What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Eric Holder To Step Down As Attorney General (2 Viewers)

from a guy that used to work for Holder at DOJ;

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/25/goodbye-eric-and-goodridance/?singlepage=true

What can be said about Eric Holder’s six years as attorney general that PJ Media hasn’t already said? The news that Holder is going to resign should be bittersweet to anyone who cares about racial equality and the rule of law. The damage he has already done to the country leaves a turbulent wake that is ill-matched to the financial reward awaiting him at a shameless and large Washington, D.C., law firm.

Our country is more polarized and more racially divided because of Eric Holder. He turned the power of the Justice Department into a racially motivated turnout machine for the Democratic Party. That was his job in this administration, and he did it well.


When I first reported on the racially motivated law enforcement of Holder’s Justice Department, it seemed fanciful to some. But after six years of Holder hugging Al Sharpton, stoking racial division in places like Florida and Ferguson, after suing police and fire departments to impose racial hiring requirements, after refusing to enforce election laws that protect white victims or require voter rolls to be cleaned, after launching harassing litigation against peaceful pro-life protesters, after incident after incident of dishonesty and contempt before Congress — after all this, it was clear to anyone with any intellectual honesty that this man had a vision of the law at odds with the nation’s traditions.

Why would it surprise anyone he behaved as he did? As I made clear in my book Injustice, he carried around a quote in his wallet for 40 years about race that, he explained to the Washington Post, indicated that he had common cause with the black criminal. That’s a fact. That’s who he is.

And few in the House knew how to hold him accountable. Some who did are Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), Rep Frank Wolf (R-Va), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA). Unfortunately, too many others failed to understand what they were up against.

Eric Holder was a radical progressive who used the power of the federal government to impose his progressivism on the United States. He loved big interventionist government that took sides based on your politics and your race. He was a menace to the rule of law.

So he exits. But instead of being shamed into obscurity as he ought to be, he will cash in. He’ll abandon the tools of dividing Americans between black and white and worry about a new color: gold. When Holder lands at a big and shameless lawfirm in Washington, D.C., it will say as much about the country in 2014 as Holder’s rancid tenure said about the modern Democratic Party.

That someone like Eric Holder can find a lucrative career in this town, and be feted at all the right cocktail parties, says a great deal about what we have lost as a nation. In another era, a man like Holder, unmoored from the law and the truth would not have a future. Instead, I suspect Holder has a very bright one.

Those of you clamoring for “indictments” or “prosecution” of the man can give up. It isn’t going to happen. Nothing is going to happen to him, except that he will move on to a job that even most “1 percenters” wouldn’t recognize.

Holder’s tenure represents the beginnings of a post-Constitutional era, where the chief law enforcement officer of the United States serves to dismantle legal traditions. Holder is the first attorney general to whom law seemed to be an option, a suggestion on the way to a progressive future. Most folks, and most lawyers, who didn’t devote daily attention to him might not have noticed the ground shifting during his tenure. But shift it did, and very deliberately.

Law, like liberty, is a tenuous thing. Failing to understand the sources of domestic tranquility, the sources of your relatively good life, usually also means failing to recognize the threats to that pleasant tranquility. Holder used his time at Justice to do things that corrode the rule of law. Law and liberty are precious things, and Holder did enormous damage to both.
This is an interesting critique, but it's incredibly partisan. It was written by a guy who objects with progressive views on race, on voting, on abortion. If you don't like all those things, then of course you're going to consider Holder to be a terrible attorney general. But you're also going to consider ANY progressive attorney general to be terrible, and you're going to dislike any member of of a Democratic administration.
I think his main objection was the politicization of the civil rights division of the DOJ, where he used to work. Holder turned that part of the DOJ into a pac. But yeah, its partisan and biased, that's what we do here Tim
Wait, are you insinuating that the DOJ wasn't politicized before Holder? That's absurd.

 
You do realize Holder has not even concluded the Zimmerman shooting and are still investigating it? That is about as stupid as they come.

 
from a guy that used to work for Holder at DOJ;

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/25/goodbye-eric-and-goodridance/?singlepage=true

What can be said about Eric Holder’s six years as attorney general that PJ Media hasn’t already said? The news that Holder is going to resign should be bittersweet to anyone who cares about racial equality and the rule of law. The damage he has already done to the country leaves a turbulent wake that is ill-matched to the financial reward awaiting him at a shameless and large Washington, D.C., law firm.

Our country is more polarized and more racially divided because of Eric Holder. He turned the power of the Justice Department into a racially motivated turnout machine for the Democratic Party. That was his job in this administration, and he did it well.


When I first reported on the racially motivated law enforcement of Holder’s Justice Department, it seemed fanciful to some. But after six years of Holder hugging Al Sharpton, stoking racial division in places like Florida and Ferguson, after suing police and fire departments to impose racial hiring requirements, after refusing to enforce election laws that protect white victims or require voter rolls to be cleaned, after launching harassing litigation against peaceful pro-life protesters, after incident after incident of dishonesty and contempt before Congress — after all this, it was clear to anyone with any intellectual honesty that this man had a vision of the law at odds with the nation’s traditions.

