.
a capella on November 18, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Sure.
Congress never did agree with designating that “War on Terrorism” stuff.
We are just on a humanitarian tour in Afghanistan.
/sarc
Badger40 on November 18, 2009 at 5:29 PM
If Team Obama thinks that the KSM trial will help them get elected in 2012, they might want to shake that Magic 8-Ball (TM) a little harder. Even if they run against the caricature of Bush, they’re running against his area of strength. Even New Yorkers will start to remember the Fire Department funerals, and the candlelight vigils, and the phone calls from friends, and the frantic search for friends and loved ones who worked at WTC. 9/11 makes most Americans angry, not apologetic. Of course, Obama is in that minority who believes it was a just reward for our arrogance.
hawksruleva on November 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM
What a web we weave, huh?
Badger40 on November 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Lets see a jury of his peers… we can start with Ayers and Dohrn…who else do we have around? Manson would do, I think for that Helter-Skelter angle…hmmm… some of those Puerto Rican terrorists that Clinton let go! There we can start to get a real ‘jury of his peers’ in no time at all!
ajacksonian on November 18, 2009 at 5:31 PM
This really speaks to me.
Badger40 on November 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Wow- Holder was schooled by Graham (until he got to the end and Graham added the ridiculous “we agree on some things). You can tell Holder has not thought out any of the likely scenarios Graham raises and that his “protocol” for determining where terrorists will be tried doesn’t exist. I wish Graham had just let Holder twist in the wind, instead of jumping in and offering him ‘outs.’
I have worked on a few cases with covington lawyers and thought generally they were fine, but Holder is weak. (Harvard Law Review? Really?) I hope the Obama bus comes for him soon.
LASue on November 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM
You can’t be this dumb, no one can.
Terrye on November 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Wow, Grahamnesty delivered a brutal smackdown of the idiot AG. Every once in a while that thilly thenator grows a pair.
David in ATL on November 18, 2009 at 5:33 PM
You can’t be this dumb, no one can.
Terrye on November 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Do not underestimate his capacity for cluelessness.
kingsjester on November 18, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Graham is right on this and if those Democrats happened to think the same way on this issue we would not be facing this idiot farce in NYC. You don’t have to agree with Graham on everything to give him credit where it is due.
Terrye on November 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Graham, you’re still a goober!
Tim Burton on November 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
—
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
jp on November 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM
True.
Terrye on November 18, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Doesn’t count, otherwise it’s a sham show trial, just like Stalin. Maybe that is why Churchill just wanted to shoot the Nazis and Stalin wanted the Nuremberg trials.
Tim Burton on November 18, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Aviator… Wow, just Wow. Spoken like a true *&%#$ that wasn’t there and didn’t see with his own eyes people jumping and/or burning. Spoken like a “man” that didn’t know brave New Yorkers that went into those already burning buildings and never came out.
Aviator, you are a disgrace.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on November 18, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Are you a muslim? A student?
Johan Klaus on November 18, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Here is a stupid comment for ya:
I do not think that Holder saw the movie “Chicago”, because in that movie both women committed murder, and through a crafty lawyer, both of them were found “not guilty”, whilst the young woman who was “not guilty” hanged for the crime she did not commit.
What is the relevance here? I am picking up on Holder’s own words about “failure is not an option”. How do you define failure where this particular administration is concerned? Is the failure to get a conviction, or to get them released?
maggieo on November 18, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Spathi..on this one….you’re insane.
———————————————-
It better be but it appears this is a show trial
Spathi – I think you should be more concerned with Obama giving KSM a supposedly fair trial with the outcome already written.
CWforFreedom on November 18, 2009 at 5:41 PM
It’s very apparent, with Obama running around the world apologizing for the United States, he, and his ilk have a grudge against America, and Americans. It seems to me, in their eyes, we’re not only beneath them, we’re all selfish, and greedy, and unworthy.
The pandering to Islam, and Islamics, at the expense of Christians, and Jews is even more telling.
Is it possible, that the CIA, and America itself is the true defendant for all of this? I have no doubts these radicals believe we are to blame for 9/11, and must be held accountable. In this case, the CIA will take the entire wrap for it.
In the end, it won’t be about Bin Laden, KSM, or any other terrorist. It’s all about punishing us , for sins they have decided to label us with, with their *cough cough* high moral standards! *haaaaaack*
capejasmine on November 18, 2009 at 5:41 PM
I am linking this to HBO documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5NgA0Qwx94
Plz watch and get a grip on who and what the Hussain regime is rooting for
macncheez on November 18, 2009 at 5:42 PM
There’s due process and do process.
H&O Railroad is into the latter…
karl9000 on November 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM
The focus here needs to be on our troops who capture an enemy combatant. The Obama/Holder decision to try KSM and others in a civilian court creates a real problem on the ground.
Our troops need to interrogate the captured enemy so as to determine the possible place and time of future attacks, not only to protect us over here but to protect other troops in theatre.
If there is a possibility that the enemy combatant is going to be tried in a US civilian court, he’s entitled to the same constitutional and criminal procedure protections a drug dealer or a car thief would get.
Thus, you either Mirandize the captured one or kill him, either way losing intelligence opportunities, thus further endangering your people.
Sick is the only word that comes to mind.
TXUS on November 18, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Please give some reasons for Graham’s grandstanding today.
I believe it was choreographed by Obama. So what was the point?
nondhimmie on November 18, 2009 at 5:45 PM
What makes Holder dangerous is not as much as he comes across as a misguided zealot, as much as he comes across as an absolutely totally incompetent misguided zealot.
pilamaye on November 18, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Want to bet that this will lead to more killing and less captures? I will.
CWforFreedom on November 18, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Obama’s foreign policy and this trial will not make sense to Americans. When we’re at war, Americans really don’t expect to be beloved. Commonsense.
He’s not making much sense to focus so much attention on our PR image abroad right now. For what end?
If there’s one thing Americans are is pragmatic. I see no payoff here, and I think most people think he’s just indulging in his own ego aggrandizement.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Playing to both ends of his constituency,in typical Graham fashion (ie Sotomayor)he comes on hard, makes solid points and then backs off.
diogenes on November 18, 2009 at 5:47 PM
I got a kick out of the facial reactions of the bald fellow sitting directly behind Lindsey Graham. He seems to be greatly entertained by this whole exchange. Holder is embarrassingly outclassed. Mr. Bald man also seems to think the Holder grilling is going quite well…for Mr. Graham. Check out how he tries, unsuccessfully, to maintain his composure at about 2:00. He is having a hard time keeping a straight face!
Priceless.
marybel on November 18, 2009 at 5:52 PM
He wasn’t the only one. And the Senate Judiciary Committee saw only 2 GOP’ers vote nay.
Anyway, see? Y’all never seem to give guys like Sen. Graham the props they deserve. He and others get the RINO and GRAHAMNESTY labels far too quickly.
JetBoy on November 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »