Time For Holder To Resign//Be Fired?

[red dog 1]

OpEdNews
By Rob Call
June 1, 2013


It is time.

Eric Holder should resign. I say he should resign rather than be fired because it is totally obvious that Holder has been doing the work Obama has told him to do. Holder should resign to save his reputation. He should resign AND make it clear that he is resigning because he can no longer be Obama's "sin eater" as Jonathan Turley calls him in his USA Today article "Fire Eric Holder"

I don't expect Holder to resign, because he has already demonstrated that he is totally willing to prostitute his integrity in obedience to Obama -- as he's violated our rights.


Turley says it well in the article:

"His value to President Obama has been his absolute loyalty.
Holder is what we call a "sin eater" inside the Beltway -- High ranking associates who shield presidents from responsibility for their actions.
Richard Nixon had H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman.
Ronald Reagan had Oliver North and Robert "Bud" McFarlane.
George W. Bush has the ultimate sin eater, Dick Cheney, who seemed to have an insatiable appetite for sins to eat.

For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder.
When the President promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the Attorney General who shielded officials from prosecution.
When the Obama Administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance,
it was Holder who justified it.
When the President wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the "kill list" policy."

Read more:
http://www.opednews.com

Also see:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0601/Justice-Department-scandal-Will-Obama-toss-Eric-Holder/

[The Magistrate]

1. Turley Calling For This, Sir, Means Mr. Holder Should Remain Indefinitely

Turley was a cheerleader for impeachment of President Clinton, and is always, always wrong when calling for actions against a Democrat.

[red dog 1]

2. Did you read the Christian Science Moniter article?

[The Magistrate]

6. Not Interested, Sir: Turley Is Discredited Utterly By Supporting Impeaching President Clinton

Citing him in support of a course of action is declaring that course wrong.

Mr. Holder should remain in office. Not one nano-meter should be conceded to the Congressional pack and its pseudo-liberal camp followers in the press and on internet forums.

Personally, I think Mr. Holder has been a disaster as Attorney General, and would have welcomed his replacement at any point prior to this curent situation. But now, I support his continuance in office unreservedly, and condemn any who call for his removal.

"politics ain't bean-bag."

[Number23]

73. Amen. And his disgusting comments about Thurgood Marshall in an attempt to slam Sotomayor

made me write him off forever. He is disgusting.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/26/735541/-Jonathan-Turley-is-160-an-EMBARRASSMENT

[ProSense]

8. I read it.

It's a collection of drivel from the past week, including Turley's silliness, and spin citing a recent Quinnipiac Poll

Poll: Huge Majority Says Economy Should Trump Congressional Investigations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022921185

Obama’s poll numbers hold up despite the storm of scandal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022921349

Bill Kristol in RW Weekly Standard: Doesn’t Matter If Holder Stays or Goes (GOP FAIL)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022927940

Reuters Attends DOJ Meeting After Ground Rules 'Adjusted' (UPDATE)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022929470

Holder isn't going to resign or be fired.

[red dog 1]

12. From the Christian Science Monitor article

"Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine has called for Holder's resignation as well."

[Cha]

59. I don't care.

[Cha]

60. Nor do I want him, too. thanks for the info, ProSense. nm

[red dog 1]

5. Did you read Rob Koll's OpEdNews article?

He does quote Turley, but that's not the entire article.

[ProSense]

9. The author

Eric Holder should resign. I say he should resign rather than be fired because it is totally obvious that Holder has been doing the work Obama has told him to do. Holder should resign to save his reputation. He should resign AND make it clear that he is resigning because he can no longer be Obama's "sin eater" as Jonathan Turley calls him in his USA Today article "Fire Eric Holder"

I don't expect Holder to resign, because he has already demonstrated that he is totally willing to prostitute his integrity in obedience to Obama -- as he's violated our rights.

...is too chickenshit to say what he really believes, which is likely that Obama should be impeached. So he writes the above idiotic drivel as an indictment of Obama, using Holder as his crutch.

