Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder left no question about the Administration’s support of the abusive treatment of Aaron Swartz by US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and Deputy US Attorney Stephen Heymann. Heymann was previously linked to a suicide in another prosecution. We have discussed the abusive prosecution earlier and Swartz’s suicide after months of unrelenting threats and coercion. Holder heralded the treatment of Swartz as an example of the “good use of prosecutorial discretion.” Swartz’s girlfriend has come forward to denounce Holder and the Obama Administration for its misrepresentations in the case.
Ortiz previously tried to dampen criticism with a statement that misrepresented facts in the case.
Holder repeated his solemn obligation to prosecute crimes but that fervent belief in the rule of law was missing when Obama promised CIA officials that no one would be prosecuted for torture. It was missing when Holder and his aides found no ability to prosecute anyone for the torture program. Of course, torture is not just a federal crime but a war crime, but it did not rise to the level of releasing academic papers for free from a collection that MIT later released to the public for free.
Holder and Ortiz sought 35 years for Swartz and amended the charges to add new counts before his suicide.
In his March 6 testimony, Holder responded to a question for Republican Senator John Cornyn about Swartz’s prosecution. Most Democrats have remained silent in support of the Obama Administration. Holder insisted that the 18 month nightmare for Swartz was just good prosecution work on display. Holder repeated Ortiz’s claim that the prosecutors were just beside themselves trying to avoid a harsh punishment in the face of an unreasonable Swartz:
As I’ve talked to the people who have looked into this matter, these news reports about what he was actually facing is not consistent with what the interaction was between the government and Mr. Swartz. A plea offer was made to him of 3 months, before the indictment. This case could have been resolved with a plea of 3 months. After the indictment, an offer was made and he could plead and serve 4 months. Even after that, a plea offer was made, of a range of zero to 6 months, that he would be able to argue for a probationary sentence. The government would be able to argue for up to a period of 6 months. There was never any intention for him to go to jail for a period longer than 3, 4, potentially 5 month range.
As noted earlier, this ignores the fact that the Administration added charges and could have reached a plea without jail time or dropped charges. Instead, they demanded jail time for Swartz. Moreover, while Holder seems confused why people are mentioning 35 years, it was his department that crowed about the potential sentence when announcing its high-profile prosecution:
AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.
Swartz’s girlfriend issued a stinging rebuke:
“Eric Holder and the Department of Justice are clearly trying to mislead the Senate and the public. Holder claims that Aaron was only facing months in prison while Heymann and Ortiz were actively pursuing a penalty of 7 years if the case went to trial. If you believe you’re innocent, you should not be coerced into accepting a plea bargain that marks you as a felon for life, just because prosecutors want to boast about taking a scalp. The discrepancy between the plea deal and the amount of prison time prosecutors said they would pursue at trial violates the DOJ’s own guidelines in this regard. Holder is trying to engage in revisionist history at the same time he claims that the strict sentences pursued by prosecutors were a ‘good use of prosecutorial discretion.’
The missing prosecutorial discretion is when the Administration decided not to drop the charges when it became obvious that MIT decided the documents should be made free to the public. Yet, Holder believes radically overcharging a person who acted without desire for personal gain was “good prosecutorial discretion.” I mean, it is not like he did something minor like torture, right?
Source: Techdirt
Gene, Elaine, AP, Justice Holmes,
Thanks….. Wow….
Gene… That is something… The government can do it…. But if you do it and leak it….. You get wizzed on for the leak….
Holder is a disgrace but he is Obama’s choice. As a result, both he and Obama are responsible for a DOJ that prosecutes whistleblowers, activits and reporters but allows torturors, financial criminals like the banksters and wars criminals to get off scott free, not even an investigation.
Thanks for the link, Gene H.
A journalist watching the sentencing said, ‘I felt like I was watching a witch trial as prosecutors admitted they didn’t understand computers.’” (from Gene H.’s posting)
Witch trials… and witch hunts…
Here’s a thought for a new, independent AG:
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston (District Court of Northern California, 9th Circuit, San Francisco
Refer to: http://jonathanturley.org/?s=NSLs
More “good prosecutorial discretion” . . .
