Eric Holder

A Reason Reader on Soon-to-Be Ex-Attorney General Eric Holder

|

Plum law firm or plum consulting gig, which will it be?

National Public Radio has broken the news that Attorney General Eric Holder is stepping down. There had been some chatter all the way back to President Barack Obama's re-election that he didn't want to stay the full eight years.

There will be plenty of analysis in the coming days of the man who seemed deeply concerned about civil liberties violations by everybody except for the administration he worked for. In the meantime, here's some pieces from Reason's archive that highlight what we've had to say about the man.

To start, all the way back in 2008, Reason's Shikha Dalmia thought Holder was a poor choice before he was even nominated:

Though Holder has a good resume, his positions and record suggest that he does not understand the constitutional limitations within which this office is supposed to operate. He is a drug warrior and even proposed to stiffen penalties for the possession of marijuana. He was also involved in the federal government's decision to seize Elian Gonzalez from his aunt's home and return him to Cuba without obtaining a court order, a terrible lapse of judgment. Nor is he a pillar of rectitude: There have been questions about whether he was completely upfront about the Justice Department's conduct in the Branch Davidians-Waco fiasco. And some suspect that he might have with-held information about billionaire fugitive and tax evader, Marc Rich, to facilitate Rich's pardon by President Clinton.

Also back then, Reason's Damon Root worried about Holder's lack of respect for the Second Amendment:

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, for instance, Holder took to the pages of The Washington Post, where he played on the public's newfound fear of terrorism to lobby for additional gun show regulations. But as National Review's Jim Geraghty recently pointed out, of the two "terrorists" that Holder claimed were stalking America's gun show circuit, one was eventually acquitted of supplying guns to terrorists (though not of the separate charge of weapons smuggling), while the other, a man named Ali Boumelhem, didn't buy so much as a camouflage vest at a gun show. Since he had a felony record he let his brother do the shopping. In Holder's mind, that's a "loophole" that needs closing, but as Geraghty notes, "background checks like the one Holder was calling for would not have stopped [it], since the straw purchaser (the surrogate for the real buyer) is chosen because he has a clean record." Unless Holder wants to forbid gun sales to people with disreputable family members or friends, it's hard to imagine how any law could prevent this situation.

More recently, Holder was one of thirteen former Justice Department officials to sign an amicus brief on behalf of the D.C. government in the Heller case. That document, which endorsed restrictive gun control measures and cited rare and sensational events like the Columbine and Virginia Tech school shootings as evidence of "the deadly toll that firearms exact," also made the case for the collective rights interpretation that has now been rejected by both the Supreme Court and leading liberal legal scholars.

Since then the Supreme Court has upheld bans against third-party gun sales.

Here's some analysis from Holder's confirmation hearing by Reason's Jacob Sullum that can make us all laugh heartily in retrospect:

Holder said President Bush had no right to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's warrant requirement for monitoring communications between Americans and people in other countries. Although he deemed Bush's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program "useful," he said the president should have asked Congress to revise the statute instead of secretly breaking the law. That is pretty much the position taken by Obama, who voted to change FISA so executive branch officials can unliterally authorize surveillance of communications involving people in the U.S. if the ostensible target is believed to be located abroad.

Sullum worried that Holder's declaration that we were "at war" with terrorists would be used to "justify legal short cuts and limits on civil liberties." Turns out Sullum was right!

During Obama's first term, the Department of Justice had an awkward, dangerously unpredictable response to medical marijuana dispensaries as more states legalized the drug's use. Holder said the Drug Enforcement Agency would not be going after distributors who were following state law, but yet federal raids on legal clinics continued to follow. Reason followed this trend across Holder's reign, and in 2013, Sullum noted that Holder and Obama were even tougher on medical marijuana than George W. Bush's:

According to a new report from California NORML, "over 335 defendants have been charged with federal crimes related to medical marijuana in states with medical marijuana laws." Despite Barack Obama's promises of prosecutorial restraint in this area, "153 medical marijuana cases have been brought in the 4¼ years of the Obama administration, nearly as many as under the 8 years of the Bush administration (163)." In other words, Obama is averaging 36 medical marijuana prosecutions a year, compared to 20 a year under his predecessor. And although Attorney General Eric Holder has repeatedly claimed the Justice Department is not targeting suppliers who comply with state law, "the DOJ has targeted many facilities that were in full compliance with local laws and regulations."

Aaron Sandusky, who was legally operating a medical marijuana dispensary in California, is one of the victims of the administration's zealous pursuit. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Read and watch more here.

In 2011, Holder declared the Department of Justice would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, believing the law to be unconstitutional. Congress arranged to defend the law and conservatives complained that the administration wasn't doing its duties. Reason's Damon Root explained they were following conservative precedents:

Keep in mind that while the Constitution requires the executive branch to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," the president also swears an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. The question is what happens when the executive is charged with executing a law he deems unconstitutional. Should a contested congressional statute trump an oath to the Constitution?