Why would it surprise anyone he behaved as he did? As I made clear in my book Injustice, he carried around a quote in his wallet for 40 years about race that, he explained to the Washington Post, indicated that he had common cause with the black criminal. That’s a fact. That’s who he is.

And few in the House knew how to hold him accountable. Some who did are Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), Rep Frank Wolf (R-Va), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA). Unfortunately, too many others failed to understand what they were up against.

Eric Holder was a radical progressive who used the power of the federal government to impose his progressivism on the United States. He loved big interventionist government that took sides based on your politics and your race. He was a menace to the rule of law.

So he exits. But instead of being shamed into obscurity as he ought to be, he will cash in. He’ll abandon the tools of dividing Americans between black and white and worry about a new color: gold. When Holder lands at a big and shameless lawfirm in Washington, D.C., it will say as much about the country in 2014 as Holder’s rancid tenure said about the modern Democratic Party.

That someone like Eric Holder can find a lucrative career in this town, and be feted at all the right cocktail parties, says a great deal about what we have lost as a nation. In another era, a man like Holder, unmoored from the law and the truth would not have a future. Instead, I suspect Holder has a very bright one.

Those of you clamoring for “indictments” or “prosecution” of the man can give up. It isn’t going to happen. Nothing is going to happen to him, except that he will move on to a job that even most “1 percenters” wouldn’t recognize.

Holder’s tenure represents the beginnings of a post-Constitutional era, where the chief law enforcement officer of the United States serves to dismantle legal traditions. Holder is the first attorney general to whom law seemed to be an option, a suggestion on the way to a progressive future. Most folks, and most lawyers, who didn’t devote daily attention to him might not have noticed the ground shifting during his tenure. But shift it did, and very deliberately.

Law, like liberty, is a tenuous thing. Failing to understand the sources of domestic tranquility, the sources of your relatively good life, usually also means failing to recognize the threats to that pleasant tranquility. Holder used his time at Justice to do things that corrode the rule of law. Law and liberty are precious things, and Holder did enormous damage to both.
This is an interesting critique, but it's incredibly partisan. It was written by a guy who objects with progressive views on race, on voting, on abortion. If you don't like all those things, then of course you're going to consider Holder to be a terrible attorney general. But you're also going to consider ANY progressive attorney general to be terrible, and you're going to dislike any member of of a Democratic administration.
I think his main objection was the politicization of the civil rights division of the DOJ, where he used to work. Holder turned that part of the DOJ into a pac. But yeah, its partisan and biased, that's what we do here Tim
Wait, are you insinuating that the DOJ wasn't politicized before Holder? That's absurd.
when I was there in the Bush years, one of the running jokes among the trial attorneys in my section was the front office's weird obsession with a particular public cross (first amendment related) case. I can't remember, but I think it was somewhere in SD. The attorney on the case used to get regular calls from either the front office or white house asking about this. Of all cases to be worried about.

 
timschochet said:
My recollection of the Gitmo issue is this: back when Obama ran for President in 2008, he promised his more liberal supporters that he was going to get rid of it, and treat the terrorists languishing there as common criminals. This was a big deal to a lot of people who were (and still are) upset at the government's continuing encroachment upon civil liberties ever since 9/11. Many of these same people accused George W. Bush of committing war crimes.

Holder, who appears to be IMO somewhat of a liberal idealist, was obviously the point man for the administration on this issue. I do believe that it was Obama's intent to close Gitmo down. I think the State Department and the military talked him out of it, and that Holder was forced to take most of the blame for his boss changing his mind.
By definition, can you be "Somewhat of an idealist"? Isn't an idealist already at one end of the spectrum?

Tim, I think your opinions are pretty left leaning, but it seems you try to write in a way that, in your mind, makes you seem open-minded, in the middle. If you opinions lean left then just own that. Stop trying to seem like you are the most reasonable man because you can see both sides of issue.
My opinions on racial issues are definitely left leaning and I've never pretended otherwise. I try as much as the next guy to be open-minded but can't claim success.

However, I don't regard my self as a leftist, because I strongly disagree with most of them on other issues not related to race. I think if you were to poll most of the true progressives in this forum, they would take issue with the idea of me as one of them.
Just a few of the Issues you agree with progressives on outside of race:

- immigration

- social spending

- gay marriage

- abortion

- global warming

- gun control

- legalization of drugs (i think)

I can't think of any issues you agree with conservatives on, except for maybe military spending. You are at odds with both progressives and conservatives on some issues like spying on Americans.
You haven't paid close enough attention:

1. Immigration- No. I support the Chamber of Commerce and the libertarian position on this issue. It is similar to the liberal position in some ways, but distinctly different in others.

2. Not exactly. Certain programs I'm in favor of, certain ones I'm not. In general I am opposed to anything which hinders the free marketplace.

3. Yes, absolutely.

4. Yes, absolutely.

5. Not at all. I believe that man-made global warming is a very serious problem. I don't regard that as a "liberal view", but a scientific one. However, I do not agree with liberal proposed solutions to this issue. I would like less red tape on business, not more. I believe in nuclear energy; they don't. I think the ultimate solution to this problem is to invest government money on plausible alternatives to oil and petroleum, and as far as I can see, the only plausible ones are nuclear and natural gas. The progressive, environmentalist solution seems to be to restrict American society and spend money on implausible solutions such as wind and solar. I am generally opposed to that. However, the devil is always in the details.

