Holder suggests he may resign

Maybe now we can hold some people accountable.

How about getting a replacement who'll crack down on crimes that REALLY matter?

the war crimes with no expiration date.
the wall street criminals.
the corporate mafia.
the pharmaceutical companies.
all the rule-breakers who cheat and deceive for their own profit.

Shine a light on all of them.

reform the prison system to make it humane and rehabilitative.

Whoever will his replacement be? I have no idea, I'm looking
forward to DU analyses

.

Up & running on day one & leaving no stone unturned. Yes!

Maybe if Larry Flynt starts investigating again about R dalliances, they would approve Spitzer.

In addition to all his other skills and aptitudes.

...dispensaries the hell alone and focus on big ticket crime....you know...Wall Street...

But, doesn't he serve at the request of the President? Does he get a choice to continue to serve in his capacity as AG or does our President make that decision?

Uhm.....pretty sure it isn't up to him.

I hope he does, and take his war on pot with him.

Worthless anti-cannabis asswipe IMHO. Afraid to TOUCH RW criminals.

We need her here.

It's okay with me if she wants to seek higher political prominence.

not the AG.

by resigning.

PB

I have several different articles that Holder and Geithner will be leaving in the 2nd term.
Putting it out that you are thinking of resigning is a lot nicer than waiting to be fired.

And a lot of potheads, too, apparently.

I don't hold it against him though- I'm sure he got his orders from the top, so I doubt a new AG would have a different focus.

what Wall Street did was unethical, a-moral, and horrendous . . . but it was not illegal. They did everything within the law because their lackeys in Congress (both Republican AND Democratic) passed those laws to protect them (and they paid a pretty penny to get those through).

To excoriate President Obama's AG is shortsighted. Those who broke the law on Wall Street were prosecuted to the fullest extent and sent to prison. Why do people still have a problem with this basic concept; that the AG can only prosecute IF laws have been broken, and with the financial meltdown, very few were.

THE PRESIDENT:

"Well, first on the issue of prosecutions on Wall Street, one of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehmans and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn't necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless. That's exactly why we needed to pass Dodd-Frank, to prohibit some of these practices.

... I think part of people's frustrations, part of my frustration, was a lot of practices that should not have been allowed weren't necessarily against the law, but they had a huge destructive impact. And that's why it was important for us to put in place financial rules that protect the American people from reckless decision-making and irresponsible behavior."

Since when did Robo Signing become legal? Since when did faking documents to wrongfully foreclose on people become legal?

Since when did deceiving investors by providing them with false information become legal?

Otoh, you may be right, we seem to have zero laws that apply to rich and famous and to war criminals in this country anymore.

As I've stated in my previous post, there where laws have been broken, people have been prosecuted. In this country, it's a lot easier to break laws than to be prosecuted for them - especially when you have a team of very well paid attorneys at your every beck and call.

Alleging illegal acts by these moneyed interests is easy. It's the gathering evidence that counts, and that's hard to do. The Federal Gov't had sued many banks and they're paying up. They are currently suing B of A. It takes time to prosecute, but prosecutions are happening even if they're not mentioned in the media.

But all it takes is "We don't feel like we should go forward with it" and it all gets shredded.

Doesn't mean there wasn't anything illegal going on- it means that selective enforcement is being applied. We call selective enforcement very ugly things when it's some other country. Here, it's for the greater good of capitalism.

the usual suspects, mostly small-fry, while refusing to look at the higher ups.

Much like the War Criminals though, they are all being protected by their Government. It is shameful as the victims of these crimes will never see justice.

There are no excuses, only a real sadness that this is what we have come to in this country. If any ordinary person has done anything remotely similar to what these criminals did to the World's economies, causing even a fraction of the amount of human suffering, there would be no excuses being made.

It only adds insult to injury to have what has been described by many legal experts as the 'biggest heist in history' described as just 'moral failure' or whatever other euphemisms have been used. I guess we could describe any crime as immoral.

Deals have been made to prevent victims from getting justice. One of those victims is a friend of mine. The crime committed against her was deliberate, it was pre-meditated, and it was cruel. To take away someone's home based on fake documents is a crime, but the criminals will not be prosecuted. She has been offered $800.00 as 'justice'. Thank you Congress, you did a good job of protecting those you really work for.

Lawsuits filed? That is not much consolation to those who lost everything, investors, home-owners, the numbers of victims of these 'immoral' acts are astounding.

I still hope that with pressure from the growing number of victims and perhaps a different DOJ, there will be prosecutions eventually. Without that, the crimes will continue as they are doing still because there really are no consequences for these powerful, wealthy people.

of war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Bush Junta. I found that silence telling. People died at Bagram and Abu Ghraib. Homicides were committed. And no policy maker was tried or even investigated because we needed to look 'forward,' not 'backward.'

Well, I have a confession to make now that the election is over. I voted Green (first time I didn't vote Dem since 1980) to protest the abandonment of justice by this administration.

on your last paragraph and for pretty much the same reason. Living in CA affords us many luxuries and voting our conscience is one of them.

If Democrats join Republicans in the protection of some of this country's worst criminals who have caused so much suffering, death and pain around the globe, those who stayed with them this time, with far less enthusiasm than before, will be turning away in droves. You can only set aside your conscience if you have one, when you know the alternative would be even worse. That is how many people voted this time.

