Eric Holder NEEDS to be fired, enough is enough

[DainBramaged]

the man is an embarrassment to America.

[bigdarryl]

1. FIRED for what

He didn't write the current laws you can thank the Congress for the PATRIOT ACT that's where a lot of this is coming from.If you think a replacement AG is going to be any better than Holder your mistaken they will follow the same bullshit patriot act rules.

[DainBramaged]

11. One question

who is going after medical marijuana uses, the Republicans or Holder?




(crickets)


Has his own agenda, and I doubt it's the President's.

[premium]

21. Don't forget his refusal to prosecute Bush Admin. war crimes. nt.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. Marijuana is illegal. Tell Congress to repeal federal laws against the use and possession of

marijuana. Holder's job is to enforce the laws, not repeal them.

Try again.

[AgingAmerican]

70. Marijuana is legal here

I can smoke a joint on my porch, no problem. People smoke it on the street here now. The cops don't even care. You were saying?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

125. What does your people able to smoke pot have to do with *FEDERAL* laws? Again, tell Congress

to repeal federal laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana and I'm right there with you. I don't disagree that these are stupid laws, but those laws still exist. Give me a Congress that will repeal these laws.

[truedelphi]

128. We don't need to have Congress do one single thing. We need a President

That would have the cajones to appoint an Attorney general who would re-schedule the substance to de-criminalize or totally legalize it.

Ain't gonna happen under Obama or Clinton, should l she win in 2016. Those two are far too willing to help their buddies in Big Pharma and the Big Privatized Prison industry.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

131. The attorney general does not "legalize" anything. He/she enforces the laws. Congress is responsible

for enacting or repealing laws. The president doesn't have the authority to subvert the law, not himself nor his attorney general.

[truedelphi]

132. Excuse me - please google re-scheduling of illegal substances. That ability is totally within the

Power of the Attorney General.

Right now, marijuana is Schedule One. If it was made Schedule Five, it wouldn't be much different than coffee.

Please get educated about the law regarding this. Thank you!

[randome]

134. You HAVE to get Congress on board with this first. No way around that.

Holder makes a move like you suggested, Congress moves at light speed to forbid it. Because, after all, they don't want to appear 'soft' on drugs, especially when there is a black man in office who might take credit for reclassification.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[premium]

138. Too much money to be made off the WOD,

no, no,no, let's not upset the money maker for LE.
You're right, Congress would move faster than they have in the last 20 years to put a stop to that happening.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

142. Thank you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

135. I'm educated enough, and your snarkiness doesn't change the fact: state laws do not trump federal

laws. Federal laws supersede state laws. Get educated on that.

[premium]

140. True,

but states can refuse to enforce Fed. law, forcing the Feds to come in and enforce those laws, states can also refuse to contribute any assets, IE: facilities, personnel, info, to help the Feds.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

143. That's absolutely true, too! Obamacare, the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act...

Those are good, current examples.

[premium]

146. Not something I would recommend,

The Fed can punish states by withholding things like Highway funds, Education funds, things like that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

151. And it has. In the 70s, the feds held back transportation funding until states complied with

environmental air quality regulations. This was under the Nixon administration. And as much nonsense that the Republicans spew, they want transportation and infrastructure funds. They voted against the stimulus, but in private, wrote letters for former Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood begging for transportation funds. UGH!!

[truedelphi]

158. I never ever EVER said state law trumps fed laws.

I have repeatedly pointed out to people on this board that state laws do NOT trump fed laws.

However, regarding the scheduling of Marijuana, I provide this from Jon Walker, of "Just Say "NOW!" (Whose writing can be re-printed elsewhere, "fair use copyright" in efforts to educate the public on the marijuana issue.)



« Majority of New York Voters Want Marijuana Legalization
Dear Washington and Colorado Tokers: The Whole World Is Watching »
Obama Doesn’t Need Congress to Change Federal Law Regarding Marijuana
By: Jon Walker Friday December 14, 2012 7:25 am

TweetTweet97

When it comes to how he has handled the federal/state conflict regarding medical marijuana and he will handle now that two states have adopted full legalization, President Obama has a habit of lying to try to shift responsibility on to Congress. Once again, in an interview with Barbara Walters that will air this evening, Obama heavily implied that he would need Congress to change marijuana’s legal status. From ABC News:

Obama told Walters he does not – “at this point” – support widespread legalization of marijuana. But he cited shifting public opinion and limited government resources as reasons to find a middle ground on punishing use of the drug.

“This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law,” Obama said. “I head up the executive branch; we’re supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we’re going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it’s legal?”

