Tag: eric holder
California Lawmakers Hire Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder To Fight Trump

California Lawmakers Hire Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder To Fight Trump

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Democratic lawmakers in the California legislature have retained former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to help in any legal battles with President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The move is an indication that lawmakers in the nation’s most populous state, where Democrats hold two-thirds majorities in both houses of the legislature, are girding for possible court battles after Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

Last month, leaders of both houses introduced bills to protect undocumented immigrants from anticipated efforts by a Trump administration to increase deportations . In addition, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown has made combating climate change a priority for the state.

“Having the former attorney general of the United States brings us a lot of firepower in order to prepare to safeguard the values of the people of California,” Kevin de León, the Democratic leader of the state Senate, told the Times. “This means we are very, very serious.”

A representative from de León’s office could not immediately be reached for comment early on Wednesday.

Holder served as attorney general under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2015. He is a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling, which represents companies and helps them navigate government regulations.

“I am honored that the Legislature chose Covington to serve as its legal adviser as it considers how to respond to potential changes in federal law that could impact California’s residents and policy priorities,” Holder said in a statement, according to the Times.

California voted decisively for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election, choosing the former first lady over Trump by 28 percentage points.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis, editing by Larry King)

IMAGE: AFP Photo/Alex Wong

In The Shadows, Rogue FBI Agents Deface Democracy

In The Shadows, Rogue FBI Agents Deface Democracy

Whatever the outcome next Tuesday, our political system crossed a perilous rubicon during the days leading up to that climax: For the first time in recent memory, officials of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency sought to influence a national election with illicit leaks.

Murky information about investigations of Hillary Clinton’s emails and the Clinton Foundation, even fraudulent rumors of “indictments” have flooded the media, all somehow traced back to the FBI — with Rudolph Giuliani of the Trump campaign boasting on Fox News that he had advance knowledge of these manipulations.

Owing to his longstanding connections with the bureau, Giuliani had predicted “a couple of surprises” to come in late October, just days before FBI director James Comey sent his fateful letter to Congress about reviewing new emails in the Clinton case he closed last July.

“You’ll see, and I think it will be enormously effective,” he said on Fox News. In fact. Giuliani had joined in publicly pressuring Comey for months, claiming to know of a “revolt” among agents against the decision not to prosecute Clinton.

Having covered the investigations of the New York FBI office for more than 30 years, reporter Wayne Barrett drew the connections between Giuliani, former FBI supervisor James Kallstrom (also a vocal Trump supporter), and the leaks that have plagued the Clinton campaign in The Daily Beast. Among the handful of real charitable donations ever made by Trump are some generous payments to a charity headed by Kallstrom — who, like Giuliani, predicted last summer that disgruntled agents might reveal “a lot more of the facts” about the email probe “come out in the next few months.”

Now perhaps those agents — along with Giuliani, Kallstrom, and their friend Donald Trump — don’t understand that there was nothing scandalous, let alone criminal, in Clinton’s decision to use a private email account like her predecessor Colin Powell. Perhaps they don’t understand that Clinton’s handling of “classified” emails — characterized as “extremely careless” by Comey, in one of his departures from normal Justice Department practice — was altogether routine in the federal government, where classification standards vary by department and change often. Perhaps they also don’t understand why Comey found that the evidence showed no bad intent by Clinton or the lawyers who reviewed her emails to delete personal material.

And perhaps they don’t realize why the public integrity professionals at the Justice Department rejected their ridiculous determination to investigate the Clinton Foundation, based on discredited accusations in a book created and publicized by the political extremist who later became the chief executive of Trump’s campaign. (The reported eagerness of federal agents to pursue the canards in that book doesn’t reflect well on their forensic skills, but that’s a different problem.)

It is more likely that the FBI agents involved in this operation do understand why prosecutors — including Comey, a former U. S. attorney and deputy attorney general — but simply don’t care because they are right-wing ideologues with a partisan preference. But that distinction doesn’t matter much, because in either case they have violated their oaths and their duty as federal agents, by seeking to influence this election through leaks.

Leaking investigative material is always a violation of the rules that govern the judicial system — which protect the rights of all citizens. In the days and weeks before an election, violating those rules to achieve a partisan objective is an assault on democracy.

During the last presidential election cycle, Attorney General Eric Holder reminded all employees of the Justice Department, including every FBI agent, of the rules that govern their conduct in a March 2012 memorandum titled “Election Year Sensitivities”:

Simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

That last sentence is mild language for a despicable act. In a police state, prosecutors and police agents seek to direct politics from the shadows. In a democracy, law enforcement officials must never attempt to influence elections. What the rogue agents have done in these past few days is all too similar to the standard practice in Putin’s Russia and other authoritarian states. It is far below the American constitutional standard that those agents swore to uphold.

