Why the Justice Dept under Holder has been a failure

[cali]

Here are a few of the more egregious examples of the DoJ failing the American people and its mission.

1) The DoJ under Holder refused to prosecute anyone for torture. Holder had no problem prosecuting a CIA agent who leaked the name of a torturer

Less than two months after the Justice Department announced that it would not charge Central Intelligence Agency officials who participated in the brutal interrogation of detainees during the Bush administration, prosecutors on Tuesday won the conviction of a former C.I.A. counterterrorism operative who told a reporter the name of a covert C.I.A. officer involved in the program.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/former-cia-officer-pleads-guilty-in-leak-case.html?_r=0

2) The Justice Department's war on medical marijuana dispensaries.

In the latest act in the ongoing drama pitting federal drug laws against state legislation permitting the sale of marijuana, a U.S. attorney is threatening the landlords housing medical marijuana dispensaries with 40 years in federal prison. After ballot measures legalizing the sale and possession of recreational pot use passed in Colorado and Washington state, we wondered whether Obama’s second term would see the beginning of the end of the federal war on drugs.

But as the San Jose crackdown, among others, suggests, the Justice Department will not be backing down. In January, Southern California medical marijuana dispensary operator Aaron Sandusky was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for running a business deemed legal in his state since California legalized marijuana for qualified patients, caregivers and collectives in 1996 and 2003. Now, as the East Bay Express reported, “a new round of actions against lawful medical cannabis dispensaries in the South Bay” has begun following crackdowns in 2011:

Landlords are receiving threatening letters from US Attorney Melinda Haag, warning of forty-year-prison sentences if landlords do not evict their dispensary tenants…

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/feds_threaten_medical_pot_dispensaries_with_40_year_sentences/

3) The leak prosecutions

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that he doesn’t want the Obama administration’s leak prosecutions “to be his legacy.” But he has also trumpeted the cases—six and counting—in response to criticism from Senate Republicans. “We have tried more leak cases—brought more leak cases during the course of this administration than any other administration,” Holder said before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year.

This shouldn’t be a source of pride, even the fake point-scoring kind. In light of the Justice Department’s outrageously broad grab of the phone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press, the administration’s unprecedented criminalizing of leaks has become embarrassing. This is not what Obama’s supporters thought they were getting. Obama the candidate strongly supported civil liberties and protections for whistle-blowers. Obama the president risks making government intrusion into the investigative work of the press a galling part of his legacy.

<snip>

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/05/obama_s_justice_department_holder_s_leak_investigations_are_outrageous_and.html

[geek tragedy]

1. Sure, if one is willing to consider only the bad things and insists

on ignoring the positive aspects, any insitution or person will be an ipso facto failure.

[cali]

4. those are pretty important issues. If you'd care to list the successes

of the DoJ under Holder, feel free to do so.

[geek tragedy]

7. Voting rights, refusing to defend DOMA, challenging racist immigration laws,

you know, civil rights stuff that affects primarily people of color and other oppressed minorities.

As opposed to the "prosecute the bastards but spare pot smokers" stuff that is of concern primarily to caucasian internet commenters for whom civil rights are an issue they read about in the news rather than an every day issue.

[Doctor_J]

23. Voting rights?

Did they make some arrests that I didn't hear about?

[geek tragedy]

27. No, they challenged/blocked efforts to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos

Especially voter ID laws.

That's what you missed. Blacks and Latinos did not miss it.

Not his fault you weren't paying attention and that such issues don't affect you personally.

[Gothmog]

58. Holder has been very effective in protecting voting rights and effective on redistricting issues

I live in Texas. Without Holder and the DOJ, Texas would have been subject to a GOP voter suppression law where people with Concealed Carry licenses could vote but students with student IDs could not. Holder and the DOJ were very effective in protecting voters from this law.

In addition, the DOJ took the State of Texas to court on the redistricting efforts of the Texas GOP and convinced a three judge panel that the Texas GOP engaged in intentional discrimination with respect to the redistricting. The DOJ did a great job in both of these cases.

[kelliekat44]

93. This DOJ has been VERY effective. Check their record. They are quiet about what they do,

All kinds of fraud against the government has been uncovered, several supremists' criminal activities and groups have been stopped, there are many more but you won't hear about it in the news. Illegal border crossings, Medicare fraud, ...just check the record.

[nikto]

67. The AG failed there too.

It has been estimated that as many as 5 million minority, military and poor voters may have
had their votes nullified.

That's a FAIL.

