Eric Holder for President...more time is needed to heel the wounds of racism and warism in America.

[Fred Sanders]

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. (born January 21, 1951) is the 82nd Attorney General of the United States, in office since 2009. Holder, serving in the administration of President Barack Obama, is the first Black American to hold the position of U.S. Attorney General.[1]

Holder previously served as a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and a United States Attorney. While a U.S. Attorney, he prosecuted Congressman Dan Rostenkowski (D–Illinois) for corruption charges related to his role in the Congressional Post Office scandal. Later, he was Deputy Attorney General of the United States and worked at the law firm of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. He was senior legal advisor to Barack Obama during Obama's presidential campaign and one of three members of Obama's vice-presidential selection committee. As a result of the Fast and Furious investigation, he became the only cabinet member in US history to be held in contempt of Congress.[2] As of 2014 Holder is one of three members of the original Obama cabinet that are still serving in their posts, the others being Tom Vilsack and Arne Duncan.

[Faux pas]

1. Funny, I've been thinking the

same thing for quite awhile now!

[Fred Sanders]

4. Because Holder did his job under the same massive constraints as Obama and has not fulfilled

the entire wish list of some in the party is as much reason to reject him as it would be to reject Obama as a third term nominee.

I see Holder as the continuation of a pathway...change takes time, you need to get the fascists out of the way first.

When Holder is President he can appoint Al Sharpton as AG.....let the change really continue and the prosecutions begin.

[Faux pas]

5. Well said!

[Hoppy]

6. Obama, Holder, Hillary ---- useless.

Bernie, Kuchinich, Warren.... lets get someone who cares.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Their silence on the slaughter in Gaza by the IDF has many younger ones off the bandwagons.

Their recorded vote in the Senate will be the reminder.

Concern trolling is so yesterday's thing.

[840high]

56. I like your choices.

[BaggersRDumb]

27. The contempt charge makes me furious...those bastards used their official

position to exact racism on someone, just fucking furious

[Fred Sanders]

31. Not to mention it was the tea bagger House that did it, not Congress as the media reports.

[BobbyBoring]

2. can you imagine if he was president?

It would make ODS look mild by comparison!

[questionseverything]

3. no no and no

the guy that let all the freaking bankers off the hook?

the guy that let all the torturers off the hook?

the guy that has continued the "war on drugs"?

the guy that let his department lie to the sc not once but twice? protecting the nsa no less

[Welibs]

7. I couldn't agree more! Holder is a grunt for the rich & corporate. Torturers & criminals sit

in the US Congress attacking Americans. Weapons of war are in American communities. The entire nation is lawless and NO ONE is protecting 'the people.'

Eric Holder is a puppet for Wall St and Bushco gangsters!

[Fred Sanders]

9. I did not know that the entire nation is lawless...guess I need to get out more...

[JoeyT]

10. Oh it's very law and order and by the book if you're under a certain income range.

Go above that and there's literally almost nothing you can do to bring down the wrath.

Fucking over other rich people seems to do it, but other than that, you can do whatever you want.

[catrose]

34. Ditto eom

[840high]

57. Not no - Hell NO!

[blkmusclmachine]

11. NO

[bigwillq]

12. No, thank you (nt)

[conservaphobe]

13. It would piss off all the right people on both the left and right.

I can get behind that.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Why does it seem to bother the left wing of the party? What is the deal?

[Chan790]

15. If you have to ask, you'll never understand.

He's as implacable of an enemy of progressivism as exists in the Democratic party. When you hear us say things like "Fuck corporatists!" and "No more centrist Democrats!" and "Throw out the fake Democrats!", we're talking about Eric Holder every bit as much as we're talking about Hillary Clinton. You can lump Arne Duncan into that heap too.

If I wanted to vote for Republican values and quislingry masquerading as compromise, I'd change my voter affiliation.

[Hoppy]

16. shouldn't it be quislingly

[Chan790]

20. No, "quislingly" is an adverb. "Quislingry" is a verb.

One is modifies an action, one is an action.