Deputy Solicitor General (and current Supreme Court Chief Justice) John Roberts faced that dilemma in 1990. At issue that year in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission was a government policy giving preferential treatment to minority-owned stations seeking a broadcast license from the FCC. According to the George H.W. Bush administration this racial preference was unconstitutional. Roberts therefore filed a brief with the Supreme Court describing the policy as "precisely the type of racial stereotyping that is anathema to basic constitutional principles" while permitting the FCC to mount its own defense of the minority preference. The Court sided with the FCC.

So unless Gingrich and other conservative critics are also willing to denounce Bork and Roberts for violating the rule of law, they have no coherent argument against Holder and Obama. In fact, conservatives might even want to thank the administration. While Obama's decision was probably unnecessary to secure DOMA's eventual legal defeat, it has given the GOP a powerful campaign issue. It may also have set the stage for some political payback. As the liberal UCLA law professor Adam Winkler worried last week in response to Holder's announcement, "Think of the laws that might be undermined by the next Republican president."

As the president headed toward his second term we began to note more and more the administration's lack of transparency and the Department of Justice's role in it, as well Holder's defense of the president's ability to kill American citizens overseas without due process by calling them terrorists. Again from Sullum:

In short, Holder claims that Congress, by authorizing the use of military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, empowered the president to order the execution of anyone he identifies as a terrorist, wherever that person may be found (with the possible exception of the United States). If presidents were infallible and always virtuous, there would be no problem with this policy; since they are neither, we should perhaps be wary of letting them decide exactly how much process is due for those they deem deserving of death.

In 2013, Holder declined to tell senators whether he thought the president should be able to order the execution of Americans on American soil without any due process because they were believed to be engaged in acts of terrorism.

Here is Gene Healy in 2012 on the Department of Justice's terrible record on transparency:

In its 2011 year-end review of executive branch secrecy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted that Obama's Justice Department has refused to release its interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, compelling production of Americans financial, medical and communications records in security investigations. There's a gap between "what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says," amounting to a "Secret Patriot Act," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has warned.

Moreover, EFF points out, the administration "refuses to release its legal justification for killing an American citizen abroad without a trial, despite announcing the killing in a press conference." If the president is going to target American citizens for death by drone, shouldn't we at least get to examine, in broad daylight, the legal and constitutional arguments for doing so, so we can know how far they extend?

In passing, EFF noted this little gem, an actual headline from the Wall Street Journal in September: "Anonymous US officials push open government." You can't make this stuff up—well, maybe you could, but why bother, when the truth is bad enough?

As for the gunrunning "Fast and Furious" scandal, where the feds provided guns to drug traffickers in Mexico in order to catch them (and failed miserably, leading to death of a border patrol agent) Holder evaded responsibility, claiming ignorance as the DOJ refused to provide documents to investigators in Congress. Reasons' J.D. Tuccille took a dim view on the idea that Holder just didn't know it was going on:

I don't think for a moment the denizens of the imperial capital care what does and does not pass the laugh test in the provinces, but the Republic raises some good points. The Inspector General may find it "troubling that a case of this magnitude, and one that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General," but some of us find it completely freaking preposterous. Either Holder (and Mukasey, before him) knew about these operations and are being given a thorough whitewashing in the report, or else the U.S. Attorney General has lost control of whole sections of his department — whole armed, tax-funded sections that are dealing in weapons and operating in neighboring countries.

An either-or choice between deceitful bastard and incompetent figurehead should not be read as an exoneration.

In 2013, Holder introduced his "Smart on Crime" initiative to introduce important reforms like giving judges more leeway to ignore mandatory minimums in nonviolent drug cases. Reason has praised such efforts (modest though they are compared to the devastation the war on drugs has wrought). In August, Sullum noted that Holder's own prosecutors resist one of the things he's doing as attorney general that isn't awful. They use the threat of harsh sentencing to wring out plea deals and avoid trials:

Consider what can happen to recalcitrant defendants who insist on going to trial. Last year Roy Lee Clay, a Baltimore heroin dealer who turned down a plea deal under which he would have served 10 years in prison, received a mandatory life sentence after he was convicted and federal prosecutors invoked sentencing enhancements based on his prior offenses. In 2005 the same sort of enhancements resulted in a life sentence for Roderick "Rudd" Walker, a Deadhead from Buffalo who was offered an eight-year sentence for pleading guilty to LSD charges.

In my view, no one should go to prison for engaging in consensual transactions. But even if you think that Clay and Walker deserved to do time, a life sentence cannot be appropriate if prosecutors were prepared to say a term of a decade or less was.