When it comes to dealing with real injustice, Holder's JD cannot achieve erection,
cannot consummate justice.

Except with medical cannabis.

[Gothmog]

96. Read the report

The 5 million voter number is from a Brennan Center Report that predicted that up to 5 million voters could be affected by restrictive voter laws http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voting-law-changes-2012

Ahead of the 2012 elections, a wave of legislation tightening restrictions on voting has suddenly swept across the country. More than 5 million Americans could be affected by the new rules already put in place this year — a number larger than the margin of victory in two of the last three presidential elections.

The DOJ was directly able to block voter id laws from going into effect in Texas and South Carolina pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and helped in other states. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were able to block these laws on state ground basis but the DOJ was prepared to bring Section 2 lawsuits challenging these voter id laws.

Look, I ran my county's voter protection operation and have been a speaker at a couple of town halls on the Texas voter suppression/ voter id law. I have read all of the material published by the Brennan Center on this issue and your statement about 5 million voters being disenfranchised is wrong. Without the efforts of the Department of Justice and AG Holder, Texas would have been subject to SB 14 which would have disenfranchised a large number of poor, minority and old voters.

In addition, the DOJ sued the State of Texas over the redistricting and convinced a court to rule that the Texas republicans engaged in intentional discrimination in their redistricting bill. Again, I followed this case very closely and the DOJ under AG Holder did a very good job in this trial.

These efforts are even more impressive given the fact that the DOJ's voting right section was gutted by the Bushies. Idiots like Christian Adams (the former DOJ attorney who made a bid deal about the New Black Panther case) were illegally hired and placed in that section. AG Holder and Tom Perez had to rebuild this section and I can tell you that they did a great job.

[leftyohiolib]

35. yea go talk to the people in floriduh about voting rights

[Gothmog]

97. Only five or so counties in Florida are covered by Section 5 of the VRA

Only a handful of counties in Florida are covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Despite this limitation, the DOJ was able to negotiate and implement some changes that increased the number of hours of early voting in Florida over what the State had proposed. http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/two_more_victories_for_voting_rights

Additionally, Florida agreed to expand early voting hours for five counties covered by the Voting Rights Act, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) did not object to this new plan. Because of a history of discrimination, the counties are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, meaning that all election law changes must be approved before going into effect. In 2011, the Republican-controlled legislature reduced the early voting period from 96 mandatory hours to a minimum of 48 hours. A panel of federal judges refused to preclear the early voting cuts, noting that minority voters would be especially affected by the changes “because they disproportionately use early in-person voting.”

Consequently, in its new plan, the state agreed that the five counties must return to offering 96 hours of voting over eight days, which is the maximum allowed under the law. This significant victory for voters ensures that Section 5 counties will enjoy the same early voting hours that were available in 2008.

This week’s victories in Florida are part of a national trend of expanding voting rights across the country. In 2012, voting rights advocates have had increased success defending the fundamental right to vote. Courtrooms across the country—in states like Florida, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin—have enjoined or struck down restrictive laws that violate the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Constitution, or state constitutions. It is expected that courts across the country will continue to follow suit and rule in favor of protecting and expanding the right to vote through Election Day and beyond.

The DOJ did help in the counties in Florida that were subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

[Number23]

87. I think I love you. Just a little bit.

[G_j]

5. IMHO

refusing to prosecute for torture is about as serious as it gets.

[geek tragedy]

11. There's certainly an argument for prosecuting the torturers

and those who enabled it from the prior administration.

But the very significant obstacles/reasons why they would not launch such prosecutions are given virtually no consideration.

[tblue]

43. Obstacles? You mean politics?

Damn the politics. This is so much more important. My hubby said the same thing: "It would have wasted time. It would have failed."

Maybe. It may have resulted in no versict. It might have had a huge political price. But that doesn't mean it wasn't the exact right thing to do. A great leader would do it and take the heat because it was the best thing for the country. Even if he/she failed and even if there was a personal political cost. The cost of not doing it is much greater and much more damaging than anybody's political career.

[geek tragedy]

51. Obstacles:

1) Legal--the John Yoo/AG the AG letters gave a lot of wrongdoers legal cover. If the DoJ under one administration tells someone "yes this is legal" then it's going to be damned near impossible to convict them when the next DoJ disagrees with that.

The DoJ does not and should not bring cases it expects to lose.