6. No. The only gun control measure I firmly believe in is the closing of private sales loopholes. I would not be opposed to universal registration, but I'm not pushing for it. I am opposed to all other proposed measures, and this forum has played a big part in changing my mind.

7. I support decriminalization of marijuana. Stronger illegal drugs should most likely stay illegal. I'm not sure, but I don't regard this as a big issue worthy of my time.

Finally, you forgot to mention the three biggest issues in which I differ with liberals: I believe in capitalism and the free marketplace, especially free trade (that is the most important aspect.) I reject moral relativism in international affairs. And I believe that we should maintain a close relationship with Israel as one of our closest allies, and that overall they are the good guys in their struggle against the Palestinians (although that doesn't absolve them of criticism when merited.)

 
One reason why the Attorney General is such a thankless job is that few people even try to separately evaluate whether the DOJ arrives at a solution they find politically satisfying and the completely separate question of whether the DOJ arrived at a solution that is supported by the law.

I'll give an example. Let's take the question of whether the NSA can collect and search email metadata from cloud based email services like Gmail without offending the Fourth Amendment. As a matter of personal preference, I'd prefer for the NSA to not do that. If I were dictator for life, I wouldn't let them do that. But if I were a DOJ attorney, I'd be asked to offer a legal opinion on whether they CAN do that under the law. And that's a pretty easy question to answer considering that the Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear that you don't have an expectation of privacy in communications that you allow a third party to store. As a liberal, it might really piss me off that that's the answer. But that's the answer.

Sadly, while a closer case, I think the DOJ probably got the answer correct on enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens as well. I hate that answer. I'd privately tell Obama that I hoped he never exercised the authority. But in order to find that it was prohibited by the Constitution, I'd have to find some authority to distinguish that situation from cases of US citizens engaging in active domestic insurrections or serving as enemy combatants on the battle field overseas, or non-citizens involved in terrorism activities overseas. Because assassination in those instances has already been found lawful.

 
you forgot to add that you're all in favor of the gov't spying on all of us, all the time

and

you think obamacare is awesome.

other than that, you're totally libertarian

 
cstu said:
timschochet said:
Jon thanks for the post. The issue of how Holder handled the terrorists at Gitmo is a sound critique of his performance, and worthy of a lot more discussion than most of the scandals, IMO.
I think we can all agree that Holder was rather incompetent, but the vitriol towards him goes well beyond his capability at being AG.
I have come to expect incompetence, as the last few have been pretty bad (Holder was the worst, though). What really irritates me most about Holder is that the AG's office, above all others, should be a blind arbiter of the rule of law in the US. He has done the exact opposite and turned it into an office of political partisanship of the worst order.

 
timschochet said:
My recollection of the Gitmo issue is this: back when Obama ran for President in 2008, he promised his more liberal supporters that he was going to get rid of it, and treat the terrorists languishing there as common criminals. This was a big deal to a lot of people who were (and still are) upset at the government's continuing encroachment upon civil liberties ever since 9/11. Many of these same people accused George W. Bush of committing war crimes.

Holder, who appears to be IMO somewhat of a liberal idealist, was obviously the point man for the administration on this issue. I do believe that it was Obama's intent to close Gitmo down. I think the State Department and the military talked him out of it, and that Holder was forced to take most of the blame for his boss changing his mind.
By definition, can you be "Somewhat of an idealist"? Isn't an idealist already at one end of the spectrum?

Tim, I think your opinions are pretty left leaning, but it seems you try to write in a way that, in your mind, makes you seem open-minded, in the middle. If you opinions lean left then just own that. Stop trying to seem like you are the most reasonable man because you can see both sides of issue.
My opinions on racial issues are definitely left leaning and I've never pretended otherwise. I try as much as the next guy to be open-minded but can't claim success.

However, I don't regard my self as a leftist, because I strongly disagree with most of them on other issues not related to race. I think if you were to poll most of the true progressives in this forum, they would take issue with the idea of me as one of them.
Just a few of the Issues you agree with progressives on outside of race:

- immigration

- social spending

- gay marriage

- abortion

- global warming

- gun control

- legalization of drugs (i think)

I can't think of any issues you agree with conservatives on, except for maybe military spending. You are at odds with both progressives and conservatives on some issues like spying on Americans.
You haven't paid close enough attention:

1. Immigration- No. I support the Chamber of Commerce and the libertarian position on this issue. It is similar to the liberal position in some ways, but distinctly different in others.

2. Not exactly. Certain programs I'm in favor of, certain ones I'm not. In general I am opposed to anything which hinders the free marketplace.

