The Agonist - USA: Campaign 2008

Big Dem Donor Nemazee Indicted In Alleged $292 Million Scheme

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:19:51 -0700

Zachary Roth | | Washington | September 21

TPM Muckraker - Federal prosecutors have accused a major Democratic fundraiser with ties to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of orchestrating a Ponzi scheme that involved swindling several major banks out of hundreds of millions of dollars, and using some of the proceeds to fund political candidates and PACs.

According to a Justice Department press release, Hassan Nemazee was indicted this afternoon by a grand jury, charged with using fake documents and signatures to bilk Citibank, Bank of America, and HSBC out of over $290 million, in an alleged scheme that dates back to 1998. Nemazee alleged used the Citibank money to repay the B of A loan, and vice versa. And even after being questioned by FBI agents about the Citibank loan last month, Nemazee allegedly went to HSBC to fraudulently draw down a line of credit, which he tried to access funds to pay back Citibank.

You can read the indictment here.

Democratic Fund-Raiser Nemazee Indicted In $292 Million Fraud

Dow Jones, By Chad Bray, September 21

New York businessman and prominent Democratic fund-raiser Hassan Nemazee was indicted Monday for allegedly defrauding three banks out of $292 million in loans.

Nemazee, 59 years old, was charged with aggravated identity theft and three counts of bank fraud in the indictment. Each bank fraud count carries a term of up to 30 years in prison.

[...]

In the indictment, prosecutors alleged that Nemazee obtained hundreds of millions of loans from Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Citigroup and HSBC Holdings Plc (HBC) between 1998 and 2009.

Supreme Court to Revisit Election Financing in Clinton Film Case

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:21:46 -0700

Robert Barnes | Washington | September 4

WaPo - More than 100 years of restrictions on corporate support of political candidates will be at stake next week when the Supreme Court considers whether a quirky case about a film denouncing Hillary Rodham Clinton should lead to a rewrite of the way federal elections are financed.

In an unusual hearing in the midst of their summer recess, the justices will decide whether to move beyond the particulars of "Hillary: The Movie" to more profound questions about the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and how that squares with political spending.

The justices will consider casting aside previous rulings that uphold laws restricting corporate support of political candidates.

The court ruled in 1990 that corporations, because of their "immense aggregations of wealth," possessed a unique ability to drown out the voices of individuals in the nation's political conversation. That precedent was reinforced in 2003 when the court upheld the federal campaign finance law that limits the electoral influence of corporations, unions and special interest groups.

Conservative justices have chafed at the restrictions, especially in the federal legislation commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. And they have been joined by like-minded colleagues in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

That the court would overturn a decision made as recently as 2003 has advocates of campaign finance reform erupting about "judicial activism" and speaking in apocalyptic terms.

"It would unleash corporations to use their massive wealth to overwhelm the federal system, with disastrous consequences for the country," said Fred Wertheimer, a longtime campaign finance reformer who now heads Democracy 21, a watchdog group.

Dance!

Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:33 -0700

Today, Sarah Palin's resignation came into effect. Here is some musical commentary:

She's Gone!

But don't worry about Sarah - she's no doubt smiling...

As to her ambitions to remain in politics, all we can say is:

She's far too dangerous:

Court declares Franken the winner of Minnesota Senate race

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:16:34 -0700

St. Paul, MN | June 30

CNN - Minnesota's Supreme Court has dismissed former Sen. Norm Coleman's challenge to the state's November election results and declared Democratic challenger Al Franken the winner.

The court's unanimous, unsigned opinion declared that Franken "received the highest number of votes legally cast" and is entitled "to receive the certificate of election as United States senator from the state of Minnesota."

If the ruling brings an end to seven months of challenges by Coleman, Franken would become the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus, a move that gives the party a filibuster-proof majority in the chamber, at least on paper.

The former "Saturday Night Live" writer and performer had declared victory in the disputed race after a recount ended in January, but Coleman, a Republican who had been seeking a second six-year term, went to court to challenge those results.

Coleman led Franken on election night by a margin of 206 votes out of more than 2.9 million cast. The margin was narrow enough to trigger a recount, however, and that process ended in January with Franken leading by 225 votes.

Coleman still could attempt to take the challenge to federal courts. But Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, told CNN on Sunday that he would sign Franken's election certificate if the state Supreme Court declared him the winner.

