 |
July 20, 2025 |
 |
Recently, I sat down with former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for an interview. We talked about the DOJ under Obama vs. Trump, Texas redistricting, Holder’s personal connection to Alabama, what Democrats need to do to acquire power and much more.
I send a written version of these interviews (ad-free) each week as part of our premium membership, and thought you’d enjoy a preview — on me. I hope you find our conversation as compelling as I did. Please consider upgrading to our premium membership to always receive exclusive content like this. |
Marc: Attorney General Eric Holder, welcome back to Defending Democracy.
Eric Holder: Always good to talk to my favorite lawyer in the whole United States of America. You're a great partner, and you've done a lot of good stuff for our democracy.
Marc: Well, I appreciate that—and coming from you, that is high praise indeed. I want to start with the sorry state of the Department of Justice. You were the Attorney General, you were an incredibly successful Attorney General across a number of metrics. One that I, of course, follow most closely is voting and democracy and the important work that you did as Attorney General on those issues.
But, where do you start with your analysis of what's going on right now with Pam Bondi, with Emil Bove? You can pick the entry point you want, whether it's voting, immigration, basic decency, you go ahead.
Eric Holder: Well, Marc, the fact that you can't figure out quite where to start is an indication of the depth of the problem. Just as you say, whether it's immigration policy, whether it's an apparent determination by Bove that you're going to simply ignore federal judges, whether you're going to withdraw from cases that were brought trying to protect the voting rights of people around the country. This perception that you are the lawyer for the president as opposed to the lawyer for the people, that you are a political arm of the White House, that's fundamentally different from the way in which good Justice Departments have thought of themselves, and that is irrespective of their parties.
Justice Departments get in trouble when they don't understand that there has to be some kind of a wall between the Justice Department and the White House. And Pam Bondi sees herself essentially as a staffer for Donald Trump. And that's not consistent with the obligations that she has. And it's inconsistent with the norms that we have about the department. And given the power that the department has to deprive people of their liberty, to take away property from people, and given the willingness that this president and his zealots who surround him have shown to politicize, to weaponize the Justice Department and the FBI, this trend or what we're seeing in the Justice Department is an extremely dangerous one. Extremely dangerous. |
We know not everyone has time to sit through a 45-minute interview, which is why we added this written version — so you can go back and read the parts you want and skip others. Upgrade to always receive this format delivered to your inbox. |
Marc: So your predecessor in the Bush administration was Alberto Gonzales? Was he the prior?
Eric Holder: Yeah, Gonzales and then Mukasey.
Marc: Okay. So I want you to, because we keep saying to people that this is not normal and it's not the way Democrats and Republicans have operated. Gonzales was known as someone who was close personally to George Bush, the then president. You are someone who has had a well-known personal relationship with Barack Obama.
But talk about how different you and a Republican AG in that era operated with respect to the White House compared to what we are seeing today. Tell us in practical terms how it was different, not just that it was different.
Eric Holder: Well, first off, there was a recognition on the part of those of us in the Justice Department and those people who were part of the administration in the White House that there had to be that separation. We had a contacts policy so that only specified people at the White House could call specified people in the Justice Department. There was no ability to communicate at lower levels.
And I'll give you one practical example. When I made the determination that we were not going to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that was a decision that I made with the Justice Department personnel advising me, without any involvement of the people in the White House. And I had to take the president aside at a Super Bowl party to tell him that I'd made a decision not to defend DOMA.
And he said to me, this is in my upcoming book, "Well, I'm really glad that that's what you're going to do. I wanted us to be in that place, but I didn't think it was appropriate for me to share my views with you." Barack Obama and I are good friends, but we were also cognizant of the roles that we had to play and how me as Attorney General had an impact on the nature of the communication that we had and the nature of the relationship that we had while I was Attorney General.
Marc: Before you were Attorney General, you were also the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. You have a unique perspective on what you are seeing — DOJ lawyers, lawyers from the U.S. Attorney's Office — in the various courtrooms around the country.
Just earlier today in the hearing in Maryland over Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the federal judge basically said the presumption of regularity is out the window. The judge was just openly not believing what the Department of Justice was saying. Talk a little bit about how you would have expected, as someone who was overseeing the entire Department of Justice, but also someone overseeing young prosecutors, young attorneys going into superior court, into federal courts, and what you would have expected versus what we're seeing.