With 99 percent of federal laws this would be the case, but the Controlled Substance Act is fairly unique. The law explicitly gives the executive branch the right to change the legal status of any drug without Congressional involvement. If the administration, after examining the latest scientific research, determines that cannabis shouldn’t be Schedule I it has the power to move it to a lower schedule, which would make medical marijuana legal under federal law, or even unschedule it all together, which would effectively legalize it.

Several sitting governors in states with medical marijuana have petitioned Obama asking him to reschedule marijuana, and currently the Obama administration is actually fighting an effort in federal court to get the executive branch to provide a legitimate review of marijuana. There is no reason Obama can’t simply stop fighting the case and reschedule marijuana without needing to involve Congress.

Of course there are many political and regulator reasons why it would be better for Congress to adopted a new law tailored to address the issue, but the point is Obama isn’t helplessly constrained by federal law on this matter like he pretends to be. The federal law currently gives Obama incredibly wide latitude on this issue, including the ability to unilaterally change marijuana’s legal status.

[tularetom]

95. Torture is illegal too, and so is massive bank fraud

But Holder has a perfect record on those counts.

Perfect in the sense that he hasn't done jack shit about them.

Since it's his job to enforce the laws he might at least try to put a few banksters or torturers behind bars.

[villager]

98. +1

This is precisely the problem with this attorney general.


And this administration. In a nutshell.

[randome]

101. Gonzales and his ilk saw to it that 'torture' never occurred, according to their definition.

So how would you prosecute someone?

As for the bankers, deregulation is more of a culprit here, and that's Congress' responsibility.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

126. Again, which SPECIFIC banking laws were broken? The problem is that we deregulated the banking

industry. That problem existed long before Holder got to D.C. So again, can you tell me which specific laws were broken?

[truedelphi]

130. Right now, massive amounts of robo signing is going on

Regarding credit card debt. And much of that debt has already expired.

Here in California there is a four year rule - if you don't pay on a credit card for four years, the debt is not enforceable. Unless the bank that holds the credit card gets your signature saying you are willing to pay.

So guess what is happening?

[randome]

48. There are currently 2000 legal MMJ dispensaries operating in the U.S.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/07/medical-marijuana-industry-growing-billion-dollar-business/2018759/

Most of those the DOJ has gone after has been at the behest of local authorities. Others were flagrantly violating federal law.

You really want to fire the head of the department that enforces federal laws?

Do you have an agenda?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DainBramaged]

65. Agenda, like the NRA and the gungeon?

[randome]

72. Since you mentioned MMJ, that seems to be yours.

Again, with more than 2000 dispensaries operating, Holder is merely enforcing federal law for those that flagrantly violate it or for those local authorities want shut down.

And he is NOT enforcing it for those that are squeaky clean.

I don't see how anyone can fault him on this subject since he is doing the job he was hired to do.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

85. This is utter nonsense which you keep repeating even after you are informed

Holder forced the State of Oregon to give them records of all patients and growers in our program, they did not wish to do so. We have no dispensaries to speak of. Each participant is registered with our State, address of all grows, with the State, total compliance and yet Holder hassles the State to divulge records they did not want to share. All of us here are easily as clean as AIG or Goldman, sweetness.
Obama and Holder make this a high priority in the face of terrorist attacks, which Obama promised he'd not do. He lied. Period.
"Federal agents have forced the Oregon Public Health Division to turn over an untold number of patients’ medical marijuana records, according to court records recently uncovered by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/12/feds-force-oregon-to-surrender-medical-marijuana-patient-records/

Federal will imposed on the State without any stated reason. Investigating us all for not bowing to King Eric.

[randome]

90. They were suspected of selling MJ illegally. Says it right in the link.

And how is this closing anything down?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

115. Who was suspected? The entire program? The article quotes the DOJ as saying they had

probable cause to look. They did not say at whom, or what their reasons were, they did not share that information with the State either. We don't know if they took ALL records or some. They simply can not have probable cause against many in this program which is very different from CA's in that each grow and plant is registered with the State, address and the works. There is no secret from the authorities in question. None.
The State did not want them to take these records, upthread you say DOJ actions are at behest oft the locals and that is the opposite of the truth here in Oregon, also in WA....
They still have not shared the basis of this probable cause to anyone in the State of Oregon. Suspicion alone is not probable cause. Some 'authorities' suspect all minority members, for example. To say 'we suspect' is not enough. Do you think some 'official' being suspicious is good enough reason for whatever they wish to do? Really?
Also, this is a shitty priority to have while we have violent crime and terror attacks to deal with. Huge waste of time on vague nonsense.

[randome]

118. I agree it's a waste of resources. It's also politics.

You can't turn a blind eye to federal law, at least not completely. You need to give at least give the impression that federal law is still the law of the land.

Although Holder got away with not enforcing DOMA because it was simply unenforceable and was up for Supreme Court interpretation.

