Eric Holder: The Complete Interview

CBS Evening News: Katie Couric Asks The Attorney General About Prosecutorial Malfeasance, State Secrets, Gun Laws And More

(CBS) 
Couric: Vice president Cheney recently said that President Obama is, quote, "Making some choices that, in my mind, will in fact raise the risk to the American people of another attack." He went on to say the administration is going back to pre 9/11 law enforcement mode. What's your reaction?

Holder: Well, I think that's totally false. It's inconsistent with the facts. The president has just announced in a - I think, appropriate way, that we're gonna grow the number of troops that we have in Afghanistan. That is a military response to the situation that we see in Afghanistan. President wants to do nothing that would endanger - the American people.

All the things that we're doing are designed to enhance the safety of the American people. And closing Guantanamo is, in fact, one of those things. It takes away from people who are our enemies. A recruiting tool. It actually makes our relationships with our allies - a lot less complicated. So this - if you look at what the president is doing, what this administration is doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing - with regard to Guantanamo, I think - the former vice president's remarks are - are way off the mark.

Couric: What do you think of him making those remarks to begin with?

Holder: Well, I would just say that I - I respect - former President Bush. And - former Secretary of state (UNINTEL), who indicated that, for at least some period of time - a period of - of silence in letting this administration try to determine what steps it's gonna take is - is appropriate. As a former deputy attorney general, I understand that I was never, ever critical of people who were in my position, or attorneys in general - understanding the very difficult job that those people had. So - I've got great respect for - secretary Rice and President Bush in that regard.

Couric: Are you implicitly saying that Dick Cheney was inappropriate and off base, making those comments?

Holder: I'll let other people decide that.

Couric: The state secret stock - sorry. The state secrets doctrine, developed by Bush administration allows the executive branch to refuse to disclose certain things in court because it could threaten national security. During a recent case in San Francisco involving five people who were part of the Bush administration's extraordinary rendition program, the Obama administration, as you know, used the same argument. Which came as a surprise, frankly, to the judge.

Meanwhile, the head of the ACLU said, quote, "Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets. But his Justice Department has disappointedly reneged on that important civil liberties issue.' Why?

Holder: Well, the - the premise is wrong. I have ordered a review of the state secrets doctrine. All the cases in which - we have invoked that doctrine. I think there are a total of maybe 20 or so, just to make sure that it was properly invoked. And to see, in those cases, where it was properly invoked, if there's a way we can be more surgical, whether there is a way in which we can share more information.

A report is in the process of being prepared. I'll expect I'll have it in the not too distant future. And my hope is to be able to share the results of that report with the American people. So they'll understand exactly - why we've had to use the state secret - state secrets doctrine in certain cases. And why we - decided not to use it in - in certain other cases.

Couric: So you think it's appropriate to invoke it at certain times?

Holder: At certain times. But I want to make sure that we only do it where it's absolutely necessary. I would only apply the doctrine where - national security was at stake, where the lives of the American people were at stake. Where sources and methods used by our intelligence - at - our intelligence assets were used. This is a very transparent administration.

This is going to be a very transparent Justice Department. But I'm not gonna sacrifice the safety of the American people or our ability to protect - the American homeland. And that is - as I said, first and foremost.

Couric: Having said that, do you believe the state secrets doctrine was abused by the Bush administration?

Holder: Well, I'm in the process of looking - that is being reviewed now. And so, I'll see what the result of that - review is. And as I said, try to share the results of that review with the American people.

Couric: What's your gut though?

Holder: Well, I don't know. On the basis of the two, three cases that we've had to review so far - I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct. We - we reversed - are in the process of looking at one case. But I think we're likely to reverse it.

Couric: Later this year, several controversial provisions of the patriot act will expire, including the wire tapping provision. Will the Obama administration seek to continue that policy?

Holder: I think we're gonna look and see how those policies have been used. And then, make a decisions - based on experience. Talk to agents, talk to civil liberties advocates. See what the results of these policies that were contained in - the patriot act, whether they've been useful, whether or not they need to be reformed in some way. And then, make a determination as to whether or not we'll support their - renewal.

Couric: As the attorney general, do you worry about the constitutionality of some of the provisions?

Holder: Sure. I worry about the constitutionality of all of the provisions, of all of our laws. One of the things that I think is response - that we - I have to do as attorney general is to ensure that, in everything that we do, we are acting in a way that's consistent not only with our constitution, but with our values - as Americans. That's what makes this country unique. It's what makes this country great. And it's gonna be the department of justice that - that I will lead.

