RUTHFULLY YOURS

Former attorney general Eric Holder scolded Jeff Sessions for the “rushed” firing of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe under pressure from the White House. Holder said Sessions needs “to have the guts” to stand up to President Donald Trump.

This is the same Eric Holder who on June 28, 2012 became the first U.S. attorney general in history to be held in both criminal and civil contempt by the House of Representatives in a 255-67 vote, with 17 Democrats voting for the measure (the rest of the Democrats walked out of the House, refusing to vote).

Peculiarly enough, in the first part of his claim, Mr. Holder may be not too far from the truth. Jeff Sessions really does “need to have the guts”…to consider starting a DOJ investigation of Holder’s activity in 2009-2015, when he “served” our country as the U.S. attorney general. And Sessions knows it as well as anyone. It was Republican Senator Jeff Sessions who gave a well deserved objurgation to Mr. Holder on June 17, 2009, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Back at that time, Sessions was of the opinion that after spending only five months on the job, Holder put into question the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

According to then-senator Jeff Sessions, in just a few months, A.G. Eric Holder, among other things, ignored recommendations of the Office of Legal Counsel on the constitutionality of a D.C. voting bill, refused a request from law enforcement officials to keep interrogation methods confidential, and released dangerous detainees from American prisons.

The list of Holder’s “achievements” as A.G. could be continued to eternity. On February 18, 2009, during Black History Month. Eric Holder called USA a “nation of cowards” on racial issues, stirring much controversy and even a statement from President Obama mentioning that he “would use different language” talking about the same issue. Mr. Holder refused to prosecute the famous case of voters intimidation by the Black Panthers in Philadelphia and called only black Americans “my people” while supposedly representing the whole American nation.

President Trump is right in saying that a special counsel should never have been appointed to investigate the so-called Russian connection. There was no evidence of any crime committed by the Trump administration. But there was plenty of evidence that Russian operatives had tried to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, and perhaps other elections, in the hope of destabilizing democracy. Yet, appointing a special counsel to look for crimes, behind the closed doors of a grand jury, was precisely the wrong way to address this ongoing challenge to our democracy.

The right way would have been (and still is) to appoint a nonpartisan investigative commission, such as the one appointed following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, to conduct a broad and open investigation of the Russian involvement in our elections. This is what other democracies, such as Great Britain and Israel, do in response to systemic problems. The virtue of such a commission is precisely the nonpartisan credibility of its objective experts, who have no political stake in the outcome.
Such a commission could have informed the American public of what Russia did and how to prevent it from doing it again. It would not seek partisan benefit from its findings, the way congressional committees invariably do. Nor would it be searching for crimes in an effort to criminalize political sins, the way special counsels do to justify their existence and budget. Its only job would be to gather information and make recommendations.

We’ve been there before, in the crash of the dot-com bubble of 2000, when we believed that downloading pop music and porn would drive the economy of the future. We’ve done it again: We made another tech bubble on the premise that Americans would write the apps and Asians would make the hardware, and the miracle of connectivity would bring the world together in Mark Zuckerberg’s utopian vision. Internet community and Artificial Intelligence were the two blasts of hot air that inflated the bubble. Social media as a substitute for actual human interaction and computation as a substitute for human thought were going to waft us into the future.

Yesterday’s double crash of these delusions was the sort of irony that makes one intimate the hand of God in human history.

The crown jewel of Artificial Intelligence shattered when Uber’s autonomous SUV ran over Ms. Elaine Herzberg at the corner of Curry and Mill Street in Tempe, Arizona. And the concept of Internet community vaporized when news reports alleged that Cambridge Analytica improperly retained Facebook profiles of 50 million users. Facebook promptly lost 7% of its stock market value in yesterday’s trading, and other big tech names fell by 3% to 4%.

As his plot to destroy Trump backfires, his squeals grow louder.It was the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky who coined the phrase the “dustbin of history.” To his political opponents, he sputtered, “You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!”

It is no coincidence that John Brennan, who supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party in the 1970s (he has acknowledged that he thought his vote for its presidential candidate Gus Hall threatened his prospects at the CIA; unfortunately, it didn’t), would borrow from Trotsky’s rhetoric in his fulminations against Donald Trump. His tweet last week, shortly after the firing of Andrew McCabe, reeked of Trotskyite revolutionary schlock: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.”

America will triumph over a president it elected? That’s the raw language of coup, and of course it is not the first time Brennan has indulged it. In 2017, he was calling for members of the executive branch to defy the chief executive. They should “refuse to carry out” his lawful directives if they don’t agree with them, he said.