Kit Bond says Holder gave him a no prosecute promise, Holder's folks said he didn't, but as we seem to find all too consistently lately, the answer isn't so clear.
Kit Bonds vote for Holder as AG is said to have hinged on "having received assurances that [Holder] was not intent on going after intelligence officials who acted in good faith."
Holder's aide's comments about that promise are at:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
The aide pointed to Holder's written response to a question from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ):
Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts, and no one is above the law. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions" authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full-blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.
If we take that part about an agent relying on "Justice Department legal opinions authoritatively permitting his conduct" at face value--and why wouldn't we--then I'd say he promised not to prosecute. Sure he left himself some wiggle room by saying he'd "find it difficult", but that doesn't do much to avoid making this a promise.
I'm not disappointed in Holder's position here--I've already opined on the issue of holding the front line folks who actually tortured accountable--I'm just saying that what Bond is saying is not so unreasonable considering what Holder is saying.