3. Yes, absolutely.

4. Yes, absolutely.

5. Not at all. I believe that man-made global warming is a very serious problem. I don't regard that as a "liberal view", but a scientific one. However, I do not agree with liberal proposed solutions to this issue. I would like less red tape on business, not more. I believe in nuclear energy; they don't. I think the ultimate solution to this problem is to invest government money on plausible alternatives to oil and petroleum, and as far as I can see, the only plausible ones are nuclear and natural gas. The progressive, environmentalist solution seems to be to restrict American society and spend money on implausible solutions such as wind and solar. I am generally opposed to that. However, the devil is always in the details.

6. No. The only gun control measure I firmly believe in is the closing of private sales loopholes. I would not be opposed to universal registration, but I'm not pushing for it. I am opposed to all other proposed measures, and this forum has played a big part in changing my mind.

7. I support decriminalization of marijuana. Stronger illegal drugs should most likely stay illegal. I'm not sure, but I don't regard this as a big issue worthy of my time.

Finally, you forgot to mention the three biggest issues in which I differ with liberals: I believe in capitalism and the free marketplace, especially free trade (that is the most important aspect.) I reject moral relativism in international affairs. And I believe that we should maintain a close relationship with Israel as one of our closest allies, and that overall they are the good guys in their struggle against the Palestinians (although that doesn't absolve them of criticism when merited.)
OK, so you agree with my list but you have some minor caveats you take issue with on a few points. I am not sure if any of the issues you take issues with liberals are on really liberal vs. conservative. Free Trade has supporters on both sides and is far from clearly a Republican or Democrat issue. Israel is similar. And I think most liberals would take issue with you saying they are against capitalism, although everyone knows they are. :wink:

 
timschochet said:
My recollection of the Gitmo issue is this: back when Obama ran for President in 2008, he promised his more liberal supporters that he was going to get rid of it, and treat the terrorists languishing there as common criminals. This was a big deal to a lot of people who were (and still are) upset at the government's continuing encroachment upon civil liberties ever since 9/11. Many of these same people accused George W. Bush of committing war crimes.

Holder, who appears to be IMO somewhat of a liberal idealist, was obviously the point man for the administration on this issue. I do believe that it was Obama's intent to close Gitmo down. I think the State Department and the military talked him out of it, and that Holder was forced to take most of the blame for his boss changing his mind.
Holder spent nearly a year working on a plan with a team of lawyers to make it happen. His planned lacked so many basic considerations of law and logic that it was universally criticized. It had nothing to do with providing Obama political cover for a broken campaign promise. Holder's incompetence and inability to produce a workable plan was absolutely the reason for the effort to fail. I am not sure how you can spin it any other way.
Really?

In that case, I challenge you, jon, to come up with a competent way to close down Gitmo and try everyone there under the US civil courts system. According to you, there is one, and Holder was just too incompetent to figure it out. So you come up with one, please.
Obama said that HE was going to do it....was he lying or just talking out of his ### when he said it.
This is always great shtick. Blaming Obama for things he can't get done because Republicans block it.
Block it??

The man has a pen AND a phone.....ya know.

Don't forget about blaming Obama for what Bush did....that's always handy!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eric Hold Stepping Down To Spend More Time With His Contempt Of Congress Citation

Eric Holder, the Attorney General held in contempt of congress for not complying with congressional subpoenas, has decided to retire.

Holder, who couldn’t successfully investigate Fast and Furious and the IRS targeting of conservatives even thought the took place on easily accessible government servers, will probably return to private practice where he’s known for representing terrorist suspects free of charge.



I’m sure there will be a book, too.

James Rosen’s email couldn’t be secretly searched for comment.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/25/eric-hold-stepping-down-to-spend-more-time-with-his-contempt-of-congress-citation/



 
One reason why the Attorney General is such a thankless job is that few people even try to separately evaluate whether the DOJ arrives at a solution they find politically satisfying and the completely separate question of whether the DOJ arrived at a solution that is supported by the law.

I'll give an example. Let's take the question of whether the NSA can collect and search email metadata from cloud based email services like Gmail without offending the Fourth Amendment. As a matter of personal preference, I'd prefer for the NSA to not do that. If I were dictator for life, I wouldn't let them do that. But if I were a DOJ attorney, I'd be asked to offer a legal opinion on whether they CAN do that under the law. And that's a pretty easy question to answer considering that the Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear that you don't have an expectation of privacy in communications that you allow a third party to store. As a liberal, it might really piss me off that that's the answer. But that's the answer.

Sadly, while a closer case, I think the DOJ probably got the answer correct on enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens as well. I hate that answer. I'd privately tell Obama that I hoped he never exercised the authority. But in order to find that it was prohibited by the Constitution, I'd have to find some authority to distinguish that situation from cases of US citizens engaging in active domestic insurrections or serving as enemy combatants on the battle field overseas, or non-citizens involved in terrorism activities overseas. Because assassination in those instances has already been found lawful.
When did the Supreme Court decide that only in person communications are private?

