(Photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times)

Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general pick, came under close questioning, during his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee today:

Wrap Up | 7:04 p.m. With exceptions, at least a few of the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee who questioned Eric Holder Jr. throughout the day seemed inclined to vote for his confirmation.

But that didn’t stop many – including in a late afternoon segment by Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, from returning to the controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich and the clemency granted to members of a radical Puerto Rican group. Both of those cases stem from the waning days of the Clinton administration, when Mr. Holder was deputy attorney general.

Even though Mr. Holder repeatedly said that his involvement in the Rich pardon and its aftermath had been a “searing experience” and one that involved several mistakes on his part, that didn’t satisfy some Republican members of the Judiciary panel. One called it troubling, another said it still bothered him. Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, said not only did it bother him but given Mr. Holder’s extensive career, “this case just screams out as something that seems like you would push back aggressively against. And then it has the political connections as well.” (He’s referring to the fact that Mr. Rich’s former wife, Denise, was a major Democratic donor.)

Mr. Holder, who at other times talked about the late-night, last minute decisions being made, also said today that, “One thing I want to make clear, though, with regard to this notion of political connections: I was not aware at that time about these contributions or the ties that existed between Mr. Rich’s wife and other people in the Democratic Party — things of that nature.”

At another point, under questioning by Mr. Specter, the attorney-general designate said he never discussed the Rich pardon with Mr. Clinton. He also said that he believed the matter was a “fait accompli” when the White House sent it to the Justice Department near midnight on Jan. 20, 2001. “I didn’t expect that I would have the capacity to turn President Clinton’s mind around that late in the administration. I mean, this was the last night of his administration,” he said.

As for the F.A.L.N. members granted clemency, Democrats in the afternoon went through a long list of prominent people – former President Jimmy Carter, Coretta Scott King, Cardinal O’Connor and former New York Mayor David Dinkins – who were among those who had supported their release.

On other matters that have consumed senators’ inquiries and interests in recent years – warrantless wiretapping, surveillance, Guantanamo detainees, Mr. Holder seemed to satisfy most of the senators on the panel. A few bullet points with the understanding that his answers were far more nuanced: GITMO will be closed but it will take time; FISA is standing law; military tribunals/commissions and procedures for trials of detainees are under review. What to do with detainees who can’t be tried or repatriated is still under consideration.

In addition, Mr. Holder provided a three-word answer early on this morning that Senator Durbin lauded as welcome: “Waterboarding is torture.”

The Judiciary Committee is expected to continue this hearing tomorrow, with a panel of other witnesses.

Specter and Holder | 6:07 p.m. Senator Specter and Mr. Holder just got into a fairly heated exchange related to Mr. Holder’s decision not to seek an independent counsel or special prosecutor during the time that Al Gore’s fund-raising practices were under scrutiny after the 1996 re-election campaign. Mr. Specter accused him of favoritism that showed a lack of judgment. “It raises a question in my mind as to your fitness for the job,” Mr. Specter said.

At one point, Mr. Holder shot back by referring to his decision, alongside that of his boss, Janet Reno, to seize Elian Gonzalez from his relatives’ home in Miami – a move that riled the Cuban community. No one else had resurrected that lengthy episode, but Mr. Holder used it to show that had he wanted to show bias toward Mr. Gore, the Gonzalez saga would not have occurred – especially in a state that would prove to be so critical to the 2000 election. (Which Mr. Gore lost.)

As Mr. Holder disagreed, politely, and complimented Mr. Specter’s legal mind, the Pennsylvania Republican turned the tables: “If you weren’t such a good lawyer, I wouldn’t be surprised,” and chided Mr. Holder by saying he should have known better.

Where to Send Detainees | 3:39 p.m. When it’s Senator Sam Brownback’s turn, he’s most concerned with the possibility that detainees moved from Guantanamo would be transferred to Fort Leavenworth Prison. And he raises several points that Mr. Holder promises to take under consideration.

Senator Hatch returns to basically lend his endorsement to Mr. Holder’s confirmation: “I look forward to your being confirmed. I hope you will do it in a nonpartisan way.”

Break time.

Oops | 3:37 p.m. In notifying everyone that a short break would occur within a few minutes, Senator Leahy just suggested some people might want to stretch and perhaps some younger members of the “Obama family” might want to run up and down the halls. Uh, as Mr. Leahy realized a few seconds after he uttered those words, the younger people are members of the Holder family (their three children).