2) Political--there is by necessity a very strong unwritten rule that members of an incoming administration not criminally prosecute the prior administration. If that 'rule' gets breached, then the reality would be that every administration would prosecute the prior one if of a different party. If Obama prosecutes Bush officials, then yes the next time there's a Republican in the WH his office is going to prosecute Obama officials, no matter how flimsy the pretext. And the next time, it'll be us prosecuting them on whatever excuse we could trump up (and yes we would absolutely do so). Pretty soon the DoJ criminal division would be an extension of the Oval Office--something Rove tried to achieve.

[quakerboy]

64. Obstacles?

1) so if you can get any doj lawyer to cover your arse, you are good to do whatever you want, regardless of what the law may actually be?
when the law is broken, someone broke it. If the people who did the actions are immune due to what a doj lawyer wrote, then presumeably that doj lawyer, at the least, is then on the hook. Start somewhere and get it done

2) good. Past administrations should be open to prosecution. Put it all out and let the law sort it out. Bring the scandal. Lets go all the way back. Reagan. Nixon. Clinton. Put them all under the microscope and look for legal wrongdoing. And put all future administrations on notice that when they break the law, they also will be prosecuted. Bring it.

[cui bono]

75. +1. As you said, bring it. The winners of that will be democracy and the people. n/t

[cui bono]

69. +1 - If you let the GOP stop you from doing the right thing, they've completely won. n/t

[tblue]

25. The damage that decision caused

is incalculable. We will be under that cloud for generations. It was ESSENTIAL to right that wrong as soon as we got the Bushies out of power. Now, since we didn't, the USA has been redefined as a rogue state and an arrogant empire that does indeed torture (and detain people without trial, which is another topic but it signifies more of the same).

[bvar22]

78. When the cops pull you over for speeding,

....do you tell the cops about all the stuff you did right that day?

Have you ever been audited by the IRS?
Did you try that strategy with them?

How did that work for ya?

Truth is,
most of us are judged by the stuff we get WRONG.

[geek tragedy]

80. Any rational employer focuses on the overall efforts and contribution

of the employee.

True, there are some employers who only talk about the bad things employees do, and ignore the good things those employees do.

Such owners are invariably nightmares to work for and ineffective managers.

[Scuba]

2. It hasn't been a failure ...

... it's done far worse than just failing.

[ProSense]

3. Gee

"Why the Justice Dept under Holder has been a failure"

...thanks for your opinon.

Why wasn't everyone who is outraged now outraged at the launch of the leak investigation?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022846070

Holder Stands Up for the Right to Vote

Today’s excellent New York Times editorial rightfully praises Attorney General Eric Holder’s efforts this week to highlight the sanctity of the right to vote in America. In his speech from the Lyndon Baines Johnson presidential library in Austin, Texas, the attorney general said, “The right to vote is not only the cornerstone of our system of government — it is the lifeblood of our democracy. And no force has proved more powerful — or more integral to the success of the great American experiment — than efforts to expand the franchise.”

But this year, we’ve seen a coordinated effort to shrink our democracy and push voters out of the electorate as legislatures across the country have passed laws that will make it harder for Americans – particularly African-Americans, the elderly, students and people with disabilities – to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot. The Department of Justice plays a critical role in fighting back against these voter suppression laws. The agency can challenge discriminatory voting laws and stop them from going into effect.

Take action and tell Attorney General Holder you agree with his efforts to protect the right to vote.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/holder-stands-right-vote

Five Things To Know About The Republican Witchhunt Against Attorney General Holder
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002806499

[cali]

9. Yes, indeed, Emily Bazelon is such a republican mouthpiece

and Jane Mayer and many others.

Yes, Holder has fought voter suppression laws and that's a good thing, but it doesn't nullify the fact that he's done nothing about torture but prosecute the whistle blower; he's done nothing about prosecuting the banksters. In fact he made this incredible statement just recently: "the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them (because) if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy."

He's been weak as all get out on any kind of corporate malfeasance.

[LondonReign2]

15. So? The gun running thing was nonsense, and Holder protected the right to vote. So what?

Those have nothing to do with the failures noted in the OP.

If you are trying to say Justice Dept has a few things right, OK. If you are also trying to say Republicans will make a lot of stupid noise over nonsense, OK. But that in no way deflects from the piss poor showing in the items above.

[Doctor_J]

26. He gave an eloquent speech, something any citizen could have done

He is the supreme law enforcement office of the nation. I hope for more than speeches.

[geek tragedy]

31. He did do things--you just weren't paying attention when he did them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/house-republicans-blast-justice-department-over-new-voter-id-laws/

[cali]

38. that's not other things. that's ONE thing

in any case, that hardly makes the failures disappear.

bankers
corporate criminals
the war on legal marijuana
torture

all massive failures

[geek tragedy]

46. DOMA, challenging SB1070,

He has a mixed record, as has every past attorney general, as will every future attorney general.