[Cal33]

47. You are correct, "quislingly" would be an adverb, but "Quislingry" is a noun, as in your

"Quislingry masquerading as a compromise." Ask yourself the question, Who or What
is masquerading as a compromise? Answer: Quislingry is. It's an abstract noun,
of course. We all make mistakes, don't we? I do, too

[Chan790]

48. You are correct. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

19. I think you are very wrong and you can no more critique Holder than you can Obama. Would you

vote for Obama a third time if he sought the nomination again? Then why would you not support Holder?

Can you say why not and not use one same criticism you might use for Obama?

[Chan790]

21. Depends who my choices are; Obama's not been as progressive as I'd like.

But that's neither here nor there...Eric Holder isn't Barack Obama. Let's gloss over the latest and well-known foibles of Holder to discuss his positions and lesser-known highlights.

Holder's a former corporate attorney at Covington & Burling for the same Wall St. elite 1%ers that Hillary is too cozy with and their lobbyists. Who represented Merck in their efforts to weaken drug-regulation by the FDA? Who represented Chiquita when they were on trial (Twice! Once in the criminal investigation and subsequent plea-deal; again in resulting civil action) for paying to have political opponents killed and funding terrorist organizations in Columbia? Who represented and legally-advised UBS as they were assisting clients to commit tax-evasion? The answer is Eric Holder.

Holder is taking a lead from the President on drug policy that he consistently and vocally in his career has disagreed with and very likely continues to disagree with. He's a long-time hardcore drug-warrior and advocate of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug-related crime.

Holder has consistently in his career sought lighter sentencing for corporate crime and negotiated sweeter plea deals than his peers and predecessors at DoJ, going back to the start of his career. At the same time, he's been staunch about being tough of (apparently non-corporate) crime, pursuing tougher sentencing guidelines and statutes. His was the major voice advocating against more-serious charges and investigations in light of the Wall St. collapse.

For those that know him, his soft-spot for white-collar crime is not really a surprise...he was also a major voice at DoJ advocating against prosecutions from investigations of political corruption coming out of DoJ's Public Integrity Section (known as PIN) in the 1980s where he started his career; a position on his part which likely was the reason he was nominated to the Federal Bench by Ronald Reagan in 1988 and subsequently appointed US Attorney for the District of Columbia in 1993 and Asst. Attorney General by Bill Clinton; as US Atty for DC his job included prosecutor-oversight of PIN indictments and as AAG he was the primary proponent for the questionable pardon of Marc Rich in the closing days of the Clinton Presidency. (If that's all unclear, he has a long reputation of professional legal ass-covering and water-carrying for the wealthy and politically-powerful on both sides of the aisle, contrary to the public interest.)

Eric Holder's name being discussed as Presidential is a joke...he should be drummed out of public service for his service as AG, AAG and his work with the PIN section at DoJ. He's exactly the sort of person we should be critical of Obama for appointing and an early indicator of how not-serious the President's promises of "people over politics" and not being beholden to special interests really were.

Is that critique more to your liking?

[Fred Sanders]

22. You demand perfection in Holder while forgiving the lack of it in Obama, the nitty gritty details

can be debated endlessly.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. Why would you demand perfection with Obama? Holder? any elected official?

Why the unrealistic expectations for these men and no other elected official in history?

[Fred Sanders]

26. Are you typing to me?

[Cal33]

49. Obama already is president. Holder is not, at least, not yet. I would vote for Obama for

a third term or Holder for his first against any Republican -- as the lesser of two evils.
But I'd vote for a real Progressive Democrat during the primaries. I see middle-of-the-road
Democratic candidates as delaying the coming disaster a little bit longer. But they are not
capable of making any real change.

[BlueCaliDem]

60. They can't make the change unless Congress is with them.

The president can cajole, beg, guide, advise, and yes, even wine-and-dine congressional Democrats and Republicans, but if they remain staunch in their position that progression should be sloooooooooow or, in Republicans' view, non-existent, then there's nothing the president can do. S/He can't make laws or repeal them.

Power of our government lies with We the People, and represented in Congress. If we want real change, that's where we have to begin separating the wheat from chaff, and work to get more progressive senators and U.S. reps. Then a progressive president has a far better chance to make the changes we so desperately need in this country.

[Cal33]

61. I fully agree with what you say. We'll have to deal with 2014 first. We really have

to get Democrats voting in huge numbers both in 2014 and 2016.