 
Excellent article on Holder from The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/coward-race

Some excerpts:

He succeeded a long string of attorneys general who proudly proclaimed that they were tougher on crime than their predecessors, and he broke with that tradition. He reversed a policy, instituted by John Ashcroft, that required federal prosecutors to charge defendants with the most serious criminal charges available. He convinced the U.S. Sentencing Commission to reduce sentencing guidelines for low-level drug offenders, supported a bipartisan effort in Congress to reduce many mandatory minimum sentences, and directed prosecutors not to charge low-level drug offenders with crimes that carry severe mandatory minimum sentences. He urged states, where the bulk of criminal law enforcement takes place, to follow his lead in reducing reliance on incarceration, and used federal funding to support their doing so. He has funded alternatives to incarceration, such as drug courts, and Justice Reinvestment, a program in which states seek to release nonviolent offenders and invest the savings in impoverished communities.

These initiatives are making a difference. Earlier this week, Holder announced that, for the first time in thirty-three years, the federal prison population has dropped. It fell by forty-eight hundred inmates this past year and is projected to fall by another twelve thousand in the next two years. That’s the equivalent of closing six federal prisons. The nation’s over-all incarceration rate has fallen by about ten per cent since Holder took office. Holder cannot take full credit for that shift—much of it has happened at the state level, most dramatically in California, New York, and New Jersey—but his plea for sentencing reform appears to have been heard.

So when we get to the nitty gritty, away from all the dumb scandal stuff, we find that the guy has done a pretty good job. Imagine that.

 
One reason why the Attorney General is such a thankless job is that few people even try to separately evaluate whether the DOJ arrives at a solution they find politically satisfying and the completely separate question of whether the DOJ arrived at a solution that is supported by the law.

I'll give an example. Let's take the question of whether the NSA can collect and search email metadata from cloud based email services like Gmail without offending the Fourth Amendment. As a matter of personal preference, I'd prefer for the NSA to not do that. If I were dictator for life, I wouldn't let them do that. But if I were a DOJ attorney, I'd be asked to offer a legal opinion on whether they CAN do that under the law. And that's a pretty easy question to answer considering that the Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear that you don't have an expectation of privacy in communications that you allow a third party to store. As a liberal, it might really piss me off that that's the answer. But that's the answer.

Sadly, while a closer case, I think the DOJ probably got the answer correct on enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens as well. I hate that answer. I'd privately tell Obama that I hoped he never exercised the authority. But in order to find that it was prohibited by the Constitution, I'd have to find some authority to distinguish that situation from cases of US citizens engaging in active domestic insurrections or serving as enemy combatants on the battle field overseas, or non-citizens involved in terrorism activities overseas. Because assassination in those instances has already been found lawful.
When did the Supreme Court decide that only in person communications are private?
I'm going to ignore your paraphrasing, because it bears no resemblance to what I wrote.

What the Supreme Court ruled, in 1979, is that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that you have knowingly provided to a third party. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979) ("This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.")

Some judges believe that Smith should be overturned. Sotomayor, for instance. And at least one federal judge, Judge Leon for the District Court of DC, declined to apply it to the NSA program. Other judges, however, have applied it, which is appropriate because the so-called "third-party doctrine" is binding precedent. The only body that can limit it or overturn it is the Supreme Court.

 
One reason why the Attorney General is such a thankless job is that few people even try to separately evaluate whether the DOJ arrives at a solution they find politically satisfying and the completely separate question of whether the DOJ arrived at a solution that is supported by the law.

I'll give an example. Let's take the question of whether the NSA can collect and search email metadata from cloud based email services like Gmail without offending the Fourth Amendment. As a matter of personal preference, I'd prefer for the NSA to not do that. If I were dictator for life, I wouldn't let them do that. But if I were a DOJ attorney, I'd be asked to offer a legal opinion on whether they CAN do that under the law. And that's a pretty easy question to answer considering that the Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear that you don't have an expectation of privacy in communications that you allow a third party to store. As a liberal, it might really piss me off that that's the answer. But that's the answer.

Sadly, while a closer case, I think the DOJ probably got the answer correct on enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens as well. I hate that answer. I'd privately tell Obama that I hoped he never exercised the authority. But in order to find that it was prohibited by the Constitution, I'd have to find some authority to distinguish that situation from cases of US citizens engaging in active domestic insurrections or serving as enemy combatants on the battle field overseas, or non-citizens involved in terrorism activities overseas. Because assassination in those instances has already been found lawful.
When did the Supreme Court decide that only in person communications are private?
I'm going to ignore your paraphrasing, because it bears no resemblance to what I wrote.

What the Supreme Court ruled, in 1979, is that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that you have knowingly provided to a third party. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979) ("This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.")

Some judges believe that Smith should be overturned. Sotomayor, for instance. And at least one federal judge, Judge Leon for the District Court of DC, declined to apply it to the NSA program. Other judges, however, have applied it, which is appropriate because the so-called "third-party doctrine" is binding precedent. The only body that can limit it or overturn it is the Supreme Court.
Sure it does. All electronic communication would be stored by a third-party and not protected according to your interpretation. Ignore what you want, but you've answered my question anyways.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One reason why the Attorney General is such a thankless job is that few people even try to separately evaluate whether the DOJ arrives at a solution they find politically satisfying and the completely separate question of whether the DOJ arrived at a solution that is supported by the law.

