Eric Holder: creator of the "Too Big to Jail" bankster

Originally published at:

I wonder what percentage of registered democrats, like myself, are aware of this guy’s record on helping big banks literally get away with murder and robbery. The New York Times’ headline yesterday was that the most liberal man in Obama’s administration was stepping down. What kind of liberal are we talking about? If any one man’s actions can prove that the difference between liberal and conservative has no difference in the realm of corporate law, then Holder owns that distinction, even more than Obama.


Pretty sure civil rights advocacy is a big part of being liberal. If you want someone to stand up to corporations and other moneyed interests, you’d best look outside of the two party system. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans (who are basically just cartoon villains by this point) in the realm of corporate law.


Stand up for people who aren’t caucasian, and you’re a Liberal.

Stand up for people who are poor, and you’re Un-American.


The writeup about the Holder Memo makes it sound backwards and stupid. It really can’t be advocating that “Bankers that are deeply involved in criminal enterprises shouldn’t be sent to jail, because removing corruption would only hurt the business. Instead the investor’s money will be better protected by enormous fines and keeping all of the criminals in power.” That’s so stupid and wrong on the face of it that the writeup can’t be accurate.

The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. Holder was not the “creator” of the “too big to fail bankster.” The POTUS who got the lion’s share of Wall Street and big finance money in the 2008 election cycle was…and is.

[quote=“jandrese, post:5, topic:41790, full:true”]The writeup about the Holder Memo makes it sound backwards and stupid. […] That’s so stupid and wrong on the face of it that the writeup can’t be accurate.[/quote]Welcome to Corporate America!


The banksters who Holder thinks are too big to jail are just a drop in the bucket.

The Gitmo jailers who are too big to court martial? The Bush Justice Department legal opinion writers who are too big to re-examine, but big enough to write memos expanding their powers further? The Gitmo prisoners who are Too Scary to Give Fair Trials? The illegal wiretappers who are too useful to audit? The TSA officials who lied about testing x-ray equipment and abusing travellers who were too some-other-agency to investigate? They’re getting into serious constitutional territory, and Holder and his crew have been a blot on the US’s reputation for justice from the beginning.

Of course, there are smaller issues; I was mad at Holder from his first month in office when he decided that Obama’s campaign promises about leaving medical marijuana alone were too small to change policy for.

And there are medium-sized issues, like letting the various police forces that harassed the Occupy movement commit lots of civil liberties violations.


No, you need to go higher. Go to the origin of the greed, where the ideas and money come from. That is where our problem is.


So which banks are going to pay him “consultancy fees” the moment he’s clear of disclosure requirements?

Or is he just going straight to Carlyle?


Heads I win, tails the shareholders lose…Yeah that’s going to dissuade criminal action…

1 Like

The seeds of which were started when he represented Chiquita bananas:
Representing Chiquita,

Holder brokered a deal for the banana giant to pay $25m over five years
to the justice department. This arrangement was made after Chiquita
admitted in 2003 to providing $1.7m over six years to the paramilitary
group The United Self Defense Forces of Colombia. This group was listed as a terrorist organisation
by the state department. Chiquita also allegedly provided a cache of
surplus Nicaraguan army AK-47s through their own transport network. The
payments continued unabated for months after Chiquita’s admission.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.