General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShouldn'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.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I'm Ted Cruz, and I approve of this thread.
randome
(34,845 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)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)without constitutional grounds for impeachment.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)No?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to create deflation.
Of course, Obama looks like FDR compared to Europe.
FSogol
(45,360 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)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)being a victim of police brutality got more recs than that,
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Approved of tighter gun regulations, but 90% of Repukes didn't do their job. They should be impeached too.
tritsofme
(17,325 posts)You are welcome to join.
Rex
(65,616 posts)"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)Reading comprehension.
Rex
(65,616 posts)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...
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)I don't think BS won too many friends here. Funny how that happens when...
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)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)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)Yet another negative anti-President Obama thread.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)is "one of the good ones"?
Another stupid post.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Or another Bloomberg-worship post.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)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)This is a Democratic website. One would think the majority of posters would be friendlier to a Democratic Administration.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)we would be.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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)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)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)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.
G_j
(40,366 posts)..go figure..
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)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.
90-percent
(6,828 posts)Enforce TOO BIG TO BAIL
-90% Jimmy