Maybe Obama's first dubious appointment

"... His role in the Rich issue actually began more than two years before the end of the Clinton administration, almost by happenstance. At a corporate dinner in November 1998, Mr. Holder was seated at a table with a public-relations executive named Gershon Kekst, who had been trying to help Mr. Rich resolve his legal troubles."

A couple of the New York Times' crack investigative reporters, Lichtblau and Johnston, write that Obama's nominee for Attorney General isn't as pure as we'd like to think.  The notion that Eric Holder, then deputy attorney general, had no real involvement in the pardon of Marc Rich just isn't true.

"Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter — a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was 'neutral, leaning toward' favorable — helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members, participants said.

"At the same time, Mr. Holder was not the sinister deal maker that his critics made him out to be."

Nonetheless, this is quite chilling -- a little too Republican and, face it, a little too Gonzales -- than some of us are comfortable with.

"He let himself be drawn into the case by politically influential advocates, the review of the case shows, bypassing the usual Justice Department channels for reviewing pardon applications and infuriating prosecutors in New York who had brought the initial charges against Mr. Rich and his business partner.

"Most perplexing to Justice Department allies was that Mr. Holder, by his own admission, involved himself in the discussions without a full briefing from his own prosecutors about the facts of the case, according to an associate of Mr. Holder who spoke on condition of anonymity."

So he can't be excused by the claim that the pardon was very last minute and the result of time pressures.  In fact, it had been in the works for years.  Holder suggested legal counsel for Rich -- a friend and former colleague -- during a dinner conversation with a Rich supporter long before the last days of the Clinton presidency. The deputy attorney general was in the picture from then on, ultimately letting the White House know that he had no problem with the pardon. 

So it's a matter of politicizing his position at Justice and exercising poor judgment -- not the most desirable qualities in an AG whose first task will be to clean up the Department he'll be heading.  On Holder's side is the judgment of the federal grand jury which investigated the pardon.  The grand jury found no criminal wrongdoing. 

Update:  The Times has more questions for Eric Holder.