But that won't continue unless we see that making that difficult decision this time, pays off in actually application of the law to those who committed crimes. I know many people who did vote their conscience this time, which is probably why the popular vote went from a margin of ten million to three, enough to give Democrats another chance. Now those who gave them that chance are going to be very loud, very demanding unwilling to compromise on matters of justice.

It has started already with the Unions and dozens of Liberal groups, who did stay with the party this time, but with their wide open refusing to accept the excuses and now mobilizing to put pressure on Democrats to prove that they did not throw their votes away.

There is a huge shift happening in this country. Thanks to OWS the money in politics was a big issue for many voters this time. Reading back on other elections, 2004 eg, it's interesting to see the different attitude Dems had towards money at that time. We, they didn't see it as the poison we now know it is. People are way more educated now, especially young people. I would be willing to bet that this is the last time people will be willing to give Dems a chance. I can see a lot of Independents running at the local level and for Congress and over time a weakening of the two party system unless they demonstrate they are responsive to the people.

I don't think Obama is going to nominate Mike Papantonio, but that would be a vast improvement.

He needs to fire his economics team, too and replace them with people who aren't Wall Street toads. With a new economics team and a new AG, maybe we can put banksters in their place.

Do you suppose Dimon, Blankfein, Moynihan, et al. would open new branches inside Ft. Leavenworth?

prison.

My dream is Mike Papantonio.. just a dream.

He would be excellent!

And go suck up corporate welfare some more.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The next AG will order DEA to stand down on Colorado and Washington, and remove cannabis from scheduling in the very first day.

who wrangled Congress to give him the power to Schedule drugs. After the study that HE commissioned came right out and said that cannabis was not a dangerous drug, Nixon got pissed because it was the "wrong message." That's when he got the law changed and it's how cannabis became a Schedule I drug. To my knowledge, the law hasn't changed which means Obama can change it at any time.

eom

He's probably mad at the states that legalized marijuana.

I suspect he is tired and ready to move on.

for the AlwaysWrongRight. But I can see where Holder is tired of it all and wants to move on. I just hope that the next AG is more in their face. That usually scares Republicans.

move on so the country can start dealing with all these criminals. It's way past time to send a message that the massive crimes committed by all these criminals will not be tolerated and that this country really is what we keep claiming it to be, a country of laws that apply equally to all citizens.

That those tracked weapons were used to commit felonies in the US and killed federal agents is a cross he will carry for the rest of his life.

I hope he does the right thing and resigns. He is tarnished.

He's been an unmitigated disaster.

We need somebody who isn't afraid of the rightwing GOP Congress. Issa must have broke some law? He should have handcuffs on him by now.

For smoking a joint.

.... I hope he does resign.

But I wonder who would take over the AG position?

not to bring you down off your successful "election high",but be careful what you wish for,as often times the replacement is worse.I can support this jackasses departure.I could also hope that the Pres will FINALLY side with the people who request an end to this War on (some)Drugs...but somehow I doubt that he will.I hope I am wrong,but it is my belief that there are those in the Government who are trying to manipulate which drug cartel prevails in Mexico,and Cannabis is a huge chunk of their profits.

Anyway..I hope to hell he doesn't go and promote somebody like Napolitano to replace Holder...

Adelson will worry if Spitzer were AG. He's got money, good credentials and is a progressive bulldog.

Wall St.'s afraid of him. He brought down the Gambino family's control over Manhattan's garment and trucking industries.

As attorney general, Spitzer prosecuted cases relating to corporate white collar crime, securities fraud, internet fraud and environmental protection. He most notably pursued cases against computer chip price fixing, investment bank stock price inflation,predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders, fraud at American International Group, and the 2003 mutual fund scandal. He also sued Richard Grasso, the former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange over a compensation package perceived to be excessive.

All that's why they had him set up in an "escort" scandal.

It would serve as a gigantic middle finger to Wall Street by Obama after they dropped so many millions on Romney's campaign.

You nailed it.

that shes considering stepping down soon and getting out of government, not that I can blame her since she has been involved in it in one form or another for decades and might just want to do something else like teach or retire.

She has said she may stay on a month after the inauguration to allow time to transition.

I was pleasantly surprised that I liked her performance in the senate, but she's been pretty fucking terrible at her current job. I have no idea what behind-the-scenes shit happened to secure it for her, but it must have been serious, because she certainly was completely unqualified.

Obama realized he can't go after anyone big with Holder. Rich crooked white guys will always try to claim reverse racism if he investigates them. I'm sure the next AG will have a lot more motivation and be less reserved about going after the klan. The new AG should start with Jon Husted.

just sayin'

He won't get the job either.

Obama won't appoint a gun-grabber as AG. Many of the states that gave us the present of a Mittens thrashing are very supportive of the 2nd amendment.

Hope the new AG will shift enforcement from gardeners to banksters.

The Worst. A.G. Ever.

The President appointed him. If he leaves the President will appoint someone just like him. Mr. Obama has never indicated any displeasure with him or his policies or direction.

Former Texas Lieutenant Governor and progressive Ronnie Earle who is famous for filing charges against Tom "The Bugman" Delay.

He always seemed so classy. So sick of racism.

Hmm, who should we believe--Holder or Rupert Murdoch's NY Post?