AG Eric Holder to Step Down

[Lief 🗽]

lol they don't even try to hide their racism.

Hopefully Obama nominates another similarly awesome person of color to keep the pressure up on the racists.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Thank God. Can we really do any worse than him (unless we brought back Mitchell Palmer from the grave or Janet Reno)?

Or Alberto Gonzales. Or John Ashcroft. Or Edwin Meese.

Seriously, it's impossible to hold the position of Attorney General and not be hated. The #1 job of the office is to uphold laws your political opposition hates (and therefore blame you) and uphold laws your own party hates but can't repeal (and therefore blame you).

We are certainly going to do worse the Eric Holder because the next Attorney General of the United States will hold the office of Attorney General of the United States, a HP by definition. It's a punching bag of a job, which is why all of them never stay the full Presidency.

You are right, and I can't believe I forgot Alberto Gonzales and Ashcroft for my list .

[Lambsbread]

Ka-ma-la!

[Paul Kemp]

lol they don't even try to hide their racism.

It's actually quite incredible.

[King]

I'm actually impressed with the FOX clip. They actually had one of the stock blondes play a devil's advocate in favor of Holder.

[Badger]

Unfortunately, he is a militant racist, who used the full extent of his powers to charge non-black Americans with hate crimes or undermine the notion of jury by peers by filing federal charges whenever possible.

Holder staked a huge part of his reputation on prosecuting George Zimmerman, the cunning "murder" who lets himself be beaten mercilessly so he can execute his premeditated crimes with impunity.

Holder almost never used his power judiciously when addressing matters of violent crime with a perceived racial component. His reign as AG should never have happened.

What on earth are you basing this on?? First off, Zimmerman was ONLY prosecuted by the State of Florida. He was NOT prosecuted by the DOJ, nor does it appear he will be. Beyond that clear error, what is your basis for such a silly charge? Your sympathy for Hammerskins and other violent white power groups being prosecuted for hate crimes is disturbing, as is your misconception that black seperatist groups aren't federally prosecuted regularly.

I'm not sure which is ultimately the most disturbing: That you're talking out your backside even moreso than even usual, or that among ALL the criticisms one could make of Holder's performance as AG you chose this.

[King]

AD is a known racist. I recall a post where he said he believed the data suggests most gays are black as a reason why he is anti-gay rights.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fox Host: Holder Ran The DOJ 'Much Like The Black Panthers Would'

Andrea Tantaros gets 5 points for excessive hyperbole.

[bedstuy]

Does anyone have a criticism of Eric Holder that doesn't betray the fact that they have no idea what the DOJ does?  Does FOX think both that the DOJ has its own drones piloted around by a bunch of flabby lawyers in DC?  Does FOX think all terrorists in US custody should be denied any due process and their right to a fair trial?  And, how do you make both criticisms at the same time with a straight face?

And, remember, before Eric Holder we had a DOJ under Gonzo that was basically an arm of the RNC and fired people because they weren't prosecuting enough Democrats and charging enough people with voting fraud.  I guess Republicans are just irate that a black man would have the audacity to protect voting rights and competently run the biggest law firm in America. 

That's the real problem here.  The GOP wants the government enforcing neo-Jim Crow, stripping away voting rights, keeping blacks in prison for non-violent drug crimes and standing idly by while Wall Street rips off the country. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As loathe as I am to defend AD, while Holder did not press charges against Zimmerman, he did for several months after the Florida acquittal keep open the possibility of filing a Federal hate crime charge. Not that Holder has been in any way unusual in his use of such statutes.  That incidentally is one reason I'm not fond of hate crime laws.  Their use is often contemplated as a way to get around double jeopardy when people think someone has been wrongfully found not guilty.

[New_Conservative]

A glorious day for the American Republic.  One less Progressive in Washington.  

[Mordecai]

He's been wanting out since 2011 so it's not surprising he'd choose now to retire. I hope Obama finds a good replacement for him, one that can really stick it to those knuckleheads in Congress.

Thank God. Can we really do any worse than him (unless we brought back Mitchell Palmer from the grave or Janet Reno)?

Well, there were those guys who legalized torture and wiretapping under Bush, but they were white so I'm guessing that they don't count...