In the Matter of the Contest of the General Election held on
November 4, 2008, for the purpose of electing a United
States Senator from the State of Minnesota, Cullen Sheehan
and Norm Coleman, contestants, Appellants vs. Al Franken,
contestee, Respondent.
Ramsey County.
1. Appellants did not establish that, by requiring proof that statutory absentee voting standards were satisfied before counting a rejected absentee ballot, the trial court's decision constituted a post-election change in standards that violates substantive due process.
2. Appellants did not prove that either the trial court or local election officials violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded additional evidence.
4. Inspection of ballots under Minn. Stat. § 209.06 (2008) is available only on a showing that the requesting party cannot properly be prepared for trial without an inspection. Because appellants made no such showing here, the trial court did not err in denying inspection.
5. The trial court did not err when it included in the final election tally the election day returns of a precinct in which some ballots were lost before the manual recount.
Affirmed. Per Curiam.
Took no part, Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson and Justice G. Barry Anderson.

Full Decision [PDF]

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:42:49 -0700

Bill Dedman | Washington, DC | June 16

MSNBC - Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

Updated: CREW says it filed suit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service. Here's a copy of CREW's complaint [PDF].

"We are deeply disappointed," said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, "that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration."

An unsolicited email I got today

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:47:35 -0800

Unreported '08 Election Stats

INTERESTING FACTS --- Some unreported stats about the 2008 election

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential
election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143
million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2;
Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won
was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly
encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and
living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency
and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty
percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental
dependency" phase.
fact or fiction?

Seating Franken and Burris: Memo to Congress

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 04:08:38 -0800

Seating Franken and Burris

Al Franken (D-MN) left and Roland Burris (D-IL) right
Image cc Image cc

Memo to the U.S. Senate:
Try Following the Rules

Michael Collins

We've seen what happens when people don't follow the letter and intent of important laws, particularly those where there is a general consensus and an absence of moral ambiguity. Consider our history from the implosion of Enron through stock market collapse. This extreme damage was enabled by the deliberate defiance, evasion, and perversion of rules and laws, all in the service of personal gain for a very few. Citizens lost $6 trillion in that episode of lawlessness.

President Bush and his administration consistently broke the laws of the United States by illegally tapping phones and emails, "selling" the Iraq invasion based on outright lies, and, in the case of six cabinet officials, participating in the "choreography" of torture sessions. All of them found the Constitution a nuisance and rendered it meaningless by their actions. The cost of these violations is incalculable.

A government gains legitimacy through the ascent to shared rules and laws by the vast majority of citizens. No government can retain legitimacy, however, when the legislature fails to enforce and live by the very laws that they are sworn to protect.

Democrats and Republicans are now unified along party lines in their defiance of the laws. Is this the new national unity we've been hearing about?

Yet this is exactly what is happening in the cases of the legally appointed Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris, and the soon to be certified winner of the Minnesota senatorial election, Al Franken. Republicans are threatening to delay the seating of Franken, even when he's certified the winner of the Minnesota Senate seat. Senate Democrats all signed a letter of implied threat to the governor of Illinois regarding his selection of Roland Burris as the U.S. Senator from Illinois.

The final vote count for Franken shows him winning by a narrow margin. The same elections system that conducted the recount will recommend and likely receive certification of the election quickly by the authorized state authority.

Burris was appointed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) according to the laws of Illinois. There's no provision that says a governor can't make a selection if he's been indicted for any crime. The Illinois Supreme Court refused to remove the governor when the request was made by the State Attorney General. The Illinois legislature could have impeached him but it didn't. He is still the governor of Illinois.

Senate objections to Franken and Burris show that the United States Senate has thrown out the rule book and is ignoring established law when it comes to plans for the "presumptive" Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, and the legally appointed Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris.

The Laws of the United States, Illinois, and Minnesota Were Followed

A candidate or appointee only has three requirements to be a legitimate Senator.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." (Author's emphasis) Link

Both Al Franken and Roland Burris pass muster for these requirements.

The XVII Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlines the popular election of Senators and the authority and procedures required to replace them in case they leave for some reason.

AMENDMENT XVII

"Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

"Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacanciess: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

"This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. (Author's emphasis) Link

This amendment provided for the popular election of Senators. This is so simple. Elected and appointed Senators should be immune from the actions by the any judicial, authority unless there are violations of state or federal law in the process of appointments.

But the Senate has one slim provision that can be invoked in the case of a real controversy or a contrived political event.

