Holder: Obama’s sin eater
For years I’ve called Eric Holder Obama’s proxy and his alter ego, with a function so important that it would require that Holder do something almost unimaginably awful for Obama to ever abandon him.
Now, courtesy of Jonathan Turley in USA Today, I’ve learned a new and very useful term for Holder’s function to Obama: sin eater.
Turley is a law professor and pundit who is most decidedly not a conservative, and most of his previous beefs with Holder and Obama have come from their continuation and expansion of some of the Bush-era polices on fighting terrorism.
Here’s Turley on what’s been going on with Holder and Obama:
Holder is what we call a “sin eater” inside the Beltway ”” high-ranking associates who shield presidents from responsibility for their actions. Richard Nixon had H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Ronald Reagan had Oliver North and Robert “Bud” McFarlane. George W. Bush had the ultimate sin eater: Dick Cheney, who seemed to have an insatiable appetite for sins to eat.
This role can be traced to 18th century Europe, when families would use a sin eater to clean the moral record of a dying person by eating bread from the person’s chest and drinking ale passed over his body. Back then, the ritual’s power was confined to removing minor sins…
On Thursday, Obama responded to the outcry over the AP and Fox scandals by calling for an investigation by … you guessed it … Eric Holder. He ordered Holder to meet with news media representatives to hear their “concerns” and report back to him. He sent his old sin eater for a confab with the very targets of the abusive surveillance. Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions.
The feeble response was the ultimate proof that these are Obama’s sins despite his effort to feign ignorance. It did not matter that Holder is the sin eater who has lost his stomach or that such mortal sins are not so easily digested. Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general.
It’s interesting that on the issue of Rosen some elements of the left seem to be joining the right in condemning Holder and calling for his resignation. Turley, however, is somewhat unusual on the left in recognizing that Holder’s sins should ultimately be laid at the feet of President Obama.
How much dreck can a wretched wretch munch before the wretched wretch retches? Five times — real fast.
When necessary, plaintiff attorneys “polarize the case,” which, if successful, wins by forcing defendants to reveal their real arguments.
When a defendant lacks the truth for his defense, all he has to do is throw enough doubt and suspicion on the plaintiff’s case so that the burden of proof is not met. The prosecution must makes the fact finders see the gamesmanship of the defense as it tries to remain in murky waters. Or, even better, the prosecution obtains admissions, previously only implied, which show the true nature of the defense arguments are that plaintiffs are liars and cheats.
Of course a political issue is already polarized, but if there is some level of truth or standard still adhered to by all, then forcing the underlying but unstated argument/justification into the open will get results. The unstated justifications, in Obama’s regime, are mainly two: One, I am Obama and can do anything because they are the enemy, and, well, I am Obama; and two, all must obey.
These two justifications find acceptance in a way too high proportion of our populace, but there may still be a significant percentage of even liberals who resist the complete domination of liberal fascism. They may have sympathies for it, but in the end, when the full truth is admitted and the proud and aggressive leader is exposed, even most liberals will find the two justifications distasteful, even if only for the fact they themselves can brook no impostor on their own throne.
Sin-eater! What a juicy term. Linked here: http://bobagard.blogspot.com/2013/05/eating-obamas-sins.html
IMO an interesting sidebar to this entire Rosen-gate affair (if I may) is that not only has the tactic backfired on the administration but it positively redounds to Fox News.
Many of the reporters now calling for “heads to roll” were never fond of Fox News to begin with (Huffington Post, anyone?); many of them joined in the chorus that Fox was not a ‘real’ news organization, and many of tacitly agreed if only by their silence. I believe that this is undoubtedly why a Fox reporter was individually chosen over a traditional network figure.
Now, attacking the govt and tacitly or outrightly defending Fox News the message is clear; “Fox News is one of us! How dare you illegally attack one of us!”
Coming our of this fracas, I think we will see more credibility given to Fox News reports than prior to the scandal. At the very least, no journalist can now return to the “Fox News really isn’t a news organization” meme. If so, this is a very good omen, indeed.
Can’t help but notice that all three of Turley’s examples of previous “sin eaters” are Republicans. The Turleys of the world are shameless, but transparent.
Expletive voluntarily deleted.
Can’t help but feel that in this case “sin eater” is just a more polite term for the real menu.
Dittos vanderleun…
Steaming sin at that.
attributed to Iowahawk:
After an extensive self investigation, Eric holder has arrested himself as part of a DOJ sting; and then releases self after forgetting to read self Miranda rights!
There was an episode of Rod Serling’s Night Gallery back in the 70s about sin eaters. It starred Richard Thomas (John-Boy of The Waltons.)
Novel by Alice Thomas Ellis. I haven’t read it, but have read two other books by her, one fiction and one non-, and liked them both.
In passing: odd that Turley would specify “18th century.” Such a custom would surely have come into being much earlier than in that time of rising skepticism.