More on Torture | 3:20 p.m. Torture — and waterboarding in particular — have so far dominated several of the exchanges between senators on the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Holder this afternoon. And even though Mr. Holder had emphatically declared that waterboarding is torture earlier today, Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, tried to push the point a bit further with a hypothetical scenario.

Imagine, Mr. Cornyn suggested, a “ticking time bomb” scenario — terrorists were about to unleash chemical, biological or nuclear weapons that would cost “tens of thousands of lives,” and a detainee had information that would save those lives, would Mr. Holder still refuse to condone the use of waterboarding even if it were the only way to avert such a disaster?

While saying he was comfortable with Mr. Cornyn’s hypothetical, he disagreed with the premise that waterboarding would necessarily elicit reliable intelligence, citing many conversations he had had with experts in this area.

Separately, Senator Dick Durbin asked about other interrogation methods, like mock executions, in terms of whether they should be deemed torture. Mr. Holder said he wasn’t as conversant, but didn’t approve of tactics that would be construed as inhumane. (We’ll come back with a transcript on this exact exchange because Mr. Durbin cited specific techniques.)

Update from the transcript: The other techniques Senator Durbin inquired about were painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, mock execution. He said that judge advocates generals had told me they would be illegal and violated the Geneva Conventions.

” When I asked Attorney Generals Gonzales and Mukasey the same question, they refused to respond,” Mr Durbin said. And then he asked Mr. Holder: “Would it be illegal for enemy forces to subject an American detainee to painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, or mock execution?”

Because he wasn’t as familiar, Mr. Holder said he wouldn’t go so far as “to say that those constitute torture.” But, pointing again to the articles pertinent within the Geneva Convention, Mr. Holder noted they required for humane treatment of prisoners. That prompted Mr. Durbin to ask: “So in your mind they cross that threshold and become inhumane?”

And Mr. Holder replied, “I believe that’s right.”

On the practice of rendition, which gained considerable notoriety through the use of secret prisons abroad, Senator Ben Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, asked Mr. Holder his views: He said, “It simply should not be the policy or the practice of the United States of America to turn over a prisoner or captured person to a nation where we suspect or have reason to believe that person will be tortured.”

Biden Humor | 2:29 p.m. Opening up the afternoon, Senator Lindsey Graham, who just returned from an overseas trip with Vice President elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. , joked that the travel was enjoyable although he did do quite a bit of listening. (Mr. Biden is quite the talker, as many know.)

We’re Back | 2:21 p.m. We’re about to resume here at the hearing.

The morning session offered few surprises and in fact, fewer fireworks than some had anticipated. As Senator Specter had promised, he did indeed delve into controversial decisions made during the time Mr. Holder served in the Clinton administration.

Perhaps some tension was avoided by the fact that Mr. Holder admitted some mistakes in his opening statement, then later also said he regretted his actions in some instances, particularly the rushed Marc Rich pardon at the end of Mr. Clinton’s presidency.

As for the Democrats who have been extremely critical of the Justice Department under the Bush administration, Mr. Holder may as well have handed them an additional bag of candy by uttering in a simple declarative sentence that waterboarding was torture.

A few other items stemming from this morning’s session:

* Media Shield Law – Mr. Holder said that while he supported the concept of offering journalists a shield to protect confidential sources in a general way, he realized that some Justice officials had concerns. “I’d also want to ensure that, with the passage of any law, that we would still have the capacity to protect the national security and to prosecute any leaks of intelligence information that might occur.”

(Lawmakers had renewed their call for such a law after prosecutors in the case of I. Lewis Libby went after journalists’ sources, and in fact, in one case – that of Judy Miller who has since left The New York Times – resulted in her jailing. Bush officials also have conducted leak inquiries of sensitive information.)

Republican opposition has been relatively muted within the hearing room. But Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative RedState blog is beseeching his readers to buttonhole Senator Orrin Hatch:

“Call him and tell him that in light of the information on Holder’s helping Chiquita Banana avoid prosecution for funding death squads in Columbia, his role in the F.A.L.N. pardons, and his anti-second amendment stances, Hatch should oppose Holder.

Likewise tell him that in light of Geithner knowingly and willfully cheating both the tax system and his employer, Orrin Hatch should oppose Tim Geithner.

It’s one thing to like Barack Obama. It’s another thing to roll over and be a useful idiot to the Obama agenda.