“In 2010, querying a public AT&T database yielded over 114,000 email address for iPad owners who were subscribed to the carrier. One of the people who found these emails, Andrew ‘weev’ Auernheimer, sent them to a news site to publicize AT&T’s security flaw. He later ended up in court for his actions. Auernheimer was found guilty, and today he was sentenced to 41 months in prison. ‘Following his release from prison, Auernheimer will be subject to three years of supervised release. Auernheimer and co-defendant Daniel Spitler were also ordered to pay $73,000 in restitution to AT&T. (Spitler pled guilty in 2011.) The pre-sentencing report prepared by prosecutors recommended four years in federal prison for Auernheimer.’ A journalist watching the sentencing said, ‘I felt like I was watching a witch trial as prosecutors admitted they didn’t understand computers.'”
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/18/1641221/41-months-in-prison-for-man-who-leaked-att-ipad-email-addresses
Has links to source materials.
“It may be that the time has come to create a ‘non-political’ and ‘independent’ Attorney General, one who would serve the interests of the public by upholding the rule of law rather than justifying the whims of the President.” -John Whitehead
Gene H.,
It’s time…
Elaine M.,
😉
AY, Whitehead’s response is the answer…
“Clearly, it’s not the Constitution that Eric Holder is safeguarding but the power of the presidency. Without a doubt, Holder has taken as his mantra Nixon’s mantra that “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” It may be that the time has come to create a “non-political” and “independent” Attorney General, one who would serve the interests of the public by upholding the rule of law rather than justifying the whims of the President.” -John Whitehead
anonymously posted,
“It may be that the time has come to create a ‘non-political’ and ‘independent’ Attorney General, one who would serve the interests of the public by upholding the rule of law rather than justifying the whims of the President.”
Funny, but recently that very idea has been rumbling around the back of brain as a column idea. Still might write it. Another great catch, ap.
Attorney General Eric Holder: If the President Does It, It’s Legal
By John W. Whitehead
March 18, 2013
“I never thought I would see the day when a Justice Department would claim that only the most extreme infliction of pain and physical abuse constitutes torture and that acts that are merely cruel, inhuman and degrading are consistent with United States law and policy, that the Supreme Court would have to order the president of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, never thought that I would see that a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens. This disrespect for the rule of law is not only wrong, it is destructive.”—Eric Holder, June 2008 speech to the American Constitution Society
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/attorney_general_eric_holder_if_the_president_does_it_its_legal
Whitehead’s posting:
Since the early days of our republic, the Attorney General (AG) of the United States has served as the chief lawyer for the government, entrusted with ensuring that the nation’s laws are faithfully carried out and holding government officials accountable to abiding by their oaths of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution.”
Unfortunately, far from holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law, the attorneys general of each successive administration have increasingly aided and abetted the Executive Branch in skirting and, more often than not, flouting the law altogether, justifying all manner of civil liberties and human rights violations and trampling the Constitution in the process, particularly the Fourth Amendment.
No better example is there of the perversion of the office of the AG than its current occupant Eric Holder, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009. Hailed by civil liberties and watchdog groups alike for his pledge to “reverse the disastrous course that we have been on over the past few years” and usher in a new era of civil liberties under Obama, Holder has instead carried on the sorry tradition of his predecessors, going to great lengths to “justify” egregious government actions that can only be described as immoral, unjust and illegal.
Indeed, Holder has managed to eclipse both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez, whose tenures under George W. Bush earned them constant reproach by Democrats and other left-leaning groups for justifying acts of torture, surveillance of American citizens and clandestine behavior by the government. Holder, however, has largely been given a free pass by these very same groups in much the same way that Obama has. The reason, according to former Senate investigator Paul D. Thacker, is that “Obama is a Democrat. And because he is a Democrat, he’s gotten a pass from many of the civil liberty and good-government groups who spent years watching President Bush’s every move like a hawk.”
Despite getting a “pass” from those who would normally have been crying foul, during his time as attorney general, Holder has “made the Constitution scream”—that according to one of his detractors. The colorful description is apt. Some of the Justice Department’s (DOJ) “greatest hits” under Holder begin and end with his stalwart defense of the Obama administration’s growing powers, coming as they do at the expense of the Constitution.
Moreover, as head of the DOJ, Holder’s domain is vast, spanning several law enforcement agencies, including the United States Marshals Service; FBI; Federal Bureau of Prisons; National Institute of Corrections; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), as well as the U.S. National Central Bureau for INTERPOL. To say that the agencies under Holder have struggled to abide by the rule of law is an understatement.