The author is no different from the RW vultures.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022927940

[red dog 1]

16. What about what The Progressive Magazine's Matthew Rothschiold said

From the Christian Science Article"

In an interview on Democracy Now, [Matthew} Rothschild listed several reasons [why Holder should resign]
Justice Department profiles of Associated Press writer and editors and James Rosen of Fox News,
"essentially waging war on whistle-blowers under the Espionage Act," and providing the legal justification for what critics see as an assassination program using drone aircraft.

"That's not due process, and that's not what the Justice department should be doing,"
Rothschild said.."Certainly the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of this country,
should know better than that."

Is Matthew Rothschild also "no different from the RW vultures"?

[indepat]

55. Would you share your take on Holder's actions/non-actions associated with the

cases involving the late Senator Ted Stevens and Don Siegleman? Thanks

[MADem]

78. +1 nt

[Tx4obama]

3. No it is NOT time for him resign or be fire. He should stay. n/t

[bigdarryl]

4. Can any one of these idiots includinmg some progressives explain to me

What Holder is supposed to be fired for. Holder has tackled the issue of rethugs not allowing African Americans to vote in this country wonder if this is the reason there giving him so much trouble.

[red dog 1]

17. Holder has done some good, including protecting the voting rights of African Americans,

as you cite....but what else has he done that can be construed as "good"

Certainly not the heavy-handed way he has led the charge against medical pot dispenseries in states where they are legal....(which, in 2008, Senator Obama promised NOT to do)

[Gothmog]

32. AG Holder has done some great work on voting rights

I live in Texas. AG Holder was responsible for blocking the voter suppression/voter id law and did a great job in the Texas redistricting case. The DOJ under AG Holder proved to the court that the Texas GOP intentionally discriminated against minorities which can be a basis for a Section 2 case even if the SCOTUS strikes down Section 5 of the VRA.

Under bush, the DOJ voting rights section was destroyed and political hacks like that idiot Christian Adams were hired as "non-political" hires. Now the Voting Rights Section of the DOJ is back doing its job which is why the right wing nut jobs are unhappy.

Attorney General Holder needs to stay and the calls for his resignation are being based on right wing talking points.

[Cha]

61. thank you, Gothmog! nm

[librechik]

7. Time to put Spitzer in there

sigh, a girl can dream....

[Whisp]

10. Spitzmas is coming?

Holder is doing fine, don't believe the Baggers and jump on their train.

[librechik]

18. I have 2 words for that: Don Siegelman.

maybe 2 more: Dole bananas.

Oh well, you're right, he is doing fine, considering how the entire justice department is riddled with burrowed in Bushies who hold an iron fist over the entire department.

Holder is lucky he's still alive.

[TheDebbieDee]

27. I agree - Holder is fine. The 1%ers are pissed off that Holder had directed

the DOJ to make a priority of prosecuting wealthy tax evaders and tax cheats. These are the people that line the GOP pockets and are screaming the loudest for Holder's head.

[KoKo]

11. A "Sin Eater..." Never heard that expression before.

But, it's well expressed what it means in the article. And it's definitely appropriate for what goes on in DC these days and for a several decades before. Not just with Eric Holder.

Thanks for the article.

[red dog 1]

13. Thanks for your support.

I'm no fan of Jonathan Turley either; but in this case he does make some good points, as does Rob Koll.

[Auntie Bush]

14. If the ReThugs want him out...then I say KEEP him!

I would never let the Rethugs get their stinking way...again!

[siligut]

15. This just proves that Holder is effective

This is RW propaganda and a sloppy, sloppy, sloppy job of it.

[red dog 1]

19. So what the editor of the Progressive Magazine said is also RW propaganda?

[ucrdem]

20. I didn't vote for Matthew Rothschild

or Amy Goodman either. Did you?

[red dog 1]

21. No, and i didn't vote for Eric Holder either....Did You?

[ucrdem]

22. I voted for the guy who appointed him twice

and as appointments go I think it was one of is better ones.

[red dog 1]

24. I voted for Obama twice too; .but what Obama has used DOJ for is not what he promised....

..he would do when he was campaigning in 2008; especially his breaking his campaign promise to "not waste DOJ time and resources going after legal medical marijuana dispensaries."
.
I wonder how many Democrats who have family members who are going through chemotherapy and vomiting their anti-nausea pills agree that Obama and Holder going after legal medical pot dispensaries is a good thing?

