Mr. President, how can you commend Holder for "fidelity to equal justice"?

[grasswire]

...."fidelity to the principle of equal justice under the law"?

How can Holder and/or the administration be commended for equal justice under the law when...

War criminals walk free?

Wall Street criminals walk free?

The fact that they walk free means the above statement is either a lie, or it demonstrates an absolute ignorance of what the principle of "equal justice under the law" means.

War criminals remain unfettered.

Thousands of petty offenders have their lives ruined by unjust sentencing every year.

While war criminals and Wall Street thieves walk free.

[samsingh]

1. good questions

holder was horrible until about the last year. then he became a target of repugs and started to show really empathy for the left who put President Obama in office.

i think this is a good chance to put a good ag in place.

[grasswire]

3. questions Democrats don't want to face, apparently

The most bedrock of American principles: equal justice under the law.

As long as a Democratic administration does not fully understand or honor that principle, we Democrats are dishonored.

One might say it's un-American to ignore that principle.

[truedelphi]

21. You know the mantra -- But if McCain had won, his

Head of DOJ would be just as bad.

[grasswire]

31. Is that our standard of performance now?

As long as our WH isn't any worse than McCain's would have been, that's good enough!

[samsingh]

34. it's sometimes about accepting alot less than we would like in order to

keep things from gettnig far far worse under repugs.

[grasswire]

35. but as Democrats in leadership become more like Republicans..

...our "acceptance" increasingly allows the erosion of our liberties and our protections. More damage has been done to the Constitution under Obama than could ever have been imagined a Democrat would allow. Unconstitutional programs begun under Bush have been continued, and even expanded.

[samsingh]

36. that's the frustrating part for sure - our leaders are timid

with the ideals that put them into office. too willing to compromise.

[sabrina 1]

43. I don't think our leaders are timid. I think they are complicit. They have studied how to

get what they really want, how to 'bring the Left along' because they couldn't do it totally if they only had the Right on board.

See all the defenses of policies that under Bush, were fiercely resisted by the Left, but under Obama have been just as fiercely defended.

I don't know what can be done about any of it now. Back during the Bush era bad as it was, I truly believed we could stop it by electing Democrats.

Since that didn't work, where do we go from here?

[merrily]

53. I agree about being complicit.

It's amazing how many excuses we invent to prevent our minds from going there.

Timid, frightened, spineless, in need of love from the right, too dumb (for lack of a better word springing to mind) to know what the right is up to--even while we also say and believe that the left is smarter than the right , "no choice but to...", etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Anything to avoid thinking that the most powerful people in the country just may be doing pretty much what they intend to do, namely, do what is good for big business

Wall Street

the stock market

small business, pension funds, the little investors and workers looking to the job craters creators for a living wage paycheck so they can provide for their families.

Back during the Bush era bad as it was, I truly believed we could stop it by electing Democrats.

That's what I believed all my life. Before I even started kindergarten, I watched my father on election nights. Before I could read, I took in through my viscera that whether Democrats won was a life and death issue for our family.

After Bush, that is how I felt more than ever before. I donated, I volunteered as much as I could and I was on line to vote long before the polls opened. (I usually arrive at the polls around 2:30 pm, out of respect for those who work set hours and try to vote before or after work or during lunch hours.) And, as you can tell from my comment about standing on line long before the polls opened, I was not alone in mostly Democratic Boston.

And here's the rub: Obama may well be the most leftist President we've had since 1980, at least on equal rights for women, minorities and members of the LGBT community.

So, "Fasten your seat belt, it's going to be a bumpy ride." (It usually is, when the ride is relentlessly to the right.)

[truedelphi]

42. The people I know who are most willing to state that are

Usually rather immune to the rigorous death knells of middle class economy. They often are people who are doing well from stocks or other advantages of being in the inner circle of financial deals.

Right now, middle class Americans view every trip to the grocery store as more expensive than the last. Then they turn on the TV and see that the nation has all this money for endless wars, and endless surveillance programs.

Of course, I do have a few friends who defend the policies of the current money worshiping Democrats-in-Leadership, even as they try and blame the Republicans for what is going on.