Article I. Section 5 states that: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members" (continues) Link

This provides the Senate with the option of rejecting a prospective member. In point of fact, there have been more than a few challenges to elections, mostly in the House. No Senator has ever been denied a seat as a result of Article I, Section 5.

Seat Al Franken as the United States Senator from Minnesota

Al Franken lost the initial vote count by less than one half of one percent of the total vote. That qualified him for an automatic recount. Minnesota election law clearly specifies a recount process and even states that the recount vote will be different than the initial reported election result: "Once the recount is over, the state elections board certifies the election. The election is over at the point the results are certified."

"The final results as modified, if necessary, by the recount are considered the final results of the election and are certified as final by the canvassing board."
Minnesota Election Recounts: Federal, State, and Judicial Offices

The Uptake.Org reported late Saturday night that final recounting is finished and Franken has a 225 vote lead. The Minnesota Secretary of State commented at a post recount conference Saturday night that any election contest challenging the recount would be futile. He praised the openness and fairness of the recount. At a post recount press conference, Coleman's representatives said they'd recommend a challenge in the form of a Minnesota election contest but indicated that the former Senator (his term expired Jan. 3 at noon) had not reached a decision.

The recount proceeded in an open and transparent way. Results were reported by the Secretary of State and in the states major newspapers daily. Controversies between the campaigns were handled by the appropriate courts and decisions were made in a very timely fashion.

Franken followed every single rule. He did what many candidates fail to do. He fought for the right of Minnesota voters to have their ballots counted and the right of all citizens of that state to have a Senator elected by a majority of the voters. Norm Coleman, the initial winner, chided Franken for taking the option of a mandatory recount. Franken didn't back down or complain. He simply followed the rules and will very likely be certified as winner and therefore U.S. Senator from Minnesota.

But Republicans are now talking about making up their own rules. They don't want Franken seated until the conclusion of an anticipated appeal of the election through an "election contest." Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, threatened "chaos" if the Democrats tried "to jam this issue through the Senate and seat a senator who has not been determined to be the winner of the election" StarTribune.com, Jan. 3, 2009.

Wait a minute! The canvassing board is the duly impaneled body that "determines" the "winner" of the election. Franken will most likely be certified Monday, Jan. 5. Coleman's term expired at noon Saturday, Jan. 3, 2009. Does this mean that any certified winner of a Senate race can be denied his seat by a legal challenge of the final decision?

It's absurd. Cornyn can object all he wants. The rules are clear. Franken should be seated if certified the winner, as anticipated. There is no valid precedent in any of the election contests in the past to deny him that seat (See Appendix B).

"Should a contest be brought against a senator-elect prior to his being sworn in, the chamber's custom has been to seat the individual contingent upon his credentials being in order. (10) Thus, the precedent has been that a senator-elect has a "prima facie" right to the seat, while the contest brought against him is being investigated. Moreover, the individual is considered seated "without prejudice" to himself or to the office. This pseudo-legal arrangement allows the Senate to remove the individual by a simple majority vote, should a subsequent investigation find him not to be entitled to the seat. Otherwise, the Senate's only course of action would be "expulsion," which would require a two-thirds majority (12)." Partisanship and Contested Election Cases in the Senate, 1789-2002, Jeffery A. Jenkins, Northwestern University. Studies in American Political Development, 19 (Spring 2005), 53-74, Cambridge University Press. (Author's emphasis)

This is outlined in a report by the Senate outlining the election contests to date.

If Coleman pursues a post certification election contest, the Minnesota canvassing board certification becomes "provisional" by state law indicating that a contest is under way. It may take three months to resolve the election contest. The citizens of Minnesota will be denied representation should the Senate refuse to seat the declared winner after certification.

Seat Roland Burris Now

Roland Burris, the former Illinois Attorney General and Comptroller, was selected by indicted Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the term of President elect Barrack Obama. The day after the governor's arrest, Illinois senior Senator, Richard Durbin (D-IL), appealed to Blagojevich to call for a special election rather than make an appointment to fill President-elect Obama's vacated Senate seat.

"Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.

"We do not prejudge the outcome of the criminal charges against you or question your constitutional right to contest those charges. But for the good of the Senate and our nation, we implore you to refrain from making an appointment to the Senate."