Beholden to the President | 12:31 p.m. Never one to be less than sarcastic or hard-hitting, Senator Chuck Schumer just conducted a Q&A series with Mr. Holder, checking to see if he would ever be as beholden to Mr. Obama as say, one of this senator’s most-criticized former attorneys general, Alberto Gonzales. The Democratic senator ran through a number of former attorneys general — not just those in the Bush administration — who had close either personal or professional ties to presidents.

Then he quipped to a lot of laughter while not waiting for an answer: “And by the way, has Barack Obama ever dispatched you to the hospital room of a sick government official to get him to authorize an illegal wiretap program? Yeah, I didn’t think so.”

(If we recall correctly, John Ashcroft lay ill in the hospital.)
Mr. Schumer and Mr. Holder called the civil rights division of the Justice Department a “jewel” of the agency, with Mr. Holder promising to investigate fully what has happened to it in recent years.

We’re on a break now until 2:15 p.m.

F.A.L.N. | 12:24 p.m. Another decision reached during the Clinton administration had been the granting of clemency to 16 members of the radical F.A.L.N., group, or Armed Forces of National Liberation, and of another group. Was that the right decision to make, Mr. Sessions asked, even though they conducted terrorists acts like bombings?

This particular set of decisions also haunted Mrs. Clinton when she first began running for the Senate in 2000.

Calling it a difficult decision for former President Clinton, Mr. Holder conceded: “These were criminals. These were terrorists. These were bad people, but the president’s determination was that they had not committed any acts themselves that led to death,” or bodily injury. Pressed as to whether he believed the decision was a good one, he called it “reasonable.”

Reckoning | 12:20 p.m. Words do often come back to haunt public officials, and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has just asked Mr. Holder for a better parsing of statements he made in a speech to the American Constitution Society last year.

In a section critical of some Bush administration practices, Mr. Holder was quoted as saying, “We owe the American people a reckoning.” Mr. Sessions wanted to know whether those words indicated a willingness to prosecute government officials without knowing all the facts. “No senator, actually when I used that term — that’s gotten a lot more attention than I think it deserves,” Mr. Holder said in disagreement, adding that he wasn’t thinking about prosecutions but about “information-sharing” with the public.

More on FISA | 12:14 p.m. As for renewing portions of FISA and warrantless wiretapping, in response to questions by Senator Russ Feingold, who objected to large portions of it, Mr. Holder again stresses that the law enforcement tools have been very effective. But, in another nod to those who opposed it, he said, “But we always have to be mindful of the fact that there is a civil liberties component to this, and we have to make sure that we understand, as I’ve said in many speeches, that there is not a tension between respecting our great tradition of civil liberties and having very effective law enforcement and anti-terror tools. There’s a false choice, I think, that is often presented. ”

Prosecutions for Members of Bush Administration | 12:03 p.m. As for the question that has been swirling around on the Internet and was asked of Mr. Obama recently: Mr. Hatch wanted to know whether Mr. Holder supported demands for prosecution of members of the Bush administration.

“No one is above the law,” Mr. Holder replied, but he added, “We will follow the evidence, the facts the law and let that take us where it should, but I think President-elect Obama has said it well — we don’t want to criminalize policy differences that exist.”

Asked whether he believed these decisions actually were mere policy differences, Mr. Holder stopped short saying he needed to review more before he could answer.

Presidential Authority | 12:02 p.m. Senator Orrin Hatch hones in on presidential authority and whether a president has inherent authority under the constitution that cannot be limited by a statute, and Mr. Holder generally agrees there is inherent authority, as Mr. Hatch was relating it to matters like FISA.

“There are certain things that a president has the constitutional right that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon,” Mr. Holder said.

Military Commissions | 11:44 a.m. On military commissions handling detainees, Mr. Holder said they would have to be substantially revamped. “I don’t think the military commissions that we now have in place have all the due process requirements that I would like to see in them,” he said.

And We’re Back | 11:39 a.m. The hearing has resumed, with Senator Dianne Feinstein beginning with a newly released inspector general’s report detailing questions of whether employees or applicants for jobs were asked their political affiliations or beliefs. She slammed it as did Mr. Holder in response, and he promised to review inquiries made by the United States attorney’s office here in D.C. on the matter.

They’ve now moved on to Guantanamo again.

Break Time | 11:17 a.m.