The following are just some of the highlights of the dangerous philosophies embraced and advanced by Holder and his Justice Department.
The military can detain anyone, including American citizens, it deems a threat to the country. Not only has the DOJ persisted in defending a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act that sanctions indefinite detentions of Americans, but it has also blasted the federal judge who ruled the NDAA to be vague and chilling as overstepping the court’s authority and infringing on Obama’s power to act as Commander in Chief.
Presidential kill lists and drone killings are fine as long as the president thinks someone might have terrorist connections. Holder has gone to great lengths to defend Obama’s use of drones to target and kill American citizens, even on U.S. soil, as legally justifiable. In fact, a leaked DOJ memo suggests that the President has the power to murder any American citizen the world over, so long as he has a feeling that they might, at some point in the future, pose a threat to the United States.
The federal government has the right to seize the private property—cash, real estate, cars and other assets—of those suspected of being “connected” to criminal activity, whether or not the suspect is actually guilty. The government actually collects billions of dollars every year through this asset-forfeiture system, which it frequently divvies up with local law enforcement officials, a practice fully supported by the DOJ and a clear incentive for the government to carry out more of these “takings.”
Warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans’ telephone, email and Facebook accounts is not only permissible but legal. According to court documents, more Americans have had their electronic communications spied on as a result of DOJ orders for phone, email and Internet information—40,000 people alone in 2011—and that doesn’t even begin to take into account agencies outside Holder’s purview, terrorism investigations or requests by state and local law enforcement officials.
Judicial review is far from necessary. Moreover, while it is legal for the government to use National Security Letters (NSL) to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge, it is illegal to challenge the authority of the Justice Department. Administrative subpoenas or NSLs—convenient substitutes for court-sanctioned warrants that require only a government official’s signature in order to force virtually all businesses to hand over sensitive customer information—have become a popular method of bypassing the Fourth Amendment and a vital tool for the DOJ’s various agencies. Incredibly, the DOJ actually sued a telecommunications company for daring to challenge the FBI’s secret order, lacking in judicial oversight, that it relinquish information about its customers. The FBI alone has issued more than 300,000 NSLs since 2000.
Due process and judicial process are not the same. In one of his earliest attempts to justify targeted assassinations of American citizens by the president, Holder declared in a March 5, 2012 speech at the Northwestern University School of Law that “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.” What Holder was attempting to suggest is that the Fifth Amendment’s assurance that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” does not necessarily involve having one’s day in court and all that that entails—it simply means that someone, the president for example, should review and be satisfied by the facts before ordering someone’s death. As one history professor warned, “Insert even a sliver of difference between due process and judicial process, and you convert liberty into tyranny. Holder, sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, is the mouthpiece of that tyranny, and Obama is its self-appointed judge, jury and executioner.”
Government whistleblowers will be bankrupted, blacklisted, blackballed and in some cases banished. As AG, Holder has reportedly prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks than all his predecessors combined. Relying on the World War I-era Espionage Act, the DOJ has launched an all-out campaign to roust out, prosecute, and imprison government whistleblowers for exposing government corruption, incompetence, and greed. Intelligence analyst Bradley Manning is merely one in a long line of so-called “enemies of the state” to feel the Obama administration’s wrath for daring to publicly criticize its policies by leaking information to the media.
Government transparency is important unless government officials are busy, can stonewall, redact, obfuscate or lie about the details, are able to make the case that they are exempt from disclosure or that it interferes with national security. As Slate reports, “President Obama promised transparency and open government. He failed miserably.” Not only has Holder proven to be far less transparent than any of his predecessors, however, but his DOJ has done everything in its power to block access to information, even in matters where that information was already known. For example, when asked to explain the “Fast and Furious” debacle in which government operatives trafficked guns to Mexican drug lords, DOJ officials—unaware that much of the facts had already been revealed—“responded with false and misleading information that violated federal law.” When pressed for further information, the Justice Department retracted its initial response and refused to say anything more.
When it comes to Wall Street, justice is not blind. As revealed in a PBS Frontline report, the Obama administration has driven federal prosecutions of financial crimes down to a two-decade low, buoyed in its blindness to corporate corruption by campaign donations from Wall Street banks (whom Holder has determined are too big to prosecute anyhow) and staffers whose lucrative financial portfolios came about as a result of chummy relationships with financiers. As David Sirota points outs:
After watching the [PBS] piece, you will understand that the word “justice” belongs in quotes thanks to an Obama administration that has made a mockery of the name of a once hallowed executive department… Rooted in historical comparison, it contrasts how the Reagan administration prosecuted thousands of bankers after the now-quaint-looking S&L scandal with how the Obama administration betrayed the president’s explicit promise to “hold Wall Street accountable” and refused to prosecute a single banker connected to 2008′s apocalyptic financial meltdown.