Signed by the entire Senate Democratic leadership and all members of the Democratic Caucus. Sen. Richard Durbin, (D-IL), Dec. 10, 2008

In the first paragraph above, Sen. Durbin says that the Democratic Caucus "would be forced to exercise its "Constitutional authority" to review the appointment. This is a reference to Article I, Section 5 above. The "Senate Democratic Caucus" has no authority under the United States Constitution. It isn't even mentioned. The Senate does have the authority to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." But no Senator or group of Senators is "forced" to do this.

Doesn't this sound like an implied threat? 'We want a special election not an appointment by you, Rod. Go right ahead and we'll invoke that section of Article I, Section 5 on Qualifications.'

How would they proceed? Will they reject this fully qualified man as a United States Senator because the governor filling the vacancy, unlike all other citizens, is judged guilty as charged without the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Gov. Blagojevich has been charged, not convicted. Is it is still possible to say this: the governor is innocent until proven guilty.

How does it look when the Senate throws away the presumption of innocence by threatening to obstruct a legal appointment based on the presumed guilt of the governor making the appointment?

Why didn't just one Senator stand up and point out that the appointment of Roland Burris was made by a sitting governor according to the laws of the State of Illinois, as the Constitution provides?

Will just one Senator on the Republican side take Sen. Cornyn to task for his obstructionist threat regarding Al Franken?

Why are they so special that they don't have to follow the rules?

We're witnessing the beginning of the 111th Congress engaged in the wholesale disrespect of the law in favor of partisan bias. There is no regard for the law, no regard for process, and no indication of even the slightest degree of insight on the part of those flaunting the laws. There isn't even one objection to the violation of process, rules, and law from any Senator.

The majority of citizens are subject to the laws as they stand. If you steal an iPod, that's a felony in most states. You'll do some time if you can't afford an attorney. If the felony stands, you'll lose your right to vote in many states. In all instances, a felony places huge barriers to gainful employment, including a career in any of the professions.

Yet when it comes time to obey the Constitution that they're obliged to honor and protect, what do the Senators do? They allow their personal bias and political interests to trump the Constitution without any noticeable objection from the legislative body.

This type of disregard for the law by lawmakers is not only unacceptable; it impedes citizens from implementing their own "bailouts" and "recovery" programs by denying them access and positive influence on the government in this critical period of our history.

Memo to Congress: Try following your own rules, precedents, and, most importantly, the Constitution of the United States. The laws and rules that Congress should follow are fairly straight forward and the underlying principals are clear -- respond to the will of the people and respect their right to representation.

END

NB: The obedience to what I characterized as " important laws, particularly those where there is a general consensus and no moral ambiguity" in no way diminishes the utility of civil disobedience for morally repugnant laws like those resisted by Martin Luther King, and others.

This article may be reproduced in part or in whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

See this link for Appendix A (Minnesota election law) and Appendix B (Senate precedents and history on election challenges to U.S. Senators)

A D+ Indeed

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:44:16 -0800

Yes, yes, I know you are all going to say, "at least let the guy govern for a while." I don't care. Were it not for some decent environmental appointees I'd be giving Obama an F just as George suggests. His analysis is spot on too. It's all unity-porn. Yes, yes, "we'll see." But still, you have to admit, his appointments don't augur well. More Republican-lite Clintonesque triangulation for the next few years. Guaranteed.

Al Franken Ahead In Minnesota?

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:27:07 -0800

This is great news. Al Franken has pulled ahead of Norm Coleman. Nice!

Pass the cookies: Minnesota State Canvassing Board starts reviewing ballots, eating snacks

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:21:22 -0800

[Originally posted @work.] A little while after noon today, the State Canvassing Board began evaluating the challenged U.S. Senate race ballots. Some cookies and coffee are making the rounds; they just joked the cookies made everyone more amicable.

On the ballot where someone marked "Mickey Mouse" for president, and made a small dot on Al Franken's oval, Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson is getting a little snarky: "This isn't a voter who cared a lot... or maybe cared too much, I don't know." The small dot was ruled, with a dissenting vote, to not constitute a vote for Franken.

For the most part, things are moving along fairly smoothly, and generally everyone seems to be in good spirits. Franken's lawyer, Marc Elias, has gotten razzed for being blustery at press conferences (most memorably in a great MinnPost article by Jay Weiner), but he seems cool and collected today, as does U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman's team. Evidently, these lawyers know that ticking off judges is a bad move.

Several outlets are streaming live: WCCO, the Star Tribune, and The Uptake are all putting up video feeds. The Uptake also has a nifty live chat widget going, as does Bob Collins' News Cut.

