Kit Bond's remarks about Holder? Not so fast, say Sen's. Leahy, Whitehouse

By GottaLaff

Punk'd... or should I say, misled. And I was never happier to be talked down:

The implication of the piece is fairly clear: Holder promised Bond to eschew prosecutions, and Bond promised not to block his nomination. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- which approved Holder today -- strongly denied that such an exchange could have occurred.

"It would be completely wrong if a senator said, 'I'll vote for you if you promise to withhold prosecution of a crime'," Leahy told me. "No senator would make a request like that. It'd be improper."

"Maybe Governor [Rod] Blagojevich [D-IL]" would have sought such an assurance, Leahy quipped. He never specifically referenced Bond, who declined to answer questions about the Times piece while leaving the Senate chamber this afternoon.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a Judiciary panel member and former federal prosecutor, had a similar response when questioned about the likelihood of Holder making the "assurances" that Bond believes were offered.

"It sounds a little improbable ... it's, frankly, improper for members of Congress to demand [a pre-determinative stance on] prosecutions."

Sounds like the Times report should be taken with a full shaker of salt.

Improper is an understatement. Even if it was inaccurate, let's keep our fingers crossed that Holder isn't even thinking in the direction of the Times' report.

However, Ellen Ratner's reporting is usually pretty good, so the question of Rove's "executive privilege" is still a problem.

H/t: Eve