I'll give an example. Let's take the question of whether the NSA can collect and search email metadata from cloud based email services like Gmail without offending the Fourth Amendment. As a matter of personal preference, I'd prefer for the NSA to not do that. If I were dictator for life, I wouldn't let them do that. But if I were a DOJ attorney, I'd be asked to offer a legal opinion on whether they CAN do that under the law. And that's a pretty easy question to answer considering that the Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear that you don't have an expectation of privacy in communications that you allow a third party to store. As a liberal, it might really piss me off that that's the answer. But that's the answer.

Sadly, while a closer case, I think the DOJ probably got the answer correct on enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens as well. I hate that answer. I'd privately tell Obama that I hoped he never exercised the authority. But in order to find that it was prohibited by the Constitution, I'd have to find some authority to distinguish that situation from cases of US citizens engaging in active domestic insurrections or serving as enemy combatants on the battle field overseas, or non-citizens involved in terrorism activities overseas. Because assassination in those instances has already been found lawful.
When did the Supreme Court decide that only in person communications are private?
I'm going to ignore your paraphrasing, because it bears no resemblance to what I wrote.

What the Supreme Court ruled, in 1979, is that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that you have knowingly provided to a third party. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979) ("This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.")

Some judges believe that Smith should be overturned. Sotomayor, for instance. And at least one federal judge, Judge Leon for the District Court of DC, declined to apply it to the NSA program. Other judges, however, have applied it, which is appropriate because the so-called "third-party doctrine" is binding precedent. The only body that can limit it or overturn it is the Supreme Court.
Sure it does. All electronic communication would be stored by a third-party and not protected according to your interpretation. Ignore what you want, but you've answered my question anyways.
Not all electronic communication. Push-pull email, the way it was done before the cloud, wouldn't necessarily be covered. Nor would an email between my personal exchange server and your personal exchange server. But yes, cloud based email has almost universally been held to be not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Only a few courts have have found otherwise, and none of them can rewrite that precedent.

 
Excellent article on Holder from The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/coward-race

Some excerpts:

He succeeded a long string of attorneys general who proudly proclaimed that they were tougher on crime than their predecessors, and he broke with that tradition. He reversed a policy, instituted by John Ashcroft, that required federal prosecutors to charge defendants with the most serious criminal charges available. He convinced the U.S. Sentencing Commission to reduce sentencing guidelines for low-level drug offenders, supported a bipartisan effort in Congress to reduce many mandatory minimum sentences, and directed prosecutors not to charge low-level drug offenders with crimes that carry severe mandatory minimum sentences. He urged states, where the bulk of criminal law enforcement takes place, to follow his lead in reducing reliance on incarceration, and used federal funding to support their doing so. He has funded alternatives to incarceration, such as drug courts, and Justice Reinvestment, a program in which states seek to release nonviolent offenders and invest the savings in impoverished communities.

These initiatives are making a difference. Earlier this week, Holder announced that, for the first time in thirty-three years, the federal prison population has dropped. It fell by forty-eight hundred inmates this past year and is projected to fall by another twelve thousand in the next two years. That’s the equivalent of closing six federal prisons. The nation’s over-all incarceration rate has fallen by about ten per cent since Holder took office. Holder cannot take full credit for that shift—much of it has happened at the state level, most dramatically in California, New York, and New Jersey—but his plea for sentencing reform appears to have been heard.

So when we get to the nitty gritty, away from all the dumb scandal stuff, we find that the guy has done a pretty good job. Imagine that.
:bs: what a load.

...well....a partial load anyway.

Most of this steaming heap somehow, didn't make it into the final draft of the article.

By declaring this article as "excellent", never before has a sig rang more true than THIS sig associated with THIS article:

"Unless otherwise stated, any comment or statement I make is strictly MY OPINION, and should not be taken as an implication of fact, no matter how definitive it sounds. I speak for no one but myself."

In your unbiased and open-minded opinion...It's an excellent article because, just like most mainstream media stories it NEGLECTS most of the facts that shed light on his incompetence and if THIS was the only article your basic, uninformed voter read....he would probably believe it to be the entire story.

After all, they couldn't print it if it weren't true and they wouldn't just "forget" to include any pertinent facts....right?

The left is counting on it.

:tebow: Holder reduced penalties for drug offenses....

It left out the part about making the world safe for future generations of cats. :excited:


It also failed to mention....
He made the stupid decisions which lead to Fast & Furious and then stonewalled Congress's effort to investigate leading the first ever citation for contempt of a sitting AG. :coffee:

He called for the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaeda leaders in downtown NYC which showed a failure to understand our war on terrorism. :coffee:

He has refused to carry out the laws, as required by the Constitution's Take Care Clause, in areas ranging from Obamacare to immigration and welfare...laws which raised no Constitutional problems :coffee:


.This "excellent" article seems to have left out some key points that someone just might find useful if they were trying to form an opinion.

Wouldn't you agree?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm kind of sad about this. I'm not especially a fan,but the crap this guy got from conservatives for 5 years is just repugnant to me.
It wasn't just conservatives. Under his watch, not a single banker or executive went to jail over the mortgage crisis despite more than a few worthy candidates and widespread financial fraud. Now he'll probably go back to a cushy DC job at Covington & Burling representing banking industry clients.