But back to middle-of-the-roaders. Obama did have both Houses of
Congress during his first two years, correct? I think Hillary and Eric
would do the same and maintain the status quo. Our nation can't
take this any longer. It would be disastrous.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. You're right. We need to concentrate and focus on 2014 first, yes.

But back to middle-of-the-roaders. Obama did have both Houses of
Congress during his first two years, correct?

Yes. But not a filibuster-majority in the Senate, and that's what he needed. Unbeknownst to us all, Republicans had decided on inauguration night that they were going to make Obama a one-term president, and they were going to obstruct him to make him appear as a failed president. And Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Lieberman who were still there, were all too happy to help Republicans do just that.

We've only had a potential filibuster-proof Democratic majority for 14 weeks starting September 2009 when Paul Kirk had to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy. Keep in mind, Ted Kennedy had been out a few months before that before he passed away.

Fourteen weeks is less than three months going in the first year of Obama's presidency and into the holiday season that Democrats had a 60-member majority (not necessarily filibuster-proof due to Democrats from conservative States). And in addition to conservative Senators Lincoln, Nelson, and Baucus, we still had Lieberman there trying to get revenge for being "abandoned" by the Democratic Party for Ned Lamont.

[GeorgeGist]

17. You're joking, right?

[Fred Sanders]

18. Funny how everyone thinks it outrageous but can not say exactly why. When you are outraged you

must be able to say exactly why you are, or admit you were not outraged in the first place.

[OnyxCollie]

40. I can say exactly why.

He made sure that Bush et al. would get away with torture.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”

No Charges Filed on Harsh Tactics Used by the C.I.A.
By SCOTT SHANE
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/holder-rules-out-prosecutions-in-cia-interrogations.html

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Thursday that no one would be prosecuted for the deaths of a prisoner in Afghanistan in 2002 and another in Iraq in 2003, eliminating the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the C.I.A.

Mr. Holder had already ruled out any charges related to the use of waterboarding and other methods that most human rights experts consider to be torture. His announcement closes a contentious three-year investigation by the Justice Department and brings to an end years of dispute over whether line intelligence or military personnel or their superiors would be held accountable for the abuse of prisoners in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The closing of the two cases means that the Obama administration’s limited effort to scrutinize the counterterrorism programs carried out under President George W. Bush has come to an end. Without elaborating, Mr. Holder suggested that the end of the criminal investigation should not be seen as a moral exoneration of those involved in the prisoners’ treatment and deaths.

“Based on the fully developed factual record concerning the two deaths, the department has declined prosecution because the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt,” his statement said. It said the investigation “was not intended to, and does not resolve, broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct.”

Is that an acceptable reason, or am I a racist?

[Fred Sanders]

41. The war crimes in Cambodia only resulted in convictions last month, after 30 years.

Don't blame Holder, blame history. The ICC still has an open file.

Some are perusing perfection while overlooking the good.

Why are you bringing an ill founded accusation of racism into this, what is really bothering you?

[OnyxCollie]

42. That's some really stupid shit.

Blame history? Who's history? Where does history live? What kind of car does history drive?

History is subjective. History is not a corporeal entity. Thus, blaming history instead of Eric Holder is some really stupid shit.

A person who refuses to uphold his obligation to prosecute torturers is not good. Perhaps you can argue why that is not true. (Here, I'll help you out: it's "...justifiable ethically as well as in practical terms.")

I bring up racism because those whose arguments rely on some really stupid shit usually proceed to ad hominem attacks when their arguments are exposed for the really stupid shit that they are.

[Fred Sanders]

50. You take half an hour to write something and then when some disagree you say "stupid shit" a few

times in response? I was just answering your question at the end of your long cut and paste...you should really read the stuff first.

Not cool, not intelligent.

[OnyxCollie]

54. WTF are you babbling on about?

I may have taken a half-hour to respond to your post (and considering how insipid it was, you should be honored I took the time to respond to it at all), but all I did was copy and paste from a post I put together over a year ago. Five seconds of work.

Instead of joining you in fawning over Eric Holder, I provided very substantial evidence why he should not be President. In response, you say, "Blame history." Once again, WTF are you babbling on about? "Blame history" is just as vapid and vacuous an answer as, "God works in mysterious ways."