[ucrdem]

29. Okay that's a legit concern and I think it's on the agenda.

Possibly neither BO or Holder quite grasped the importance of dealing with that issue to many citizens but I think they've been made aware of it and have made it a 2nd-term priority. But it's thorny because there's a lot of jurisdictional conflict and it's not a national security issue so I think in the first term it basically got left to individual states and Bush-Cheney federal appointees to sort out.

[former9thward]

35. You are making excuses.

One of the main attack dogs has been U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco. She was appointed by Obama so she is not one of Bush's appointees. You are just making up stuff to justify Obama's attack on MM.

[ucrdem]

37. Partly.

I'm going by what I've read and heard both of them say but I haven't researched it and don't know the Haag details, true. However I'm confident that the MMJ issue will be publicly addressed by one or both of them this term, much like Guantanamo, drones and the AUMF are being addressed.

[former9thward]

42. Obama should have the courage to end the federal criminalization of marijuana.

He is not going to be on the ballot again so he does not have to worry about that. At the end of his term we will have had three elected presidents covering the last 24 years who have admitted drug use. They didn't get caught in the legal system or else they probably would not have become presidents. The drug war needs to end now.

[red dog 1]

44. +1000

[MADem]

79. King Obama should wave his scepter and make a decree?

Congress makes law--not the President.

Put the blame on Congress--and their pals in Big Pharma--not the POTUS.

[former9thward]

82. Bullshit.

Obama has not said a word about this. Why even elect a president if he has no power? You would think the presidency is some ceremonial position like the Queen of England. Obama has appointed attack dogs in the U.S. Attorneys offices to go after MM. People are quick to credit Obama with good things that happen that have little to do with his office but he is blameless and powerless when anything bad comes up.

[red dog 1]

89. I'm surprised that the "Obama can do no wrong" DUers haven't savagely attacked you

They sure have gone after me.

[MADem]

98. Yeah, because, ya know, every time he does say something about ANYTHING, the GOP-controlled House

leaps through their own assholes to, quick as a wink, ginn up a bill and send it on its way to be passed into law with the POTUS's brisk signature!

Yeah....that's the ticket!!!!

You do know it's not the POTUS's job to tell Justice how to do their job; and telling Justice to ignore the law is NOT on. It's one thing to tell another branch that they can fluff off DOMA and make internal decisions to fund travel for civil union or same sex marriage partners, it's an entirely different thing for POTUS to tell JUSTICE which laws they should enforce.

Obama taught the Constitution in law school--I think I'll trust his judgment before yours. He has plenty of surrogates to carry this water. Also, plenty of people are finally waking up to the concept that there's MONEY to be made with MM.

It's only a matter of time.

[former9thward]

102. Obama can't tell Justice what to do?

He said he was going to tell them just that in 2008.

Back when he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216#ixzz2V7Jn1Yff

As chief executive he sure as hell can tell them where to put their enforcement priorities. There are thousands of pages of federal laws. Many are never enforced because there is not the resources to do it. Marijuana should be put on that long list.

[MADem]

103. He cannot order them to break the law. He cannot tell them to call off the dogs, or else.

He can tell them "where to put their enforcement priorities" but he can't punish Justice for enforcing laws that are on the books. It's a very careful balancing act. The AG has a lot of rope in these instances, and a President risks impeachment if any "strong arming" goes on in Justice. Am I the only one who remembers Nixon?

[Demeter]

93. VERY good point

The Rule of Law is so much used tissue paper around here.

[siligut]

23. No, my post was regarding the USA Today article "Fire Eric Holder"

Matthew Rothchild has a right to his opinion:

In an interview on Democracy Now! Mr. Rothschild listed several reasons: Justice Department probes of Associated Press writer and editors and James Rosen of Fox News, “essentially waging war on whistleblowers under the Espionage Act,” and providing the legal justification for what critics see as an assassination program using drone aircraft.

“That’s not due process, and that’s not what the Justice Department should be doing,” Rothschild said. “Certainly the attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of this country, should know better than that.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0601/Justice-Department-scandal-Will-Obama-toss-Eric-Holder

Now why would those concerns be considered RW?

