AG Eric Holder to Step Down

[angus]

no one's missing any points. I hear you, and you hear me, and we disagree.

There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy,
There's only you and me and we just disagree.

[Free Bird]

People. Defending. Holder.


I have no words. I am convinced that if The Legion of Doom had D's after their names, some here would vote for them.

[bedstuy]

You're missing the point.

No, no one's missing any points. I hear you, and you hear me, and we disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're not disagreeing about the DOJ needing more resources, but why should that stop any criticism? A lot of these cases actually are slam dunks, because they left a paper trail (e.g. we have emails of UBS people blatantly offering each other money for rigging LIBOR). It actually isn't so hard to set an example. What I'm arguing is that even though a convicted firm may change, the penalties are so mediocre that other firms who don't have these restrictions can decide to commit this fraud in the future, and that the individuals themselves will continue to do what they always do. That is the problem I'm getting at. The penalty the DOJ gives is a speed bump on the way to more money. It costs the government a whole lot more time and money to clean up the aftermath of a financial crisis than it does arguing in court.

What I'm arguing is that we need to make the penalties real and tangible to the individuals committing the crimes, and I'm saying that Holder missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reign in white collar crime that contributed to a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis. The vibe I'm getting from your arguments is that since we don't know if they'll win, they should just take the easy way out that accomplishes something on paper for one firms but changes nothing in practice in the whole corrupt industry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah God forbid we should question the actions of our government officials, the ones who are specifically tasked with protecting the public, and propose another solution. It's not like I'm the only one here, like those two U.S. Senators and multiple media outlets asking "WTF???" at what Holder has done/left undone. My bad.

You're just making these assumptions based on nothing as far as I can tell.  I understand the public outrage and grandstanding about this issue.  But, there's no real contradiction between using these alternative tactics and being tough on Wall Street.  After all, most of what we're talking about here is not securities fraud or insider trading.  That's handled by the SEC for the most part.  I would venture to guess most of these NPA/DPA situations are FCPA cases.  Those are important cases, but they're not really tied to financial crises. 

And, why are we assuming that business people are unaffected by potential billion dollar fines to their corporations and being forced to hire independent auditing teams for years into the future to prevent future crimes?  Sure, if you send Lloyd Blankfein to Sing Sing, that would be cool.  But, officers and the boards of these corporations do care about losing billions of dollars from their bottom line.

[nolesfan2011]

corrupt and awful, good riddance, he did a terrible job.

[angus]

Anyone catch the WSJ Editorial report on Fox News this afternoon?  Sure enough, Eric Holder's tenure as AG came up.  They were all impugning him, Paul Gigot, Dorothy Rabinowitz, Dan Henninger, and the other guy, but Dorothy Rabinowitz was downright frothy about it.  Hapless, cowardly, radical, and the most racially polarizing AG ever, she called him.  I think it's safe to say that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal isn't shedding many tears over his departure.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anyone catch the WSJ Editorial report on Fox News this afternoon?  Sure enough, Eric Holder's tenure as AG came up.  They were all impugning him, Paul Gigot, Dorothy Rabinowitz, Dan Henninger, and the other guy, but Dorothy Rabinowitz was downright frothy about it.  Hapless, cowardly, radical, and the most racially polarizing AG ever, she called him.  I think it's safe to say that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal isn't shedding many tears over his departure.

Cowardly and radical? You're suppose to pick only one of those. Coward is obviously the correct answer.

[angus]

I guess the radical part was when he told the New York Times that an attorney general does not have to enforce any law with which he disagrees.

[bedstuy]

I guess the radical part was when he told the New York Times that an attorney general does not have to enforce any law with which he disagrees.

What did Holder say that you're translating to that statement?  I'm sure you're misunderstanding what he said.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I guess the radical part was when he told the New York Times that an attorney general does not have to enforce any law with which he disagrees.

What did Holder say that you're translating to that statement?  I'm sure you're misunderstanding what he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/us/holder-says-state-attorneys-general-dont-have-to-defend-gay-marriage-bans.html?_r=1#

[Rockefeller GOP]

Good riddance.

[bedstuy]

I guess the radical part was when he told the New York Times that an attorney general does not have to enforce any law with which he disagrees.

What did Holder say that you're translating to that statement?  I'm sure you're misunderstanding what he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/us/holder-says-state-attorneys-general-dont-have-to-defend-gay-marriage-bans.html?_r=1#

OK.  That's an misunderstanding on your part.  Arguing a case in court is not enforcing a law or obeying a law.  It's representing the legal opinion of the government.  There's no law or commandment that the government needs to argue that every law is Constitutional facially or as applied to any particular situation. 

[angus]

Anything is possible, but he was very clear on ways to curb bans on gay marriage in the article Grumps posted, and that's what he was talking to NYT reporters about.  Rabinowitz actually pointed out several others--selective enforcement of voter intimidation, for example, and I can't remember the rest--but there may be some legal subtlety that I'm not appreciating.  

I assume that the AG takes the same oath of office as other public officials, and I assume that his argument is that some cases involve constitutional issues, or that the laws contradict higher laws.  I'm not saying that I agree with all the nation's laws either, but whether you agree with the laws, it seems to me that he is willing pick the ones he likes to defend.  

[bedstuy]

Anything is possible, but he was very clear on ways to curb bans on gay marriage in the article Grumps posted, and that's what he was talking to NYT reporters about.  Rabinowitz actually pointed out several others--selective enforcement of voter intimidation, for example, and I can't remember the rest--but there may be some legal subtlety that I'm not appreciating.  

I assume that the AG takes the same oath of office as other public officials, and I assume that his argument is that some cases involve constitutional issues, or that the laws contradict higher laws.  I'm not saying that I agree with all the nation's laws either, but whether you agree with the laws, it seems to me that he is willing pick the ones he likes to defend.  

Well, you're conflating two issues: Selective enforcement and making arguments in court. 

Selective enforcement of laws sounds horrible, sure, but just think about it this way.  The government could never prosecute 100% of the cases of illegal activity.  They couldn't prosecute 50%.  So, the government needs to make judgements about where their resources go in law enforcement.  If you're angry that Holder didn't spend time prosecuting "The New Black Panthers" or whatever fake voter intimidation concerns Fox news has, I just have to disagree.  But, that's just what this is, a disagreement about policy, it's not corruption or misconduct just because the DOJ has different priorities than you do.

On making arguments in court, I just see the DOJ as the law firm for the US government.  Does a law firm always take every case to court and argue that their side is in the right on every legal and factual question?  Of course not.  A law firm looks at the strength of their clients' case, in this situation the US government, and they make a decision from there.  If they are clearly in the wrong, a law firm is going to try to settle a case or tell their client to take a plea bargain.  So, here if our government sees they're clearly in the wrong, they should have the discretion to refuse to defend certain laws.

[RogueBeaver]

Ruemmler has taken her name out of contention, per AP. WH hasn't decided whether to nominate Holder's successor in the lame duck or new year.