You are only aware of the issues that get complained about on leftwing blogs and websites. The DoJ does a TON of stuff that flies under the collective radar of the gripers.

Peruse their activity from February 2013 alone:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/February/

[Bluenorthwest]

90. DOMA? Thus far he has spend much more time and energy defending it with disgusting and uncalled for

language than he has 'not defending it'. So thus far the sum total of his pro and anti equality work puts him way over in the anti column, he has not yet redeemed himself for the many shitty things he said and the wrongs he did and the people, living humans, that he harmed. Same goes for Obama and for his wife. They have not yet made penance for the bullshit they said and did for years. They recently recanted a bit, but not nearly as loudly or forcefully as they defended hate preachers and libels and Sanctity Dogma for endless years.
The eagerness to co opt issues that are not yet even won really bothers me and it seems to be a trait of the straight and centrist. No offense.
In 29 States, it is fully legal to openly discriminate against LGBT people in any manner you wish. He's the Attorney General of that. Never says a word about that. Not a word. So sure, civil rights, whatever. 29 States you can be fired or refused housing or lodging for being LGBT. Holder not only has done nothing, he has said nothing about this. Too busy opposing the will of the voters on marijuana and defending DOMA.

[geek tragedy]

91. You're entitled to your opinion.

Blaming Eric Holder for states' failure to enact anti-discrimination laws is a novel twist, I have to give you credit on that.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. I did not blame him for that state of affairs but for his own silence on that state of affairs.

And I only did so because you are claiming he's some LGBT civil rights hero, when he only recently was forced by donor pressure on Obama to stop defending DOMA in vicious terms. Not only has he spent more time defending DOMA than investigating torture, he has not utter a single word to educate the public about nor to oppose the fact that discrimination against minorities is fully legal in most of this country. So no, I did not claim it was his fault, that is your own petulant response to the facts of what your community does to mine. I simply refuse to allow you to frame a man whose primary actions about LGBT rights has been to defend DOMA vigorously as some hero to our cause. That's it. He's not blamed, but you also are not going to be allowed to put a rainbow crown on him and laud him for that which he has not done. Clear enough for you?

[geek tragedy]

94. "whose primary actions about LGBT rights has been

to defend DOMA vigorously"

Factually false. He found it unconstitutional and refused to defend it well over two years ago, and additionally supported a brief on behalf of the good guys on Prop 8 in California.

I simply refuse to allow you

You have no authority to allow or permit me to do anything, just as you have no authority to speak on behalf of anyone but yourself. You have opinions, just like every straight and LGBT person does.

[LondonReign2]

39. He defended voting rights. That makes up for the rest?

[geek tragedy]

47. That's not all he has done. Obviously.

People act as if the DoJ does nothing but deal with the pet issues on liberal blogs.

[LondonReign2]

49. LOL

He's done much more, you just can't list it?

I didn't realize jailing those responsible for crimes was a "pet issue" limited to "liberal blogs".

LOL

[geek tragedy]

52. The DoJ is a large organization

that combats trafficking in human beings, weapons, endangered species, fights employment and housing discrimination, etc etc etc.

And, prosecuting Bush admin officials for torture is very much a niche issue for liberal blogs.

[cui bono]

70. Yeah, you know, those with "prosecution fetishes". n/t

[geek tragedy]

71. People whose main priority is to see people get punished

as more important than policies that uplift minorities have a prosecution fetish.

[cui bono]

74. Who said it's either/or?

If he can't do both with his department then he really needs to get fired.

And you really see no problem using the term "prosecution fetish"? You're really not here trying to change people's minds, are you? So what are you doing then, just trying to catapult the propaganda?

[geek tragedy]

76. Because the objections are:

1) No prosecutions for bankers
2) No torture prosecutions
3) Medical marijuana
4) prosecuting leaks

Those are presumed to outweigh every other good thing he has done.

It's the standard lazy, purist analysis where people pick 3-4 things they don't like that matter to them personally and proclaim a person or effort a failure.

No matter that Holder is the AG for the entire United States, not just the liberal blogosphere.

[cui bono]

84. That doesn't answer my question.

And as has been mentioned, he can easily do all. The things he has done right are pretty standard operations. Doesn't take anyone special to simply do their job. But he's actually failing to do his job in these other areas. How many people would keep their jobs if they neglected the biggest issues that needed to be dealt with?