It's not a good situation, no doubt about it. But with 2000 dispensaries currently operating, he clearly is not trying to close them all down, only those he thinks he can 'get away with' in order to show that the DOJ is 'on the ball'.

It's not pretty.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

127. DOMA is enforced. It is the law of the land. No one has stopped enforcing that law. This is beyond

rhetorical bluster and veering toward the offensive. To say they stopped enforcing DOMA is false. DOMA is enforce. The Federal Government enforces it constantly, using tax code and immigration law, Social Security regulations,you name it they enforce it thousands of times a day against us, for it is the law.
After years of defending DOMA in court using deeply offensive and unneeded bigoted language, Eric and Obama eventually stopped defending the law in court. But they and all of the Federal Government full enforce DOMA at great personal cost to good Americans.
Words mean things. DOMA fleeced us at taxtime, in service to Sanctity and Gawd, in your name that was done to us. Want to cut us a check? Or would you rather admit that DOMA is the fully carried out and functionally enforced law of the land?

[randome]

129. Well, I confess to being confused about DOMA then.

It was ruled unconstitutional last month by a federal judge, no? And Obama in 2011 told Holder to not enforce it. I don't know all the ramifications beyond those two events. I thought DOMA was now trash, other than awaiting a final SC ruling.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

139. It is the law of the land, enforced in IRS code and every other area of law.

The enforcement is fully engaged. Not enforced would mean equality under tax and other laws. It would mean equal, it would mean the Feds could no longer make us file single as they do, and they do. Force us to. Penalty of law.
I'm sorry, but ever since they 'stopped defending' DOMA, many 'moderate centrists' breathlessly declare that it is 'not enforced'. First time I saw it they attacked Dan Choi for continuing to call for equality 'even though DOMA is no longer enforced,what is it he wants?'

[randome]

150. Yeah, you give 'the gays' SOME rights and then they want more. Sheesh!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DainBramaged]

110. IT-JUST-WON'T-STOP

Some folks just want to be ornery.


You did your best, I am out of medals....

[SoCalMusicLover]

113. Well, OK....So Long As The SQUEAKY CLEAN Ones Are Left Alone

Can we do that with the banks also?

[AgingAmerican]

74. That is absolute nonsense

The local authorities here in Washington state have been working with the dispensaries to protect them from the Federal government.

When Washington state passed it's first dispensary law, Holder came in and told the governor that if she signed the law, the Feds would arrest any state employee that assisted in carrying out that law.

Because of that threat, the law didn't get signed. The state now has a co-op law where the patients run the dispensaries as non profits. This law was set up to protect patients from the Feds. Holder is now going after the patient co-ops. It never ends with this lose clown. He needs to go.

[randome]

83. Can't find anything on that yet. Have a link?

But the DOJ is holding back on going after shops since Washington legalized. They are restricting their operations to those shops that are within 1000 feet of a school.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020902577_potdispensariesxml.html

Maybe that's true, maybe that's not. All I'm saying is that Holder is not the 'Mr. Evil' some want to paint him as.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Actually what you said was

"Most of those the DOJ has gone after has been at the behest of local authorities. " Those are your words and they are not supported by the facts, not by the statements of the State of Oregon,Washington, Colorado....
Now you bring in this specious schools thing, which is again an assertion you fail to support. No one said "Mr Evil' we are discussing an important issue that is life or death for some. You have no facts so you switch your goal posts and use hyperbole. It shows.

[AgingAmerican]

91. Local authorities side with the patients, not the Feds

Pot is legal here. Even the police side with legal use.

[randome]

92. I think 'flagrantly violate' covers the 1000 foot law.

Not intending to move any goal posts at all. But opening up shop within 1000 feet of a school or whatever other institutions they identify is a very bad idea if one wants to continue selling to patients.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

105. No it does not. Your claim was of 'flagrant violation of Federal Law' and all marijuana business is

exactly that, there is NO Federal law that offers metrics which allow for zoning of a medical marijuana clinic. Under Federal law, the law you cite, there is no provision about distance from schools at all. No distinction is made between one location and the other, for the Feds say they are ALL in flagrant violation' of their law, which is an absolute prohibition with no exclusions at all.
So your argument is specious, made up out of law that does not exist. It also does not explain the seizure of records from the State of Oregon against the will of the State of Oregon.
Your pretense that Federal Law makes distance from schools a matter of concern is simply false.

