As a result of the 13-hour filibuster by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) on the Senate floor yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder was forced to send a letter to Sen. Paul which finally gave an unequivocal answer to the question that was asked of the AG in the hearings in the Senate Judiciary.
The disingenuous and disrespectful nature of Holder’s letter speaks volumes. “Additional” question? Like hell. This very question was the very one which Holder abjectly refused to give a straight answer to. He was evasive and obfuscating, repeatedly using the word “inappropriate” when asked about the instance above. Inappropriate is not illegal, and Holder damned sure knows that. It is inappropriate to burp loudly in a restaurant, but hardly illegal.
Holder’s condescending attitude was evident in the hearing and in the tone of this letter. He lacks integrity, and tried very hard to avoid answering the question asked. He knows his true answer, that he believes the President DOES have the right to kill Americans not engaged in combat on US soil, would lead to an even hotter firestorm. His comments, on not one but several occasions, have told us so. With the testimony and the filibuster, he demurred, but was eventually forced to answer the question in the negative. Holder is not to be trusted, nor are his words or views to be interpreted in the most benign possible way. He has disdain for Congress, and for our Constitution, like so many in the Administration he belongs to.
Shame on Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for admonishing Senator Paul for his filibuster, and for behaving as if the question that Paul demanded an answer to was somehow unwarranted or without merit. The Attorney General of this country had been posed that very question on many occasions, and had several months to provide an answer. McCain and Graham didn’t necessarily need to be on the Senate floor with Rand Paul, but they should certainly have been happy that Senator Paul had stood and demanded the proper answer to such a fundamental question of government authority and civil liberty, instead of being critical of a colleague that was fulfilling the duties of his office.