So there's no either/or there.

[geek tragedy]

86. No attorney general is going to have a perfect scorecard.

None ever has, and none ever will.

And not everyone agrees with the DU consensus that prosecuting bankers and Bush is the most important issue evah. It's not a majority opinion anywhere but liberal discussion boards.

[cui bono]

88. No one said that. You said it was either/or and have not shown how that is true.

Doesn't matter if they can do routine work if they fail to do the important stuff.

As to the majority opinion, do you think the majority in this country even know the facts? Who's going to present them to them, the corporate owned media that's making money off keeping the truth from them? Come on... we all know the public is not being properly informed. Whether or not the public knows, cares to know, or even wants the right thing done doesn't make it not right.

When you don't stop what is wrong you are allowing it to happen again. We've seen it happen. So you're okay with allowing torture to continue? You're okay with getting lied into war? Seriously.

[geek tragedy]

89. It would be my personal preference to see Cheney, Bush, Addington

Rumsfeld, Yoo, and Rove shipped off to the Hague.

At the same time, no country has ever prosecuted its political leaders for human rights offenses committed against foreigners. So, I'm not going to lose my undies over Eric Holder's failure to be the first in human history to do so.

[zipplewrath]

36. Pretty weak

The DOJ has an entire office just for the purpose of defending voting rights. The voting rights act gave them the authority to do so. That's pretty much "turning the crank" as a AG. Yes, others have given it mostly lip service, but it really just falls under the category of "doing his job".

Ignoring prosecutions of torturers, agressively pursuing pot growers in states where it has been decriminalized, choosing not to pursue Banking charges, and achiving records for prosecuting whistleblowers and leakers are policies created by Holder himself.

He is a failure because of the choices he has made, not because he has been a lousy administrator of what he inherited.

[cali]

40. +1

[ProSense]

65. I guess you were

"Pretty weak"

...expecting a list? You repeated the OP, and again, thanks for you opinion.

[zipplewrath]

81. No, I've seen lists

They aren't any more impressive. I do annual employee evaluations. This is a very common phenomenon. A guy submits all of his "accomplishments" and it is a laundry list of the very basic actions an employee is expected to achieve. No personal innovation/creation of any kind. They dug a list out of a virtual drawer, that practically reads like a job description and they find the minimalistic accomplishment which satisfies the list. Nothing wrong per se, we even have a formal classification of "fully successful". They did absolutely the average/nominal amount of work based upon someone else's expectation. They aren't the worst by any stretch.

But then I dig out any one of the employees of their same job classification that is going to get a higher rating (High achiever/Exceptional achievement). I show them what they accomplished. It is basically everything on their list, plus probably 70% more. More importantly, it is stuff that the employee basically created on their own, not just read out of the employee manual. The created improved methods, they joined improvement committees, they took external trainings, cross trainings, they mentored others, or volunteered to help other teams in times of crisis. Other people look to them for their expertise and guidance. They accomplish goals and objectives of people at higher job classifications, who generally have more experience.

AG isn't about average. The bar is high. Some laundry list of nominal accomplishments isn't much more than turning the crank. Running all the programs and departments created by your predecessors and bringing nothing to the job is about the lowest level of performance there is. It's not about being the most competent administrator ever, it is about moving the department forward, about being creative, about changing the department to be better than you found it.

He ain't even close.

[cui bono]

72. +1 Well said. Thank you. n/t

[Chisox08]

61. How many bankers and Wall street hedge fund managers did he prosecute?

How many torturers and war criminals did he go after?
How many banks did he go after for falsely foreclosing on homes?
Yes he did some good things against voter suppression and not fighting for DOMA but what did he do on those other major issues I brought up?

[ProSense]

66. You can

"How many bankers and Wall street hedge fund managers did he prosecute?"

...go here and find out: http://www.stopfraud.gov/news-index.html

[SoCalMusicLover]

6. Marijuana Dispensaries=Bad, Banks & Govt. Officials=Good

nt

[tblue]

8. It would be hard to believe

our POTUS is not the one who made these calls. So sad, cali. This is not anything I would have ever voted for.

I saw people beating up on your other post on Eric Holder. I was about to jump into the fray but thought I might've only made things worse. Sometimes I get emotional and overly heated. But I am just as dismayed as you are.

[cali]

12. thanks. it makes my heart sink. And yes, I think that overall, Holder has done a poor job

[truebluegreen]

24. Count me in the dismayed and disappointed group.

Holder was the last Cabinet member I wanted to see stay on, but it is hard to believe he is doing what he is doing without the tacit consent of the president.