[randome]

109. Maybe I'm wrong about that but this looks like there is something on the books that covers it.

http://norml.org/laws/item/federal-penalties-2

To a minor or within 1000 ft of a school, or other specified areas carries a double penalty.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

120. Your claim is that some Medical Marijuana Clinics are 'clean' under Federal Law and that is bullshit

Most of what you type is simply incorrect riffing. 'It's at the behest of the locals' but it is not. 'It's about those who break Federal Law'. But they all break Federal law, that IS the entire issue at hand.
To make your nonsense work, Eric would have to announce actual Federal parameters to meet under which State Law would be respected. He just goes after people, he never says 'here is what you did wrong and here is how to be in compliance'. See the difference? There is no way to be in compliance, you just wish to pretend that there is because you want to excuse this bullshit.
The People say it is legal. Eric is upset about that, and wishes to control the people. I'm with the people. Eric does not make the law. Nor should he be allowed to make up the law as he goes along.
If elections don't matter, if the people are not the source of power, the Eric and Barack and the lot of them are without legal standing, for their authority is derived from the same place as our marijuana laws, the ballot box.

[randome]

124. Oh, come on, federal law is not changed at the state level.

Holder is clearly NOT following federal law when he allows SOME dispensaries to remain open. And he IS following federal law when he closes some down. It's a schizophrenic attitude toward law enforcement, no doubt about that.

If he wanted to control the people, why does he leave 2000 dispensaries operating? Not enough time on his hands, I guess? That would be a fair argument. But I think he's straddling the line here. Maybe he should not be straddling it but I think that's what he's doing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

133. I'd say the letters he sends to the 2000 and the IRS actions against them and the other forms of

intimidation are evidence that Eric is moving to close all such clinics in all States, methodically and without looking like a nationwide jackbooted crackdown. The fact that Eric has not YET closed all of them does not mean he does not want to or plan to. Your choice of the word 'allows' is very incorrect, not one has been told they are allowed to remain open, 100% are in daily fear. By your logic, when we see a speeder not yet ticketed the cops are allowing them to go 130 MPH on the interstate. Because they have not stopped him. Yet.
Nothing is 'allowed' nothing has been deemed 'in compliance', there are only those who have been closed and the rest who have only been threatened and intimidated.

[randome]

137. I don't think ALL currently operating dispensaries have been served notice, have they?

I welcome being wrong. And I agree it is not a healthy environment to be operating a dispensary -especially one that actively tries to stay within federal law- under penalty of abrupt closure.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[AgingAmerican]

89. Of course

Feds threaten crackdown if medical-pot makeover becomes law

Washington's top federal prosecutors have threatened to crack down if the state goes forward with a proposal to legalize medical-marijuana dispensaries and growers, putting in jeopardy a bill that has already passed both chambers of the Legislature.

In a letter to Gov. Chris Gregoire on Thursday, U.S. Attorneys Jenny Durkan of Seattle and Michael Ormsby of Spokane wrote that the bill would undermine drug enforcement and could result in an array of prosecutions or civil penalties against dispensary owners and growers, as well as against state regulators enforcing the proposed law.

"And state employees who would inspect and audit dispensaries and growers under the bill "would not be immune from liability" under federal drug laws, the prosecutors wrote."

[randome]

94. Yes, but it's in response to a new bill.

The bill, SB 5073, is the most sweeping rewrite yet of the 1998 initiative legalizing medical marijuana. It is a response to pressure from municipal governments and police unsettled about a statewide boom in dispensaries, which were neither specifically allowed nor banned under existing law.

I don't understand the technicalities involved but apparently there were already some dispensaries in operation that the DOJ did not go after? They are only doing it now because of this new bill.

Maybe it's bullshit to be going about things this way. I don't know what is in SB5073 and, even if I did, it's probably written incomprehensibly like most legislation.

But my point remains: if there were dispensaries allowed to operate in Washington before this bill, then obviously the DOJ was not trying to shut them all down.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[AgingAmerican]

96. The DOJ was shutting down dispensaries before this bill

That's why it was written, to stop the Feds from harassing dispensaries.

So the Feds threatened to prosecute any state employee that carried out the law. That is why the co-op law came into play. Now the Feds are going after the patient co-ops.

It never ends.

[randome]

103. Okay, so why are they picking on Oregon? Were SOME dispensaries allowed to remain open?

I have a hard time thinking that Holder simply has it in for Oregon when he leaves 2000 other dispensaries alone.

I'm saying there's probably a reason. Maybe not a good one but there probably is one.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DainBramaged]

111. Wow thanks for keeping my thread at the top I lives it veddy mooch

[AgingAmerican]

141. I don't know anything about Oregon dispensaries

I know about Washington.

Here in Washington, Holder went after high profile dispensaries. Probably because going after every dispensary would be prohibitively expensive.

[premium]

147. Also, going after the high profile dispensaries sends a very powerful message

to the rest of the dispensaries, either toe the fed. line or else.

[madokie]

108. Every case I've read about in depth

has been because they were breaking the law they were saying protected them from the intrusion.

[randome]

112. I sure wouldn't say the DOJ is always to be trusted but, yeah...

...most of the time it appears to be something like this. In Orange County, residents wanted them closed down. Other locations, state authorities often requested federal help in closing down facilities.