IMAGE: Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani

Eric Holder Has Changed His Mind About Edward Snowden

Eric Holder Has Changed His Mind About Edward Snowden

A year after leaving office, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is singing a different tune about Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked 1.7 million documents back in 2013 and exposed alarming details about the government’s surveillance methods abroad and on its own citizens.

Holder was the head of the Justice Department when the leak occurred. Back then, he maintained that Snowden had to return home and plead guilty, and that the Obama White House was not willing to consider “the notion of clemency.”

But now it seems that Holder has changed his mind. In a conversation with David Axelrod on The Axe Files podcast, which is produced by CNN and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, Holder said that while he still believes Snowden’s actions and the way he carried them out were “inappropriate and illegal,” he thinks that Snowden deserves some credit for shining a light on secret surveillance techniques that he did not even know about, and starting a debate about the importance of individual privacy.

“I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made,” Holder told Axelrod.

Holder stated that Snowden should still come back to the U.S. and stand trial, but that any future judge should take the “usefulness of having had that national debate” into account when deciding on a sentence.

Snowden joined the discussion on Twitter to comment on Holder’s change of heart by highlighting the different stands the government has taken on the leak throughout the years:

The whistleblower, who has lived in Russia under political asylum since 2013, faces espionage charges that could hold a punishment of up to 30 years.
Snowden appeared via video at an event at a University of Chicago Institute of Politics, which produces the Axes Files podcast, earlier this month and said he has always wanted to come back to the U.S. and make his case to a jury, but only if the government guarantees a fair trial. For Snowden, a “fair trial” means being allowed a public interest defense, which is not currently allowed under the Espionage Act.
Prosecution Of White-Collar Crime Hits 20-Year Low

Prosecution Of White-Collar Crime Hits 20-Year Low

Just a few years after the financial crisis, a new report tells an important story: Federal prosecution of white-collar crime has hit a 20-year low.

The analysis by Syracuse University shows a more than 36 percent decline in such prosecutions since the middle of the Clinton administration, when the decline began. Landing amid calls from Democratic presidential candidates for more Wall Street prosecutions, the report notes that the projected number of prosecutions this year is 12 percent less than last year and 29 percent less than five years ago.

“The decline in federal white-collar crime prosecutions does not necessarily indicate there has been a decline in white-collar crime,” Syracuse researchers note. “Rather, it may reflect shifting enforcement policies by each of the administrations and the various agencies.”

Underscoring that assertion is a recent study by researchers at George Mason University tracking the increased use of special Justice Department agreements that allow corporations — and often their executives — to avoid being prosecuted. Before 2003, researchers found, the Justice Department offered almost no such deals. The researchers report that from 2007 to 2011, 44 percent of cases were resolved through the deals — known as deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements.

In 2012, President Obama pledged to “hold Wall Street accountable” for financial misdeeds related to the financial crisis. But as financial industry donations flooded into Obama’s re-election campaign, his Justice Department officials promoted policies that critics say embodied a “too big to jail” doctrine for financial crime.

In a 2012 speech, for example, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Lanny Breuer, said “collateral consequences of an indictment,” such as layoffs, losses for corporate shareholders and the health of an industry, factor into the Obama administration’s prosecutorial decisions.

“In reaching every charging decision, we must take into account the effect of an indictment on innocent employees and shareholders,” said Breuer.

Similarly, in 2013, Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, told congressional lawmakers that when it comes to banks, “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult to prosecute them.” He said there is an “inhibiting impact” on the Obama Justice Department’s willingness to prosecute a bank when bringing a criminal charge “[would] have a negative impact on the national economy.”

Holder’s 2013 comments were foreshadowed by a 1999 memo he wrote as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration. In it, Holder recommended that prosecutors consider “[c]ollateral consequences, including disproportionate harm to shareholders and employees not proven personally culpable” before attempting to convict corporations for wrongdoing.

In May, the House Financial Services Committee subpoenaed the Justice Department about the policy. A press release from committee chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) asserted that the Obama administration was “stonewalling” in providing more details about “whether decisions are being made to prosecute or not prosecute financial institutions based upon their size.”

Prior to serving in the Obama Justice Department, both Breuer and Holder worked at white-collar defense firm Covington & Burling. Both of them went back to work for the firm again immediately after leaving their government posts.

For his part, Holder has recently defended the administration’s record of not prosecuting any individual financial executive involved in the financial crisis. He says the fines the administration has assessed against financial institutions were effective.

“People tend to undervalue what we did with the banks,” Holder told the Financial Times. “Given the nature of the penalties that were extracted, given the interactions that we had with people at the banks, with those attorneys who represented the banks, I think the cultures have changed.”

Left unexplained is how those cultures have supposedly changed when many of the same individuals who were involved in the financial crisis have managed to avoid any punishment.

David Sirota is a senior writer at the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books Hostile Takeover, The Uprising, and Back to Our Future. Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

Photo Credit: AFP/Stan Honda