Wiretapping | 11:11 a.m. Broadly on reauthorizing wiretapping authority, Mr. Holder said he would support some provisions while he still needed to review others.

On FISA, Mr. Holder said: “I believe the law is constitutional,” adding that wiretapping under this program “is a very central tool for us in fighting terrorists.”

But a key point he made on the warrantless wiretapping program was that he wished Congress had been involved very early on. At one point, he added: “But the president has his power at its maximum, at its zenith, when he acts consistent with congressional direction. Now, when it comes to the FISA statute, there’s an exclusivity provision in the FISA Act, that essentially says, as Congress has expressed, this is the exclusive way in which that kind of surveillance should occur.

“My speech was taking the administration to task for not following the dictates of FISA.

“As I indicated, I think, in response to a previous question, I think that, had the administration worked with Congress, as we are pledging to do, that that tool — a very valuable tool, a very valuable tool — could have been in the arsenal of the administration without any question about its legality.

My colleague Eric Lichtblau has written a story about a court decision soon to be released that validates the authority of Congress and the president to wiretap foreign phone calls and email. His lead: ” A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.”

And he explains the significance a bit father down: “The decision marks the first time since the disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program three years ago that an appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of the federal government’s wiretapping powers. In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping.”

More on Interrogation | 11:05 a.m. Mr. Holder indicates that a balance must be struck to ensure that Americans are protected, that good intelligence can be obtained. He cautions that it’s easy to be critical in hindsight and acknowledges that the Bush administration had to make some pretty tough calls.

But he says he wants the incoming administration’s policies to be consistent with treaty obligations as well.

“It is the intention of the president-elect, it is my intention that we have interrogation techniques that are consistent with who we are as Americans,” he says in response.

But he later adds, that both he and Mr. Obama have been “worried, disturbed by what we’ve seen and heard.”

On closing Guantanamo, Mr. Holder also had said that it would take far more time than some hoped because he and others had to review the individual detainees, and while some would be able to be transferred to other countries — “safely” he added — others might not be so easily shipped elsewhere.

Basketball | 10:59 a.m. Asked by Senator Herb Kohl whether Mr. Holder would do everything in his power to defeat President-elect Obama on the basketball court, saying his vote depended on the answer, Mr. Holder pleaded age and physical inferiority.

“Having said that, I got ‘a New York City game.’ I come from the city that produced Connie Hawkins, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Nate “Tiny” Archibald. I learned how to play ball at P.S. 127 in Queens. If you give me a little time, and a little space to get back in shape, I think I could hang with him.

But he added, “I don’t think I’m ever going to be in a position to beat him, nor do I think that would be a wise thing to do.”

Now back to interrogation techniques for just a minute, Senator Kohl asked him whether he would put an end to “abusive” interrogation techniques.

Guantanamo | 10:58 a.m. Mr. Holder says “Yes, Senator, Guantanamo will be closed.” The statement is greeted with a few enthusiastic “YES-es” from the audience in the Senate chamber.

Rich’s Record | 10:58 a.m. Asked today whether he was aware of Mr. Rich’s “atrocious record,” in deals with Iranians, oil for arms, Mr. Holder said, “No I was not and that was one of the mistakes I made. I did not acquaint myself with his record.” He said he was aware that it was an extensive tax fraud case.

Specter Questions | 10:43 a.m. Senator Specter isn’t accepting Mr. Holder’s acknowledgment here. He says it’s “hard to brush off,” because Mr. Rich had a “reprehensible record.”

But Mr. Holder rebuts that he didn’t intend to minimize the mistakes made, but he is taking issue with a House investigative report on this matter. (Both the House and the Senate held extensive hearings following the last-minute pardons.)

The two now are going back and forth, with Mr. Specter questioning whether Mr. Holder had recommended that Mr. Rich’s lawyer, Jack Quinn, ship the pardon application straight to the White House to circumvent the Justice Department’s pardon review process. Mr. Holder denied that and said he didn’t recall his exact conversations. But it was standard practice, he added, for applications that went to the White House to be forwarded at some point to the Justice Department for review.

(In previous Senate testimony in 2001, Roger Adams, who was then the pardon attorney for the Justice Department, told senators that he got a call near midnight from the White House counsel’s office about the Rich application but basically received no information about Mr. Rich’s background and had to search the Internet to find details in the middle of the night on Jan. 20.)