When you see the stark choices that federal defendants face, you can begin to understand why an astonishing 97 percent of them decide to plead guilty. The bigger the gap between the sentence a defendant can get through a plea bargain and the one he will get if he is convicted after a trial, the stronger his incentive to "cooperate"—and the weaker the system's claim to be doing justice.

There will be plenty more analysis of where Holder succeeded and fail to champion for civil liberties in the coming weeks. Reason readers apparently have made their own decision on Holder. Last year they named him one of the top ten "enemies of liberty."

NEXT: Developer Wants to Build Hundreds of Homes for Hasidic Jews; Catskills Town Might Dissolve Itself to Stop Him

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It is hard to come up with a more loathsome cabinet official since Nixon than Holder. I guess Reno burning a bunch of people alive probably puts her in a different league. But it is not like Holder wouldn’t have done the same thing. What a fucking scumbag.

    Beyond that, creatures like Holder don’t ever walk away from power voluntarily. He was forced out. The question is why and why now? I think it probably means at a minimum the White House doesn’t think the Democrats have much chance of holding the Senate. Holder resigning now allows Reid to go nuclear in a lame duck session and get a proper hack who is going to keep the cover ups going through confirmation before the Republicans take over.

    1. Yup. And unlike a lot of loathsome cabinet officials, Holder had a long record of loathsomeness before he even got there, going back to his college years. The Marc Rich pardon was particularly awful. And wasn’t Holder involved in the Puerto Rican terrorist pardons as well?

      1. I think so. He also was part of an armed takeover of an ROTC building in college. The guy has been a criminal his entire life.

    2. My guess as to why the SOB is resigning is due to him being held in contempt by Congress over Fast and Furious and that process being allowed to continue. I bet after the mid term elections are over, we get to see a little bit of just what good ‘ol Holder and the DOJ were really up to and it won’t be pretty.

      1. Its pretty clear that something big is going to come out that was going to make him no longer tenable as AG. What that is is anyone’s guess. But it is going to come out or they would have kept him on. He is nothing if not an utterly reliable hack for Obama. He wont’ be easy to replace. The fact that they had him resign now rather than wait until the whole thing broke tells you they don’t think they are going to keep the Senate. He is resigning now so Reid can nuclear option the replacement hack into office.

        1. Dammit I hope not, but you’re probably right. Maybe, just maybe, Reid will be kicked out. Please.

          1. I think he will be. And it appears the White House agrees with me. The problem is that Reid won’t be kicked out until a new Congress is sworn in in January.

        2. There have to be several democrats in tight races who wouldn’t buy into this. It would have to happen after the election and before the new Congress takes over.

        3. He wont’ be easy to replace.

          Personally, I think there are lots of reliable hacks just waiting to take his place. Team Blue is nothing if not loaded people of very questionable character.

          1. And this differentiates it from TEAM RED how?

            1. It doesnt. But Team Red wasnt in the conversation.

    3. The question is why and why now?

      The withheld Fast and Furious docs have to be released by Oct 22. I am sure those docs will ‘disappear’ and nothing else will happen. But just in case, Obama is forcing Holder out so he can take the fall and all the blame, and the great dear leader will remain untarnished. After all, he only learned about this fast and furious stuff on the news, just like the rest of us.

      1. If it were possible for those documents to “disappear” they would have already done so and Holder would not be resigning.

        Those documents must be really bad. So bad that they have no choice but to have Holder resign so that the Dep Operative media spin will be “no news here Holder already resigned”. Holder being gone will give the media an excuse to ignore the documents and keep them out of the election cycle.

        That must be the reason why this is happening. My guess is that those documents are going to show exactly what the right has been claiming all along, that Holder let the guns go to Mexico in order to use their presence as a weapon in the gun control debate. of course, since he has resigned all of the media will say “that is old news about a guy who isn’t even in the administration anymore, yawn”. Fucking scumbags.

        1. that Holder let the guns go to Mexico in order to use their presence as a weapon in the gun control debate.

          I’d say that’s about right. But there’s still no doubt in my mind that any truly damaging documents will disappear. After what the IRS did, they know they can get away with anything.

          1. You would think they could make the documents disappear, yes. But Holder’s resigning seems to say otherwise. It is going to be a pain in the ass finding someone to replace him that can be trusted to protect Obama the way he has. Further, a scumbag like Holder never leaves power voluntarily. If the documents could be made to disappear like they did in the IRS case, Holder wouldn’t be resigning. They must be ready to drop. It is the only explanation I can see.

            Why else would he be resigning? To spend more time with his family?

            1. Why else would he be resigning?

              To devote his full time and energy to a 2016 presidential run? Think about that and try to sleep tonight.