That's not the case all the time but if often is. And with 2000 dispensaries operating, I find it not credible to say that Holder is out to close them all.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[madokie]

116. Agreed

I didn't mean to imply that the DOJ was to be trusted 100%

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. He should be fired for not doing his job. He is occupying the AG's office to let the 5-yr statute of

limitation run against the prosecution of the banksters.

When he leaves the office he is going to be a very rich man.

[think]

47. Zing..../nt

[geek tragedy]

4. For being Obama's attorney general.

The two administration officials that get scorned with the most hatred in the Internet world are Eric Holder and the President himself.

What do they have in common?

[cui bono]

59. So people who think the banksters and BushCo should be prosecuted

are "so-called 'progressives'"?

Your scale is really off balance. Or are you saying that people who blindly support Obama and Holder are extreme right wingers? Because that's where they would land if what you say is true.

The people you are calling "so-called 'progressives'" are the ones trying to defend democracy, not just one man with a D after his name. The people who defend no matter what are the ones you should concern yourself with.

[AgingAmerican]

75. Do you believe that the banksters and the politicians who enabled them

to steal 40% of the net wealth from the middle class should have answered for their crimes, or not? Only progressives feel that way? Seriously?

How is that hate? Explain.

[hughee99]

13. I think i know...

Is that neither is willing to prosecute the criminals that nearly destroyed the global economy and lied us into TWO wars?



No, that couldn't possibly be it. It must be because they are African American.

[geek tragedy]

18. They do not have a prosecution fetish the way many do. nt

[hughee99]

51. You're right, I don't know what's wrong with people.

One group got us into 2 wars that resulted in tens of thousands of lives lost and cost more than a trillion dollars. The other group of people nearly crashed the global economy with their recklessness and then got many of the same people they screwed over to bail them out. Some people like to suck toes, some like to dress up as furry animals, others think people whose activities that had such far reaching effects should at least be seriously investigated and prosecuted if evidence of wrongdoing is found. Everyone's got their little quirks.

[cui bono]

63. Prosecution fetish???

Prosecuting for war crimes is a fetish? Prosecuting the banksters is a fetish? What world do you live in?

[AgingAmerican]

76. Bizarre what lengths people will go to cover up for the republicans.

[randome]

84. Deregulation is the crime here. It's not robbery when Congress says, 'Here. Take what you want.'

And war crimes? Do you have any inkling of how difficult that would be to prosecute? Cheney and Bush in jail? Is that what you want? So do many of us. But it's not going to happen.

Lying is not against the law, even when done by the Commander In Chief.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cui bono]

87. Again... prosecution fetish??? Hardly.

The poster is using that term presumably in an attempt to belittle whoever they're talking about. And the only result is the poster using the term looks foolish. There's no fetish in desiring justice.

And I don't think you are correct in there being nothing to prosecute regarding the banksters. I've read/heard something where there were violations, cooking the books, lying to investors, illegal foreclosures etc... Although I agree with you, deregulation started the whole ball rolling and of course they're going to jump on something advantageous to them if it's made legal.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. We both know the answer to that one, my friend.

[cilla4progress]

107. Exactly what Michael Eric Dyson said this morning on

"Now" - "it's hard for two brothers at the top."

High tech lynching indeed. I'm just hoping Holder WANTS to leave, and Obama, et al. figured out for him to take the fall on this to defuse righty attacks on them. I.e., OK, a**holes, you got your guy. Now back to MY agenda."

I mean, they've been out for Holder from the beginning.

I'm so sick of this shit!

[premium]

8. How about for refusing to prosecute the Bush Crime Family?

Oh, here's another one, how about for going after MMJ instead of prosecuting the gangster banksters who very nearly ruined the country?
That good enough?

[premium]

10. So the Bush admin. didn't use torture?

Silly me, and all this time I thought that it was proven that he ordered waterboarding of prisoners at Gitmo.

I suppose that he didn't lie us into war either?

Your statement right there proves that you have no fucking clue.

[premium]

14. Bush Crime Family,

as in the Bush Admin..

Here, I'll make it easy, the Bush Crime Cabal.
Better?

[premium]

19. Trouble reading?

I said the bush crime family, as in, the bush admin., not his personal family, his admin family, as in Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc..
Get it now?

[premium]

24. Good, use it. nt.

[HangOnKids]

36. This is A Democratic Site And The Bush Family IS A Crime Family

Wow your first day has gone really well.

[HangOnKids]

42. Please Keep Rolling Dude

Your posts have cracked me up all morning!

[premium]

52. My pleasure,

your wish is my command.


On edit: Whoops, sorry, thought you were talking to me.
My apologies.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

102. "He's dead Jim."

.