[Maxwell]

Glad to see him go, though he was very good on Ferguson. I can't say I'd be excited for anyone else Obama picks (whether its Deval Patrick, Sheldon Whitehouse, or someone else)

[Cory]

He has good marijuana politics. Unfortunately, he is a militant racist, who used the full extent of his powers to charge non-black Americans with hate crimes or undermine the notion of jury by peers by filing federal charges whenever possible.

Holder staked a huge part of his reputation on prosecuting George Zimmerman, the cunning "murder" who lets himself be beaten mercilessly so he can execute his premeditated crimes with impunity.

Holder almost never used his power judiciously when addressing matters of violent crime with a perceived racial component. His reign as AG should never have happened.

Ugh. Just..... ugh. Just stop it.

[Yank2133]

Thank God. Can we really do any worse than him (unless we brought back Mitchell Palmer from the grave or Janet Reno)?

Or Alberto Gonzales. Or John Ashcroft. Or Edwin Meese.

Seriously, it's impossible to hold the position of Attorney General and not be hated. The #1 job of the office is to uphold laws your political opposition hates (and therefore blame you) and uphold laws your own party hates but can't repeal (and therefore blame you).

We are certainly going to do worse the Eric Holder because the next Attorney General of the United States will hold the office of Attorney General of the United States, a HP by definition. It's a punching bag of a job, which is why all of them never stay the full Presidency.

Yeah, AG is the most thankless job in the cabinet. I can't think of one AG who was actually popular when they were in office, even RFK was loathed as Attorney General under JFK.

[AggregateDemand]

AD is a known racist. I recall a post where he said he believed the data suggests most gays are black as a reason why he is anti-gay rights.

I said that liberals make fun of conservative states for problems like infant-death rates or watching gay porn, two things that are correlated to minority populations. In other words, liberals are opportunistic and unafraid of making racist claims, if they feel it will give them a political edge.

[bedstuy]

Ah yes, such a great Attorney General, the one who came up with "collateral consequences" back in 1999 that helped lead to the financial crisis in 2008.

Yes, he's simply wonderful isn't he? After the Arthur Anderson accounting scandal and 28,000 lost jobs, Holder said the DOJ should take into account how many jobs would be lost, how markets would react, how bad the financial impact of prosecuting would be, etc. when prosecuting a corporation, and this has meant that instead of actually prosecuting companies and putting white collar criminals in jail, the government now settles with a small fine and the industry and criminals get off scot-free.

Here's the best part of this all: when taking into account the "collateral consequences" of prosecuting and destroying a Wall Street firm, who does the government go to for the assessment? Um, that would be Wall Street's own firms. With the guidance and blessing of Eric Holder, the government asks Wall Street about Wall Street before prosecuting Wall Street.

Then Holder goes into private practice defending companies, and when he becomes Attorney General the DOJ increasingly turns to settlements instead of prosecution (regulatory surrender, people). Wanna know why Obama has been such a disappointment when it comes to cracking down on white collar crime? Wanna know why so few financial firms have had the book thrown at them for their crimes? Wanna know why no one's in jail for the 2008 crisis?

You can thank Eric Holder for that, as well as Tim Geithner.

Good f**king riddance. Too bad they'll never get theirs.

That's insane, just insane.  You have no idea what you're talking about. 

Using those agreements is about using resources wisely and getting corporations to obey the law.  It's not a matter of not prosecuting 10 corporations and instead letting 10 corporations off the hook.  It's about instead of spending 4 years prosecuting 1 corporation and spending millions and millions of dollars, going after 25 corporations and getting them to correct their behavior, pay significant fines and implement new procedures to avoid criminal behavior.  If anything Holder's DOJ legacy is about making the DOJ significantly more active in policing Wall Street.

[eric82oslo]

Ah yes, such a great Attorney General, the one who came up with "collateral consequences" back in 1999 that helped lead to the financial crisis in 2008.

Yes, he's simply wonderful isn't he? After the Arthur Anderson accounting scandal and 28,000 lost jobs, Holder said the DOJ should take into account how many jobs would be lost, how markets would react, how bad the financial impact of prosecuting would be, etc. when prosecuting a corporation, and this has meant that instead of actually prosecuting companies and putting white collar criminals in jail, the government now settles with a small fine and the industry and criminals get off scot-free.

Giving me the great idea of instituting Elisabeth Warren into the office. She's the boldest person the world has seen for quite some time, so she should be able to effect some serious change there unless some third/fourth/second party obstructs her.