Eric Holder: Well, what we're seeing out of the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. pains me a great deal. That's the best job that I ever had. It's the largest U.S. Attorney's Office in the country. You prosecute, as you said, everything from misdemeanors to the most sophisticated white-collar crimes, international drug stuff. And to see that office turned into, again, another arm of the White House with the guy who couldn't even get confirmed, Ed Martin, he was a zealot, an incompetent zealot, and he couldn't pass muster. And now you've got a Fox commentator who’s running the U.S. Attorney's Office, Pirro.
It's really painful to see what they have done both in terms of how they listen to the White House in deciding what their priorities are, who they're going to go after, but also in the way in which they have treated the career people in the office and have fired them or pressured them to leave because they were simply doing their jobs. Anybody who's connected apparently to the January 6th investigations is persona non grata in the Justice Department. Bondi fired, I guess, two, three people just about a week or so ago. Their only crime, and I say that in quotes, was that they were doing their jobs and investigating the January 6th matters. And you've seen the same thing in the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. where long-time career people who stood up for norms, for the rule of law, for their ethical obligations have been forced out of the office.
Chief among them, I would say, Denise Cheung, head of the federal part of the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C., forced out because she refused to do that which Martin told her that she had to, which was to open up an investigation that didn't have a predicate basis for the investigation. And so, this wholesale undoing of the way in which the department normally conducts itself and for the benefit of this president is unbelievably disturbing, especially when you dial in the fact that the Supreme Court through that immunity decision has enabled, has put this thing on steroids and you think out all the possibilities, that becomes truly frightening.
Marc: So I recently interviewed Preet Bharara and he said that when they would interview, he did the final round of interviews, I don't know if that's common or uncommon for you.
Eric Holder: Yep, I did that.
Marc: When [Preet] said that there would never be a consideration of politics, that it didn't matter if you were the U.S. Attorney appointed by a Democratic president, as most of you were, it just would never come to play. Looking at what is going on now with Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice and as you say, the firing of people, this has to just be a different planet to you.
Eric Holder: Yeah, it's a totally different planet. It's a planet that I don't want to inhabit. It's a place I want to get from the bad planet, back to Earth One here. But the things that they have done, the decimation of the honors program, which is the way in which people leave law school, come into the Justice Department. Again, that's how I came into the Justice Department, hired in the Republican administration. No one ever asked me, was I a Democrat, was I a Republican? I never asked in those final interviews that I did whether people were Republicans or Democrats.
And the thing is, people need to understand, and in the Justice Department, it was bad form to have those kinds of conversations. You'd never ask anybody what their party affiliation was and to bring any kind of political conversation. You talk a lot about sports. You talk a lot about the cases that you're having. You go on and talk about the weather. You don't talk politics within the department. That's how sensitive we were to that.
One example: I was a young lawyer, tried my first case in a place, Hammond, Indiana, lost the case. I was second chair. And the guy who was first chair and ultimately became the head of the Public Integrity Section, I didn't realize until probably eight, nine, 10 years after we tried that case together that this guy, Lee Radek, was a registered Republican. I had no idea. |
Marc: I didn't know Lee Radek was a Republican actually.
Eric Holder: I never knew that. He and I worked together a lot. He and I became friends. And that is, again, an indication of how the notion of political knowledge or partisan knowledge about your colleagues is simply not something that in a normal Justice Department you would discuss. And here, they have litmus tests. If you can't prove, I see now that they're going to give lie detector tests to people in the FBI to see if you've ever criticized Bongino or Patel. This stuff is absurd. This stuff is dangerous. This stuff smacks of authoritarian states and ought to concern the American people a great deal.
Marc: The breaking news that's going on literally as we're recording is around the state of Texas. The White House is concerned they're going to lose control of the House of Representatives. They wanted Texas to do mid-cycle redistricting. The governor has now acceded to that request and called a special session.
The Department of Justice seems to be playing sort of a role in providing political cover here for the Attorney General. They sent a letter to the Attorney General saying, "By the way, we think these four districts held by Democrats are illegal." And that is based on the fact that the Department of Justice says that race was used to draw them. What's interesting is that earlier today, it came out that actually there had been sworn testimony by the Republican map drawer that race had not been used to draw them. So talk to me about Texas.