[red dog 1]

31. Here's what Daniel Klaidman recently wrote for the Daily Beast on May 28

(The Daily Beast is hardly a right-wing publication, wouldn't you agree?)

"It was Friday May 17, and officials at the Department of Justice had gotten word that the Washington Post was working on an explosive story..a reporter had obtained an affidavit for a search warrant to seize a Fox News journalist's personal e-mails.
Controversy was already swirling around the DOJ over the recent revelation that federal prosecutors had seized the phone records of reporter sand editors from the Associated Press in a separate leak probe.
Media organizations, civil-liberties groups, and members of Congress were in an uproar about the AP case, which they regarded as an appealing intrusion of freedom of the press
Now came the Post's discovery of the Fox affidavit, which was part of a three-year-old investigation into a State Department contract employee who had allegedly leaked highly classified information about North Korea.
And this case had an ominous wrinkle that the AP case had lacked.
In the affidavit, investigators had indicated that the reporter himself, James Rosen, might also be guilty of a crime -- for simply soliciting the information.
DOJ officials, realizing the issue could turn into a press feeding frenzy, went into damage control mode.
Over the weekend, they scrambled to prepare their response, including readying a press statement assuring that [DOJ] had no plans to indict Rosen."

Klaidman goes on to relate how Attorney general Holder reacted to all this, which I won't post here...it's just too long; but, if you care to, you can read it for yourself.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/28/holder-s-regrets-and-repairs.html/

[ucrdem]

34. This is a nice touch:

But for Attorney General Eric Holder, the gravity of the situation didn’t fully sink in until Monday morning when he read the Post’s front-page story, sitting at his kitchen table.

Does the reporter eat breakfast at the Holders? Because otherwise this is basically fiction. Not only that but it's an old story: RW pulls a talking point out of its butt, press piles on Holder, take 52.

[red dog 1]

46. So The Daily Beast is also a "RW" publication?

Is that what you're saying?

[Cha]

67. yeah, what's up with that? sounds like fiction like so much of the reporting

on AG Holder.

The rw want him gone and the profiteering left does too. big shock.

[siligut]

39. I couldn't find where the article says that Holder should resign or be fired

Isn't that the issue here? Not all the scandals and charges that are an attempt to inhibit and slander Holder, but that he should resign or be fired.

[red dog 1]

45. Could it be that the DOJ scandals and (justified) charges themselves ARE the reasons he should go?

Whether or not "the article says that Holder should resign or be fired" is NOT the issue here.

The OpEdNews article is a good one, and it's factual,
(Jonathan Turley's quotes notwithstanding.).

Is there anything in that article, or in the Christian Science Monitor article that is untrue?

[siligut]

47. From the Daily Beast

Perhaps the most significant structural flaw in the current system, however, is that the fox is guarding the henhouse. Prosecutors whose main interest is catching and convicting leakers call the shots on how aggressively to pursue reporters as part of their investigations. That is why, Holder believes, there is ultimately no better solution than passing a media-shield law that would place those decisions in the hands of an independent federal judge. But until then, Holder will be the judge—a little more experienced, and perhaps a little wiser.

Personally I believe that Holder is doing what the RWers don't want him to do so they are doing what RWers do in that case, spitting out loads of media trying to show their side and slander anybody who opposes them. Liberal media sees all the hub-bub and covers the story as well, that is how media works. I see this as just another Benghazi witch-hunt. The teabaggers don't deserve tax exempt status, they are political organizations. James Rosen is a co-conspirator in an espionage case. The RWers want Holder to shut-up and go away. Here's an article for you.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/31/axelrod_holder_was_carrying_out_his_responsibilities_by_probing_james_rosen.html
MSNBC contributor and former Obama campaign and White House adviser David Axelrod said Attorney General Eric Holder was just "carrying out his responsibilities" as the nation's chief law enforcement officer when his Justice Department investigated FOX News' James Rosen.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Do you think Eric Holder should resign?

DAVID AXELROD: Absolutely not. He was carrying out--

SCARBOROUGH: Did you say absolutely not?

AXELROD: He was carrying out his responsibilities, Joe.