However, for twenty four months I have asked for video or photos of the Republicans twisting Mr Obama's arms as he appointed Tim Geithner, or re-appointed Mr Bernanke. And not gotten a single video or photo in all that time. Once you realize it was Geithner's policies almost in total that allowed the banks and big financial firms to be bailed out, to the tune of some sixteen trillions of dollars, without any leeway offered to states here in the US, then you view the Obama Administration with a lot less respect.

[merrily]

51. Phrased another way, it's sometimes about accepting a lot more rightist

governance than we would like--or than we signed up or donated or voted for-- in order to avoid rightist governance.

I thought voters were supposed to decide what goes on in Washington DC, not lobbyists.

[merrily]

52. Yes, even for the Daily Show.

Whenever the right criticizes Obama, if the Daily Show can possibly come up with at least one instance in which someone in Bushco did or said something similar, that seems to be Stewart's full answer to the criticism. Not that both Bush and Obama could possibly both be wrong, not that one of the worst rightist Presidents in all of US history should not be the standard by which the conduct of Presidents, including leftist Presidents should be judged, but that Bushco did it, too--and, of course, did it first.

And the studio audience claps louder.

[kelliekat44]

23. "War criminals" have walked free since Kennedy and Truman as I recall. nt

[tazkcmo]

2. I would comment

but I'm jockeying for Holder's job.

[woo me with science]

4. +1000000 And whistleblowers, journalists, and protesters are persecuted.

[grasswire]

5. excellent point

The people who do the most damage walk free.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. I am disgusted at the treatment protesters received under Holder.

I think when it comes to the treatment of protesters the Obama administration was worse than George W. Bush. Same goes for medical marijuana patients arrested. The Obama administration was worse than the Bush administration on that one too.

[MohRokTah]

6. .

Um, the law? Under the law functioning at the time, no crimes were committed (which can be argued to be borderline criminal in itself).

[grasswire]

8. word salad

(incredible that you are defending war criminals and wall street thievess)

[MohRokTah]

9. What you call "Wall Street Criminals" was perfectly legal at the time in most cases.

28 years of deregulation is your real criminal.

[nomorenomore08]

14. "28 years of deregulation is your real criminal."

I have to agree, more or less. Even if Holder could've done more.

[MohRokTah]

15. Prosecutors only prosecute when there is a reasonable chance of conviction.

A team of hundreds of lawyers vs. the federally funded DOJ?

Yeah, lots of convictions are going to come out of THOSE court battles (NOT).

We have the best Justice System money can buy.

[MFrohike]

16. You're wrong

Deregulation didn't decriminalize anything, especially fraud. I know it's become a popular talking point that nothing "actually criminal" occurred from 2003-2007 (the prime years, especially 05-07), but it's as true as Saddam's nukes.

There was a widespread conspiracy among the originators and securitizers to defraud state and local governments of hundreds of billions, not an exaggeration, in recording fees via MERS. It was expressly created to avoid the necessity of recording mortgages. This would later be the basis of the robosigning scandal that got whitewashed with the so-called mortgage settlement.

There were widespread violations of Sarbanes-Oxley, particularly with internal controls. Merrill took an $8B loss, still the largest in history I believe, because their own bond department went long on MBS when it was clear they were illiquid. Where was the legally required oversight by John Thain? Why didn't he get perp-walked in an orange jumpsuit for signing off the required statement, which was clearly fictitious?

Let's not forget the rampant self-dealing by the investment banks, aka the securitizers, with such notable examples as Goldman's Abacus CDO. They described it as a pile of shit while simultaneously selling it to their clients while going short on it. If that's not the black letter definition of fraud every lawyer learned in school, then fraud is clearly no longer a crime in this country.

Deregulation didn't decriminalize, it lessened the regulatory strictures and, at the same time, relaxed enforcement on the criminal side. Put simply, the deregulation of finance has largely effect an unwillingness to prosecute, not an inability because of a lack of criminal statutes.

[woo me with science]

27. Excellent post.

Thank you for that.

[KoKo]

40. Good Points..recommend read..

[99Forever]

41. But... but... but.... serious adults. ..

Reasons!!!

[randome]

48. Then why are the state and local authorities -except in a tiny number of cases- doing nothing?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[MFrohike]

59. Resources, expertise, and disinterest in rocking the boat

Bullet points will make this a bit more organized, I think.