Eric H. Holder Jr. prior to his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday. (Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times)

Marc Rich | 10:40 a.m. Senator Leahy tries to preempt a bit of the sting that may occur on the Marc Rich line of questioning, with Mr. Holder nearly leaping at the chance to admit that yes, he made mistakes in dealing with the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Pushing that pardon forward — it was shipped over to the pardon attorney in the Justice Department just before President Clinton left office — became one of the most controversial aspects of the Clinton’s final days. Suspicions continue to be held that it was bought and paid for because Mr. Rich’s former wife, Denise, donated $450,000 to Mr. Clinton’s library and was a big Democratic donor. (Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston wrote more on Mr. Holder’s role last month.)

In his testimony today, Mr. Holder called the fallout “the most searing experience I’ve ever had as a lawyer.”

“As I indicated in my opening statement, my conduct and my actions in the Rich matter is a place where I made mistakes… I’ve accepted the responsibility of making those mistakes. I never tried to hide; I never tried to blame anybody else.”

“I should have made sure that everybody, all the prosecutors in that case, were informed of what was going on. I made assumptions that turned out not to be true. I should have not spoken to the White House and expressed an opinion without knowing all of the facts with regard to that matter.”

He concluded by saying that as “perverse as this might sound,” he would be a better attorney general because of the Rich pardon.

Gun Rights | 10:35 a.m. On the right to bear arms, under the 2nd Amendment, although Mr. Holder said he had sided with those who believed it did not confer an individual right, he pointed out the Supreme Court had ruled that it does in the recent gun law case involving Washington, D.C. “The reality is now the Supreme Court has spoken and that is now the law of the land,” and must be respected, he said.

Waterboarding | 10:31 a.m. First up as a subject is waterboarding. Mr. Holder unambiguously calls it torture.

Restoring Credibility | 10:26 a.m. In what could be interpreted as a slap at the Bush administration’s handling of the firings of United States attorneys or other matters, Mr. Holder pledges to “restore the credibility of a Department badly shaken by allegations of improper political interference. … the Department of Justice will serve justice, not the fleeting interests of any political party.”

And he treads on what surely will unfold as Senator Specter and others question his past decisions: “My decisions were not always perfect. I made mistakes. I hope that enough of my decisions were correct to justify the gratifying support I have received from colleagues in law enforcement in recent weeks. But with the benefit of hindsight, I can see my errors clearly and I can tell you how I learned from them.”

And even as he acknowledges mistakes, he also stresses that he recommended independent counsel investigations (there were several going on during the Clinton administration, most notably Kenneth Starr’s investigations) of his own president and of Cabinet members.

Pledges | 10:24 a.m. Now Mr. Holder has begun shifting to a series of pledges, teeing up contrasts to the previous administration: To protect Americans from terrorism, “I will use every available tactic to defeat our adversaries, and I will do so within the letter and spirit of the constitution. Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting tools.”

A Nod to Civil Rights Leaders: | 10:19 a.m. “Sitting here today, the very day that Martin Luther King Jr. would have celebrated his 80th birthday, I acknowledge the debt I owe him and the thousands of Americans, black and white, who fought and died to break the back of segregation,” Mr. Holder says. (If confirmed, Mr. Holder would be the first African-American attorney general.)

Within his own family, his late sister-in-law Vivian Malone Jones, integrated the University of Alabama in 1963, he pointed out. “In an atmosphere of hate almost unimaginable to us today, she and fellow student James Hood faced down Governor George Wallace,” and enrolled at the university.

Holder Speaks | 10:15 a.m. Mr. Holder stands to be sworn in. We were wondering whether that would occur today, since neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Tom Daschle were required to take the oath before their testimony at their hearings.

Mr. Holder begins reading his opening statement; stressing the word independent as he promises to faithfully execute his duties as attorney general.

In the prepared remarks, Mr. Holder used italics for the word “justice” as in “I accept their trust in me and with your support I intend to lead an agency that is strong, independent and worthy of the name: the Department of Justice.”

Norton Speaks | 10:11 a.m. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton begins her support for Mr. Holder by pointing out: “The fact that John Warner, who enjoys such a sterling reputation in this body, has stood for Eric Holder I think speaks volumes about Mr. Holder’s experience and character.”

Congresswoman Norton is the last witness to speak during this part of the hearing before Mr. Holder himself. But several others are listed for a second panel, including former F.B.I. director Louis Freeh, Frances Townsend, former homeland security adviser to President Bush and Chuck Canterbury, president of the National Fraternal Order of Police.