[red dog 1]

50. SCARBOUROUGH: "Did he overreach?"

AXELROD: "I'm always uncomfortable with the notion of a reporter being named as a
co-conspirator in a petition...I'm not sure I know that the assertion was made that it was only done once before..I don't think that -- We should not hold the reporter responsible for doing a reporter's job."


If what Axelrod said to Joe Scarbourough is true...that "We should not hold the reporter responsible for doing a reporter's job".
..then why did Attorney General Holder name James Rosen as a "possible co-conspirator in an espionage case"?

The fact is, the Obama Administration has used The Espionage Act to go after reporters and whistle-blowers more than all other presidents combined.

What about Senator Barack Obama's campaign promise to have the most transparent government in history?

[siligut]

56. This started out about firing Holder, now it's about Obama?

To respond to the matter of James Rosen:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/05/james_rosen_and_the_justice_department_leak_investigation_the_fox_news_reporter.html
In Rosen’s case, the alarm bells went off not because he reported that North Korea was about to conduct a nuclear-weapons test but because he reported that the CIA learned of this fact from a source inside North Korea. In other words, Rosen revealed that the CIA had a source inside North Korea. It’s unclear whether the source was a human spy or a communications intercept; it’s also irrelevant because, thanks to this story, the source is probably no longer alive or active.

And

Some readers might have wondered how the “U.S. intelligence analysts” that I cited knew what I reported they knew. Let them wonder, I would have shrugged. Better to leave them wondering than to blow an amazing intelligence source for the sake of a news story. This is only common sense, even to a young reporter. It should have been common sense to James Rosen, too.

So what Rosen did was exactly what a real journalist would not do. All this is lost in the RW media blitz. Rosen should be in jail.

[red dog 1]

63. Well, that's not what David Axelrod said in the Scarborough interview you posted

In fact, Axelrod said quite the opposite, didn't he?

AXELROD:..."We should not hold the reporter responsible for doing a reporter's job."

[red dog 1]

71. I guess Axelrod doesn't "think Rosen should be in jail" like you do.

But what does he know, right?

[sabrina 1]

49. What it proves is that no matter how far you bend over to appease Republicans this is the thanks

you get.

When the Obama administration chose to protect the Bush war criminals, no doubt they expected some kind of gratitude considering the mood of not just this country, but other nations regarding the Bush crimes.

When the Obama administration chose to protect Wall St. criminals and incredibly, despite all the evidence to the contrary, declare that what they did to collapse the world's economies, was not criminal, merely 'immoral' no doubt they thought that the Wall St puppets whose seats in Congress were bought for them, would show some signs of gratitude.

We however knew what the results would be. We were TOLD that it would be 'too divisive' to uphold the rule of law.

I would laugh now watching what is going on if it were not so tragic for millions of Americans and other people around the world.

I know this, had Obama applied the rule of law to the Bush gang and the Wall St criminals, they would at least have some respect for him, gruding respect maybe, but when they see someone trying so hard to appease them, it was so predictable that like all bullies, they would only push harder and refuse to even acknowledge all he has done for them. Nominating their party members to his cabinet, offering up SS to try to get them to 'like us' etc etc.

I keep waiting for him to start laying down the law so we can see them scurry like the rats they are rather than watch this tragic spectacle of a Democratic administration working so hard to get their approval, BOASTING that he is making his own angry hoping they will appreciate that, only to see him getting the same response he would have gotten anyhow had he just applied the rule of law.

In fact, correction. If they had been busy trying to defend themselves from prosecution for their crimes, it is more than likely that it is THEY who would be bending over backwards trying to appease HIM.

When you give up your principles and appease the wrong side of history, no one respects you. You can't please all of the people all of the time, so the best thing to do is cater to those who elected you and do the right thing.

[Demeter]

92. +10 to the tenth n/t

[red dog 1]

95. + 1000000000

[trueblue2007]

25. NO HOLDER SHOULD NOT RESIGN!!!

[HooptieWagon]

26. Who's gonna replace him?

I think Holder should go. However, he's doing what Obama tells him to do...his replacement will do exactly the same, so what's the difference? Better to spend our efforts getting DLCers and Third-Way Democrats out of positions of power in the Party.