[ProSense]

14. LOL! n/t

[cali]

19. seriously? you actually think that contributes to a discussion?

not that you really do either, so it figures you'd think that was cute.

[cali]

16. this has nothing to do with hate and how about responding with some degree of cogency

to the facts in the OP?

You are the one dealing in base emotion and hate. I presented facts and links that you are clearly unable to counter with even a tiny bit of information, thus you fall back on ad homs.

[cali]

21. that's just crazy. I personally like Obama and until very recently I haven't said anthing about

Holder.

Your insistence that I'm the hater is ironic. Hate toward me oozes out of your posts. It's sick sad shit.

[cali]

29. and as I've said, you got nothin'. nothing but puerile attacks

you don't refute what's in the op, you simply resort to hating on me. go for it.

[cali]

41. how you can characterize this op as "hateful" is an amazing spin on the facts

there is nothing hateful about it. YOU brought the hate to this thread. YOU own your seething hate of anyone who points out policy failures of this administration.

[tblue]

50. Well, I second what Cali said.

You gonna call me a hater too?

There's hate and then there's disgust, fear, frustration, horror, disappointment. You see the former but I'm telling you, it's the latter.

Some people love this country more than particular politicians. If something is wrong, it doesn't matter who does it, it's still wrong. It's called integrity. It's intellectual honesty. It's a higher standard. You can call it hate if you want to. But that's your word not mine, and doesn't sound like its Cali's.

Peace.

[leftynyc]

55. While Cali hardly needs me to defend her

How many of her posts could you have read with your grand total of 48 posts to contribute? I may not agree with Cali - I don't agree with anyone 100% but I'm going to speak up when a long time respected member of our community gets accused of hatred of the President (a ridiculous charge) by a newcomer. How about doing some research into her history before you again post something so stupid.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

60. So what's your previous user name?

[G_j]

62. food for thought,

Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2 changing the subject; as stated above, it is prohibited by Robert’s Rule of Order 43; If my facts or logic are wrong, my motive may be the answer to why. But let’s cut out the middleman of why my facts or logic are wrong and just point exactly what the error is. Pointing out the suspicious motive only indicates there is no error, just an attempt to insinuate an error by innuendo.

from: Intellectually-honest & Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

63. Yet you managed to miss this, which was posted... oh look at that , today!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022845730

[geek tragedy]

20. Yesterday you called for him to be fired because of an

investigation from which he had recused himself.

[cali]

33. no, I said I've thought he should go for some time

I made that clear in my post, but you have a nasty little habit of prevarication.

and there is more than a little debate about whether he actually recused himself- or could recuse himself under DoJ guidelines. I posted those guidelines in another thread. In any case, he is where the buck stops at DoJ.

No bankster prosecutions, because they're too big to prosecute. No torture prosecutions. Prosecutions and long sentences for legal medical marijuana dispensary operators, prosecutions of whistle blowers. I don't consider these good things. They don't seem to bother you at all- which I find puzzling.

[geek tragedy]

37. "more than a little debate"

Maybe in your alternate universe. No one else is having that debate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Holding public servants responsible for their acts (or inaction) is "Hate"?

"No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defence." Thomas Jefferson

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. I said he should go in the first term

This is a 2009 article when he was nominated:


Holder's infamous role in the Marc Rich pardon. That episode--which Holder will certainly be asked about during confirmation hearings, which are scheduled to begin Thursday--was a case of Washington pay-to-play. There's little doubt that Rich, a fugitive financier indicted for tax evasion, racketeering, and trading with the enemy (Iran), was able to win that last-minute pardon from President Clinton (with Holder, as deputy attorney general, leaning slightly in its favor) because he had hired a former Clinton White House counsel to argue his case and because Rich's ex-wife had pledged money to Clinton causes.

Holder's role in the Rich pardon may not have been instrumental, but it was a mistake--a terrible way to cap off decades of public service. But he is a poster child for something perhaps more pernicious and extensive in the nation's capital: selling out. Months after the Clinton administration ended, Holder went to work for the influential law firm and lobbying shop of Covington and Burling. (He also joined the boards of Eastman Kodak and MCI.)

Holder was doing what so many routinely do in Washington: cashing in. He took years of experience he had gathered as a public servant and rented it to corporations accused of serious wrongdoing. He smoothly went from doing good to doing well. In 2008, according to his confirmation questionnaire, he made $2.1 million at Covington and Burling. And he expects in 2009 to bring in over $2.5 million, including his separation payment.