Several heavily disputed ballots have been set aside to evaluate later: it's probably a wise move to drill through the easier challenges first. The Franken campaign touted a report by one of the AP's Capitol writers, Brian Bakst, which suggested that their camp might finally have the edge because of around 200 easily determined ballots in his favor. Of course, the Coleman camp doesn't buy it.

More Minnesota Absentee Ballots Found; Franken Makes Major Push

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:31:16 -0800

Sam Stein | December 12

Huffington Post - The Minnesota Senate recount campaign has firmly entered its legal stages, with Al Franken's chief counsel sending a lengthy and sharply argued memorandum to the Secretary of State's office on Thursday making the case for counting a group of contested absentee ballots.

The newsworthy thrust of David Lillehaug's 39-page brief for Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was the direct highlighting of 62 individual cases where voters were either "erroneously rejected by election officials for not being registered," or their absentee ballots were wrongfully rejected.

Franken Vs. Coleman

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:57:17 -0800

I've been following the news pretty closely in the Franken vs. Coleman race. Coleman's strategy is basically the same as Bush's was in Florida: challenge everything but make sure your votes are the ones that stay in the public eye. That shouldn't be allowed to work this time around. I'm not saying Franken has won, either. What I do think, however, is that there be a run-off. And there is ample precedent for such a thing. It's basically a statistical tie at this point. So, let's have a run-off.

CSPAN ain’t scratching the itch.

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:58:00 -0800

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing

click to enlarge
I hope you guys can relate to this. Now when I turn on the TV, there is a great lack of political news. Mumbai, puppy selection and Britney's comeback seem to be taking up broadcast time. Here in North Carolina, the local news is running a story about a guy that got killed by falling in a mulcher. Another story is running about a guy that shot his wife while having sex - they were playing cops and robbers and the gun went off.

I realize Mumbai was a horrific event and it was covered well. But I have gone weeks now with no one covering the latest McCain outburst. No coverage of hate rallies where Palin was headlining. Hell, the GOP is having a love-fest over Hillary Clinton!

Talk about your basic WTF moment. When Limbaugh starts singing the praises of Hillary, we have surly passed across some sort of cosmic barrier in reality.

So I am going to continue channel surfing until I can find some news on a political poll - any political poll, just so the Earth will makes sense once again.

Amen.

The Obama Resistance

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:06:52 -0800

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing

click to enlarge

It was less than 2 hours after Barack was declared President that the first "Join The Obama Resistance" shirts were available on Cafe Press. Since then, websites have been launched, conspiracies have been formulated. Hell, even Alan Keyes has filed a lawsuit to verify Obama's birth certificate!

This will not die down and it will not go away.

I remember the week after Bill Clinton was first elected, he and Al Gore appeared on the cover of a news magazine. I was in a bookstore when two rednecks drifted by and said, "Can you fucking believe THEY got elected? He ain't nothing but a draft dodger." That meme is still alive and well.

All the ugliness that John McCain, Sarah Palin and the rest of the right wing hate machine generated over the length of the campaign will continue until Obama is out of office. For us, our job is to always beat it back. The myth busting we did during the campaign will need to be continued... always.

We can't stop.

Ever.

Eric Holder Said to Be Top Pick for Justice Dept.

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:18:43 -0800

Carrie Johnson | Washington | November 19

WaPo - Eric H. Holder Jr., a former Justice Department official who was President-elect Barack Obama's campaign co-chairman, is the leading candidate to serve as the next U.S. attorney general, according to Democratic sources familiar with the choice.

Holder, 57, was offered the job late last week and tentatively accepted it, sources said. The Obama team intends to make the nomination official if he receives at least moderate support from Republican lawmakers and completes the vetting process, the sources said. Intermediaries began to reach out to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, and the vetting pace accelerated yesterday.

Sources close to the process said Holder was a "near-certainty" to become the first African American nominated to head the Justice Department, which plays a leading role in enforcing civil rights laws. Officials in the Obama transition office said no final decision has been reached.

The nation's next top law enforcement officer will inherit significant challenges, including a workforce demoralized by allegations of political interference in the Bush years; the vexing issue of how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and the question of whether to open criminal investigations of administration officials who approved harsh interrogation tactics and warrantless wiretapping.

NPR is reporting that it's a done deal.

Wikipedia entry