 
I'm kind of sad about this. I'm not especially a fan,but the crap this guy got from conservatives for 5 years is just repugnant to me.
It wasn't just conservatives. Under his watch, not a single banker or executive went to jail over the mortgage crisis despite more than a few worthy candidates and widespread financial fraud. Now he'll probably go back to a cushy DC job at Covington & Burling representing banking industry clients.
Where were the Republicans lining up to prosecute bankers?

 
I always like it when someone tries to defend the worst example of an AG, ever. Should probably go back to defending Hitler now, Tim.

 
I always like it when someone tries to defend the worst example of an AG, ever. Should probably go back to defending Hitler now, Tim.
All I can figure is that after some people realize that they've been duped TWICE ....they feel that they are so invested in this failure that they just go down with the ship rather than admit their mistake(s)

Personally, when I finally realize that I've fallen for a lie..I get pissed and I start looking to see exactly how many lies this guy has dished out that I've swallowed.

It has been very rare that the liar came up to me and told me that he had lied.

In most cases, the lie was exposed by someone else.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be fair to tim and the new Yorker im sure holder did a few positive things. However im also sure Ted Bundy opened a door for a lady once or twice.

 
His wife will be the first to say that he always put the toilet seat down when he was done.

That should count for something and I'm a bit surprised that it didn't make it into that article.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Riveting articles from The New Yorker:

Grandpa Jimmy Carter saves a kitten

The other side of Hitler; major donor to local artist community.

Jimmy Jones incredible Thanksgiving turkey recipe

Sirhan Sirhan talks pitbull rescue mission

Kim Jong Un: strugging in fathers shadow

Anthony Weiner: rehabbed and ready!

 
I'm kind of sad about this. I'm not especially a fan,but the crap this guy got from conservatives for 5 years is just repugnant to me.
It wasn't just conservatives. Under his watch, not a single banker or executive went to jail over the mortgage crisis despite more than a few worthy candidates and widespread financial fraud. Now he'll probably go back to a cushy DC job at Covington & Burling representing banking industry clients.
Where were the Republicans lining up to prosecute bankers?
"But they did it too!" is always a good defense.

 
I'm kind of sad about this. I'm not especially a fan,but the crap this guy got from conservatives for 5 years is just repugnant to me.
It wasn't just conservatives. Under his watch, not a single banker or executive went to jail over the mortgage crisis despite more than a few worthy candidates and widespread financial fraud. Now he'll probably go back to a cushy DC job at Covington & Burling representing banking industry clients.
Where were the Republicans lining up to prosecute bankers?
"But they did it too!" is always a good defense.
It's an odd question to begin with. Everybody was calling for heads, but any prosecution decisions are 100% in the hands of the Justice Department.

 
Riveting articles from The New Yorker:

Grandpa Jimmy Carter saves a kitten

The other side of Hitler; major donor to local artist community.

Jimmy Jones incredible Thanksgiving turkey recipe

Sirhan Sirhan talks pitbull rescue mission

Kim Jong Un: strugging in fathers shadow

Anthony Weiner: rehabbed and ready!
this is an amazing post.
 
Excellent article on Holder from The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/coward-race

Some excerpts:

He succeeded a long string of attorneys general who proudly proclaimed that they were tougher on crime than their predecessors, and he broke with that tradition.

Meaning what? What tradition did he break with, the tradition of proudly proclaiming their own toughness, or actually being tougher on crime? If the latter I am uncertain that an Attorney General being generally less tough on crime in general would be a good thing, in fact I believe to the contrary. Now if it were to specific crimes, or specific aspects of some crime, perhaps I would find this a positive.

He reversed a policy, instituted by John Ashcroft, that required federal prosecutors to charge defendants with the most serious criminal charges available.

That is a pretty standard policy in most Prosecution Offices. Charge the maximum so as to have a strong negotiating position during the prosecution or plea bargaining. Now I do understand that if one were to leave the realm of solid proof to advocating trumped up charges that would be wrong or foolish (and I acknowledge I have seen this before), but generally I do not understand why this would be an unquestioned positive, or demonstrate a strength of vision.

He convinced the U.S. Sentencing Commission to reduce sentencing guidelines for low-level drug offenders, supported a bipartisan effort in Congress to reduce many mandatory minimum sentences, and directed prosecutors not to charge low-level drug offenders with crimes that carry severe mandatory minimum sentences.

I can get behind this. I think this is solidly within the purview of the AG and likely represents sound policy as well.

He urged states, where the bulk of criminal law enforcement takes place, to follow his lead in reducing reliance on incarceration, and used federal funding to support their doing so.

Stated clearly he threatened to withhold federal funding unless States buckled under and allowed him to set state policy. He had no respect for State Rights, sovereignty, or dignity. If he could not sway local jurisdictions with reason he would make them bend to his will through control of purse strings. He misused the treasury to try to exert control over law enforcement throughout the country.

He has funded alternatives to incarceration, such as drug courts, and Justice Reinvestment, a program in which states seek to release nonviolent offenders and invest the savings in impoverished communities.

