Didn't wanna muck up an otherwise short and sweet piece (unusual enough for this site!) with this additional thought, but I'll toss it into comments here.

Holder has announced he intends to stay on the job until he is replaced. Republicans hate Holder, largely because he's a nice proxy for hating Obama.

So, how about Obama nominates Adigbele again, this time for AG. Then it's up to the Senate whether they want to keep Holder, who they hate, for two more years, or Adigbele, an excellent attorney with sterling credentials, whose nomination to DoJ was outrageously blocked last year.

Just a thought.

No reason Obama couldn't put Adegbile - clearly the better choice - in the AG office now that Harry Reid has scuttled the filibuster for presidential appointment... other than his entire track record of capitulation to the RepubliKKKans. It would be nice if he just overtly stuck it to them for once.

Soul Rebel said @ 2

No reason Obama couldn't put Adegbile - clearly the better choice - in the AG office now that Harry Reid has scuttled the filibuster for presidential appointment...

Good point. Though I don't know if they've done that for any appointments nearly as high profile as AG...or if they'd have the guts to. Dems are not really known for their guts. Maybe better just to nominate Chris Christie right away and get it over with quickly.

Love the Adegbile idea. But I'm guessing it's too good and too ballsy an idea for Obama to actually do. Love to be proven wrong.

this is the lawyer that is defending the illegal surveillance program too....going as far as to make promises to the sc that are not true

///////////////

In one brief, for example, he sought to refute the argument that a ruling in the government's favor would immunize the surveillance program from constitutional challenges.

"That contention is misplaced," he wrote. "Others may be able to establish standing even if respondents cannot. As respondents recognize, the government must provide advance notice of its intent to use information obtained or derived from" the surveillance authorized by the 2008 law "against a person in judicial or administrative proceedings and that person may challenge the underlying surveillance." (Note the phrase "derived from.")

In February, in a 5-to-4 decision that split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court accepted Mr. Verrilli's assurances and ruled in his favor. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority in the case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, all but recited Mr. Verrilli's representation.

"If the government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from" surveillance authorized by the 2008 law "in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition." (Again, note the phrase "derived from.")

What has happened since then in actual criminal prosecutions? The opposite of what Mr. Verrilli told the Supreme Court. Federal prosecutors, apparently unaware of his representations, have refused to make the promised disclosures.

In a prosecution in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against two brothers accused of plotting to bomb targets in New York, the government has said it plans to use information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which authorized individual warrants. But prosecutors have refused to say whether the government obtained those individual warrants based on information derived from the 2008 law, which allows programmatic surveillance.

////////////////////////

http://www.nytimes.com/2...BD752EF53716E34&_r=0

IMHO the only real requirement for holders replacement is someone who will never consider prosecuting ANYONE on wall st. there were 30,000 referrals for prosecution after the savings and loan debacle. william k.black says we will suffer another collapse because all these corrupt bankers are still in their postions and will figure out how to do it all over again, soon enough.