[premium]

114. Oh noooooooooooooos.

[hootinholler]

56. JEB? Is that you?

Way to defend us!

-Poppy

[hootinholler]

78. No you're not stepping away

You are throwing the "conspiracy theory" charge at people for stating the obvious: The Bush family is a criminal syndicate going back to Prescott. I have no idea if they are the largest or not, but the information is there, in the public domain, and I bet someone even has a timeline.

Seriously, either learn the subject or have a nice cup of STFU.

[AgingAmerican]

80. Yes, you do defend the Bushes

You get highly upset when faced with the facts about what they did.

[cui bono]

66. Yeah, because you don't want to learn anything, that would ruin your generalizations

and stop giving you a reason to call people who actually read stuff Alex Jonesians.

[AgingAmerican]

79. You don't hide it very well

do you?

[Aerows]

81. Wait

so George Bush wasn't president when we wrongfully invaded Iraq based on lies?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

67. "I refuse to read anything beyond that from you." Yet you keep reading and replying. So which is it?

[blm]

55. Apparently you never read the BCCI Report.

Or CIA drugrunning reports.

[cui bono]

64. Wow. I think you've gotten a little lost along the way.

And you clearly haven't been reading much since Bush took office.

[AgingAmerican]

77. So all the abuses of the Bush administration were just leftist conspiracies?

Wars, economic collapse, looting 40% of the nations wealth were just tin foil hat conspiracies made up by the Democrats?

Someone left the barn door open.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. I'm sorry but what the wall street bankers did wasn't illegal, and that's the sad truth and the

problem. DEREGULATION made it possible for bankers to cheat, for mortgage banks to lure unsuspecting consumers, to fleece the public. That's the problem. Eric Holder can't prosecute anything if, again, nothing illegal took place. Can you tell me what illegal acts were committed. And please be specific and forthright.

As for the medical marijuana cases, marijuana posession and usage is a federal crime. Until Congress passes a law legalizing it, the DOJ is doing its job.

As for the Bush Crime Family, do we really want to drag the country through endless investigations that many would just view as political on the part of the Democrats? For me, not while people are losing their homes and starving in the streets.

[randome]

53. It's not theft when Congress opens the doors and says, 'Here. Take what you want.'

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

117. That's right. The problem was created when Congress chose to abandon its constitutional

responsbility exercise oversight.

[randome]

121. In so many ways, including the declaration of war.

But loopholes can't be closed by the DOJ. We have no remedy but to get more energetic Congressional reps in place who want to do something other than sit on their fat asses and give tax breaks and loopholes to billionaires.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

123. AMEN!! Thank you so much for exercising reason. Much appreciated. Regulatory oversight is a function

of congress. If more people understood this, perhaps these ridiculous calls to fire Holder would cease.

It's amazing how much we give the wingnuts ammunition to go after administration officials.

[AgingAmerican]

82. The looting was legal now?

Seriously? This is just bizarre reading something like this on a Democratic website.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

122. You need a specific illegal action and you don't have one. The problem lies with our laws.

You can attack me all you want, but until there is a legal justification, no laws were broken. Tell me which laws were broken. Please be specific.

[AgingAmerican]

136. Robo-signing

is illegal. Thats the first one off the top of my head. I can post a vast list of unprosecuted illegal activities by banks if you really aren't aware of any.

Just because the Bush DOJ made a conscious decision to ignore criminal behavior by banks, does not make those crimes legal.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

149. And do you know for certain that these illegalities haven't been investigated or prosecuted? Do you

know for sure; or, is it that you haven't heard it on the television, nothing has been done? Because Eric Schniederman (former NY Attorney General) was appointed to look into Wall Street dealings more in depth, and to my knowledge, his investigation has been ongoing. Just because nothing has been found YET doesn't mean nothing is happening.

[AgingAmerican]

155. In five years "nothing has been found yet"

After bankers stole 40% of the middle class wealth? Nothing found yet? Seriously? In five years?

Nothing to see here folks, just keep walking...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

156. Investigations usually take many years. You know that. And again, if what bankers did were legal

BECAUSE of deregulatory policies, then what is there to prosecute? Please be specific.

[AgingAmerican]

157. No

They don't go on for years, finding nothing.

The Financial Crisis Commission recommended prosecutions. Nothing came of it.

The deregulation did not legalize what they were doing. The Bush administration regulatory agencies simply refused to enforce the laws.

What laws did they break? Are you kidding me? They committed mortgage backed security fraud. Bundled mortgages into multiple funds then sold them as single entities. Misrepresented the soundness of investments and pushed them onto investors. Foreclosed on houses they didn't own. Gave huge loans to people without checking their ability to pay. Created adjustable rate mortgages and caused the interest rate to jump to predatory levels. Putting together financial packages designed to fail, then betting against them while selling them to investors. Robo signing foreclosures.