Eric Holder: A lot of things, kind of baselines here. Let's kind of set the scene. Texas, and I don't know what you think, is probably the hardest state in the country to vote. They have gerrymanders that are just kind of off the charts. Texas got additional congressional seats as a result of the census that happened about five, six years ago at this point, and showed an increase in population due to an influx or increase in the number of people of Hispanic origin. And so what did Texas do? They created two additional majority white districts. The gerrymander there is as obvious as anything you could see. The Justice Department was suing and has withdrawn from that suit. We have, under your direction, a suit that is pending. And so that's kind of the baseline.
And now you've got the Trump administration concerned about the loss of the House in 2026 as a result of the passage of this unbelievably bad budget bill that just came out, falling poll numbers about their immigration policies, where they're underwater by a pretty substantial amount as the American people see the way in which they're conducting these raids. They're not going after criminals. They're going after people who work in farm fields and who do things at Walmarts, just regular people. Might be undocumented, but they've been here for substantial amounts of time and contributing to our communities. They want to pull those people out. And the American people are appalled by this. And so they're worried about the loss of the House in 2026. And so they look around and try to figure out what is it that we can do to put our thumbs on the scale.
And they say, "Wow, let's mine Texas for, even though it's gerrymandered, let's find some more. Let's try to create some more safe Republican seats in Texas." And so in the midst of this unbelievable crisis, this humanitarian crisis, the tragic things we've seen with these pictures of these lovely little girls from these camps who've lost their lives, some are still missing, Greg Abbott decides, "You know what, in a special session, I think I'm going to bring the legislature back and come up with a way in which we do redistricting mid-cycle." That's a priority as opposed to providing aid, comfort to those who have lost their lives and the survivors of those people.
It shows kind of the warped priorities that they have and the depths to which they will go in order to hold on to what I think is illegitimate power. So that's what the Trump administration has done. But it's also interesting because we've heard from our sources that folks, congressional folks in Texas have not necessarily — Republican congressional folks have not necessarily been in favor of this because this creates districts that although will lean Republican, are not going to be in some instances as Republican as they once were.
If there's a wave election in 2026, some of those folks potentially are in jeopardy, but the Trump administration, folks in the White House, are pulling out all the stops to try to ensure that they can hold onto the House in spite of the polls and bad policy choices that they have made.
Marc: If you're a Republican member of Congress in Texas you have been able to be a very right-wing member of Congress. All of a sudden now they're coming to you and saying, "Hey, we want to create more Democratic seats." Well, the only way to create more Democratic seats is to take some of those Republicans in those districts and move them into Democratic seats.
So all of a sudden, rather than having a 65% Republican district, you're now at 53%, 54% Republican advantage. I'm hearing that some of these Republican members are like, "Wait a second. I'm not big on this." But I assume you have the same view I do, which is that ultimately they'll muscle through that opposition.
Eric Holder: Yeah, the Republican Party, they bark, how they're going to oppose Trump and the White House. But at the end of the day, they always knuckle under and I expect that that's what they'll do here. And it'll be interesting to see what the results are.
We'll certainly figure out ways in which we can fight their attempt to further gerrymander the state and try to put as much pressure on them so that what they do is done in the light of day so that people understand what this could mean. You've got districts in Texas, Marc, as you said, 65% Republican districts where the member can vote for things that are inconsistent with the desires of the people in the state as a whole and suffer no political consequence because of the gerrymandering.
It's why you see these out-of-touch anti-reproductive choice laws. It's why you see them doing all kinds of crazy things around immigration, a whole range of things that [are not] supported by the people of the state as a whole, but they suffer no political consequence. They're actually afraid of the very people who they say they want to represent. And that's the thing that really kind of gets me. They're not interested in a fair contest about ideas. They want to try to see who can control the pen and draw the line so that they can ensure the victories that they desperately need.
Marc: The people on the Republican side who were sort of in charge of Republican strategy, their whole thing was “We're going to pack because we want to guard against a future wave.” And so they gerrymandered and they created these mega Republican districts.
Don't you think in some sense this is a panic move? That this shows that they have become so unpopular, not even that strategy works?