              1. Great, now I have puke all over my keyboard…

      2. I believe that it is not the documents themselves but rather the list of documents that has to be released by Oct 22.

    4. The dirt coming out on Holder would have to be catastrophic for him to resign 5 weeks away from a national election.

      1. That is what I am thinking. So bad that there would have been no way to keep him in office. So he has to go now. That way the Journolist can pretend the dirt doesn’t matter since Holder already resigned and they can get a suitable replacement through the Senate before the Republicans take over.

        1. The timing is just so weird. You would think if he was being forced out, Obama would have pushed him out during the August vacation.

          So news is not only catastrophic, but sudden.

          1. Looking back, Ed Meese resigned in August.

          2. August is a good time to do such things. Also, it would have given them more time to get his replacement through the Senate. The timing is weird. No way will the Republicans agree to any kind of a hearing on a replacement before the election. They must figure they will have Harry Reid go nuclear and shove one down the country’s throat during the lame duck session. Those are some pretty desperate measures. This must be bad.

            1. I look forward to seeing Holder’s booking photo. Do you think the press will use his middle name? I could enjoy seeing Eric Himpton Holder in the news for a while.

          3. They could’ve been holding out hope that the court would rule in their favor on the documents.

    5. Rumsfeld comes to mind. Though not as bad as McNamara. And neither in anyway makes Holder blameless.

    6. So name something he did that was so reprehensible. “Hypothetically burning people alive” doesn’t count.

      1. How about expanding the scope of a gun-walking operation, which allowed thousands of guns to end up in the hands of drug cartels, who verifiably murdered hundreds of people with those same guns?

        Does that count?

      2. Illegal gun running from the US to Mexico into the hands of violent gangs that has lead to the actual deaths of Mexicans and US border agents. If I had done this, I would be facing capital punishment.

    7. This is exactly what I think too. Shepherd a blank slate nominee through via the nuclear option while the Democrats still have the Senate.

  2. That NPR piece is some serious liberal ball-washing. Apparently this enlightened soul was mostly a victim of evil republicans who happen to be, uhm, you know, not black.

    1. They are just prepping the battlefield and giving him a thank you. Once he is out of office, he will immediately take the blame for every single Obama scandal that can no longer be denied.

  3. I have hated Holder since before it was cool! (he did some shady crap as US Attorney for DC that caught my eye. Now I can’t remember what that was.)

    1. There’s a lot to choose from in that category.

    2. Perhaps it involved letting Dan Rostenkowski off lightly?

      1. I doubt it – it was something more grassrootsy, like something about the drug war. Something very local to DC, IIRC.

  4. It’s almost as though he was an opportunistic weasel and not a dedicated public servant.

    1. What’s the difference?

  5. A Reason Reader on Soon-to-Be Ex-Attorney General Eric Holder

    I can’t wait to find out which dedicated reader of reason is held in high enough esteem to warrant his, or her, own blog post.

    1. The guy whose screen name I sadly forget who was the navy vet who commented on here and died a few years ago, got his own obituary post. He was a great guy.

        1. He was a great American.

          1. Yes, he was.

      1. J Sub D.

        Former CPO, died living in a homeless shelter.

        1. Shame on me for not being able to recall his name.

    2. I can’t wait to find out which dedicated reader of reason is held in high enough esteem to warrant his, or her, own blog post.

      A different kind of reader. This reader would refer to an anthology of literature. A grouping of stuff to read.

      1. Poor BT. No one is cutting him a break on his joke.

  6. Reason readers apparently have made their own decision on Holder. Last year they named him on of the top ten “enemies of liberty.”

    Shriek hardest hit.

    1. aka, the only true libertarian around here.

      1. 99 and 44/100% pure

        1. I believe 8 is the percentage that you are looking for.

    2. If you ever notice the resident leftist trolls never show up on a thread when a story has just broken. They only show up later after the leftist talking points have been formulated and distributed. They may be retarded and in shreek’s case mentally ill, but they are disciplined. They never talk until the party leaders tell them what they should think.

      1. Funny thing is, they say the same thing. Only they say everyone who disagrees with them gets their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.

        Which I think is kinda funny in a way, because on those rare times I get a chance to listen to his show, I mostly agree with him.

        1. I haven’t listened to his show since the 1990s. You do, however pick up bits here and there. And he is nothing if not entertaining and funny. I always find it funny when allegedly “super intelligent Progs” are up in arms about some statement he made and when you listen to it, it is clear he was being sarcastic and it went right over their super intelligent smug heads.

          1. Oh, much of the time that’s just pretend outrage.

          2. My main beef with Rush is that he repeats himself quite a lot. He has some good things to say but its all a bit boring if you ask me.

            1. That’s exactly how I feel also. I can comprehend his point the first time it’s stated. Between the repetition and commercials on AM radio, it’s aggravating to listen to.