And on, and on, and on

[Bluenorthwest]

100. They just say the banks are 'too big to fail, to big to punish' and wave away accountability

Entire States vote in large majority to legalize marijuana or medical marijuana and yet the will of the people is not 'too big to fail' they just ignore it and speak of how much extra time and manpower they have now that they have solved the terrorism threat...oh that's right. They haven't.
Obama promised Oregon and Washington that he'd not allow the DOJ to do this shit because at the time he said 'they have better things to do, like fighting terrorism' Now they watch bombs go off in Boston and the very next week file motions against WA State businesses and go after records the State of Oregon does not want them to have.
While people in Boston were in intensive care, DOJ had plenty of time to pursue legal marijuana in States where it is legal due to VOTING. If those are priorities you support, write to Eric and tell him so.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

119. Actually, writing the White House and Eric Holder is the action we should be taking...

Not just bitching on a forum day after day. Why not take action?

[geek tragedy]

3. "an embarrassment to America"

Oy.

You really should credit Allen West when borrowing his language.



http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/06/12/allen-west-eric-holder-is-a-national-embarrassment/

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. Even a broken clock is right twice per day

With West, it might only be once per day.

[geek tragedy]

33. "embarrassment to America" is lazy, shrill hyperbole, nt

[cui bono]

69. Yeah, unlike this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2846979

[otohara]

6. Meh

don't fall for they hype.

[Zen Democrat]

7. Just who do you think the Republicans would confirm as a replacement?

Probably no one we'd be able to stomach, and a Republican at Justice would probably take the Acting AG job for the next 3-1/2 years and turn a blind eye to voter intimidation in 2016. Is that what you want?

[OmahaBlueDog]

32. Move Napolitano over from DHS

She was AG in Arizona before she was governor.

[JaneyVee]

15. OH NO, another hit it then quit it OP. OP gone missing?

[DainBramaged]

17. I'm at work genius....

go play with matches

[JaneyVee]

23. So am I. And 'genius' is correct.

[Puzzledtraveller]

27. Me too, sshhh, don't tell anyone

[DainBramaged]

35. And I'm Harvey Walbanger....

[JaneyVee]

41. Hi Harvey!

[byeya]

25. Fired for nonfeascence. Fired for misplaced priorities and resources. Fired for failing

to properly oversee agencies like the fbi. Holder is not the man for the job.
0bama has his resignation letter on file. The President doesn't really need to anounce a reason.

[JaneyVee]

29. And who will replace him, Gonzalez?

[cui bono]

73. Really? You'd do better if you'd go missing based on that reply. n/t

[Peregrine Took]

22. Can't wait to see him squirming in his seat this afternoon.

He can always run back to his silk tie law firm when he gets run out of DC.

[Smarmie Doofus]

28. Yikes. I was going to post that Reagan had appointed him to a judgeship in 1988 ...

.... then I saw this:


>>>In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita's payment of "protection money" to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations.[22][23] In the agreement, Chiquita's officials pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $25 million. Holder represented Chiquita in the civil action that grew out of this criminal case.[23] In March 2004, Holder and Covington & Burling were hired by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to act as a special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board. The investigation was subsequently canceled on May 18, 2004.[24]>>> wiki

I guess it's hard to practice law w/o getting one's hands a little dirty , but.... Holder's a little scary.

[OmahaBlueDog]

30. I don't know about "NEEDS to be fired." He may be offered up as a sacrifice.

As a wise man once said about a town much like DC, "It's Chinatown, Jake."

Once the GOP got both houses of Congress in 1994, they doggedly pursued Whitewater --another scandal, like Benghazi, with extremely little substance and very much hyping on Fox News. Ultimately, Ken Starr found out that Bill Clinton fooled around with an intern, and an enraged congress pursued a fruitless impeachment. So Benghazi is clearly the new Whitewater (because you can get a 2-4-1 deal and go after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton simultaneously).

Now we have an IRS scandal and an AP records snooping incident. As a result, we have more stories like this:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18273908-first-thoughts-sidetracked?lite

*** The danger for the White House: NBC’s Kasie Hunt also notes that the controversies have sidetracked Congress, too. For instance, a weeks-long markup of a major Senate immigration bill received little attention yesterday; Attorney General Eric Holder testifies at a 1:00 pm ET oversight hearing, which will likely focus on the department's seizure of AP phone records and other thorny issues. Moreover, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee (Orrin Hatch) wants the IRS investigation to take priority over dealing with tax reform. And get this: Fully a third of House committees are now focused on investigating the Obama administration. As NBC’s Mike O’Brien writes, all of this COULD imperil the Obama White House’s second-term legislative agenda. “The fact of the matter is House and Senate Republicans have done very little legislating so far this year. This certainly isn't going to help things,” Jim Manley, a former senior Democratic Senate aide, told O’Brien. “Now they're going to feast on investigation after investigation for the rest of the year, while throwing red meat to their base and forgetting about the divisions in their own caucus.”