Couric: As you begin this job, what do you see as your biggest challenge?

Holder: Keeping the American people safe. We - I come back to a Justice Department that's fundamental different from the one that I left. There was a national security component - to this job that really did not exist, at least, to the extent that it now exists, then when I left in - in 2001. So that's a huge part of what I do.

I think the other part, though, is to make sure that, what I call, the traditional parts of the Justice Department get the attention and resources that they have not gotten, I think in the immediate past. The environmental division. The civil rights division. The anti trust division. Those are places that I think need attention and resources. And we're gonna be very - active and aggressive in those areas as well.

Couric: And I know I asked you this, but I just want to give you one more opportunity. What will you do to restore the integrity of this department, which has been, as you know, badly tarnished?

Holder: Well, you lead by example. And what I think I did in the Stevens case - a great pain was to tell the world, "This is not the way in which this Justice Department will conduct itself." I'll make sure that the people of this department are adequately trained. That they have adequate resources. And try to make sure that we return to the traditions that have made this department great - and will make it great again.

Couric: I know you've launched your own investigation, but clearly, you're quite aware of what transpired in the prosecution of this case. What do you think went wrong?

Holder: It's hard to tell - at this point. I know the result of what went wrong. And that is that information that should have been shared was not shared.

Couric: You must have some impression. Was it sloppiness? Incompetence? Malfeasance?

Holder: I don't know. I mean, I really don't know. And that's what I think the investigation will show. I was able to focus on the fact that information that I think was critical to the defense - was not shared. You do that - look at that against the backdrop of the other findings that Judge Sullivan made and it just seemed to me that the appropriate thing to do, the fair thing to do - was to just say that - we're gonna terminate this case at this point.

Couric: How embarrassing was that?

Holder: It's not embarrassing. It's what an attorney general is supposed to do. It's a tough decision. But it's what - you know, it's what I'm supposed to do as attorney general, to set an example, to make calls based on the facts and the law. And ultimately, to simply do the right thing. And I hope that's what I did in this case.

Couric: I'm just curious because - actually this was almost - right after I met you at the Ford's theatre thing. You gave a speech here at the Justice Department not too long ago. And you talked about the fact that the United States is, quote, a nation of cowards when it comes to race relations. You were roundly criticized in some circles for making that statement. Were you surprised?

Holder: Yeah, I was a little surprised. Because I think, if you look at the speech in it's totality, and the context in which that remark was made, what I really was calling for was a dialogue among the American people, black, white, Hispanic, to just talk about the racial issues that have divided us for so long. And to prepare the nation for the diversity - that is coming. So yeah, I was a little surprised.

Couric: Maybe you can - well, so that's what you meant to say. And - and it got a little bit twisted. That's certainly how I felt after - after I saw the coverage. And another thing is, I know you've talked a lot, in fact today, with me about revitalizing the civil rights division here at DOJ. How do you plan to do that? And what kinds of things do you hope that division will focus on?

Holder: In a lot of ways, civil rights division is the conscience of the Justice Department. You can almost measure what kind of Justice Department you have by what kind of civil rights division - that you have. The civil rights division has, as it's responsibly, the protection of people who are, at least, able to protect them. Whether they are people who are in institutions - people of color, women. And therefore - I want to give the civil rights division a lot of attention, a lot of resources.

And empower them in a way that I don't think they have been empowered in the past few years. There are really good solid lawyers there who are not timid, who are ready to make the civil rights division all that it can be, all that is - all that I has been.

Couric: Why wasn't that a high priority, do you think, during the Bush administration?

Holder: I don't know. I mean, if you look at the inspector general reports, they're very disturbing, about the political hiring that went on in that case. That's something that simply will not be tolerated - in this administration. I - I don't know - I don't know exactly why they did what they did. But that's inconsistent with the history of the civil rights division on the republican as well as democratic attorneys general, and will not be the kind of civil rights division - under attorney general Holder.

Couric: As in your new job -

Couric: How do you think this department became so politicized during the Bush administration? How did that happen and why?

Holder: I'm not sure. I think that people lost sight of the fact that the department of justice is a special place. It's different from all of the other departments in the executive branch. Although the attorney general is a part of the president's team, you're really separate and apart. You have a special responsibility as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. There has to be a distance that you keep - between this department and the White House. And I think people lost sight of that.

Couric: Do you worry about maintaining your independence, because you are such a close personal friend of the president? And that distance is necessary?

