Holder Should Resign Or Be Fired, and Obama Should Apologize

We couldn't agree more that it is past time for Holder to go not only on this but many other items.  The fact that he tried this terrorist who murdered innocent people in civilian court should be all we need to know about Eric Holder.  This person was acquitted of murdering 224 innocents by a civilian jury.  Looks like one person held out for acquittal and the rest came around so not to have a hung jury according to the experts.  If there ever was a miscarriage of justice this is it and why terrorists need to be tried in military tribunals not civilian courts where some bleeding heart liberal can mess it up.

We also need to keep the terrorist in GITMO and not bring them to the prisons in this country.  If the far left doesn't like it, tough.  These terrorist want to kill us.  Also time to quit releasing the detainees at GITMO who flock back to the terrorists organizations.  Will someone in this Administration get it through their heads that Islamic Jihadists want to kill us and take over America?

Hugh Hewitt
Holder Should Resign Or Be Fired, and Obama Should Apologize
November 17, 2010

Outrage is growing at the intersection of ideology and incompetence that is the jury's collapse in the trial of Ahmed Ghailani, declared acquitted in the murders of 224 innocents, including a dozen Americans.

The outrage is growing as Americans learn more and more about how utterly avoidable this outrageous miscarriage of justice was. John Podhoretz's and Jennifer Rubin's criticisms are among the most pointed and both employ the damning word "debacle" in the title, and Powerline's Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker weigh in with "The Failure Option." Eric Holder who repeatedly declared his confidence in this process should resign and the president should apologize to the nation and especially to the families of the victims whose killed now has been declared not guilty

An email from an individual very experienced in federal criminal proceedings comments:

An email from an individual very experienced in federal criminal proceedings comments:


This smells like a compromise verdict to me. On Monday you had the report that a juror asked to be excused, claiming she was the lone holdout and she feared continuing verbal assaults on her by the other jurors for refusing to agree with them.

I suspect the 11 jurors wanted to convict on all counts, and this one juror refused.

In order to reach a verdict, the 11 jurors agreed to join her in acquitting him on all counts but one, in exchange for her agreeing to convict him on the one count -- which sounds the least serious based on its description in the indictment.

But, the potential sentence for that count is a minimum of 20 years and a maximum of life. Its up to the district judge to determine how much time he will give him, and the judge can consider all the evidence at trial, including the evidence on the acquitted counts.

To take those counts into consideration in determining what sentence to impose, the judge is only required to find by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant was involved in the criminal conduct for which he was acquitted. He's not being punished for the acquitted conduct, rather, that conduct is to inform the judge about the nature of the defendant's character.

I expect the judge will give him life when all is said and done.

I would like to say "of course the judge will give him life," but who knows? The terrorist should be executed --should have been executed long ago. He murdered hundreds, including a dozen Americans, and his compatriots are cheering this carnival of the incompetent.

Excerpt:  Read More at Hugh Hewitt, Townhall.com