Holder's private legal work for the Chiquita banana company, which faced the possibility of federal charges for having paid protection money to Colombian terrorists, has earned media attention. Holder also helped Merck settle a massive Medicaid overbilling case that culminated in a $671 million civil settlement. The pharmaceutical company had been accused by the Justice Department of cheating the government regarding Vioxx, its arthritis drug, and Zocor, its cholesterol drug.

But it may be a lesser-known piece of lawyering that best symbolizes how Holder went from prosecuting bad guys to protecting them.

In 2001, Darrell McGraw Jr., the longtime Democratic attorney general of the state of West Virginia, filed a civil case against Purdue Pharma in 2001, the manufacturer of OxyContin, a highly addictive painkiller approved for serious pain treatment. He alleged that the company had engaged in "coercive and deceptive" marketing of OxyContin. McGraw charged that Purdue had disseminated misleading advertisements and had promoted the inappropriate use of OxyContin for minor pain. His lawsuit contended that Purdue had offered doctors free trips to "pain management" seminars where the firm pitched the drug as safe and effective for treating minor pain--without mentioning the drug was supposed to be used only for severe pain and easily abused. McGraw also alleged that Purdue had told "pharmacists that they can get in trouble if they do not fill prescriptions, even if they believe someone may be an abuser of the drug." He maintained that the firm's underhanded practices had caused users in West Virginia to become addicted to the drug. And he noted that while Purdue's annual sales revenue from OxyContin had surpassed $1 billion, the state of West Virginia was saddled with the cost of treating people who had become addicted due to misuse of the drug encouraged by Purdue.

This suit was a serious threat to the drugmaker, and it eventually called in Holder. And in November 2004, the morning that the case was about to go to trial, Holder helped negotiate a settlement. Working in the judge's chambers in West Virginia, he forged an agreement under which the firm would have to pay $10 million over four years into drug abuse and education programs in West Virginia. Purdue would not have to admit any wrongdoing. (Days earlier, the firm had offered the state about $2 million to settle; McGraw had turned down Purdue and had not bothered to produce a counter-offer.)

The settlement was a big win for the company. Ten million dollars was a piddling amount compared to what Purdue was reaping from OxyContin sales. More important, this settlement helped keep the lid on the firm's criminal activities. There would be no trial--and no public release of documents or testimony about the company's actions, which were already being investigated by federal prosecutors. In late 2002, the feds had begun an investigation of Purdue, with the first of what would be nearly 600 subpoenas for corporate records related to the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of OxyContin.

In May 2007, the company and its three top executives pleaded guilty to federal charges of fraudulently marketing OxyContin by claiming it was less addictive, less subject to abuse, and less likely to cause withdrawal symptoms. Purdue and the three execs agreed to pay fines of $634.5 million*. At the time, US attorney John Brownlee summed up the case:

Even in the face of warnings from health care professionals, the media, and members of its own sales force that OxyContin was being widely abused and causing harm to our citizens, Purdue, under the leadership of its top executives, continued to push a fraudulent marketing campaign that promoted OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse, and less likely to cause withdrawal. In the process, scores died as a result of OxyContin abuse and an even greater number of people became addicted to OxyContin; a drug that Purdue led many to believe was safer, less abusable, and less addictive than other pain medications on the market.

That is, Darrell McGraw, the West Virginia attorney general, had been correct.

Yet Holder had helped the company slip past McGraw's charges. And that permitted the drugmaker to continue its fraudulent ways until the Justice Department finally stopped them. "We didn't know why they settled with us," says Frances Hughes, McGraw's chief deputy attorney general. "Our suspicion is that they did not want anything to come out at the trial." Is it possible that because of Holder's efforts (whether he realized it or not), patients suffered--and perhaps died? But Holder did nothing wrong--in the legal or ethical sense. He was merely working for a client.

Corporate miscreants do have the right to legal representation. Yet Holder, who as a government official in earlier years had targeted wrongdoers, had no obligation to become a hired gun after leaving the Justice Department. He could have become a university president, a law school dean, a nonprofit chairman, a public interest lawyer. True, he would have had to get by on perhaps $250,000 or so a year instead of ten times that amount. But he would have continued a life of service.

