Fire Eric Holder

[notesdev]

He has NO business prosecuting John Edwards over what is fundamentally a personal embarrassment while THE BANKERS WHO DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY are about to run out the statute of limitations!! This epic failure of an Attorney General is not only giving the whole party a bad name, but is undermining the very reason we have law in the first place!

He not only found time to selectively prosecute Edwards, a political opponent, but also finds time to prosecute medical marijuana patients and services, shut down Internet gambling sites, go after baseball players for steroids, and to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody">supply automatic firearms to smugglers and drug cartels. Yet, even being provided by many credible sources with slam dunk evidence on the historically unprecedented fraud in the financial system, he has prosecuted... nobody.

Enough is enough. Get rid of Eric Holder before he permits the statute of limitations on financial fraud to run out for the criminals who strip-mined the savings of the middle class, and the life out of the country! Our nation is at risk, if they get away with it.

Eliot Spitzer - a REAL prosecutor (despite his personal flaws) - said it not two months ago: PROSECUTE OR QUIT.

[provis99]

1. why would Obama fire him?

He's doing the job that Obama wants him to do: going after medical marijuana and whistleblowers while giving Wall Street crooks a free pass.

[CelticThunder]

15. I have come to the same conclusion. He also does Obama's bidding in giving Repugs a pass.

[Octafish]

2. Lots of criminality Mr. Holder hasn't gotten around to prosecuting.

For starters...

K&R. Thank you for an excellent OP, notesdev.

[Enthusiast]

36. PLUS ONE...............nt

[emcguffie]

3. Is there something we can do to make that happen?

I would gladly do it.

[Renew Deal]

4. Edwards is a political opponent?

Is ripping off donors for nearly $1 million dollars a "personal embarrassment?"

[notesdev]

5. He is

He ran against Obama in the 2008 primaries, can't get much more direct of an opponent than that.

As to what he did with the donations given... no it was not honorable, but that money was given to him voluntarily and willingly. He is definitely not the first to waste it; and many politicians end up pocketing their leftover campaign donations which is effectively the same thing.

Pursuing that line of logic is effectively taking the GOP side of the Clinton-Lewinsky impeachment trial.

[frazzled]

16. Yo: it's against the law to take $750,000 from one individual

for campaign purposes. Inform yourself on what happened.

[notesdev]

31. I believe you are incorrect there

The money is being construed as a campaign donation for the specific purpose of charging him with a crime. It was never intended to be for campaigning either by the sources nor by Edwards, it was intended to cover up the mistress situation. It's a serious stretch to say that's a campaign donation.

[frazzled]

32. That is what the court will decide

It's not as if there are not witnesses (the aides) and documents (the emails and check notations) available for the court to come to a decision.

I like your certainty about the outcome of these charges. The entire case is based on the premise that the moneys were solicited and used in furtherance of the campaign. They have to prove that, of course. At this point, each side thinks they have a case to make about it. Why don't we see where it goes.

How can I be "incorrect" when the case isn't even decided?

[notesdev]

34. Right, it is not decided

So given that it is quite the stretch of a charge and the maxim that any prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, it looks quite specious to me. The money was not put into the campaign, never hit the campaign bank account, was not spent for any campaign activities. It's all based on saying that the cover-up of the mistress was a campaign activity.

I was never a big Edwards fan but, in my opinion, he is 100% correct in saying he is innocent of the charge. I don't know of any precedent for a charge like this; it is an entirely new construction of existing law without legal precedent to back it up, a very weak case.

[Fly by night]

6. A-damned-men!!

The flip-flopping on medical marijuana, the inability to replace Bush-era attorneys still infecting all levels of the USDOJ, keeping Michelle Leonhart as DEA head -- the list is endless.

Eric Holder is -- by far -- the worst cabinet-level appointment in the Obama administration.

[TheKentuckian]

29. I think Duncan is willfully worse by a hair. At least with Justice Holder types are abundant.

In education, he had to really go out of his way to pursue an agenda.

[Enthusiast]

37. Fixed that for you.

Eric Holder is -- by far -- the worst cabinet-level appointment in the Obama administration in a cabinet full of bad appointments.

[still_one]

7. Maybe you are not aware, but Goldman was served yesterday. The problem with a lot of the other

issues you are bringing up in regard to the "fraud" in the financial system, it takes time to accumulate that evidence, and with all the deregulation that has been going on since Reagan, some of the reckless activities may not be a violation of the law

As for Edwards, did he violate the law? I don't know, it is a seperate matter

[girl gone mad]

8. It doesn't take this much time.

Over 1800 bankers were prosecuted and over 1000 thrown in prison by this point after the S&L crisis.

[still_one]

12. True. It was a different environment, and I suspect if more people actually expressed their outrage

with their representatives, instead of being more concerned with American Idol, or the "edward's fiasco", something would have been done by now also

[provis99]

17. the NY Attorney General served Goldman.

Holder and the DOJ didn't have a damned thing to do about it.

[Marr]

22. Not by Eric Holder's office. n/t

[sharp_stick]

9. Edwards is a simple douchbag

he may have used campaign contributions to try to cover up banging some woman other than his wife and being stupid enough to knock her up. His political career ended the minute he decided that boinking whats her name was more fucking important than his career. Fuck him and the fucking horse he rode in on, Elizabeth was too good for him by far.

[izquierdista]

10. Is Eric his real name?

I thought it was 'Place'.

As in "we're waiting for someone who knows how to take on Wall Street".

[montanacowboy]

11. AND HEY ERIC HOLDER

when you going to get around to prosecuting John Ensign? or the Bush criminals?

DOJ is so fucked up and getting worse all the time. Next to Gonzales and Ashcroft, this guy is the worst.

[KeepItReal]

13. +1

Eom

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. As soon as Obama allows him, iow, NEVER!

[librechik]

14. except for corporate shill Holder, the DOJ is practically identical now to when Bush appointed it

Is Obama waiting for a second term to get rid of these a*holes who won't prosecute their friends? He might not be allowed a second term. By those he chooses to protect.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. Not only that,

but his justice department has reversed several convictions of Alaska's Corrupt Bastards Club, including most famously Ted Stevens. It pisses me off, actually.

[Romulox]

19. Thank GAWD he's rousted all those potheads and now, John Edwards.

Americans are safe again!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jumping John]

21. So it was a lie about looking forward?? n/t

[JDPriestly]

23. Obama looks forward when asked to prosecute torturers and

eavesdroppers, oh, and Republican adulterers too. But when it comes to Democrats who commit adultery and try to cover it up by paying their girlfriend off with the money of their rich friends, Obama looks backward.

[apples and oranges]

24. Unrec. Holder is not to blame. Attorney Holdings is to blame. Please get

your facts straight.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=7004

[EFerrari]

25. Holding worked for Eric Holder. nt

[Ignis]

30. Hey, now! The buck stops...er, somewhere else!

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. K&R

[scarletwoman]

28. I agree. Why have we been saddled with such an utterly useless Attorney General in a supposedly

Democratic administration? What a waste!

[GeorgeGist]

33. His willful incompetence ...

comes from the highest level of government.

It used to be considered obstruction of justice.

Now it's BUSINESS as usual.

[OKNancy]

35. Last night on MSNBC, they said it was a Republican hold-over

who was responsible. Not only that, but Edwards messed up any hope of a plea or a "non-prosecution" because he hired the former Obama lawyer ( can't recall the name right now). By hiring him, if they had not prosecuted it would have looked like a special favor.