If you're going to put out an argument based on nothing but your opinion, don't whine when it gets shredded.

[Fred Sanders]

55. Got shredded....a vivid imagination is an asset, I will give you that.

[OnyxCollie]

58. Considering your original argument, cognitive abilities are not your strong suit.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. The two most hated men in Washington are Holder and Obama...

...and they just happened to be black men. I don't think it's just a coincidence.

Holder has never stopped talking about racial injustice. He has been doing an outstanding job despite the resistance and the whiners here on DU and elsewhere.

Both he and Obama have been two of the most targeted public servants in the Obama administration. Again, I do not believe that it's merely coincidence that they happen to be black men.

Hate and/or irrational expectations coming from all directions--political left and right, and often more so from the left.

[Fred Sanders]

25. They are both the targets of a massive mass media campaign of diversion and misinformation.

Thanks for the support. Looks like I am going to need it.

[BaggersRDumb]

28. Holder and Obama could not be where they are today if they werent friendly to corporatists and

Wall Street, etc. to some degree

But that is the economy of America, so of course they are connected, otherwise they couldn't advance in American politics unless they had their own wealth to buy elections.

Are they not liberal enough for me when it comes to holding Wall Street accountable, absolutely.

Are they the target of rightwing racist pricks all day everyday, of course.

Someone else said this, maybe you, we have to get rid of the fascist teaparty republican koch bros american taliban hate machine before we can expect purity out of our people who have to play ball to advance at all.

[Fred Sanders]

29. Your last sentence, I get it. Who better to keep the ball rolling than Eric Holder?

[BaggersRDumb]

30. Maybe, I think anything is possible.

The whole god damn planet is off it's rocker, Ukraine and Russia with that ass Putin who the GOP love, the Israeli's and Hamas, ISIL, Ferguson (Ferguson is but one of thousands of american towns and cities where the same thing happens everyday)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. Obama could have become a Corporate Lawyer. He was courted by top Wall Street

law firms. He turned them down, instead deciding to work for the community.

I don't know much about Holder, so I'll remain silent on him for now. However, there's no indication that he doesn't truly care about justice, especially for minority populations. His work on the "three strikes rule," and addressing voting rights, for instance, works for me. He may not be the perfect AG, but when has there ever been a perfect AG? And why the double standard and greater standards placed on Holder and Obama? Wait, don't answer.

[BaggersRDumb]

33. Double Standard? You mean like vacation times and

almost every single fucking thing these guys do?




It is so insane that it is almost funny

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'm so frustrated with the obvious

racism, that I'm too tired to be angry or sad anymore. I'm just numb.

[img][/img]

By the way, we can go down the list of double standards:

1. Liberal actions taken by this president vs. Bill Clinton or any previous Democratic administration, including LBJ, JFK and FDR--all three who made really bad decisions (LBJ - Gulf of Tonkin; JFK - Bay of Pigs; FDR - Japanese Internment Camps).

2. Pro-civil rights actions on behalf of LGBT, Hispanics/Latinos, women - no other modern day president has done more besides FDR and LBJ

3. Executive Orders - has executed the least number, but taken to task over them by Republicans with no push back from the mainstream media.

4. Benghazi/IRS scandals and "playing politics" - do I even need to go there? The corporate media has been 100% complicit by not holding Republicans accountable and not telling the truth!

5. Iraq - Obama being blamed and scapegoated, now "Dumbya" is off the hook for taking us to war. (Oh, and liberals act like Obama never said that he was going to Afghanistan/Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden. He campaigned on it!!)

6. The economy - Obama expected to clean up 10+ years of horrible economic, deregulatory policies that led to the economic/housing crises in less than 2 years. He couldn't accomplish this feat, so people got angry in 2010, stayed home and put racist ReThugs/Teabaggers back in office, never holding them accountable for what they did. Doesn't matter that we have now experienced sustained job growth and progress, Obama still blamed for failing to *single-handidly* create better-paying jobs despite deliberate congressional obstruction and speed up recovery the way we want it, so he's a failure. Had "Dumbya" accomplished what Obama has and Democrats stood in the way, his approval numbers would be in the 90s! No, fuck that, had Dumbya caugh bin Laden, his face would be plastered on the $100 bill!!