Eric Holder: Sure, obviously. I think that given what they did before and the success that they had in 2011 and in 2012 and the enduring strength of the gerrymanders that they put in place, you would think that that would give them sufficient amounts of evil comfort. But they are now faced with the possibility that even with those gerrymanders, that they might not have a sufficient, they might not find sufficient support to maintain control of the House.
And so they're doing things that I think if you look at it in a politically savvy way are not necessarily wise, but they've got to roll the dice because of these falling poll numbers, these unpopular positions that they've taken, this wildly unpopular budget bill that as it gets examined by more and more people is likely to get even more unpopular, so that they are doing things that you would not expect to see that again goes against the norms, this notion of mid-cycle redistricting. Tom DeLay did it, I guess about 20 years or so ago. So there is some precedent for it in Texas, but that's not the way it's supposed to be. You're supposed to have a census and on the basis of the census, you do reapportionment and then you draw the districts.
And I think what people need to understand also about this gerrymandering thing is that they're going to try to do a whole range of things. It's just not a question of maintaining control of the House. They want to make sure that they have sufficient numbers of people there so they can continue to push the Trump agenda for the last two years of his presidency.
Marc: As you know, Alabama, the Republicans draw a map. It deprives Black voters of their rights under the Voting Rights Act. The map gets struck down. It goes to the Supreme Court, which agrees there are now two Black opportunity districts rather than one.
Similar pattern follows in Louisiana, except in Louisiana, a group of white voters then bring a racial gerrymandering challenge. And that case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hears the case. And then all of a sudden they announce they've held the case over for the next term.
Eric Holder: Yeah. What's that all about? It's not as if the facts are going to change, the cases, you've done things in the lower court so that the record was there, briefings had been done, you guys did a great job, oral argument. There's all of this and the court for whatever reason decides, well, we need to have this case re-argued. And that worries me a great deal, a great deal.
When Kavanaugh is saying things like, "Well, the protections of the Voting Rights Act should be time limited." Where is that coming from? Obviously, Clarence Thomas is doing his typical zealotry there. He and Alito, those are just lost votes. But I wonder whether or not they're going to have this re-argued so that they can find a way to get at the remaining strength of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2. And we'll have to see.
But I have to say that for the Court to go after Section 2 would be inconsistent with the decision that they made, I guess, just last year in the Alabama case where they made the determination that Section 2 was still viable, that the Alabama legislature had violated it, and that African Americans in Alabama deserve the right to have an opportunity to pick a representative of their choice.
With this Supreme Court, that I think is result-oriented, they may not be partisan, but they are certainly ideological and they are situationally committed to originalism and textualism unless it poses a problem to the result that they want to reach. I worry about why there was that decision to re-argue the case. |
Marc: In Shelby County, the justification we got was that it was an outdated formula about which states were covered. You may remember, the Chief said nothing in this opinion affects the nationwide coverage of Section 2, right? So presumably what I don't understand about this time-barred, this time thing that you hear people say: Congress in 2006 said Section 2 continued to be needed on a nationwide basis.
You can't say that somehow Congress was picking and choosing states or that it was somehow an outdated formula. It's the entire country. And of course, if they had not done the entire country, we'd be back into the Shelby County decision. So I'm curious how they think they get out of that box.
Eric Holder: I don't know. They have written their way out of following precedents before. They've overruled precedents without actually saying so. They've shown a commitment to an anti-democracy agenda, everything from Citizens United to Shelby County to Rucho. That's one of the things that I think will be held against the Roberts Court, 25 years, 50 years, 100 years from now, as people look back on the entirety of the jurisprudence of this era. And this focus on time limits. Again, I go back to the Kavanaugh thing. It's like you're focusing on the duration of the remedy as opposed to the persistence of the harm.
Marc: The fact that in 2015, both Alabama and Louisiana violated the Voting Rights Act would to me suggest that there is still a need for the Voting Rights Act.
Eric Holder: Right, right. Yeah, I'd like to put a time limit on things and say that racial discrimination in a whole range of things ends on January 1, 2026. Everybody out there who's racially conscious, racist, or whatever, understands that.
