"Biden furiously denounced... Trump’s habit of joking about the... intruder who attacked Paul Pelosi... with a hammer, saying: 'And he thinks that’s funny. He laughed about it. What a sick – .'"

"He halted. At the last moment, the president of the United States had saved himself from uttering a profanity. The urge coursed through his body and found relief in his hands, which clenched into fists, as the crowd filled in with laughter and whooping. 'My God,' Biden said. 'I think it’s despicable, seriously, not just for a president but for any person to say that.'... He mused: 'Sometimes I’m really happy the Irish in me can’t be seen.'... Democrats are often criticised for pulling their punches and refusing to fight dirty as Republicans do. For as long as Trump has been on the political scene, they have wrestled with the question of whether to rise above him or roll in the dirt with him. In 2018, the former attorney general Eric Holder declared: 'When they go low, we kick ’em. That’s what this new Democratic party is about.'... Voters will surely demand not only vivid Trump-bashing but a positive vision for a second term.... But for now, one thing is clear. The gloves are off...."

Writes David Smith, in "Fired-up Biden shows gloves are off in January 6 anniversary speech" (The Guardian).

What sort of "joking" about Paul Pelosi is Trump guilty of? Example from last September:

Camp.

At what stage of life does one acquire a “camp”? https://t.co/XTtiC3JfX0

— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) November 8, 2019

I'm interested in the language question — "camp" — but it's also a good time to mention the possible newcomers to the Democratic primary race — not just Michael Bloomberg but Eric Holder. Newsweek has this:

Eugene Robinson claimed on social media last night that the Obama-era attorney general had spoken with strategists about running in the already crowded Democratic 2020 primary field.... The analyst's claim was also repeated on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show yesterday evening, following several reports that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also considering pitching himself against frontrunners Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders....

[Rachel Maddow] said: "If Eric Holder is in the mix, and Mike Bloomberg looks like he might be in the mix, well jeez, just when you thought it's all over, it's never over."

What's the latest anyone ever entered the race and went on to become the nominee? Have we ever seen anything like this huge collection of candidates in one party where no one seems to have decent support? (Biden has been in the lead for a long time, but he seems to represent the idea I'm here waiting for a standard-model Democrat who reminds me of the old days when Obama was President.)

On the language question, a "camp" is "A body of troops encamping and moving together; an army on a campaign." I'd say you have a camp when you are organized to do battle. You've got a metaphorical army. And it's got to be on the move to be called a "camp." If it's a camp, you've got a campaign. Ergo, he's running. Or people are using the wrong word.

"The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer in the death of Eric Garner, ending a yearslong inquiry..."

"... into a case that sharply divided officials and prompted national protests over excessive force by the police, according to three people briefed on the decision....  A state grand jury declined to bring charges against Officer Pantaleo in December 2014.... But a federal investigation into Mr. Garner’s death proceeded, sharply dividing the Justice Department under four attorneys general and two presidents.... The attorney general at the time of the death, Eric H. Holder Jr., said that evidence strongly suggested that the federal government should bring charges against Officer Pantaleo.... While career civil rights prosecutors agreed with Mr. Holder, prosecutors under the United States attorney in Brooklyn, Loretta E. Lynch, sharply disagreed.... After Ms. Lynch succeeded Mr. Holder in April 2015, officials... worked to convince her that the officers had used excessive force and had likely violated Mr. Garner’s civil rights.... But the case stalled again after Mr. Trump won the presidential election and appointed Jeff Sessions as his attorney general. Civil rights division prosecutors recommended that charges be brought, and they asked the deputy attorney general at the time, Rod J. Rosenstein, about indicting Officer Pantaleo. But Mr. Rosenstein did not allow the department to move forward on an indictment, and many officials said they believed that there was a good chance that the government would lose the case should it go to trial...."

From "Eric Garner’s Death Will Not Lead to Federal Charges for N.Y.P.D. Officer/The decision came five years after Mr. Garner’s dying words — 'I can’t breathe' — became a rallying cry" (NYT).

"Michelle always says, 'When they go low, we go high.' No. No. When they go low, we kick them."

