• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Attorney General Eric Holder Resigns

sunmaster14

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
10,017
It was getting a little embarrassing that USA Politics didn't have a thread on this, so ... here it is. This article sums up my view of Holder:

For these reasons and many others, a former career lawyer who served in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations told us that, in his opinion, “Holder is the worst person to hold the position of Attorney General since the disgraced John Mitchell, who went to jail as a result of the Watergate scandal.” This is quite a criticism given that many DOJ veterans believe that the Department reached its nadir under Mitchell.
Click to expand...

As many of you may remember, Eric Holder started out with a bit of a cloud over his head because of his role in Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich. That didn't bother me terribly much, since I figured it was evidence of simple corruption and not partisan corruption. I worried far more about the Attorney General being a partisan hack than being just another unethical lawyer who had curried favor with rich people for the sake of advancing his career. After all, once you're Attorney General, you're so powerful you don't need to do favors for rich people anymore. Much to my surprise, unfortunately, Eric Holder turned out to be a highly partisan ideologue. I'm glad to see him go, finally.

I realize this isn't the usual kind of thing we discuss here in USA Politics, so feel free to derail to the mechanics of saluting in the US military, or being outraged at the latest conservative criticism of an Obama faux pas.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It was getting a little embarrassing that USA Politics didn't have a thread on this, so ... here it is. This article sums up my view of Holder:



As many of you may remember, Eric Holder started out with a bit of a cloud over his head because of his role in Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich. That didn't bother me terribly much, since I figured it was evidence of simple corruption and not partisan corruption. I worried far more about the Attorney General being a partisan hack than being just another unethical lawyer who had curried favor with rich people for the sake of advancing his career. After all, once you're Attorney General, you're so powerful you don't need to do favors for rich people anymore. Much to my surprise, unfortunately, Eric Holder turned out to be a highly partisan ideologue. I'm glad to see him go, finally.

I realize this isn't the usual kind of thing we discuss here in USA Politics, so feel free to derail to the mechanics of saluting in the US military, or being outraged at the latest conservative criticism of an Obama faux pas.
Click to expand...

No guns were involved...
 
maxpower1227 said:
So I guess he was clearly worse than this guy?
Click to expand...

Gonzales was flawed to be sure, but he was only Attorney General for 2.5 years, and he had very little long-term effect on the DOJ. I'll note also that he was forced to resign for an offense that wouldn't even rank in the top 5 of Eric Holder's various offenses.
 
That's too bad, the guy was the real-life Luther to Obama's...Obama.

But not unexpected, we knew he was looking to resign before the last election. The guy is basically a civil rights giant. Ihope that his successor carries the tradition he made.
 
Mumbles said:
That's too bad, the guy was the real-life Luther to Obama's...Obama.

But not unexpected, we knew he was looking to resign before the last election. The guy is basically a civil rights giant. Ihope that his successor carries the tradition he made.
Click to expand...

Eric Holder is such a civil rights giant that he refused to acknowledge any limits to the president's secret kill list (the existence of which is already very disturbing) until Rand Paul filibustered the Senate. Holder's DOJ argued that the government can put a GPS on your car or wiretap your phone without a warrant, both of which were slapped down by the Supreme Court 9-0. This icon of civil rights has been a staunch defender of the NSA's mass domestic surveillance. Holder's DOJ has aggressively pursued whistleblowers and the journalists protecting them rather than lawbreakers inside the administration.

Then there's the the War On Drugs where medical marijuana clinics were raided and the owners prosecuted while the ATF was running guns to criminal drug gangs in Mexico. The agents in charge were transferred to other departments and to this day the DOJ is fighting a judge's order to comply with a FOIA request for a public release of documents.

Yeah... civil rights giant.

:dl:
 
DavidJames said:
I know how conservatives only see in terms of black and white, but it's the truth. Now, you can complain that Holder carried it out and blame him for mistakes. But denying reality will only make you look foolish.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying it's true. I'm denying it's relevant.
 
DavidJames said:
I know how conservatives only see in terms of black and white, but it's the truth.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Operation Wide Receiver occurred under Bush, and that was a "gunwalking" program. But it was not the same program as Fast and Furious, and unlike Fast and Furious, it actually did involve cooperation with Mexican law enforcement. Fast and Furious did not begin until 2009, it was never active under Bush.

Now, both of those programs were initiated by people at much lower levels than Bush or Obama would have ever personally dealt with. But the F&F scandal isn't simply about the monumental incompetence of the operation itself (and it was significantly worse than Wide Receiver). Holder's handling of the fallout of that program was insufficient, to put it mildly. And Obama, not Bush, has sole responsibility for that.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It was getting a little embarrassing that USA Politics didn't have a thread on this, so ... here it is. This article sums up my view of Holder: <snip>
Click to expand...

Interesting. Your article was written by Hans von Spakovsky (for Fox News). Who is von Spakovsky? He was a Bush appointee to the Federal Election Commission; Bush used a "recess appointment" to put him on the Commission. At his confirmation hearing Senate Democrats charged that von Spakovsky was unacceptably partisan and, citing his tenure at DoJ, would use his position to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters. Here's what some former DoJ colleagues remembered about von Spakovsky:

The former DoJ officials said von Spakovsky’s testimony to the panel conflicts with their own recollections and is factually wrong in some cases. For instance, the officials dispute von Spakovsky’s portrayal of himself as a “middle manager” who provided legal advice and recommendations to his superiors and then delivered those decisions to the voting section staff.

“From the time he assumed the role of counsel to the assistant attorney general in early 2003 until he left in December 2005, Mr. von Spakovsky spent virtually all of his time on voting matters and assumed the role of de facto voting section chief, replacing the career section chief in most of his statutory responsibilities and traditional duties." Link
Click to expand...

Senate Democrats were eventually successful in getting von Spakovsky to withdraw his nomination. Von Spakovsky then took a position at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank.
 
Well, Holder did his main job. Slow-walk and stall any proscectuion of Wall Street fraudsters long enough for them to be protected by the statute of limitations of their respective crimes.

I bet 1 internet that within six months he will be pulling down a $300k+ job with a major Wall Street firm, or by a lawfirm with a significant Wall Street client list.

Any takers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom