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
“Yes, but Obama is not responsible for Eric Holders actions.”
Bullshit. Plain and simple. And if you want to argue? I’ve got two words for you: respondeat superior. Obama hired him, Obama can fire him, Obama dictates the course for the DOJ as they are part of the Executive branch. Obama is as responsible for Holder as if he conducted the actions of Holder himself absent Holder acting outside the purview of his agency – which he isn’t.
This Administration has decided not to bring torturers and corrupt bankers who committed fraud and caused the financial meltdown of this country to justice–but it goes after whistle-blowers with a vengeance. What kind of leadership is that?
Yes, but Ross, Eric is not doing what Obama supports. Don’t you see that. Even lincoln was not liked by everybody.
Partisan Hack,
Obama isn’t responsible for Eric Holder’s actions? He’s his boss. He can always replace appointees who aren’t doing a good job.
Has anyone ever supported 100% of everything any politician, any political party or any group does? It’s usually voting for the candidate or party that is the closest to one’s views – not absolute 100% support of everything. Presidents are supposed to serve the entire nation, even the Americans that didn’t vote for them – that’s a tricky line to walk and he can’t please everybody on every issue!
Yes, but Obama is not responsible for Eric Holders actions. I never really cared for Eric. The President is trying to take care of other things. What’s more important right now is women’s issues and gun control. They are what concern me the most.
Paul wrote:
“I would like to hear someone that still supports Mr O explain their support.”
~+~
They will begin with “Yes, but…”
All this talk about Obama and Holder just can’t be true. Didn’t Obama get a Peace Prize? I went to a speech in Idaho in February of 2008. I went because my brother talked about how Obama really impressed him. I heard a pied piper. I have never heard a crowd cheer so loud for anybody. The masses following and still defending him are truly astounding. Why let facts get in the way, just turn on the tape recording from 2008 when he promised a new way of doing business.
We suffer today and will likely suffer in years to come due to his incompetence. But I do believe that history will not be kind to Mr. O. the man gets a peace prize then develops a kill list. he promises to close Gitmo only to keep it open. He promises bankers will pay for the mess they caused when what he really meant was we will make sure bankers make a profit and we pay for the mess they caused.
I would like to hear someone that still supports Mr O explain their support.
According to investigative reporters whose material I read, this is the least transparent administration in memory. More so than even the Nixon administration. No administration has ever managed to prevent leaks or gossip from the inside like this one.
Insight: Top Justice officials connected to mortgage banks
By Scot J. Paltrow
Jan 20, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/us-usa-holder-mortgage-idUSTRE80J0PH20120120
Excerpt:
Reuters) – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm that represented a Who’s Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud, a Reuters inquiry shows.
The firm, Covington & Burling, is one of Washington’s biggest white shoe law firms. Law professors and other federal ethics experts said that federal conflict of interest rules required Holder and Breuer to recuse themselves from any Justice Department decisions relating to law firm clients they personally had done work for.
Both the Justice Department and Covington declined to say if either official had personally worked on matters for the big mortgage industry clients. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Holder and Breuer had complied fully with conflict of interest regulations, but she declined to say if they had recused themselves from any matters related to the former clients.
Reuters reported in December that under Holder and Breuer, the Justice Department hasn’t brought any criminal cases against big banks or other companies involved in mortgage servicing, even though copious evidence has surfaced of apparent criminal violations in foreclosure cases.
The evidence, including records from federal and state courts and local clerks’ offices around the country, shows widespread forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, and illegal foreclosures on the homes of thousands of active-duty military personnel.
In recent weeks the Justice Department has come under renewed pressure from members of Congress, state and local officials and homeowners’ lawyers to open a wide-ranging criminal investigation of mortgage servicers, the biggest of which have been Covington clients. So far Justice officials haven’t responded publicly to any of the requests.
While Holder and Breuer were partners at Covington, the firm’s clients included the four largest U.S. banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo & Co – as well as at least one other bank that is among the 10 largest mortgage servicers.
Why Goldman Sachs, Other Wall Street Titans Are Not Being Prosecuted
The Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute Goldman Sachs in a financial-fraud probe is another sign of the cronyism that has kept Attorney General Eric Holder from taking action against other big Wall Street firms, says Peter Schweizer.
Aug 14, 2012
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/14/why-goldman-sachs-other-wall-street-titans-are-not-being-prosecuted.html
Excerpt:
On Thursday the Department of Justice announced it will not prosecute Goldman Sachs or any of its employees in a financial-fraud probe.
The news is likely to raise the ire of the political left and right, both of which have highlighted one of the most inconvenient facts of Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department: despite the Obama administration’s promises to clean up Wall Street in the wake of America’s worst financial crisis, there has not been a single criminal charge filed by the federal government against any top executive of the elite financial institutions.
Why is that? In a word: cronyism.
Take Goldman Sachs, for example. Thursday’s announcement that there will be no prosecutions should hardly come as a surprise. In 2008, Goldman Sachs employees were among Barack Obama’s top campaign contributors, giving a combined $1,013,091. Eric Holder’s former law firm, Covington & Burling, also counts Goldman Sachs as one of its clients. Furthermore, in April 2011, when the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a scathing report detailing Goldman’s suspicious Abacus deal, several Goldman executives and their families began flooding Obama campaign coffers with donations, some giving the maximum $35,800.
That’s not to say Holder’s Justice Department hasn’t gone after any financial fraudsters. But the individuals the DOJ’s “Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force” has placed in its prosecutorial crosshairs seem shockingly small compared with the Wall Street titans the Obama administration promised to bring to justice.
I wonder when people are going to wake up to the fact that President Obama does not sufficiently respect civil liberties or privacy? Many people almost worship him, especially where I live.
It is rather odd how you see cars around here with Peace logos, freedom, fight oppression bumper stickers all surrounded by Obama’s likeness and campaign stickers. He must have had some great marketing wonks in his election campaign to have hoodwinked these people as greatly as he did. He takes away personal liberties, his administration jails whistleblowers and suppresses people who question him or his policies, talks about assasinating American citizens and despite all this, many of his supporters proffer that he supports their causes, or at the very least counter questions as to his actions with “Yes, But…”
So continue your adoration of your Dear Leader, but be careful of what you wish for.
And you might as well shake it out now. Call me a racist like I was previously in this blog for criticising him, that I am just a republican stooge, or whatever other things you might do to attack anyone that questions his policies, then go look in the mirror and ask yourself how much you really believe “Dissent is Patriotic”
Holder is a traitor to the US Constitution and should be imprisoned for life
It’s noteworthy that Holder feels the need to revisit the Swartz matter. The black hole formerly know as rising star Ortiz continues to draw fire for her questionable prosecutions and plea deals … for instance:
“Yesterday, former Chelsea Housing Authority Director Michael McLaughlin pleaded guilty to shafting both taxpayers and Chelsea’s poor by knowingly lying about his salary, which ballooned from $77,000 in 2000 to $366,000 in 2011.
His motive, said his lawyer: money.
His jail time: possibly none, according to the plea deal McLaughlin worked out with Ortiz’s office.” (Boston Herald, Margery Eagan, February 20, 2013)
————————————————————————————-
From the Boston Globe:
“Milton police on March 16 responded to a small demonstration by people who went to the home of US Attorney Carmen Ortiz to protest her handling of the Aaron Swartz case. The protesters, who identified with the Occupy movement, placed “Wanted” posters bearing Ortiz’s name near her Milton home and left a cake on the property with the words “Justice for Aaron” written in frosting, according to Deputy Police Chief Charles Paris. Police sent the cake to the FBI, he said. Ortiz said last week that she respected the rights of individuals to express views, but added that protesters wearing masks in her neighborhood frightened her children and neighbors. Swartz, who was charged with illegally obtaining documents from protected computers, committed suicide in January.” (Dave Eisenstadter March 17, 2013)
———————————————————————————————
But I suspect what has really got Holder and Obama going is the following also from the Boston Globe:
“Aaron Swartz’s estate seeks release of documents
The estate of Aaron Swartz, the Internet activist who was charged with hacking by the federal government and later committed suicide, filed a motion in federal court in Boston Friday to allow release of documents in the case that has generated national controversy and raised questions over the US attorney’s aggressive pursuit of a stiff sentence.” (Derek J. Anderson, March 16, 2013)
———————————————————————————
Holding hands with CIA tortures while begging CEOs to let him sit on their gold encrusted toilets, Holder fails to take note of the music playing throughout the halls of justice.
“If whistleblowers only get fired, they can consider themselves lucky. They could end up dead like Swartz or facing 100 years like Barret Brown.”
The government has other means of destroying people…
OS,
Rest assured, I have all the documents.
On the other hand, just look at all those thieving bankers who flouted the law, brought the economy crashing down and have literally stolen people’s homes by using perjured documents.
I love to see bankers arrested in their penthouse suites and perp-walked to jail…..oh wait……never mind.
If whistleblowers only get fired, they can consider themselves lucky. They could end up dead like Swartz or facing 100 years like Barret Brown.
Best commentary in 10 years in my opinion: Go to http://www.C-Span.org and in the search box type “Thomas Drake, National Press Club” aired on 3-15-13. It is about an hour total but well worth it! Anyone who is a fan of this site will love this video.
anonymously posted,
I have a rule of thumb. When I find something online and want to make sure it is not “disappeared,” downloading the whole web page is a good idea. Also learn to use the screen grab feature. It has come in handy many times. I have downloaded pages, saved as “web page entire,” but when I go back to check on the original document, it is gone. Heh! I still have it.
Many activist bloggers do this, then post old and new (revised or edited) documents side by side for comparison.
I want to echo AY’s “Wow” comment.
Gene,
That link to the 41 month sentence is the exclamation point on the Swartz case. Swartz was just the tip of an iceberg.