Said Eric Holder, quoted at WaPo in "'When they go low, we kick them': How Michelle Obama’s maxim morphed to fit angry and divided times." Morphed? It's not some kind of updating or evolution. It's the opposite. The only coherence comes from understanding that calls for civility are always bullshit — just a con to get the other side to stand down, because when you think incivility suits your interests, suddenly it's a good thing.

[Holder] said a more antagonistic spirit is “what this new Democratic Party is about,” adding, “We are proud as hell to be Democrats. We are willing to fight for the ideals of the Democratic Party.

He tried to clarify that he wasn’t calling for violence, saying later in his remarks, “I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate, we don’t do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight.” A combative strategy, he said, would honor the legacy of civil rights leaders, such as Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Martin Luther King Jr.

Yeah, MLK had a "nonviolence" shtick but he would have morphed to fit angry and divided times — if only he hadn't been a victim of violence. But Holder says he is "honor[ing] the legacy" of MLK by getting "combative." Maybe MLK was only choosing a means to an end and didn't have high principles at all, but if so, at least he picked effective tactics. Holder isn't even doing that. The angry aggressive approach is failing. Look at the post-Kavanaugh-hearings polls.

The WaPo article also has the new Hillary Clinton quote (which we talked about yesterday here): "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about."

It doesn't have the second part of her quote — "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again" — which I credit for its humorous frankness. It's what I've been saying for years under my "civility bullshit" tag. In that view, Michelle's "When they go low, we go high" never meant we're lofty and principled and stick to our values, but that the idea we're high and they're low is effective rhetoric.

I suspect going high would have been more effective in 2018 than crazy-sounding combativeness, but in choosing a tactic, you're always at risk of being wrong. If you're principled and do what's right as an end in itself, then if it turns out not to get you want you want, you still have your honor. No one needs to follow you. No one needs to believe in you. But I don't think you are in politics. That's why I say calls for civility are always bullshit.

Combativeness isn't a new idea for Democrats, of course. Michelle Obama's line is memorable, but so is "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard" (spoken by Obama's deputy chief of staff Jim Messina in 2009).

Other recent rejection of "When they go low, we go high," collected in the WaPo article:

Weird ad for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Rebecca Dallet that just popped up in the sidebar on Meade's browser.

Does anyone know the source of that ad? It can't be the candidate's campaign, I don't think, because it has no identification. The font seems... off, and the image is just so amateurish and needlessly extreme that I'm questioning the 3d word of my post title ("for").

(It's so bad and chaos-y that I was thinking the Russians did it.)

UPDATE: Meade saw the ad again and clicked on it and went to this page at a website that identifies itself as the NDRC — the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. It says: "Paid for by the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. Not authorized by any candidate, candidate’s agent or committee." Seems like those words should be on the ad, not something you have to click to see.

On Tuesday, April 3, Wisconsin voters have the chance to elect Rebecca Dallet to the State Supreme Court. Dallet has served her community for the past two decades – first as a prosecutor, then as a judge. She is committed to fighting for Wisconsin values. Putting the right state candidates in office is instrumental to the success of restoring fairness to the redistricting process. Now’s not the time to sit out....

That ties Dallet to a specific issue, redistricting. It still doesn't make sense of that image, which seems to represent Trump's judicial appointments. You can redistrict all you want and it won't change the Senate, which confirms the appointments.

What is the NDRC? From the website:

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by the 82nd Attorney General of the United States Eric H. Holder, Jr., is the first-ever strategic hub for a comprehensive redistricting strategy. With the support of former President Barack Obama, as well as key leaders around the country, the NDRC is attacking this problem from every angle to ensure the next round of redistricting is fair and that maps reflect the will of the voters.

Why drag your reputation down with such an abominably amateurish ad that I thought it was the Russians! At least kern!

After intense criticism about her meeting with Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch will announce that she will accept whatever the F.B.I. recommends about prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

The NYT reports, based on a "Justice Department official" "on the condition of anonymity because the internal decision-making process is normally kept confidential." Normally, but not this time. The info needed to escape.

I'm impressed by what looks like quick move to expunge what was at least an appearance of impropriety, but maybe this is what would have happened anyway:

The Justice Department had been moving toward such an arrangement for months — officials said in April that it was being considered — but a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political furor and made the decision all but inevitable....