[Thinkingabout]

28. red dog as in rw? you are not going to get many on this site to agree with your rw spin.

[red dog 1]

43. "red dog as in rw"?...WTF does that even mean?

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2013, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you so closed-minded that you feel that ANY criticism of Eric Holder OR POTUS automatically makes one a "right winger"?

Is Mike Papantonio a right-winger?
Is Bill Press a right-winger?

Do you believe that The Progressive Magazine is a right-wing publication?
What about The Daily Beast?

Last year, the DCCC gave millions to 17 Congressional Democrats who thought it was time for Holder to step down.....Is the DCCC a right-wing organization?

[Cha]

65. No, they're not rw.. they're the Profiteering left... Gotcha

Whiners. they may have some good points sometimes but too many times they just knee jerk whine.

[red dog 1]

83. Who are the "Profiteering left"?...The DCCC?.....Bill Press?

Mike Papantonio?
The Progressive magazine?

The Dems in Congress who want Holder out?

Who exactly?

What do you mean by "Gotcha"?

[DainBramaged]

30. I posted he should quit a couple of weeks ago and the board it up

"he's doing a great job, who will replace him, blah blah blah"


Well then we'll see if the policies were his or the President's.

[red dog 1]

33. Did you get labled a "right-winger" too?

I worked my butt off both in 2008 and last year, canvassing, going door-to-door, holding Obama fund-raising events in my home, and more...taking time off from work to do so too....., because I believed in Barack Obama then; and I still believe in him now.

Some DUers believe that ANY criticism of the President or his Cabinet Members automatically makes one a "Right"Winger"

Check out response # 28, by "Thinkingabout"....I guess he or she wasn't "Thinkingabout" it too well by stating' "red dog" as in rw?....That doesn't even make sense!

[bluestate10]

51. Holder should NOT resign. He has done an effective job and has been a rightwing target from

Day 1. The rightwing is being assisted mightily by gullible so called progressives.

[Cha]

70. Precisely. So much misinformation and blatant lies. nm

Fuck the rw assholes calling for Holder's Resignation and their dirty "Scamdals" fucking witch hunt.

[red dog 1]

86. So Fuck anyone who ever disagrees with you, right?

[forestpath]

36. I don't think it matters. The next one would be the same or worse

if that's possible...oh, and probably a Republican given Obama's most recent picks.

As bad as he is it seems clear he's doing Obama's dirty work.

[red dog 1]

96. Excellent points.

If Holder does resign, Obama will probably give the job to ReThug, to avoid a confirmation battle in the Senate.

And I've been saying for years that Holder does not make the big decisions at DOJ...his boss does

Holder is Obama's lightning rod, and that's why Obama will never fire him.

[hrmjustin]

38. He should not resign at this point.

[LittleBlue]

40. It is time for him to go

And to be honest, I'm looking forward to the next presidential election. Obama is speeding toward premature lame duck status on the wheels of scandal.

He is the biggest political disappointment of my lifetime. Probably one of the worst in history when you measure expectations and promises with deeds.

[red dog 1]

41. "Thinkingabout" probably thinks you're a right winger too

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2013, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Hateful, close-minded DUers like "Thinkingabout" feel that ANY criticism of President Obama or Eric Holder means that you are automatically a "right-winger", ..in the same category as Limbaugh, Hannity, Boehner, Romney, Palin, Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist et.al.

This type of Duer makes me sick.

[siligut]

48. You think this was viscous?

red dog as in rw? you are not going to get many on this site to agree with your rw spin.

Your hyperbole response to being questioned has me wondering about you too.

[red dog 1]

54. Upon reflection, "viscous" was not the best description of that personal attack on me

..and I've deleted that word.

As far as "your hyperbole response to being questioned has me wondering about you too."
I am at a loss to know what the hell you are talking about.
What "hyperbole response" are you talking about?

Also, why haven't you responded to my response (#50)
which was a response to your response # 47?

Did you not see it?

Do you not have an answer for it?

[siligut]

62. Don't push me kid

Any response I give you, you counter with some new accusation. The advantage of an Internet conversation is that one can just ignore whatever one decides is not worth the effort. In fact I did respond to #50 and now I am done here.

