Eric Holder: “Not ethically qualified”, and Obama once thought something was wrong

The National Legal and Policy Center has called for Eric Holder to be fired by the Obama campaign. Holder is the co-chair of Obama's campaign and the co-chair of his VP selection committee. According to NLPC:

According to NLPC President Peter Flaherty, Holder is not ethically qualified to serve on the Vice-Presidential selection committee. His track record is not one of independence or objectivity. Instead, he has been guided by politics and self-interest.

That Holder is ethically unfit is not news to Redstate readers. I have written on Holder before. Read on for a recap of old stories, and some shocking new ones.

For example, I noted last week that:

So this future AG and current national security advisor sherpaed the pardon of the husband of a big donor, argued for clemency for terrorists, and overlooked the commutation of other terrorists.

And I had written previously:

So this is the change Obama brings. Warmed-over shady operators from the Clinton administration. These guys do favors for each other for jobs. They give favored access to donors. They skirt around ethics rules. And they don't do their jobs. Oh yeah. And he argued that members of a terrorist organization should get clemency.

NLPC notes that Holder and his boss, Janet Reno, refused to investigate when ordered to by a federal district judge

On December 21, 1994, federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who presided over the litigation to open the health care task force, asked Holder, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate Ira Magaziner for possible perjury and criminal contempt of court. He also suggested that Attorney General Janet Reno should appoint an independent counsel to investigate.

Reno announced on March 3, 1995 that she would not appoint an independent prosecutor. On August 3, 1995 Eric Holder announced that he too would not prosecute Magaziner.

So now we know that he encouraged his friends to get jobs that they weren't eligible for, he refused to investigate friends when ordered to by courts, he gave privileged access to donors, and he actively worked to get terrorists off easy.

Is that the change that Barack Obama will bring? If so, then the American people are going to reject bringing Chicago crony corruption to Washington.

But Obama knows this. He is not an ignorant man (it is just that what he knows is wrong). Obama knows that Holder's decisions are garbage. Jim Geraghty notes this. Excuse my quoting at length:

I'm reminded of the final Democratic debate, when Hillary went after Obama over his ties to William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground. The Illinois senator had pretty tough comeback for Hillary:

"President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago."

From the comment, it would seem that Obama believes that the decision to pardon those members was either wrong, or at the very least, of greater concern than his relationship with Ayers.

Holder was one of the officials who signed off on Rich's pardon, although there's an argument to be made that the rest of the Clinton Administration gave Holder little time or opportunity to give Rich's case a proper review. No one has found the recommendation of Eric Holder on the pardons of the Weather Underground members. Lanny Davis, a Holder friend, argued that Holder had no role in the pardons of those members, a curious explanation. The Deputy Attorney General assigned to oversee pardon recommendations to the President never had an opinion on this one?

So Obama thinks that this guy didn't do his job when his job was to vet. So why does Obama think that he can do it now?