The meeting [with Bill Clinton] created an awkward situation for Ms. Lynch, a veteran prosecutor who was nominated from outside Washington’s normal political circles. In her confirmation, her allies repeatedly sought to contrast her with her predecessor, Eric H. Holder Jr., an outspoken liberal voice in the administration who clashed frequently with Republicans who accused him of politicizing the office. 

Holder, the Times reminds us, reduced the charges against David Petraeus to a misdemeanor after the F.B.I. recommended felony charges. And: "That decision created a deep — and public — rift."

Ms. Lynch has said she wants to handle the Clinton investigation like any other case. Since the attorney general often follows the recommendations of career prosecutors, Ms. Lynch is keeping the regular process largely intact.

Often... largely... It seems to me discretion is discretion. Even if you rarely use it, the ability to use it changes the the process. To give up the discretion before you see what you'll be asked to do is very different indeed. But Lynch could have given up her role much earlier in this process, and she chose to wait until now to give it up, now, after the secret meeting with Bill Clinton came to light. That doesn't look terrible lofty and disinterested, but at least she moved quickly to extract herself from the political storm.

How that storm hits Hillary, we shall see.

An excellent discussion of the latest Hillary Clinton email problem on "Fox News Sunday."

This is a bit long and starts slow, but the different commentators bring different perspectives that I'll try to highlight, so stick with me:

CHRIS WALLACE:   In 2011, when an aide was having trouble sending her material by a secure fax, she sent these instructions: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading, and send nonsecure." Bob Woodward, why is this important? 

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry asks Eric Holder to quack like a duck.

"You know, we call you ‘The Duck’ in nerdland... Would you quack for us?"

ADDED: Don't forget that Melissa Harris-Perry is "America's foremost public intellectual."

"Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without proving that a crime occurred."

"Holder’s action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs."

Good! (Second thing I've read about Holder today that made me write "Good!" (Here's the first.))

Josh Earnest sent to express the view that the Obama administration "should have sent someone with a higher profile" to the Paris march.

"We agree that we should have sent someone with a higher profile in addition to the ambassador to France," the White House press secretary said, obviously impelled by what WaPo calls "intense scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic on Monday, with Republicans sharply criticizing the president at home and both domestic and foreign media raising questions about the dearth of U.S. presence at the event."

Eh. It's only the White House press secretary. And he's stepping on John Kerry's message:

This is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was there and marched, our ambassador was there and marched, many people from the embassy were there and marched.

But: "The Wall Street Journal reported that Nuland actually marched in Washington, D.C." And: "The Associated Press reports that Kerry said he was going to France on Thursday, to reaffirm U.S. solidarity with its oldest ally." And this garbler of messages is our chief diplomat!

And what about Eric Holder, who was in Paris at the time? The Justice Department got out the message that he had "changed his schedule to travel to Paris this weekend to personally express his solidarity with the people of France," but "he had to return to Washington Sunday afternoon." It doesn't say why could could change his schedule but not the part where where "he had to return."

Not impressed. 

"More than three million people have taken part in unity marches across France after 17 people died during three days of deadly attacks in Paris."

"Up to 1.6m are estimated to have taken to the streets of the French capital. More than 40 world leaders joined the start of the Paris march, linking arms in an act of solidarity."

World leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, EU President Donald Tusk, and Jordan's King Abdullah II joined the beginning of the Paris march.

"Paris is the capital of the world today," French leader Francois Hollande said.

No leaders from the United States? That's weird.

ADDED: Drudge, linking to the Daily News (which points out that Eric Holder was in Paris):



AND: I suspect that Holder (and other American politicians) don't want to seem to be supporting what might be perceived as hate speech.

The Justice Department makes a big move on transgender rights.

"Attorney General Holder announced today that the Department of Justice will take the position in litigation that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to claims of discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity, including transgender status."

Attorney General Holder informed all Department of Justice component heads and United States Attorneys in a memo that the department will no longer assert that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex excludes discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender discrimination, reversing a previous Department of Justice position.  Title VII makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate in the employment of an individual “because of such individual’s…sex,” among other protected characteristics.

“This important shift will ensure that the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are extended to those who suffer discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status,” said Attorney General Holder.  “This will help to foster fair and consistent treatment for all claimants.  And it reaffirms the Justice Department’s commitment to protecting the civil rights of all Americans.”