Holder: No, I don't think so. I mean, I think he's a great lawyer. And he understands that great - Justice Departments are those that separate themselves from the White House. You have, right over there, the portrait of Elliot Richardson. And that's one of the reasons why I have him - in this room. He's a person who, I think more than maybe any other attorney general, decided, at great personal cost to himself, that the important - the independence of the Justice Department was more important than anything else. And that's why I am - have him right there. So that I can see that portrait every day that - I conduct a meeting in this room.

Couric: Have you and President Obama disagreed on any justice issues so far?

Holder: Not so far. But he's a good lawyer. I'm a hard headed lawyer. So I expect that we'll - we'll clash at times. But at the end of the day - you know, he's gonna expect me to do what's right and what I think is - consistent - what is consistent with - what I think is best for the Justice Department.

[GovernmentControl]

Does CBS get paid by the obama white house?

[GovernmentControl]

Holder will eventually end up in prison.

[Lizadog]

Mainstream media was and still is a diversion. Liberals don't own broadcasting companies. There are only about five media outlets in the US and they are owned by Capitalists that operate lock-step with one another. The "news" on cable is really entertainment. and they all spew the same lies and propaganda. Cable "news" has been censored for years, and again, the dumbed down Americans can't see that. The only real news and information can only be found on the Internet. www.c-span.org is the only exception for cable news without commentary. While the critics worry about the "liberal media" the North American Union is nearing completion. In 2005 Bush, Canada and Mexico signed an agreement to eliminate all borders and eliminate the dollar. The currency to be used at that point will be the Amero. All three countries will give up their sovereignty and will never be sovereign nations again. There will be no United States of America, only one huge country that will benefit only the elitists. We will soon join the ranks of the third world countries. George Bush's dream come true. While the idiots were watching television and playing video games, President Bush suspended the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He made it very easy to dump our Republic and slide in Fascism. We have been living in a police state since July 2007 and most Americans haven't a clue.

[nohadji]

Factipars Too bad you lose again. LibTards can never understand that gun control will not work. In fact 61% of Americans don't want any more gun control as shown by the latest CNN poll. We don't have to defend our position because the Constitution backs our position. For Lib's, it is all emotion, for gun owners the facts always back our position.

Katie has an agenda and it is very obvious from this interview. It would be nice if she could actually learn how to report from a neutral stance, but of course her liberal mind does not understand that. It is really disgusting that the MSM has lost their ability to report the news.

[MoJo31]

Katie, Eric you guys are blithering idiots. I wish you would leave the rest of us law abiding citizens alone. If you don't want to have guns, then don't! What if I wanted you and everyone else to give up your cars? More people are killed each year by cars than by guns. Should we ban cars to keep people safe? Hell no, you would never want to give up your car because you are a "safe" driver right? Well why should we give up our guns that don't do near as much damage as cars do? Banning guns will not prevent crime. We will always have criminals willing to kill and break the law with or without guns. Criminals don't follow the law, hence the term "criminal". Only law abiding citizens would follow this not criminals. For example, narcotics (drugs) have been outlawed (banned) completely. It is against the law for ANYONE to have them but has this made any difference in the amount of drugs on the streets for the past couple of decades???? No! So please wake up to reality, we cannot un-invent the gun and criminals will always get their hands on it especially with the immense power it would bring in a "gun free" society where law abiding citizens are disarmed and defenseless. Make any sense to you? Of course not your a liberal who "feels" and doesn't think logically, I forgot, sorry. Maybe next life then.

[Factipars]

Once again we are seeing an organized neo-conservative response to a CBS news interview. The same jingoistic tone, the exact same choice of words, the same flawed "arguments"...half the time I get the feeling it's just one or two people who are posting the bulk these comments.

BTW: the term "Lib-****" really doesn't work all that well. It's never going to gain traction. Please do try to come up with something a bit more clever? Rush Limbaugh was able to create better labels for people he didn't like when he was abusing Oxy-C.

-----

And shame on Ms. Couric for letting Mr. Holder repeatedly duck every question over and over. It's disturbing just how little this guy seems to know about anything. (Those are his words not mine BTW.)

[nohadji]

Oh Katie, what a pathetic LibTard interview that was. This is one prime reason why CBS news is in the $hitter!! "We The People" are fed up with your pathetic Liberal stance on America. The MSM can't be trusted to report even the smallest story with any truth.

First Katie get your damn facts straight about guns and Mexico. The nice LibTard lie was proven weeks ago to be completely false by our own BATF. The real number is 17% of these firearms come from America. Those are being brought in by illegals smuggling them back across the border and not by law abiding Americans. You are doing a great disservice to our country when you open your trap and spew non-stop lies.