Not all suspects should have the right to remain silent. In 2010, Holder began floating the idea that Miranda rights—which require that a suspect be informed of his right to remain silent—should be modified depending on the circumstances. Curiously, the Supreme Court is presently reviewing a case addressing a similar question, namely whether a suspect’s silence equates to an admission of guilt.
Clearly, it’s not the Constitution that Eric Holder is safeguarding but the power of the presidency. Without a doubt, Holder has taken as his mantra Nixon’s mantra that “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” It may be that the time has come to create a “non-political” and “independent” Attorney General, one who would serve the interests of the public by upholding the rule of law rather than justifying the whims of the President.
Good prosecutorial discretion, eh?
I guess this explains why he thinks the DOJ can’t prosecute anyone on Wall Street either.
He’s either an idiot or he thinks everyone else is.
But AP,
There are folks that say that Holder should be fired….. Why do you think Obama hasn’t fired Holder….
Jury Nullifaction is one of the many major Tools Jefferson/Madison/Franklin & the boys left us all with to defend our nation from these Bush/Obama/Wallst type Tyrannt Aholes.
If I was a cop now, I’d start looking the other way, if a judge or on a jury I wouldn’t convict anyone of any thing, no matter how bad the crime, & not until the Dem/Repub corrupt leaders are removed, & charged along with their Wallst co-conspriators are arrest, charged, jailed.
In just one small US pollution reg change by Obama he was advised an estamated 9000 people a year will die yet he signed it anyway.
As should be obvious to anyone paying attention Wallst/SC/London’s actions against the people of South/Central America, now Europe/Cyprus being looted/enslaved/murdered is a pre-planned attack & it’s already being rolled out here in the US.
If we don’t get control back over the top of those transnational banks & their political puppets you will continue to be looted & abused.
AY,
The buck stops with Obama. With regard to Holder, he needs to show some courage or get out of the way.
They’re hiding a domestic program, among other things, and will continue to lie, hide, overreach, etc. until they can’t. Eventually the chickens will come home to roost and it won’t be a good day for America.
In the end, though, given our history? Immunity for everyone. Move forward, don’t look back… yada, yada, yada.
Jomo,
How do you reconcile the fact that Obama has the ability to fire holder at anytime, with cause, without reason….. If Holder is really rogue as you state…. Then it seems he should be fired…. Now, if Obama is satisfied with him…. Then… He’s stuck with him….
Unlike Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini….. Holder does not risk being shot….. Just because the boss disagrees with him….. Now, a drone attack might just be a different story…..
I received some documents in response to a DOJ FOIA request, but there was nothing to indicate that the responsive documents were issued by the DOJ. When I asked for a stamp or a seal to indicate that they had been produced by the DOJ, I was told that they would have to consult with DOJ lawyers first. In the end, they refused to authenticate the documents.
And then they went a step further and replaced the original report that I had questioned. They offered no explanation in the new document/report — it was as if the first report had never been issued. Poof. Gone. And with it went the data that I had questioned in the first place. Officially, anyway. No one who looks at the official report now will see the information that I was questioning.
Smoke, mirrors, lies, obfuscation.
Just a little story about our DOJ.
AP,
What’s your feeling of Holder…. Do you think he’s just following orders…. Or that he is responsible all by himself….for his actions…. I value your input….
Holder is an incompetent lawyer whose only skill is getting appointed to a job which he did not deserve .Holder has either ignored or intentionally violated most of the promises that President Obama made while campaigning for the presidency. Might we remind lacky Holder that Obama promised not to prosecute any citizens who were in compliance with a states medical marijuana laws; so why has Holder allowed rogue US attorneys like Melinda Haag to use the power of the federal government to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries in California which were licensed by the local communities and which were in full compliance with California state law.I certainly hope that President Obama will ask for the resignation of Attorney General Holder and replace him with a more professional attorney
I don’t care how well-intended a politician is when they take office (and that’s always up for grabs anyway) give them a taste of that undiluted power and they do not want to give it up.