        2. Listening to Rush Limbaugh for me goes like this.

          *turns on car radio*
          Ok, I guess that’s a reasonable position.
          Um, well, that’s kind of a stretch.
          Eh, I don’t agree, but I guess I see where you’re coming from.
          WTF? You are a moron.
          WTF again? Jesus, you’re insane.
          *turns off car radio*

          1. Speaking of not getting the jokes…

          2. What John said. I’m guessing that I’d be laughing hysterically at the point where you decided to turn the radio off.

          3. Rush makes $38M/year to do that show. There’s more car radios clicking on than off.

        3. One can say what they want about Rush. But at least he doesn’t want to silence anyone. Hell, he would probably be willing to debate a hat rack.

      2. I guess I must fill in.

        Is this fake scandal still around? Well, peanuts, Warren Buffet just made another 10 billion and Boossshhh!!!!!!

        /Shreeky

        1. You mentioned billionaire Warren Buffet, instead of the evil Teathuglican billionaire Koch brothers.

          So, I’m going to have to give you a D+ on that Shreek impression.

  7. ” also made the case for the collective rights interpretation that has now been rejected by both the Supreme Court and leading liberal legal scholars.”

    The idea that anything could be a “collective right” is patently absurd on it’s face.

    Rights inherently relate to individuals

    1. ^^THIS^^ If it is not an “individual right”, then it can be taken away from you at the discretion of the government. And if it can, then it is not a “right” at all. The term is nothing but the worst sort of newspeak.

    2. They know their whole collective rights bullshit is well bullshit, they don’t care that it’s bullshit because they’ll do anything to control the people.

      Only a complete retard would actually believe that the people mentioned in the first amendment, and the people mentioned in the fourth amendment and those people mentioned in the ninth amendment and again in the tenth amendment (the one that explicitly mentions both the people and the states as being two distinct things) are completely different concepts than those damn people mentioned in the second amendment. They really hate those people,.

      1. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

        As you can see, that whole “the people” thing is really old and outdated.

  8. http://www.nationalreview.com/…..on-brendan

    Chuck Todd “Holder is really a very non political person.

    The Journolist “a multi year project to determine if it is possible to create talking points so stupid that even American liberals won’t believe them”.

    1. Fuck Chuck Todd and the liberal choads that he sucks on every night.

    2. “a multi year project to determine if it is possible to create talking points so stupid that even American liberals won’t believe them”.

      The answer is no, it’s not possible to create talking points that stupid. The DERP is that strong with them.

  9. I wish I could believe he won’t just be replaced by another vile crony.

    What is it with AGs, though? My first awareness of them was Reno completely botching Waco. I was 14. Any examples of an AG in the last 30 years not being a weirdo or an evil fuck?

    1. He will be replaced by someone much worse. First, no intelligent person with any job prospects would want the job of playing scandal goalie and subverting the Justice Department to protect Obama’s sorry ass. So whoever they get will be an absolute Biden level train wreck of a moron. Second, anyone who takes the job is going to know that taking it is agreeing to do be an absolute loyal soldier no matter what. So not only will the person be a moron, they will be utterly without principles as well.

      They are only having Holder resign now because they now the kind of person they need to replace him could only get through a Democratic controlled Senate.

      1. Well maybe they can use poor, poor, misunderstood Lois Lerner? Her job prospects already suck, she’s already hated, she’d be perfect for Harry to ram through in a lame duck session. At this point what does it matter?

      2. Sounds like they need to create an AG-Bot w/ a liberal CPU.

        1. Maybe they can give the Roger Goodell bot a software patch and put him in?

      3. That’s gonna count as my nut punch for the day, John.

        1. Think about it. What chance does the guy who replaces Holder and spends the next two years covering for Obama have of getting a position in the hoped for Hillary Administration? None. All of the people with any brains or prospects are going to stay far away from this job. They will have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get anyone to take it.

      4. scandal goalie

        +1

      5. Completely agree with this. Whoever the new AG is actually steps into Holder’s shoes, re the contempt citation. No way does anyone other than a sworn soldier take the gig.

  10. B-but Holder was one of the good ones! He said he wasn’t going to follow the law sometimes on drug sentencing cases!

  11. Just before the midterms, so the deal is Holder resigns now and a journalist keeps his story for somewhat longer.

  12. Worst. October. Suprise. Ever!

    1. That wasn’t the Oct surprise. For the Oct surprise a bunch of dirty hippies and commies are going to hang out in parks and trash the place…. oh wait, that was last Oct surprise…

    2. You should remember just what kind of person Holder is. For someone like Holder power is everything. They don’t give a shit about money, they don’t care about their families, they don’t have any hobbies. They don’t have anything except the pursuit and use of power. It is all they are.

      So today, Holder is having to resign from the highest and most powerful position he will ever hold. There is very little chance he will ever hold a position of any kind of power again let alone one as powerful as USAG. As of today he is a has been. He is nothing but some old guy working at K Street trying to be one of the gang. No one with real power will give a shit who is anymore.