[bedstuy]

Ah yes, such a great Attorney General, the one who came up with "collateral consequences" back in 1999 that helped lead to the financial crisis in 2008.

That's insane, just insane.  You have no idea what you're talking about. 

Using those agreements is about using resources wisely and getting corporations to obey the law.  It's not a matter of not prosecuting 10 corporations and instead letting 10 corporations off the hook.  It's about instead of spending 4 years prosecuting 1 corporation and spending millions and millions of dollars, going after 25 corporations and getting them to correct their behavior, pay significant fines and implement new procedures to avoid criminal behavior.  If anything Holder's DOJ legacy is about making the DOJ significantly more active in policing Wall Street.

Why will corporations obey the law when the penalty is merely a tiny fine? If anything, that encourages them, because it puts a price on committing the crime and allowing them to assess the financial risks and gains of doing shady things. It becomes a cost of doing business.

Yes, resources for prosecuting white collar crimes are sorely lacking (especially when compared to how much we throw at poor people of color in our major cities for trivial offenses), but saying that giving companies that reap tens of billions in profits per year a fine that amounts to a few hours of revenue is going to "make them obey the law" is ridiculous. HSBC sponsored terrorism, laundered money, washed money for terrorists, dealt with sanctioned countries, and helped tax cheats. HSBC was fined $1.9 billion in 2012, and it made over $22 billion per year. That's nothing to the executives who made the bank billions in illegal transactions, and none of whom went to prison or got anything their record. UBS was fined $1.5 billion for the LIBOR scandal and didn't even have to admit anything. Where is the incentive to "obey the law" here???

"Significantly more active in policing Wall Street"? No, the goal has been to make examples of small banks (see: Abacus Savings Bank), while not losing big cases. In Obama's first term, a huge premium was placed on not losing high-profile cases (especially after the fiasco that was the Ted Stevens trial). It's really disappointing how the DOJ seized up at the worst possible time, when they were faced with massive financial fraud. Under Holder, the DOJ accelerated the sorting of the world into arrestable and non-arrestable cases. Politically connected banks and financial institutions get to walk, while the government makes examples of small banks.

Holder himself went on Frontline and talked about it in January 2013, and Senators Chuck Grassley and Sherrod Brown were so horrified by this that they got together and demanded an explanation, and Holder gave a speech in front of the Senate in March 2013 and explained that with collateral consequences, the potential negative impacts of prosecuting make it worth not doing anything . Barron's even wrote about this stuff. Sure, destroying a big company may have repercussions, but not prosecuting individuals who can hide behind their companies only encourages this behavior.

Holder doesn't give a crap about policing Wall Street. He was once a private corporate lawyer at Covington & Burling for many of the same banks we now hate.

Does this sound insane? Yes, it does and it should. But it's the truth. I'm not into deranged conspiracy theories about money controlling our government, but its influence is undeniable. There is no real penalty for being a white collar criminal on Wall Street. Holder's tenure has been a major miss of opportunity to take a big swing at white collar crime. And he doesn't care!

Giving me the great idea of instituting Elisabeth Warren into the office.

^^^ He gets it.

1.  Even a large bank is going to notice a billion dollar plus fine.  I think that's self-evident. 

2.  An NPA always includes a mandatory compliance system to prevent misdeeds in the future.  That system can ferret out future violations and keep corporations to their commitments to improve their corporate culture.  Plus, you can include conditions that create huge consequences for repeat offenders like debarment.

3.  I agree that we don't police Wall Street enough.  But, what is Holder supposed to do?   He can't change the statutes and he can't increase his total budget.  It's a question of resources and making strategic decisions.  Do you focus all your attention on getting scalps or do you concentrate on volume? 

4.  Tons of lawyers work for both the government and in private practice.  That's what lawyers do, represent people whether they're banks or murderers.  That doesn't make them pro-bank or pro-murder necessarily. 

5.  You need to think about the whole system of business crime in this country.  It's actually extremely difficult to prosecute these corporations.  Remember, these are incredibly complex financial transactions that Wall Street experts often barely understand.  Lawyers don't understand finance or accounting or math either, not to mention a jury.  So, it's not nearly as simple as you think.  I would agree that we need to fund our business crime prosecution far more and change the law so these banks are really being policed.  But, laying this whole mess at Holder's feet is extremely naive.