Second- The AWB was a pathetic law written by complete morons like ******** and McCarthy and Biden. This law did absolutely nothing to decrease gun crimes. Why, well because criminals don't give a damn about laws.

Third- There is no such thing as a gun show loop hole. Again pathetic LibTard reporting. I don't even know how you can call it reporting, it should be called slandering!! Did you just call that pathetic organization the "Brady Bunch" and ask them what lies you could spew during the interview. Katie why don't you call the NRA and ask to meet with them so that you can get an objective opinion. Hell Wayne would probably even take you to the shooting range so you could actually get an education on firearms. Ask Ted Nuggent, I know he would take you shooting.

CBS News and Katie, if you continue to spew this LibTard slant on your newscast, you are quickly going to have zero viewership. Have you not been paying attention to FoxNews lately. Yah thats right, they have the top 10 news programs in the country. Glenn Beck, Hannity and OReily blow away every other news station out there. Why you ask, simple they don't report with a LibTard slant. If you want to stay in business, I suggest you learn how to do that yourself.

[mr-cheese]

I don't think viewers like japete are really interested in the law. Otherwise they would wonder aloud what happens to all of those individuals who fail the background check becasue they are convicted felons. The answer is "nothing". Though it is a felony for a convicted felon to attempt to purchase a firearm, and many are rejected each year, none are prosecuted by the Dept. of Justice. Do we need more gun laws or should we just enforce the many we already have? Also, Katie mentioned the influence that the NRA has been exerting on Congress but failed to mention the funding from The Brady Center or George Soros. That smells like news making rather than news reporting to me. Please remember that the Second Amendment guarantees all others.

[dugga1]

You people in the "news" business are supposed to _inform_ us. Instead, you simply misdirect and obfuscate.

Item: By definition, there is no such thing as an "unlicensed (gun) dealer." Nor "gun show loophole." What Katy Couric was bloviating about last night on the Evening "News" is private citizens buying and selling personal property. I defy you to show us an "unlicensed dealer." C'mon, just one will do...!

Item: If you choose to refer to self-loading firearms as "assault weapons," how do you differentiate them from the actual select-fire, military (and police _only_) firearms also known as "assault weapons"? Do you care?

Item: 90% of the guns _reported to the BATFE by the Mexican government_ come from the U.S.. Fact: Only about 25% of the guns confiscated are reported by the Mexicans! Yet another fine example of obfuscation and misdirection!

Item: Your insistence on improper word usage makes you appear ignorant at best - and agenda-driven at worst. Why should we believe you about anything? You feed us half-truths and expect us to be so stupid as to swallow it!

Item: CBS is very quick to defend the First Amendment; why do you disparage the Second? Why have your viewers _never_ seen a program or interview in which the Second Amendment is viewed in a favorable - or even neutral - light?

Item: If your business model calls for being an "op-ed" source, fine. If it calls for your being a "news" agency - you're failing badly.

Are you _still_ in the dark about why no one takes your "news" seriously?

[phila48]

Mr. Holden, it has been months since I have tried to contact your office through emails and so on. Abuse of Power with the State Police and Domestic Violence. Please, hear my voice.

[megawhy]

I think we need media to monitor the media. There is no longer an unbiased mainstream media. Gosh do you think Katie had an agenda? It is sickening.

[megawhy]

"Holder: Well, they - spend time - with the person who's being questioned. They - in some way - establish a trust relationship with them. And then, information seems to flow. The FBI has done a good job throughout it's history, and actually did a good job in interacting with the detainees - who they - who they had - interaction with."

That sounds like it would work on hardened terrorists.....LOL

[japete]

Thanks to Katie Couric for her persistence in questioning Attorney General Holder on the issue of the gun show loophole and background checks. It's time for the media to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable to the majority of people ( over 80%) who believe that background checks should be required for all gun sales. This would not infringe on anyone's rights. It is the responsible thing to do. I am disappointed that Mr. Holder has backed off of his original positions because 65 House Democrats sent him a letter telling him not to pursue this issue. Shame on them and shame on Mr. Holder for listenting to them instead of the public. When will our leaders stand up to the powerful, well-funded and influential gun lobby? If almost 60 people had died from eating pistachio nuts in the matter of a few weeks, you can bet there would be a bill on the House floor; but then, the pistachio nut industry likely doesn't have a powerful lobby working to stop any common sense legislation that would save lives. We expect our leaders to lead and speak truth to power. 32 Americans are murdered by guns every day in this country. That is 32 too many. The 10th Anniversary of Columbine is coming up on April 20th. The guns used to kill those innocent students were purchased for the shooters by a friend from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show. How many lives could have been saved then and how many have been lost since because we are too afraid to challenge the NRA? Enough is enough. Keep asking those tough questions, Katie. Maybe the media can actually make a difference.