But that's not how the real world operates. And they made that determination when they said that Alabama had to redraw its lines. Louisiana had to redraw its lines. How they're going to work their way around that, what Chief Justice said in the Shelby County case, who knows? But I can't say that I've given up on this Court, but I'm very concerned about the way in which they reach the decisions that they reach. And I have to say that I think Justice Jackson's remarks, I guess it was last week or so when she said she's worried about our democracy. That's the thing that keeps her up at night. I think that's well founded, that is extremely well founded.
Marc: You have a long connection to the state of Alabama that gives you a unique perspective, both from a personal standpoint, a legal standpoint, and a historical standpoint. The state of Alabama was found to have violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They then defied a court order, they defied the U.S. Supreme Court, they defied the trial court, and engaged in activity that a very conservative three-judge panel has now said can only be understood as intentional racial discrimination.
Help the audience that may view redistricting through the prisms of do Democrats get a seat, do Republicans get a seat, which is not unimportant because it does relate to partisan power at the national level. But just explain to people what that through line looks like to you.
Eric Holder: Race for too long has permeated the way in which the government, state government in Alabama has interacted with its African-American citizens, with its Black citizenry.
My connection to Alabama goes back to 1963. I'm married to a wonderful woman, Sharon Malone, who was the sister of Vivian Malone, one of two Black students who integrated the University of Alabama in 1963 in June when George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door. Bobby Kennedy, John Kennedy, Nick Katzenbach at the Justice Department, federal marshals, the National Guard had to be used to get her into the University of Alabama.
She was the first Black graduate of the University of Alabama. Clearly a racial thing that the state government was using against its long-time African American residents, citizens. And what I saw in Alabama's reaction to the Supreme Court decision hearkened back to those days, nullification, all the other kinds of things that race-conscious white politicians in Alabama have done for time immemorial. And the notion that you would get a Supreme Court decision that says you got to redraw the lines and then go through all the things that they did in opposition to that was unbelievably disturbing and disturbingly familiar.
And so that is something that on a personal level I felt. I know my wife certainly, as I expressed surprise, she said, "How naive can you be? I mean, really?” Her perspective is this is what happens in Alabama. That's the experience of her family and it goes back to Alabama five, six, seven generations. People who were enslaved became free, we integrated the University of Alabama, but in her mind, this is what Alabama does. So, hopefully, the Supreme Court will stand by its precedent and finally tell people in Alabama that they've got to treat all of their citizens in an appropriate way, treat them in an equal way, give them the opportunity to participate fully in our democracy.
Marc: You have been framing, for as long as I've known you, the motivations around what the Republicans are doing as a pursuit of power. So I'm curious, as the first person to really articulate that what is going on in redistricting is not about, "I'd rather have my friend in office."
It's actually about something way more sinister than that. It is about the seizure or the control of power and the exercise of power. Talk to me a little bit about your theory about that so that people can hear it and then tell me where you think we are now that we are in month five, month six of the Trump administration.
Eric Holder: Yeah. Viewed separately, all of these things can be seen in a kind of nice, not nice, but not necessarily threatening way. There's redistricting here, there's voter suppression here, there's other things here.
But the reality is this is all part of a web that really goes to the acquisition and the use of power. That's the underlying thing to all of this. And these folks, too many folks in the Republican Party will do anything to acquire power and then to hold onto it using illegitimate means if necessary. And then to use that power in ways that propel their agenda, their view of what this nation should be like, how our society should be ordered. And they're willing to do anything, anything to hold onto that power. You gerrymander in 2011 and 2012, which gives you control of state legislatures. And then you put in place a whole range of things that are anti-labor, anti-choice, anti-voting rights. You frustrate people who try to do criminal justice reform. You keep in place your view of what society should look like. And once they get that power, they then don't want to give up.
There's an arrogance to this, that they somehow have a better sense of how America should be ordered. It's not a question of listening to the people and as we grow as a nation, as we hopefully become more familiar with each other and come up with ways in which we deal with current problems.
No, they want to hold on to their views, which I think too often mired in the past, in an America that probably never really existed as they think about it. But they do everything that they can to frustrate the will of the people so that their minority, and they are a minority. That's the thing that people need to understand. They are a minority. Trump might have gotten a few more votes, popular votes, than Kamala Harris.