I thought pretty much every AG has done this to one extent or another. It is not as if drug courts were his idea. As for there being savings upon the release of nonviolent offenders that happens to be a presumption with which I agree, though I have seen no empirical data to prove this one way or the other.

These initiatives are making a difference. Earlier this week, Holder announced that, for the first time in thirty-three years, the federal prison population has dropped. It fell by forty-eight hundred inmates this past year and is projected to fall by another twelve thousand in the next two years. That’s the equivalent of closing six federal prisons. The nation’s over-all incarceration rate has fallen by about ten per cent since Holder took office. Holder cannot take full credit for that shift—much of it has happened at the state level, most dramatically in California, New York, and New Jersey—but his plea for sentencing reform appears to have been heard.

There is a presumption here, unproven, that the drop in prison population is a drop only of non-violent, petty drug offenders and that a drop in prison population is inherently good. I would need a lot more information before I would make any presumptions here at all. For instance there are not that many folks imprisoned federally for low level drug matters. that is really much more of a state and local type of prosecution. Also, demographic trends with the aging of the baby boomers and the echo boomers would lead one to believe that prison populations were going to drop as those demographics moved into less crime prone years.

So when we get to the nitty gritty, away from all the dumb scandal stuff, we find that the guy has done a pretty good job. Imagine that.
So, when we get to the nitty gritty we find a dirt band. As for Holder, this article does not really tell me anything of substance about the man other than that he misused the power of the treasury to force his views where he could not persuade.

 
John Newton Mitchell (September 15, 1913 – November 9, 1988) was the Attorney General of the United States from 1969 to 1972 under President Richard Nixon. Prior to that, he was a noted New York municipal bond lawyer, director of Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign, and one of Nixon's closest personal friends; after his tenure as Attorney General, he served as director of Nixon's 1972 presidential campaign. Due to his involvement in the Watergate affair, he was sentenced to prison in 1977, serving 19 months. As Attorney General, Mitchell was noted for personifying the "law-and-order" positions of the Nixon administration, amid several high-profile anti-war demonstrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell

 
Holder did a decent job as AG under Bush, but not under Obama.

My favorite A.G.'s of all time were Felix Grundy (Known for never changing his under ware), Ebenezer Hoar, well because of both Ebenezer and Hoar, and Harcourt Fenton Mudd.

 
I'm kind of sad about this. I'm not especially a fan,but the crap this guy got from conservatives for 5 years is just repugnant to me.
It wasn't just conservatives. Under his watch, not a single banker or executive went to jail over the mortgage crisis despite more than a few worthy candidates and widespread financial fraud. Now he'll probably go back to a cushy DC job at Covington & Burling representing banking industry clients.
Where were the Republicans lining up to prosecute bankers?
That was my point. Holder had critics on both sides of the aisle. His incompetence and negligence wasn't just limited to his actions that resulted in criticism from conservatives.

 
One reason why the Attorney General is such a thankless job is that few people even try to separately evaluate whether the DOJ arrives at a solution they find politically satisfying and the completely separate question of whether the DOJ arrived at a solution that is supported by the law.

I'll give an example. Let's take the question of whether the NSA can collect and search email metadata from cloud based email services like Gmail without offending the Fourth Amendment. As a matter of personal preference, I'd prefer for the NSA to not do that. If I were dictator for life, I wouldn't let them do that. But if I were a DOJ attorney, I'd be asked to offer a legal opinion on whether they CAN do that under the law. And that's a pretty easy question to answer considering that the Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear that you don't have an expectation of privacy in communications that you allow a third party to store. As a liberal, it might really piss me off that that's the answer. But that's the answer.

Sadly, while a closer case, I think the DOJ probably got the answer correct on enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens as well. I hate that answer. I'd privately tell Obama that I hoped he never exercised the authority. But in order to find that it was prohibited by the Constitution, I'd have to find some authority to distinguish that situation from cases of US citizens engaging in active domestic insurrections or serving as enemy combatants on the battle field overseas, or non-citizens involved in terrorism activities overseas. Because assassination in those instances has already been found lawful.
When did the Supreme Court decide that only in person communications are private?
I'm going to ignore your paraphrasing, because it bears no resemblance to what I wrote.

What the Supreme Court ruled, in 1979, is that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that you have knowingly provided to a third party. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979) ("This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.")

Some judges believe that Smith should be overturned. Sotomayor, for instance. And at least one federal judge, Judge Leon for the District Court of DC, declined to apply it to the NSA program. Other judges, however, have applied it, which is appropriate because the so-called "third-party doctrine" is binding precedent. The only body that can limit it or overturn it is the Supreme Court.
Sure it does. All electronic communication would be stored by a third-party and not protected according to your interpretation. Ignore what you want, but you've answered my question anyways.
Not all electronic communication. Push-pull email, the way it was done before the cloud, wouldn't necessarily be covered. Nor would an email between my personal exchange server and your personal exchange server. But yes, cloud based email has almost universally been held to be not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Only a few courts have have found otherwise, and none of them can rewrite that precedent.
Personal e-mail has pretty much always been provided by a 3rd party. The average person isn't running their own e-mail server. 3rd party doctrine is a bunch of BS BTW.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top