"If the court puts Texas back under federal preclearance, it will be a victory for Eric Holder and the Department of Justice..."

"... which is using lawsuits in Texas and North Carolina as test cases to try to restore preclearance to those states that seem to be engaging in the most discrimination. The DOJ got lucky to draw as the trial judge in the Texas voter ID case Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an Obama appointee who drafted a well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion slamming the state of Texas for discriminatory and unconstitutional conduct."

Writes lawprof Richard Hasen at Talking Points Memo.

I wonder who leaked that Eric Holder is exasperated about leaks?

"Attorney General Eric Holder is reportedly not pleased about the recent leaks involving the grand jury testimony of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. According to CBS News, the attorney general has been 'exasperated' over what he calls 'selective leaks' in the case."

Leaking about leaking. Freaky. Meta-leaky.

"Allowing Democratic senators, many of whom will likely have just been defeated at the polls, to confirm Holder’s successor would be an abuse of power that should not be countenanced...."

Said Ted Cruz.

Holder is leaving.

But why?

"An aide to Eric Holder, who thought he was calling Democratic congressman Elijah Cummings’ office for help on leaking documents to selected reporters..."

"... accidentally spilled the beans of the latest IRS spin job because he called House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s office instead."

"To even investigate something like that is itself a civil rights violation."

Says Instapundit, noting a piece in The Washington Times that says "The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to investigate a Nebraska parade float that criticized President Obama." That piece paraphrases the report in the Omaha World-Herald, which says:

The U.S. Department of Justice has joined the discussions over a controversial float in the Norfolk Independence Day parade. The department sent a member of its Community Relations Service team, which gets involved in discrimination disputes, to a Thursday meeting about the issue. Also at the meeting were the NAACP, the Norfolk mayor and The Independent Order of Odd Fellows.

So, "investigate" replaced "has joined the discussions." And The Washington Times omitted the material explaining the role of the Community Relations Service team: "getting involved in discrimination disputes."

You might still want to deem this federal activity "a civil rights violation." It is intimidating the local Nebraska people who had the nerve to make fun of the President within an unsophisticated folk tradition, the 4th of July parade. (We talked about the depiction of the Obama Presidential Library as an outhouse here.) But it doesn't seem to be an "investigation" in the sense of looking for evidence of a criminal violation.

Should we object to the deployment of the Community Relations Service team when the Justice Department seriously believes there is an outbreak of racial hatred in some little place in America? That's a separate question from whether we object to the participation of the Community Relations Service team in this instance, which doesn't entail any sort of threat to people of a particular race. It's mockery of the President. And there is something seriously wrong with deploying even the mellow-sounding Community Relations Service team to get out the message: If you criticize the President, the forces of the federal government will descend upon your community and make it look as though a shameful racial problem is festering.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder went on "ABC This Week" yesterday to do a performance — a subtle, sophisticated performance — in the theater of racial politics:

Do you believe that "senior officials from the FBI, the CIA, the State Department and other agencies" struggled desperately to figure out how to catch Edward Snowden?

WaPo reports: "U.S. officials scrambled to nab Snowden, hoping he would take a wrong step. He didn’t."

Something seems off about this — pumping up the legend of Snowden (never a wrong step!) and scrambling/desperate/bumbling government officials. It's got a movie-script quality that makes me skeptical.

U.S. officials offer conflicting accounts of how much they know about Snowden’s situation in Russia.

“It’s an ongoing investigation,” U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview. “We have done the appropriate things at this stage of the investigation, and we know exactly where Mr. Snowden is.”

What really happened?

By the way, I love the phase "We have done the appropriate things." So all-purpose!

"Just as nobody would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon, nobody should trust a partisan Obama donor..."

"... to investigate the IRS’s political targeting of President Obama’s enemies. Sadly, 'in the discretion of the Attorney General,' Eric Holder has chosen to reject the bipartisan tradition of the Department of Justice of putting rule of law above political allegiance. Both Nixon Administration Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutors whose integrity was beyond reproach; Eric Holder should do likewise. To date, nine months after a damning Inspector General report, nobody has been indicted, many of the victims have not even been interviewed, and Lois Lerner has twice pleaded the Fifth. And yet the Attorney General refuses to allow a genuine — and impartial — investigation."

That's Ted Cruz, waving the WORSE THAN NIXON sign.