But if you look at the sweep of the way in which they have won elections over the course of this past decade, and even before that, they are adherence to policies that are not supported by the American people, but they have the power, the power to frustrate the American people, or representatives, potential representatives of the American people who would do things more conducive to the political desires of the American people. So it's all about power.
And here's the other deal, progressives, liberals, Democrats, we've got to get comfortable with that notion of the acquisition and use of power. Doesn't mean that we become Republicans and do things in a way that I think are close to immoral and certainly wrong, but Franklin Roosevelt was not shy about acquiring and using power. Lyndon Johnson wasn't shy about acquiring and using power.
We need to look back, be conversant with our history and understand that if we want to have an America that's consistent with the desires of the American people, that's consistent with our founding ideals, there's really only one party that stands for that now, and that's the Democratic Party. And we have to be comfortable with doing all that we can legitimately to acquire and use power. Get comfortable with that.
Marc: You've been saying all along that they will do anything to acquire and use power. And that's why I think it's such an important point and such a place that you have been a leader on, thought leader on, activist leader on.
Eric Holder: One thing, Marc, I think we need to understand again, that through line, again, you acquire power and then you want to hold on to it. And so this administration says, "What are the kinds of things that we need to do to hold on to this power?" Alright, let's go after all the places where we might see opposition to the things we want to do. Let's go after law firms. Let's go after universities. Let's go after the media. Let's go after the civil service. Now, and you can have people who simply are not partisan in civil service, not partisan one way or other, that simply do their jobs, interpret statutes, and have enforcement priorities based on the facts and the law. That threatens them. We go after the civil service infrastructure. Again, those are not one-offs. These are all part of a plan, a comprehensive plan to hold on to power.
Marc: The second thing you tapped into is now everywhere, which is why aren't the Democrats willing to fight and exercise power? Now, I don't want to say I ascribe all of the negative feelings that people have there. I think that there are a lot of Democrats who are fighting.
But you have tapped into this notion that Democrats have to be comfortable with power. So why is it that you think Democrats are not comfortable with power? And how do you, Eric Holder, get them comfortable with power?
Eric Holder: Yeah, Democrats have to disabuse themselves of the notion that we are dealing here in a normal sphere. This is not normal. We're in a dangerous place where there are threats to our democracy. I think we get a little too comfortable with the notion that our democracy is just there and it will forever continue. And we need to understand the nature of the threat, the strength of the threat. And I think that would hopefully mobilize people.
David Rothkopf has written a piece on a Substack. He says, "25 steps that Democrats need to do in order to push back." It's a really good piece. Now you might not agree with all of the 25 steps, but I would urge everybody, look at that Substack. It's really kind of interesting. And there he's talking about using power. He's talking about using power in an appropriate way to save our democracy. But why? We have become a party, a side that for whatever reason, shies away from the use of power. I just don't understand.
That means we've got to look to put in place leaders who are going to be okay with acquiring and using power. And that may mean that we have to have generational change. Maybe that's part of it. Although I'm not a person who favors age tests. You can be 80 years old and be a rabble-rouser, effective. You got to do it on an individualized basis. And being young doesn't necessarily make you wise. There's a whole bunch of things that we have to look at.
But we need to have people who are willing to fight, who are willing to express themselves, who are willing to do things that take them out of their comfort zone, understanding the nature of the threat, you might have to do things that you didn't expect to have to do when you became a congressman, senator, a state legislator. But you've got to do those things if we want to win this existential fight. And that's what this is.
This is an existential fight. And if you thought before January of this year, I was banging at the moon or being hyperbolic, you can't look me in the eye now and say that six months into this administration, that anything I'm saying about the existential threat and the existential nature of this threat is somehow unfounded. It's clear and likely to get even worse over the course of these next few months.
Marc: I 100% agree with you and you are one of the big fighters. You are one of the heroes of this day. When so many people are backing away and not willing to step forward, you are willing to use your voice, use your own power and also to help inspire Democrats and to fight with Democrats, fight for Democrats and for the American people in court. I am proud to be by your side in those fights and I want to thank you for joining me today.
|
Enjoyed this written version of my conversation with Eric Holder? We’re always trying new ways of delivering exclusive content to our members. Upgrade so you always get premium newsletters, invites to members-only events and more. |
|
Democracy Docket, LLC 250 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 400 Washington, D.C., 20009 |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.