Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:34 PM Apr 2013

Shouldn't Eric Holder be impeached?

Attorney General Eric Holder, before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, admitting that he has declined to press criminal charges against big banks due to "concerns" that doing so could damage the stability of the global economy:



"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that 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," Holder said. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."


Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to impeach “the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the United States," with the latter including cabinet members.

Holdes openly admits that he won't really try to do his sworn duty as the nation's top law enforcement official, saying it would be too "difficult". This pretty much falls under the impeachable rationale that his “conduct ... is grossly incompatible with the office held and subversive of that office and of our constitutional system of government.”

Slam-dunk case to drop-kick his butt out of office (figuratively, of course).

You can watch weasel-face admit that he is protecting banking fraud here.
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Shouldn't Eric Holder be impeached? (Original Post) brentspeak Apr 2013 OP
you Better Believe It! geek tragedy Apr 2013 #1
Ah! Those were the days! randome Apr 2013 #5
So nice to take a trip down memory lane. emulatorloo Apr 2013 #24
Imagine! Wanting to impeach an AG for admittedly blowing off his job and MannyGoldstein Apr 2013 #28
Imagine someone advocating impeachment geek tragedy Apr 2013 #29
No crazier than austerity during a depression MannyGoldstein Apr 2013 #31
That's not crazy, that's the plutocrats trying geek tragedy Apr 2013 #32
Exactly. Hey Admins. When is "Enough is Enough" time for this clown? FSogol Apr 2013 #30
Well a rousing 7 recs for taking a positing that Ted Cruz would applaud grantcart Apr 2013 #33
Heck, the thread throwing a pity party for Joker Tsarnaev geek tragedy Apr 2013 #34
Then 90% of Americans Politicalboi Apr 2013 #2
AG Holder lives in the reality based community. tritsofme Apr 2013 #3
Looks like he thinks some of them are too large. Rex Apr 2013 #4
Where does he say that he's willing to prosecute them, regardless of size? brentspeak Apr 2013 #7
Yeah reading comprehension, where does he say he won't prosecute them Rex Apr 2013 #11
The topic is Holder refusing to prosecute big banks, not big "companies" brentspeak Apr 2013 #18
Well, Rex, DevonRex Apr 2013 #21
That would be your deliberate misinterpretation that failed. Nowhere DevonRex Apr 2013 #16
Uh, yeah. Except for him outright saying it would be too "difficult" brentspeak Apr 2013 #19
No. I would love if he was on the US Supreme Court. He is one of the good ones. graham4anything Apr 2013 #6
The stooge who's using his office to protect the banks brentspeak Apr 2013 #8
You are free to start yet another All Hail Obama the Infallible thread. Common Sense Party Apr 2013 #9
It wouldn't matter. He gets his orders from Obama who is the real problem. forestpath Apr 2013 #10
So you think Obama is the one who should be impeached? nt geek tragedy Apr 2013 #12
You're so desperate. forestpath Apr 2013 #13
This is a thread about impeaching Obama administration officials for geek tragedy Apr 2013 #14
There are far too many of these threads rbrnmw Apr 2013 #23
I suppose if we had an actual Democratic Administration truebluegreen Apr 2013 #27
Sounds like projection. emulatorloo Apr 2013 #25
You think it is really that simple? treestar Apr 2013 #26
It is a better argument for breaking up the big banks into smaller institutions so they don't pose Agnosticsherbet Apr 2013 #15
"You seem to think it is better to put a gun to the national economy" brentspeak Apr 2013 #20
That is the argument that holder is making, take down the banks you take down the economy... Agnosticsherbet Apr 2013 #35
and I thought this was going to be about not investigating torture G_j Apr 2013 #17
NO he should not be impeached eom rbrnmw Apr 2013 #22
Great leaders surround themselves with great people. mick063 Apr 2013 #36
solution 90-percent Apr 2013 #37
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
28. Imagine! Wanting to impeach an AG for admittedly blowing off his job and
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 08:17 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Thu Apr 25, 2013, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)

enabling criminality against the 99%! Next thing, they'll want "Constitutional rights" and "access to air and water".

What's this world coming to?

In fraternity,

Third-Way Manny

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
32. That's not crazy, that's the plutocrats trying
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 10:46 PM
Apr 2013

to create deflation.

Of course, Obama looks like FDR compared to Europe.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
33. Well a rousing 7 recs for taking a positing that Ted Cruz would applaud
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:02 PM
Apr 2013

on DU that's hard to do.