7. Wall Street abuses - no matter what, people can't seem to get this through their thick-ass heads: They are blaming the two black guys for not putting people in jail, but they are not using rational thought - DEREGULATION of the entire economic/housing industry allowed speculation on Wall Street to be LEGAL!!!!! The weakening of congressional oversight of the mortgage and banking industries; overturning Glass-Steagall; and loosening securities, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all allowed Wall Street to run amuck. So the speculation, the cheating that took place basically was legal!! What laws were broken? Sure excessive speculation and some abuses were caught and bankers were forced to pay back a little, but without evidence of actual laws broken, they got away with it. Why that's so difficult for supposedly intelligent liberals to understand continues to baffle me.

8. Guantanamo - another baffling issue for which two black men are blamed and scapegoated while others are let off the hook. No one seems to remember Obama's initial idea of releasing the detainees, suggesting that they be dispersed to and retained in each of the 50 states. Remember the outcry? No state governor or legislature would agree to take the prisoners. There was some move to send them to New York. Remember the outcry? No "enemy combatants"! Don't remember that, do we? Of course we don't. All we do is blame the two black guys, even after Congress did a bait switch and denied the funding necessary to release the detainees. People stupidly ask: Why can't Obama just sign an Executive Order and release the detainees? Why? Use your critical thinking, folks! Where would the detainees go? The states have already rejected accepting detainees in their states as they await trial. Who will take them? Where will we send them?

9. Public Option/Health Care - To this day, the president is blamed for not "pushing the public option". It's a lie from the pit of hell. What really happened? Many of us know because many of us remember staying on the phone, calling moderate and conservative Democratic senators trying to urge them to support Tom Harkin's bill that would have included a public option; or, the other version of the bill that was being put forward by Ted Kennedy. Many of us remember our calls being rejected, one by one. The votes were never there for the public option. What makes any one of us believe that votes would have been there for universal health care or Medicare For All?

10. And, oh yeah, that Birth Certificate issue - Do I even need to?

I could go on and on, but like I said, I'm exhausted from all the bullshit and the hate. Really I am. You laugh, but it's not funny at all. At this point, people should do what they want to do for all I care.

[BaggersRDumb]

36. Dont be numb, be angry, and dont just be angry VOTE

https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote

and together we will tell everyone to vote and to register and if need be, obtain unlawfully required Identifications...

[Fred Sanders]

38. Vote angry is good with me, whatever it takes. Liberals can get outraged also, it is permitted.

[clarice]

37. Not in a million. nt

[whistler162]

39. WOuld throw many on the left and right into

apoplexy. Sounds good.

You did mean heal not heel in you title. Although bringing racism to heel sounds good.

[xocet]

43. Holder overlooks war crimes. No one needs him as President. n/t

[craigmatic]

44. He couldn't win they'd say he's too pro-black.

[ucrdem]

45. He'd get my vote in a heartbeat.

Maybe Holder is the secret plan or maybe he's one of several Plan Bs. I'd like to think so because I don't see much hope of success for Plan A, and Holder has been doing a bang-up job for six years now. Of course he hasn't gotten a speck of credit for it in the media but the little bit that's leaked out has been stellar.

[BlueCaliDem]

59. I agree. And he'd get my vote as well. eom

[davidpdx]

46. No thanks

[corkhead]

51. There's no way someone could be elected with the middle name "Himpton"

[Fred Sanders]

53. And he is black, notice that? No way he gets elected President in America.

[HERVEPA]

52. Yuk. More corporate crap. No thank You.

[TheKentuckian]

62. Yay! More corporate enabling, drug worrying, covering for torturers, Wall St dominance

Having trouble getting Alberto Gonzales to switch for Hispanic outreach?

[Reter]

64. His mustache would disqualify him

No one with any facial hair has won in over 100 years. Even Tom Dewey couldn't pull off a win, and everybody had that Clark Gable 'stache in the 40's.

[Hoppy]

65. His unofficial biography says he was trying for the position of

construction worker with the Village People. He didn't make the cut but decided to keep the cookie duster anyway.