Meanwhile, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee | 9:57 a.m. This just in from my colleague Neil MacFarquhar: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee just approved Senator Clinton for confirmation by a vote of 16 to 1, moving her confirmation to the floor once she becomes an official nominee on Inauguration Day. The lone opponent was Senator David Vitter of Louisiana; he was the Republican who during the hearing objected to the disclosure agreements reached for the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. He did not believe they went far enough in preventing potential conflicts of interest. The ranking Republican, Senator Dick Lugar, had sought for more immediate disclosure of donations and pledges, but Senator Clinton resisted such measures.

Eric H. Holder, with former F.B.I. Director Louis Freeh, left, and Senator John Warner. (Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times)

Warner’s Testimony | 9:50 a.m. Senator John Warner, the Republican from Virginia who just retired this past year, addressed his former colleagues by saying that he believed that they would exercise their “solemn duty” as senators “to fairly and objectively and conscientiously approach” their responsibility of advise and consent.” And he also begins tracing Mr. Holder’s upbringing and career, emphasizing that Mr. Holder was appointed a district court judge by Ronald Reagan.

That’s a point the Democrats have been making, that Mr. Holder has served under both Republicans and Democrats and has been nominated by both parties’ presidents.

Specter’s Concerns | 9:47 a.m. Mr. Specter, the Republican from Pennsylvania, begins his outline by alluding to the criticisms he’s already lobbed at Mr. Holder. He may hold an extensive excellent resume, he says, but there remain important questions. “There’s been a question raised whether the issues I have posed for Mr. Holder are political in nature. I have not hesitated to oppose members of my own party asking pointed questions, which is a constitutional responsibility of a senator.” He noted he had voted against his own party, voted against “waterboarding,” and against President Bush’s signing statements.

Leahy Makes His Case | 9:39 a.m. While warning that Mr. Holder’s confirmation should not be held up partisan bickering, Mr. Leahy also noted that he had previously been confirmed three times by the Senate to high-level positions within the last 20 years. It’s now Senator Specter’s turn and we’ll get a sense now of where he’s headed in taking the lead on questioning.

Character | 9:34 a.m. Senator Leahy has just issued his own judgment: “Eric Holder has the character to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. He passes any fair confirmation standard.”

He continued in his opening statement: “We need leaders who are prepared to take the laboring oars of a Justice Department whose dedicated law enforcement professionals have been misused and demoralized. Eric Holder is such a leader.”

Speaking Of… Eric Holder with The Times’s David Johnston and Reid Weingarten, Mr. Holder’s former colleague and longtime friend (mp3)

The Holder Hearing | 9:28 a.m. The Senate confirmation hearing for Eric Holder Jr., chosen by President-elect Barack Obama for Attorney General, is about to begin here in the Russell building. The room is still filling up for what is expected to include some of the more contentious questioning.

Already, Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican, has made clear his intentions to question Mr. Holder’s decision-making during the time that he was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. Possible lines of questioning include the controversial 11th-hour pardons of fugitive financier Marc Rich and members of a Puerto Rican group, FALN, at the end of Mr. Clinton’s presidency.

Mr. Holder filled out a lengthy questionnaire, which details much of his career, his assets and his most recent work as a private lawyer at the firm of Covington and Burling.

The cameras are crowded around the table now, as everyone awaits the start of this session.

As Mr. Holder’s hearing ensues, another Obama pick – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton – is expected to receive a strong vote of approval from the Foreign Relations Committee, for secretary of state. Her hearing on Tuesday was far more friendly and congenial than this one is likely to be. Other choices have been wending their way through hearings this week.

Although the Obama administration reportedly had hoped to beat the record of seven nominees confirmed on inauguration day for President Bush’s first term, that looks a little iffy at the moment. And now, the only high-profile one sure to be confirmed – (or most probably) – by the full Senate next Tuesday seems to be Senator Clinton.

The newly retired Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, has arrived and will be introducing Mr. Holder. The chairman of the committee, Senator Patrick Leahy is here making the rounds, and Mr. Holder is walking along a line of supporters and senators shaking hands. And several audience members are holding up signs, saying “No Torture,” or “Waterboarding is a Crime,” and “Restore the Rule of Law.”

Times Topics: Eric Holder

MSNBC has live video