      Trust me when I tell you it is killing him. That worthless piece of crap is inconsolable about this, I guarantee it. That if nothing else makes this a better day than most.

      1. Holder will become a very highly paid consultant to a bunch of lobbying firms. He will just be pulling a different set of strings going forward.

        1. He will get paid, but he won’t be in power. And that is what matters. He will not be pulling any strings. He will be ingratiating himself to the people who pull strings. And for someone like Holder that is going to feel like death.

          People like Holder take high paying consultant jobs while they are killing time to get to the powerful jobs they really want. No do nothing K street job will ever replace being AG for Holder. For him, his life is effectively over. He doesn’t have anything left. And it is killing him.

          1. Right. What does he make now – like $200K? That’s nothing in DC. People like him forego much higher paying jobs to take status/power jobs. That’s what DC is all about. It’s hilarious when people whine about DC being all about money. That’s the farthest thing from the truth. DC is about status, power, and access.

  13. I do hope he’s not resigning in order to be nominated for Supreme Court Justice.

    1. Fuck you for putting that thought in my head 😉

    2. Nope. Ruth Bader Ginsberg has made it clear she is not going anywhere this year. So there are not any openings. Even if there were, no way would a Republican controlled Senate approve him and I seriously doubt the current one would either. He is way too unpopular and there are too many Red state dems who would balk at it.

      Though now that you say it, it is possible that these people are so tone deaf and stupid that they think they are going to be able to get Holder on the Supreme Court next year. I could believe that they are that stupid.

      1. Bitch set him up.

      2. “that these people are so tone deaf and stupid”

        possible strategy – Give him a year off the scandal line and then hope everyone forgets. Given the average voter, this could be effective.

        1. Only if you hold the Senate. And even so, why now? He could resign in November and accomplish the same thing.

          Also Holder is radioactive. I do t think he could get through a Democratic Senate. Obama is a lame duck. A few Dem Senators would tell him to fuck off and appoint someone less toxic.

      3. It wouldn’t be the first time that nominated persons passed Senate muster with less than legitimate tactics in the legislature. But hopefully you are completely correct and there’s nothing to worry about.

    3. Well there’s a sphincter-tightening thought.

  14. Good fucking riddance. Although I shudder to think who his successor will be.

    1. We can only hope we have lived well and enough and God loves us enough for this whole thing to end in him being indicted and doing some time in federal prison.

      Yeah, I know that is too much to ask for. But a man’s got to have his dreams.

  15. Good God that picture is creepy. Reminds me of Robert Shaw’s line in jaws.

    1. “lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes…”

      in case you were wondering.

  16. Rumor is the Chocolate Nixon is tapping Devel Patrick as Holder’s replacement. so yes, it can always be worse.

    1. That’s just the first offer, which he knows will be rejected. That way he can come back with some other miserable wretch and the media can fellate him for being a centrist.

    2. Unless a miracle occurs, the next governor of the commonwealth is that abuser of children and prosecutor of the innocent to make herself look good, Martha Coakley.

      1. “Technically it’s not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts”

    3. Oh, that would be something to see, given Deval’s many scandals and the over-generous attitude he seems to have toward rapists.

    4. Patrick’s a proven police stater at slightest provocation. That’s got to put his name way up on our Emperor’s list.

  17. One thing for sure. Mr. Holder will move on to a position somewhere else that pays at least six figures at the minimum, as well as having the prestige of being an Ex-Attorney General, however disliked by a segment of the population. That future salary he will get does not include the speaking engagements he will be in demand for, and get paid for.

    While all the above is happening, most of the morons who post on this site will probably never see a six figure or more salary if they lived 500 years. Rant on you retards. Holder will end up in the history books, and people will write books about him, alternately praising and cursing him. All that while some night time animal pisses on your gravestones.

    1. ” most of the morons who post on this site will probably never see a six figure or more salary if they lived 500 years. Rant on you retards”

      ” All that while some night time animal pisses on your gravestones.”

      OTRTM. You started off with a good position, but then you pissed it away. Why ?? Because you are a paid troll. =)

      1. Hi there JPRICK

        How much are you paid?

        Take care, you fucking ass wipe.

        As usual, your comments are about as worthless as a used tampon on a New Mexico back road.

    2. Most of the people on here don’t thirst for power like leftists do. So while you think this is an effective insult, you are, as usual, flatly wrong.
      Longing to be a Great Man whose scars are shown upon the world for generations is a leftist fantasy, not a libertarian one.
      I just want to take care of my family and spend time with loved ones.
      How many peoples lives do you need to interfere with (or end, if they don’t listen) to feel like your life has been worth it?
      Do you prefer Attila, Hitler, Mao? All Great Men remembered for eternity.

