Here’s the money question, prompted not just by Holder’s ignorance but the fact that Hillary criticized the statute without having read it either: Are they deliberately not reading it so that they have an excuse to walk back their criticisms later if this gets too hot politically?
So, I ask in response: The bill is 18 pages long. This man is the attorney general of the United States; he is our highest ranked legal authority. Hillary Clinton, while not serving in a law based position, is also a trained attorney. Will the public really accept “I didn’t read the bill before I criticized it” as any sort of excuse whatsoever? Really?
My town has been in the mist of a very controversial criminal trial which included frequent complaints that the defendant was getting a raw deal. One of my friends, who is not an attorney, asked me what my thoughts were on it. I answered her, but made sure to state very clearly that I was only basing my opinion on what had been offered in some of the main media outlets, and that I had not examined the evidence or studied the proceedings unfiltered. I specifically said that my answer was only applicable if the coverage I was reading was accurate and complete.
Now, I don’t get paid to answer legal questions to facebook friends, and she was in no way relying on my answer other than to satisfy her own curiosity, so I can do that without all of the facts. But, even so, I am an attorney, and she asked me because of my experience; I felt that I owed it to her to answer with the caveats or to give a completely informed answer. Attorney General Holder owes us a lot more, and he is not following through.
Related: NRO is also outraged, calling this “the most transparently irresponsible administration in history.”