1. Resources and expertise are really one point. The feds have unlimited resources and the most expertise to deal fraud and general criminality in finance. No state, except maybe NY or CA, really has the resources, much less the expertise, to deal with those problems when the big players are involved. Unlike the federal government, the states don't issue the currency, so they have actual budget constraints when it comes to law enforcement. With all the priorities a state has, it gets difficult to convince the citizenry that a sizeable portion of the budget should be dedicated to dealing with a problem that, honestly, is a federal matter.

Honestly, the issue of securities regulation is predominantly a federal matter. The states all regulate to some degree, but it takes a lot to prosecute the big boys. Morgan alone spent $16B, that is not a typo, on legal fees from 2009-2013. To put that number in context, NC, the 10th biggest state by population, has an annual budget of just over $20B. Prior to settling its FHFA case with DOJ, the high-end estimate for BofA's liability resulting primarily from the Merrill acquisition was around $80B. How can any state seriously deal with numbers that large? Only the federal government has the ability to outspend the banks, whose size has become completely ridiculous.

2. The states are notoriously wary of irritating their big businesses. Large businesses in a state tend to have a lot of pull. Look at any large national bank and its home state. Does NC try to muscle BofA? No. Does NY ask "how high" when Wall Street says "jump?" Of course. Banks, like most large corporations, can relocate large parts of their operations to other states if they choose and they're not shy about making the threat to do so. Hell, every time a politician in NY floats the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy, i.e. Wall Street, you hear noises about how they're going to move to NJ. No state elected official wants to be anywhere near the blame for losing a large employer.



One more example to try to put the size of the banks, and the problem, into context. Wal-Mart, considered a giant company has assets valued over $200B. Morgan has assets valued over $2T. While that valuation of assets is definitely arguable, it gives a sense of scale to the problem of enforcement at the state level.

[cali]

49. thank you. alas, most people parroting this line are fully aware that

that it was possible to criminally prosecute.

[MrMickeysMom]

55. ^^^^THIS^^^^

Is right and thank you for that insight in your explanation.

Funny…. You just flushed that poster's argument away. However, I sense more flotsam will occur down-thread.

[SomethingFishy]

17. You need to read Matt Tiabbi's book Griftopia

If you think there was nothing illegal going on in the financial collapse of 2008 you are mistaken or misinformed. Tiabbi lays it all out in his book.

[MohRokTah]

18. There were crimes, no doubt.

The vast majority of the shit that lead to the meltdown was perfectly legal.

As far as the crimes go, prosecutors prosecute when there is a reasonable expectation of success, otherwise they cut deals.

Wall Street firms with hundreds of staff attorneys and hundreds more on retainer are not going to see many successful prosecutions, though deals being cut are acceptable as they cost less.

[SomethingFishy]

20. A minute ago you said it was all perfectly legal.

I'll say it once more.. try the book. But I'm not going to sit here and debate semantics with you. Crimes were committed, if it weren't possible to prosecute them then these firm would have refused to pay the millions in fines.

There is no way to spin this well for the Justice Dept. But you can keep trying if you like, the facts however are not on your side.

[cali]

50. this is such bullshit. why won't you respond to post # 16?

In thread after thread you're spreading this disinformation. You don't respond to posts that demonstrate what a bullshit claim this is.

[sabrina 1]

44. What 'law' allowed the massive crimes committed by Wall St? Are you aware that even

Bush the FBI asked for more man power after investigating the Mortgage Crisis, because the crimes were so massive they could not handle it without more assistance?

Bush's response was to reassign many of them to the 'war on terror'.

I remember the outrage from the Left back then that these Wall St. Criminals were being protected by Bush.

When did these crimes become 'okay under the existing laws at the time'? Just because crimes are not prosecuted, doesn't mean they are not crimes.

Funny, where did all that outrage from the Left go again?

[Octafish]

7. Equal Justice.

That's what makes democracy. Just-Us is what makes tyranny.

[randome]

10. Always complaining about the President. Not for what he does but for what he didn't do.

How pessimistic and negative. How sad.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[MohRokTah]

11. He should ahve prosecuted any way.

Even though there was nothing illegal done in most of the crap that went on.