      1. And your point is?

      2. triciops,

        Obviously I prefer good people, and not evil men such as Hitler and Mao. But there is no comparison between them and an Attorney General you don’t like because he does not follow the policies you think he should, or because he does not share your ideology. Mao and Hitler were dictators of the worst kind, but Holder never had such powers, nor will any Attorney General. Your attempt to twist the meaning of my comment failed. Carry on, asshole.

        1. You PREFER good people but if bad people will further your craven, evil, totalitarian Progressive agenda then that’s okay as well.

    3. Your argument boils down to, “he’s better known and makes more money than you, nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.”

      Way to dig back to an eleven year old grasp of debate.

      1. “eleven year old’s”

        fatfingers

      2. Cat’s Ass

        Being better known and making more money in this society is what really counts. You lack a grasp of REALITY!

    4. On The Road To Mandalay:

      One thing for sure. Mr. Holder will move on to a position somewhere else that pays at least six figures at the minimum,

      I haven’t had a year that rough since I left college. If all you can get is a minimum six figures, I would think he would have been better off owning a few gas stations or something.

      While all the above is happening, most of the morons who post on this site will probably never see a six figure or more salary if they lived 500 years.

      If those are the numbers you are using, then you must live in relative poverty.

      That future salary he will get does not include the speaking engagements he will be in demand for, and get paid for.

      Who wants to hear Eric Holder talk about…what, exactly? The man is about as interesting as Dan Quayle. Does he make money on the speaker circuit, too? If they both pull that off, remind me where they’re playing when I have insomnia. I’d love to hear Eric Holder drone on again and again how he had no knowledge of Fast and Furious, all while speaking at a 4th grade level.

      Holder will end up in the history books, and people will write books about him, alternately praising and cursing him. All that while some night time animal pisses on your gravestones.

      OK, without looking it up: who was FDR’s first Attorney General? Give up? Homer Stille Cummings. You know why you don’t know that? Because no one cares.

  18. Eric Holder is one of the greatest villains in our country. The sooner he is convicted and imprisoned, or even better, executed, the better off we all will be.

    1. Suicidy,

      You are a PERFECT example of the retards who post on this site.

      I think you will be disappointed when your wish of what you would like to happen to Mr. Holder does not come true.

      That’s because YOU are probably more likely to be convicted, imprisoned, or executed for STUPIDITY. At which time Mr.Holder can mark your file DSAF – Did Society A Favor.

      Dream on, you fucking moron.

      1. Turd.Burglar.

        1. Turd.Burglar.

      2. Sounds like you’re starving for a nice big steaming pile of my crap.

      3. I’ve got a big old BrownLog Airlines 747 jumbo turdliner ready to take flight right into your mouth. If I know you as well as I do you’ve got to be drooling just knowing about it.

        1. John Galt,

          Your comment wins the prize for originality in all categories. In fact it is so hilarious, that I can’t imagine anyone on this site responding to my comments, to come up with anything close to what you have said. John, you are the ace of insulters. Sevo does not come close to you.

          Does you 747 promise mean that you are a fan of mine. Let’s start a Road Guy Fan Club. How about it? Come on, be a sport.

  19. I don’t care about Mr. Holder leaving his appointment. I would rather see the appointment dissolved.

  20. What do sloths do after leaving the DOJ?

    1. They get paid a lot more than you probably make.

      1. And OTRTM takes another bite of Turdel Soup.

  21. One of the things no one remembers about Holder is that while he was a corporate lawyer in 2004 he was the spin doctor for the DC government when it came out that it had been feeding DC residents illegally high lead levels in the government supplied water.

  22. What else could you expect from someone who wants the government to brainwash people?
    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..ks-likely/

  23. If Holder reads this article I bet he will be laughing all the way to his bank account.

  24. Holder also (probably) struck out on the civil rights investigation on Ferguson, just like he did with the Zimmerman case.

    So Sebelius, Lerner, and Holder have all resigned. Jay Carney is also out. Lots of people getting unofficially fired for fake scandals.

  25. Holder also (probably) struck out on the civil rights investigation on Ferguson, just like he did with the Zimmerman case.

    So Sebelius, Lerner, and Holder have all resigned. Jay Carney is also out. Lots of people getting unofficially fired for fake scandals.

  26. For all those who detest the Obama Administration, the fact that Holder is leaving is celebration enough. All this article says is that Libertarians never liked him, and never will. The same applies to the entire Obama Administration which ends in January 2017, with what to follow? It probably won’t be any administration that Libertarians like anyway, so Reason.com will be able to bash whoever sits in the White House for the next four or eight years. And even if it is Rand Paul, Libertarians will soon find out that the reality of being elected as a Republican President means that he will not cater to Libertarian whims. I envision a White, Republican President from 2017-2025, which probably means more nasty wars and interventions that Libertarians don’t like, not to mention more statism, Republican style. Dream on Libertarians, because The Fairy Prince will never arrive at your Fantasy Castle. (This Comment Was Paid For By Trolls Incorporated)

    1. Road Guy

      Doesn’t it bother you that this man (Holder) has not been forthright and withheld information about the peoples business and was possibly instrumental in Fast and Furious. And as a Libertarian if someone of my party was in office and tried pulled some of the same of shenanigans I would condemn them as well because that is what principled people do and at least we sleep better at night. I don’t know how you can be so partizan with something like the IRS (something never investigated by Holder) scandal and still consider yourself someone who is honest and principled, but I guess you don’t. And the size of our party doesn’t matter, it’s what we think that matters. But yes you and your ilk are winning ha ha ha.