[red dog 1]

68. How about a response to # 63?

Or is that "pushing you" too?

I've responded to you politely, without any name-calling, and, as far as I can recall, without any accusations either.

I've responded with facts, and some questions.for you as well........period!

I guess the truth is too much for you to handle.

[Demeter]

52. I think Holder should be prosecuted

for crimes against the Constitution. And humanity. And probably war crimes.

[red dog 1]

57. I agree with you.

However, that is not a very popular opinion around here.

Get ready for the personal attacks
...Like the ones I've gotten since I posted an innocent but true article that merely discusses whether or not Holder should resign or be fired.

[Demeter]

81. Yeah, you got all the flakes and nuts....enough for a full bowl of breakfast cereal!

I put the ignorant cultists among us on Ignore when they get too stupid to tolerate. Usually, by the time I take them off Ignore, they are history anyway.

Keep on posting! Eventually, they either come around, or find more congenial habitats. It's tough on the cutting edge, but I'm sure you can take it, if you know you aren't alone.

[red dog 1]

84. How exactly do you put them on ignore?

[Demeter]

91. see the little head with a red X on it?

click on it next to the name of the one you'd like to not see

[red dog 1]

94. Awesome!....Thanks.

[ProSense]

53. That hopey changey thing at the Department of Justice

That hopey changey thing at the Department of Justice
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022933401

[adric mutelovic]

58. No

No investigation has found wrong-doing by Holder. None.

[Zoeisright]

64. No. Not at all.

Grow up.

[red dog 1]

88. Lighten up!

DU is supposed to be a place where Dems can discuss things without resorting to name-calling or personal attacks.

If anything I've posted is incorrect, then let me know.

[tularetom]

66. He should be fired for the things he hasn't done

I don't give a shit if he's persecuting fox or AP reporters. I'm glad he's done a good job on voting rights.

I do care that he has failed to charge even one bush era torturer with crimes.

I care that he has not lifted a finger to reverse the politically motivated conviction and imprisonment of Don Siegelman.

And I care that the banksters and hedge fund managers who stole bazillions of dollars from middle class Americans have been given a free pass to keep on stealing.

He's a corporate stooge. He should go.

[red dog 1]

87. You make some good points.

Going after the AP reporters pales in comparison to the other things you cite.

I wonder why Obama is letting an innocent Democrat like Gov. Siegelman rot in prison, and I don't buy the crap about it being because Gov. Siegelman has an appeal pending;
I think that appeal can be canceled by Gov. Siegelman himself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Yes.

[ProSense]

72. No, and there

is one thing standing in the way: President Obama. Holder is one of the best and most accomplished AGs ever.

http://www.justice.gov/accomplishments/

No amount of spin changes that.

The President has confidence Holder.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. He's accomplished at CYA.

At prosecuting torturers and banksters...not so much.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. No! Not until

his criminal investigation into the fake IRS scandal's complete, every medical marijuana user's in prison, and every errant banker is not prosecuted.

And maybe footbaths for the bankers, too. Warm ones. Ahhhh....

[MotherPetrie]

75. Obama only fires good people like Shirley Sherrod, and the likes of Holder don't resign, so

I'm afraid we are stuck with Holder as long as we are stuck with Obama.

[red dog 1]

90. I'm afraid you're right.

[cntrfthrs]

77. Geezus....how many times

have I seen a 'Holder should resign' thread here?!?!? ODS...

[rucky]

80. On the state level, the Attorney General is elected.

The State AG's.

Maybe we should do the same on the national level? Though I can imagine that does not shield us from selective justice under our current electoral system - just open the AG position up to broader influence.

[Pragdem]

85. Not only no, but fuck no. It would be a sign of weakness. nt

[KoKo]

97. Kick...

[Puzzledtraveller]

99. DU has a legion of Baghdad Bob's ready to assure us that Eric Holder

is in no danger of being fired too.

[backscatter712]

100. Fuck yes, he needs to resign.

We need an AG that jails banksters and stops the persecution of whistleblowers, marijuana growers and activists, not the other way around!

[Puzzledtraveller]

101. ^^this^^