..and this

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/opinion/who-can-take-republicans-seriously-on-the-budget.html?_r=0

Republican lawmakers have become reflexive in rejecting every extended hand from the administration, even if the ideas were ones that they themselves once welcomed. Under the circumstances, Mr. Obama would be best advised to stop making peace offerings. Only when the Republican Party feels public pressure to become a serious partner can the real work of governing begin.

..so this much is clear: 5 months in, the second term agenda is off-the-rails. Sure, he'll be able to Veto any Obamacare rollbacks, and he'll still get to nominate judges, but any meaningful budget reform or gun control legislation is likely toast.

What do administrations do when the agenda goes off-the-rails? Typically, they shake up the cabinet. If you're shaking up a cabinet, why keep an AG who is tainted with the scandal d'jour, and who has been a lightning rod for criticism since "Fast & Furious." Put Napolitano into the AG spot, and see if David Petraeus wants to come in from the cold and put him in charge of DHS. I might also 2x think whether Denis McDonough is really the right guy to be COS in this new reality.

[byeya]

34. Good historical analysis.

[sinkingfeeling]

37. Even Grumpy Cat can't save the OP from an UNREC.

[DainBramaged]

62. Grumpy Cat is not upset

[aikoaiko]

38. Well, some of the pro-gun people told you that a long time ago.

[The Link]

39. Holder is an idiot.

I cringe when he appears on television.

[think]

44. Naw. He's very intelligent but acting like an idiot while being a corporate tool.

Just a another pathetic pawn for the very very rich & powerful.

[MjolnirTime]

43. This OP is the true embarrassment.

30,000 posts and what, you don't like Obama?
We get it already.

[Puzzledtraveller]

50. Where and when did the OP ever say or give the impression

they don't like Obama?

[MjolnirTime]

71. every third post

[DainBramaged]

60. I don't like Obama, really?

I see troll school is out early this year

[chillfactor]

54. oh good god...

stop the hysterics already!

[HangOnKids]

86. You Really Like To Tell People What To Do Don't You?

In the past week, I've seen you post get a grip, get a life, and now stop with the hysterics to long time posters. It is a tad bit insulting.

[DainBramaged]

144. WWWAHHHGGGVVVBBBLLLAAAGGHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

[NCTraveler]

57. I am not a fan of Holder and thought he should have been let go....

at the beginning of this term. But politically, this is not a time to get rid of him. They must stand strong and fight.

[hrmjustin]

58. He did nothing to be fired for. I think he should consider stepping down as soon as this stuff calms

down. I am not a fan but he should not be fired.

[Gothmog]

68. Holder has been very effective in protecting voting rights and effective on redistricting issues

I live in Texas. Without Holder's actions, we would have been operating under a horrible voter id/voter suppression law and the courts would not have found that the Texas GOP engaged in intentional discrimination in redistricting Texas. Under Holder, the DOJ Voting Rights section has been reconstituted and is now enforcing the law. Under Bush, the DOJ voting rights section was in effect gutted and loaded with political hacks like that idiot Christian Adams (who would have never been hired without the Bushies breaking the law).

[AgingAmerican]

93. But horrible at prosecuting thieves

who stole 40% of the nations wealth.

[premium]

104. Or prosecuting war crimes nt.

[DainBramaged]

145. An excellent point fellow aging person

[villager]

97. He should have been dumped after the first term, at the latest

But the fact that he's still there does show a certain ongoing contempt for civil liberties, on the part of this administration.

[quinnox]

99. K&R - Holder has been a terrible attorney general from day one, yep, he should be fired

[Blue_In_AK]

106. Personally, I always thought he was a bad choice for the position. Nt

[applegrove]

148. Didn't he recuse himself from the AP

investigation?

[Ikonoklast]

152. Holder is not going anywhere. This AP story is about to blow up in the Republican's faces.

It's already starting to give them the shivers.

Mark my words, the AP is fucked on this one, and so is the Congressional Republican who leaked classified information about intelligence assets in the field to them.


Holder already has a pretty good idea who it was, the focus of the subpoena was fairly narrow, not anything like what has been characterized by the AP so far.

[hrmjustin]

153. When I saw Sensenbrenner asking Holder about the AP story I got the sense he was trying to figure

out who is the leaker. I think they are scared it was one of theirs.

[Ikonoklast]

154. Holder is being rather coy, but he did recuse himself on this.

I'm fairly certain he knows exactly who it was.

[NaturalHigh]

159. He passed "embarrassment" years ago.