Holder did what so many Washingtonians--Democrat and Republican--do upon leaving government: he left the public interest behind. The money was more important. (In his confirmation questionnaire, Holder did note he has "done more than fifty hours of pro bono work in every year except one" at Covington & Burling.) Many of the people who follow this sort of path like to continue to define themselves by their public deeds. When they serve on boards or write op-eds, they tend to ID themselves as a former government official--not as a current shill for this or that in-trouble corporation. They assume they can easily move back and forth between public service and private service--and they are right. In Washington, public officials are not snubbed or denigrated when they become private profiteers. When it's time for them to return to public life, it's usually no big deal. The capital's revolving door spins people into and out of government.

Holder may get a slap or two from the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee for the Rich pardon or something else. But he's likely to be confirmed. He may well become a good attorney general. Someday, down the road, he might be feted at a fancy testimonial dinner, and all his rather impressive accomplishments will be repeatedly noted. And with the encomiums flowing, there won't be any mention of the Purdue Pharma victims and the highly-paid work Holder did to protect the people and company who caused their suffering.



http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/01/why-eric-holder-represents-whats-wrong-washington

That's the article that set warning signals to me

[truebluegreen]

28. +1000

Holder's, and others' Cabinet appointments rang alarm bells for me right from the beginning...

[Puzzledtraveller]

42. Thanks for sharing this.

[Ichingcarpenter]

53. Many on DU recorded and documented the crimes of Bush Administration,

the Banks , Wall Street , military contracts, CIA torture over the years and had such great hope for justice and truth.



Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.


Frederick Douglass,

[JEB]

17. Yeah, but these very real problems

aren't scandals because they are GOP backed actions. No juicy soundbites from GOPigs for the TV equals no scandal no matter how serious the mistakes actually are. We are truly living in a delusional country.

[joelz]

32. Lets not forget all the

bankers sitting in jail for their outrageous crimes that ruined the economy. Oh wait I just woke up that was a dream I had last night.

[cali]

34. right. that is a big one.

[MotherPetrie]

45. K&R

[Puzzledtraveller]

48. I always thought President Obama would benefit from cleaning house

in his second term, starting with Holder. I was told in another thread this would make him look weak, I disagree. It would make him look strong to make a few heads roll and maybe serve as a wake up call to others in the admnistration to pull their heads out and stop letting our president get blindsided by this BS.

[leftynyc]

56. Holder was a terrible choice

right from the start and I was very disappointed he didn't leave after the first term. I wanted him gone because his priorities were all screwed up - not because I approve of giving the right wing a head on a pike.

[Myrina]

57. Who "hired" him & why?

Uh, yeah. That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?

My guess is that he was nominated because he was a known quantity who wouldn't make waves.

The AG's agenda and actions/inactions all point back to his the larger agenda of his boss, IMHO.

[Phlem]

59. Yup

Perfect for no drama Obama and that's why he stays.

-p

[NOVA_Dem]

73. Someone finally gets it! Holder is doing what OBAMA WANTS HIM TO DO!

Holder isn't going after Wall Street b/c Obama doesn't want to go after Wall Street.
Holder isn't going after the war crimes of the Bush administration b/c Obama doesn't want him to.
Holder is persecuting leakers b/c Obama wants him to.
Holder is protecting voting rights b/c it keeps his side in power.
Holder stopped pursuing DOMA in the court b/c the politics (and donors) on marriage equality flipped.

The number one reason Holder should be expelled is that the Justice Department drafted a memo justifying the execution of American citizens abroad without due process.

This is the man that said due process is not necessarily a judicial process.

Holder would make Orwell blush.

[zipplewrath]

82. Could be

It can be hard to fire an AG. Just ask Clinton. Timing is everything. Otherwise it can suggest that you are trying to manipulate the department. So it is hard to tell if Holder is doing his bidding, or not screwing up bad enough to be worth firing.

[MsPithy]

68. How about giving banksters a total pass

for systematically STEALING people's homes by foreclosing on them with forged documents, or no documents?

Holder couldn't find a single criminal, there?

... and then there's LIBOR.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425

[Xyzse]

77. I am sorry to say this but this is a symptom of the problem of not having enough push

For Judicial Appointments which would help on the Department of Justice.

I know they have been trapped in to pre-appointment hell, but this was one of the issues that should have been pushed on harder.

The Department of Justice among other Departments with vacant positions still held by individuals from the Bush era just gunks up the process.

[quinnox]

79. Holder needs to be asked for his resignation, not worth the scandal and media attention of keeping

him at this point, he has become a distraction. If he has any honor or loyalty to the president he will tender his resignation soon.

[forestpath]

83. True, but as useless as Holder is, Obama must be happy with him.

[morningfog]

85. All that and "Too big to jail."

He is a flop AG.

[Logical]

95. +1 n-t