      1. San Diego,

        For some reason (no pun intended) you missed my entire point(s). I’m a registered and voting conservative Republican. I could give a flying fuck for and about Holder. However, I don’t agree with Libertarians and their anarchistic dreams. All my post says is that Obama will be gone in 2017, but I believe the American people will probably install another Republican (White) in the White House for another 8 years. If so, Libertarians won’t like that anymore than they like the Obama Regime.

        Because you didn’t read my comment very carefully, you assumed it was in defense of Holder. Again, I could give a shit less if he leaves or stays, because his replacement could be worse.

        That’s what my “ilk” thinks, but we are not winning, now. Conservative Republicans are caught between Liberal Assholes and Libertarian Dupes.

        1. On The Road to Mandalay,

          What you have posted here seems to me to be a more reasonable assessment of reality than what the libertarians want to admit.

        2. An old saying. The only difference between Republicans ans Democrats is what that want to tell you do do.

      2. San Diego,

        Nevertheless, thanks for being civil in your response to me comment, although it was slightly sarcastic. However, it was not insulting like most of the responses I get to my comments.

        Thanks.

        1. Is this you’re final final post ?

          1. OneOut,

            I’m sure you would like it to be. However, it’s NOT my final post. Sorry to disappoint you, but I know you can suck it up and move on. When that final post comes, I won’t announce it. I just won’t be around anymore.

            1. Awesome sauce dip stick, looking forward to the announcement of your cessation of trying for TOTY.

              Keep trolling, it does give me a chuckle or two when the verbal mish mash you spew continues it’s inherent idiocy. Carry on, my idiotic son, to paraphrase ’70’s Kansas.

  27. Anyone for joining the Eric Holder Society? /sarc

  28. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her pay check was $13299 just working on the computer for a few hours. more information……………

    http://www.Works6.com

  29. Good Riddance to the most despised man ever to hold public office.
    “The Coward” single-handedly turned an office of respect into the “Department of Injustice.”

  30. my classmate’s mother makes $73 hourly on the computer . She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her payment was $15449 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    over here ====== http://WWW.JOBSFISH.COM

  31. This is reason, yes? Holder is a scumbug, true. He was appointed by the scumbag Obama because they are blood brothers in corruption, crime, and both are power-hungry anti-America racists. (Obama only selects those he knows will watch his back and take the fall for him and those he knows will implement his ultra-leftwing radicalism through legal or illegal means.)

    But ontheroadtoMandalay has got it right when he/she says it’s all about power, prestige and money in DC. The people who get there are either corrupt to begin with or corrupted soon after on both sides of the aisle. It doesn’t matter who the president is because both sides are so far off the rails as far as “defending and protecting the Constitution” and following the rule of law, not to mention a lust for power and damn the people, that there is really no way this country isn’t going down the shithole for all of us who aren’t a part of the DC/Wall Street crowd. It isn’t “we, the people” but we, the corrupt wealthy and politician who make the rules that benefit us and screw everyone else.

  32. I see a lot of rage directed at Holder, but little in the way of reasons. He oversaw the biggest advancements in scaling back the drug war and tough-on-crime policies in generations. He didn’t take a single person’s goddamn gun. He didn’t prosecute bankers or go after the national security state, but that’s not what makes you guys so enraged, is it? What could it be. I’m gonna go with “because the fat man told you to be” and leave it at that. We’ll let the actual, underlying motivations for the hysteria directed at both Holder and Reno by the right unstated.

    But let’s see what happens when Obama appoints a white guy to replace him. I’ll wager good money that he could do everything exactly the same way as Holder and the redneck masses will, for some reason, be substantially less excited.

    1. The Race Card…that’s all you got? Fucking moron.

    2. “He didn’t take a single person’s goddamn gun”

      Including the ones that ran to Mexico!

    3. So it’s okay with you that no matter who holds office it’s okay to withhold information from congressional oversight and not investigate the IRS when there is reason to believe they may have been biased in their application of the law? That’s okay no matter who holds office? Why don’t you just admit you are an unprincipled shill?

  33. I’ve got a neighborhood he should have to spend 24 hours in without telling anybody who he is. I bet he wouldn’t make it through.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.