Even when you post a North Korean apology thread you can usually muster 12.
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
34. Heck, the thread throwing a pity party for Joker Tsarnaev
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:03 PM
Apr 2013

being a victim of police brutality got more recs than that,

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
2. Then 90% of Americans
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:37 PM
Apr 2013

Approved of tighter gun regulations, but 90% of Repukes didn't do their job. They should be impeached too.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
4. Looks like he thinks some of them are too large.
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:41 PM
Apr 2013

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that 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. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

Where does he say they are too large to fail? He expresses concern that they have become too large.

I would rather see some of the SCOTUS impeached FIRST and FOREMOST.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
7. Where does he say that he's willing to prosecute them, regardless of size?
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:44 PM
Apr 2013

Reading comprehension.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
11. Yeah reading comprehension, where does he say he won't prosecute them
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:49 PM
Apr 2013

I must have missed that part. Don't use the editors comments either, where does Holder say he won't prosecute big companies in the transcript?

I'll just pull up a chair here and wait...

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
16. That would be your deliberate misinterpretation that failed. Nowhere
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:56 PM
Apr 2013

does he say it would be too "difficult" as you say. He is concerned that the US economy, and the people who live here would suffer as a result of criminal prosecution, just as they would have suffered had those same banks failed during the financial crisis of 2008.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
19. Uh, yeah. Except for him outright saying it would be too "difficult"
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 07:08 PM
Apr 2013

to prosecute the banks for fraud, he doesn't specifically say it would be too 'difficult'.


He is concerned that the US economy, and the people who live here would suffer as a result of criminal prosecution, just as they would have suffered had those same banks failed during the financial crisis of 2008.


Not too many dummies left over who actually believe that prosecuting bank fraud and not gifting the banks trillions back in 2008 for their fraud back then would destroy the economy, but I see there still are a few of them left.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
6. No. I would love if he was on the US Supreme Court. He is one of the good ones.
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:43 PM
Apr 2013

Yet another negative anti-President Obama thread.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
14. This is a thread about impeaching Obama administration officials for
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:52 PM
Apr 2013

some shit the OP made up.

You came in and indicated that Obama is the real problem.

So, why shouldn't Obama be impeached?

rbrnmw

(7,160 posts)
23. There are far too many of these threads
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 07:43 PM
Apr 2013

This is a Democratic website. One would think the majority of posters would be friendlier to a Democratic Administration.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
26. You think it is really that simple?
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 08:13 PM
Apr 2013

There has to be some delegating going on. The government is huge. Holder has been put in the position to exercise some of the needed judgment.

But as usual the OP is ranting material. Holder was the one hired to make these judgments and they are not so simple. I have always found this demand to "prosecute the banksters" to be vague and showing an ignorance of what it might require.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
15. It is a better argument for breaking up the big banks into smaller institutions so they don't pose
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:54 PM
Apr 2013

a threat to the entire economy if they are taken to court.

They are big because they can make more profit with economies of scale. But, clearly, when something gets to big it becomes a threat to the system that it exists to serve.

Holder's argument seems to be that these vast relatively unregulated bank structures will cause an depression if they are taken to court. The answer to me is not to impeach Holder, but to demand that Congress move to regulate them and shrink the banks to a size that, if necessary, they can be drowned in a bath tub.

You seem to think it is better to put a gun to the national economy, suck it up, and accept a depression and cause misery to millions of Americans in order ot punish a few bankers.

Shrink the banks first, then take them to court.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
20. "You seem to think it is better to put a gun to the national economy"
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 07:21 PM
Apr 2013
"suck it up, and accept a depression and cause misery to millions of Americans in order ot punish a few bankers.


A myth on the order of "If we don't invade, Saddam will us kill all!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/mortgage-fraud_b_2780896.html

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
35. That is the argument that holder is making, take down the banks you take down the economy...
Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:27 AM
Apr 2013

That is why they need to be broken up and heavily regulated.

Throwing a few of them in jail, assuming you can prove it, leaves them intact and makes a bunch of legal corporations much richer.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
36. Great leaders surround themselves with great people.
Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:18 AM
Apr 2013

Holder is an example why President Obama is not a great leader. No innovative trail blazing being done here.

Coddling to people that despise him is our Presidents greatest attribute and his cabinet clearly reflects that.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Shouldn't Eric Holder be ...