[tincup356]

We Americans had better be glad we have the second amendment,,,,,,ans Washington should recheck history and see why our forefathers put that into law.......it was a safety check for the citizens to use against a CORRUPT government,,,,,,,,, Look at what Washington has turned out to be,,,,,,,no wonder they worry about citizens being armed,,,,,,,the more of us they rob and put into the streets.......the closer they come to seeing the people stand up and put a stop to the treasonous acts of congress.

[mingy62]

Couric is her usual self.

She didn't even ask if the Stevens prosecutors were holdovers from a Democratic administration. She didn't ask about the possibility that they were lefties out to perform a political hit on Ted Stevens. She already had a couple of big precedents for Democratic politicization of the legal process, with the Duke lacrosse team case, and the firing of 90+ US attorneys by the Clinton/Reno justice department. But nooooo.

She made a fool out of herself when she suggested the Bush justice department was politicized - after firing only eight attorneys. Even if the Bush justice department was politicized, it certainly cut against Republicans in the Stevens case.

Moreover, she either was too oblivious or too partisan to ask this lying buffoon (Elian Gonzales was not taken at gunpoint - those were Holder's words) about the politicization of overruling his own counsel in the DC Voting Rights act, and scaring up an argument in favor of giving DC a voting representative, which has been deemed unconstitutional for decades. That is, until Holder came along and decided he wants to push for a permanent Democrat seat. THAT is politicization, right under her nose. Which was firmly planted in his backside.

Finally, she served up a softball with the lie that 90% of guns used in these Mexican drug deals come from the U.S. That's confused misrepresentation, which I could call by a shorter word, and our attorney general let her perpetuate a lie.

90% of all TRACED guns come from the US, which amounts to about 17% of the total. The other 83% have markings that indicate that they come from other countries, so they are not even traced.

This is CBS. See? BS.

[MNViewer]

I appreciated Ms. Couric pressing Mr. Holder for some indication that they will do something to tighten up some of these gun laws. There's an element in the country that's against even the most common sense laws that would slow the proliferation of guns in the country. The NRA and conservative talk radio hosts have stirred the pot, and many of these folks believe the Obama administration has a plan to take away their guns and their rights. Unfortunately, some of these people are mentally unstable like the gunman in Pittsburg who ambushed and killed the three policemen. It's time for the Justice Dept. to lead on this issue, not waffle like Mr. Holder seemed to do.

[goffredo29]

"As usual Mr. Holder is talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time saying nothing and he is head of the justice department? Like many that have been selected for posts in the government their veracity seems to be less than it should be, when pressed on issues all you get is a song and dance. "

Boy, you said it! Where'd the guy go that was saying stuff like "When it comes to race Americans are cowards." It wasn't this guy.

Please say a prayer for the victims of the earthquake in Italy.

[georgeset]

We're short on patience with Katie Couric's interviewing tactics, rephrasing the questions in order to get Eric Holder to answer the way "she" wants! This isn't the lst such incident she has tried this rude & selfish tactic. How many times is she going to ask about the NRA, influence, interests, friends, in hopes she gets her answer and can then slam the NRA? Or the open gun shows? So she hates both of them and will use her position to discredit them. She has a personal adgenda and uses the News Media to further her cause and platform.
Sorry Katie, there are too many lawabiding gun owners and members of NRA that respect the 2nd amendment for you to disrupt and damage or eliminate what our forefathers gave us.
Try following the gun trail into Mexico from South America, China, Chec,
& Russia. Thats where the AK47s are mfg. Don't be so blinded by selfish friends and informants that feed you your bias information.

[doozytoo]

MS Courics question: "What about gun shows? In over 30 states, people can simply walk into gun shows and buy a gun, sometimes, from unlicensed dealers without a background check. Would you support closing the gun show loophole?"

This is just plain nonsense and illustrates her liberal bias. There are still background checks required.

[bweidman]

As usual Ms Couric is "misstating" facts again. The 90% of guns used is patently false, even the ATF says so. What is true is 17% of the guns used in Mexico can be traced to the United States. I wonder how many orginally went there for their police or army and were then sold on the black market. Mexico has extrodinarily strict gun control laws. Nice to see how much good they're doing.