[bedstuy]

I don't think you appreciate how often it becomes a choice between using an NPA and doing nothing, as  opposed to a choice between winning a conviction and doing an NPA.  Would you rather we had 1 more criminal conviction at the expense of 100 NPA?  It's easy to just say, send the crooks to prison, but it's not that easy in practice and you need to make strategic decisions. 

[bedstuy]

I don't think you appreciate how often it becomes a choice between using an NPA and doing nothing, as opposed to a choice between winning a conviction and doing an NPA.  Would you rather we had 1 more criminal conviction at the expense of 100 NPA?  It's easy to just say, send the crooks to prison, but it's not that easy in practice and you need to make strategic decisions.  

Well when you create that kind of dichotomy with that ratio, of course I'm going to take the 100 NPA.

Right, so it's a strategic decision about how you split up resources.  How the DOJ makes those decisions is complicated, how are you educated enough to second-guess those decisions?

[Person Man]

Clark brings up good points about why Holder did so little about so much. Not to sound naive but would any other credible person have actually done any more? Of course no one is blaming Holder in full for the lack of prosecution from it but it just seems irresponsible to complain about something going poorly with no alternative. Perhaps what  Holder did was the best possible scenario.

 There could be parallels drawn between this and the passage and implementation of Obamacare. Should we have pushed for the original bill and nuked it through? Maybe the bill would have been more effective, maybe it would have been something that would be immediately repealed by a conservative supermajority in 2013. Maybe nothing more than "chipping away" at health care reform should have been passed but that didn't stop Clinton from being a lame duck and by doing absolutely nothing, we would have been half way to half the hospitals in this country either being failing or being "bailed out".

[bedstuy]

I don't think you appreciate how often it becomes a choice between using an NPA and doing nothing, as opposed to a choice between winning a conviction and doing an NPA.  Would you rather we had 1 more criminal conviction at the expense of 100 NPA?  It's easy to just say, send the crooks to prison, but it's not that easy in practice and you need to make strategic decisions.  

Well when you create that kind of dichotomy with that ratio, of course I'm going to take the 100 NPA.

Right, so it's a strategic decision about how you split up resources.  How the DOJ makes those decisions is complicated, how are you educated enough to second-guess those decisions?

Because we have different thoughts about what the outcome should be? More education doesn't mean someone is "right". There's no right or wrong answer, I'm arguing that keeping on the same path might not be the most effective way to deter future crimes.

You're missing the point.  You aren't examining each potential case and evaluating the resources of the DOJ.  It's easy to say, "get more people convicted!"  It's harder to actually achieve it, especially when you're juggling your resources and you have a variety of different goals.  Maybe you're right, I think that's completely possible.  But, it's also possible that your way would lead to the DOJ ending up losing a lot of cases, tying up their resources fighting with the world's best lawyers who work for white shoe NYC firms and actually hurting their cause.  If it's a choice between that and winning billions in settlements and forcing firms to change their behavior in the future, doesn't it seem at least possible that DOJ is making the best of their situation?

So, I would just be a little less strident in proclaiming that the DOJ is making bad decisions.

[AggregateDemand]

What on earth are you basing this on?? First off, Zimmerman was ONLY prosecuted by the State of Florida. He was NOT prosecuted by the DOJ, nor does it appear he will be. Beyond that clear error, what is your basis for such a silly charge? Your sympathy for Hammerskins and other violent white power groups being prosecuted for hate crimes is disturbing, as is your misconception that black seperatist groups aren't federally prosecuted regularly.

I'm not sure which is ultimately the most disturbing: That you're talking out your backside even moreso than even usual, or that among ALL the criticisms one could make of Holder's performance as AG you chose this.

I didn't say he filed federal charges in the Zimmerman case, though he did threaten after the fact so the claim wouldn't be far fetched.

If Holder went to Florida to push prosecutors to file murder charges that he knew would never stick, I could be wrong about his malice towards Zimmerman. What are the odds of Holder being a closet-do-gooder?

The probe is on-going so Holder is still wasting his time and our money. We have serious crimes to prosecute. The Zimmerman case is not critical to the survival of the country.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The probe is on-going so Holder is still wasting his time and our money. We have serious crimes to prosecute. The Zimmerman case is not critical to the survival of the country.

Indeed. The survival of the country is a lost cause as long as dunderheads like you continue to thrive.