[sabrina 1]

45. 'Even though there was nothing illegal done in most of the crap'. Are you SERIOUS?

Wow!! And on DU of all places where we tracked the CRIMES that began under Bush. Just so you know, a whole lot of us here and elsewhere are NOT suffering amnesia.

Are you suggesting that Bush was right to cover up those crimes and BAIL OUT THE CRIMINALS?? Were you around when that gross miscarriage of justice took place? Which DROVE MANY OF US to work even harder to elect DEMOCRATS to begin the process of prosecuting these predators??

Unbelievable. 'No crimes were committed'!! Hard to put in words what that statement should do, HAS done, to the many victims of those massive crimes.

[Caretha]

54. Doesn't that line of thinking

'Even though there was nothing illegal done in most of the crap'

remind you of all the Republicans who vote against their own best interests because they too one day will be a multi-millionaire?

[sabrina 1]

57. Yes, it does Caretha. I'm seeing more and more of this here on DU.

[nomorenomore08]

22. Look, I voted for the guy twice. And even I have been disappointed in numerous ways

with his administration. It really shows how skewed things are, politically, in this country, that an essentially moderate (if not center-right) President could be derided as a "Marxist" by right-wing loons.

That Obama has done a better job than McCain or Romney would have, goes without saying. But if you're setting the bar that freaking low then I frankly feel a little sad for you.

[grasswire]

30. Damned straight I am going to complain when a Democratic president...

...betrays the Constitution and Democratic values. I voted for him twice. It's my duty to complain.

I find it pathetic and sad that you would defend war criminals and Wall Street criminals. A new low.

[MrMickeysMom]

56. You know what is sad?

Last edited Sat Sep 27, 2014, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I find it most distressing that "we" decided who should stop what was bad when Bush was exacerbating wars of aggression and suppressing freedom of speech. Then, deciding that walking the walk in those comfortable shoes did not require the leadership we so badly needed in 2008.

Your, "always complaining about the President" is a defense against what we wanted in the first place. You can't use that excuse anymore because it's not true either.

We wanted change, which, by the way, means due process from the DOJ. Instead, we get, "30 years of de-regulation" BS from above comments, and now, back to your comment, "always complaining about the President", which is nothing more than …

Wake up and smell the sadness based on the recall - waste in the DOJ's ability to go after Wall Street and War Criminals.

[tk2kewl]

13. Not to mention...

The well documented, wildly disparate application of justice based on race

And I'll throw this one in for good measure:

“You know, if you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to go to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life. But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night, every single individual associated with this. I think that’s fundamentally wrong.”

-Senator Elizabeth Warren

[msongs]

19. obama's views of what is just are a tad different than yours nt

[grasswire]

28. I don't exactly understand your comment.

My views are consistent with the Constitution.

[sabrina 1]

46. I didn't understand that comment either. Mine, like yours, are consistent with the

Constitution also. Have we disposed of that 'quaint old document' altogether now? I wish people would simply be honest rather than allowing people to go on believing we actually have a system of laws that are supposed to be applied equally across the board. If the Constitution, as Bush more or less said, is 'in the way', then let them say that. THEN we can decide what to do about that.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Well, there's this, too...

[blkmusclmachine]

25. Pic URL http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02/17/1102170031201160_1.jpg

All comments are mine.

[blkmusclmachine]

26. Obama bestows George H. W. Bush with Medal of Freedom.

Also receiving the high honor was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, among others.

[grasswire]

29. sickening

We used to mock countries that foisted theater on citizens.

[JEB]

32. As much justice as you can afford.

This country will not ever get well until our war criminals are held to account.

[iandhr]

33. Quite simple actually

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ag-holder-step-down-following-six-year-tenure

[Autumn]

37. There is no equal justice under the law

[hughee99]

38. Equal justice. Everyone walks free. It's not fair, but it's EQUAL. n/t

[woo me with science]

39. Well, everyone that matters.

Exceptional Oxymoron-The land of the free imprisons more people than any other nation in the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025558345

[woo me with science]

47. kick

[MrMickeysMom]

58. One, two, three, four...

KICK two, three, four…

[woo me with science]

60. Double amen.

What garbage we are fed.