[Originally published June 7, 2008 when Holder's name was proposed for AG]
This week American Lawyer floated a trial balloon for the next Attorney General. The fluff job began with a casual vignette that showed us how the anointed candidate is connected — and obedient — to Power. Which sounds exactly like what was wrong with all of Bush’s AG’s. After seven long years of depravity in Bush’s DOJ, do you really want four more years of a DOJ prostituted out to corporate clients?
[Eric Holder Jr.] is there to prep Fernando Aguirre, the CEO of Chiquita Brands International Inc., for an interview with "60 Minutes," which will be broadcasting a segment on the company’s past involvement with Colombian right-wing paramilitary forces. Last March, Holder helped Chiquita secure a slap-on-the-wrist plea deal to charges that it had paid off the terrorists.
Aww. Isn’t that special? Another very-well-paid corporate servant just helping another criminally amoral conspiracy corporation — Chiquita — evade punishment for killing anyone who gets in the way of maximum quarterly yield. After all, corporate officers and board members already enjoy effective immunity from criminal prosecution (and personal liability) when they deliberately choose to maximize profits by killing and maiming their employees and the rest of us — either through predictable workplace "accidents" or the intentional collective posioning of us and our fetuses we quaintly call "pollution".
Why not take the next step and kill union organizers? Hey — it worked for Big Carbon during the start of the last Great Depression. Why shouldn’t Big Banana do the same as we slide into the next Great Depression?
After all, killing union activists is just another tool in maximizing corporate earnings — and that’s what America, the legal prostitutes who collectively comprise the corporate bar, and the Bushies’ DOJ is all about, right? And why make a big stink about Big Banana? After all, killing union activists is just the way business works in Colombia — as long as Uribe and the DEA/DOJ’s Plan Colombia run the show:
Between 2002 (when Uribe took office) and 2006, a total of 510 union activists have been slain in Colombia.
"Convictions have been reported in only five cases for the 236 trade unionists murdered in the most recent three-year period, 2004-2006," states a Colombia Fact Sheet released by USLEAP.
The Uribe Administration likes to trumpet the fact that the number of murders of trade unionists has been on a downward trend since he took office. However, to put that so-called good news in perspective, according to USLEAP, each year between 2002 and 2006 the total number of labor-leader assassinations in Colombia alone has exceeded the total killed globally — with 72 union leaders killed in Colombia in 2006, compared to 66 in the entire rest of the world that same year.
After that much bloodshed, you have to wonder if Uribe’s so-called success in reducing the murder rate of unionists is not due to the fact that there are simply fewer labor leaders out there to murder.
Hey, assassinating trade unionists worked for Coca-Cola’s bottlers in Colombia, right? Why deny Big Banana the same advantage?
After all, isn’t that what the noble profession of law is all about: establishing a level playing field with elaborate rules designed to ensure all parties have vigorous advocates who give them "their day in court"?
Sure. When one party is a multi-billion corporation and the other an individual, it has to work well, right?
Or when the multi-billion megacorps simply write their own legislation — and then fund their creature ALEC to use campaign contributions legalized bribery and just purchase the votes required to buy whatever the megacorps need from our state and Federal "Justice" systems.
After all, it worked for the Bankruptcy Law "reform", right? It worked to neuter Superfund, right? It worked to sink universal health insurance, right?
And last year — when Congress knowingly turned the techniques of the women’s suffrage and civil rights movement into federal crimes – it sure worked then, right? But of course, AETA was all about terrorism, right?
And that has nothing to do with the sweet deal American Lawyer’s fluffee Holder negotiated for the Boys From Banana, right?
There was a labor organizer who was organizing banana workers, who was taken off a bus by paramilitaries and shot; people shot in the banana fields; social organizers who were advocating for causes that the paramilitaries were opposed to; a woman taken out and shot in front of her family.
[snip]
We believe that Chiquita is actually essentially engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the paramilitary organizations to control the banana-growing region of Colombia and that it was to Chiquita’s great benefit to use the paramilitaries to maintain a social and political stability within this region to allow them to conduct their extremely profitable banana-growing operations.
What the Chiquita executives probably didn’t tell you is that during this period, when they claimed they were being extorted by the paramilitaries, their Colombian subsidiary was the most profitable arm of Chiquita’s global operations, and, in fact, they continued to buy land in Colombia in the area where they said it was so dangerous that they had to pay protection payments to the paramilitaries. They continued to buy land and expand their operations until 2004, when they abruptly sold their Colombian subsidiary at around the same time that the Justice Department began investigating their payments to the paramilitaries.
Nope, no terrorism to see here with Chiquita. Run along and support their lawyer for AG.
The DOJ, Michael Chertoff, America’s corporate elite, their purchased servants among the WTO, DNC, RNC and the blue ribbon law-firms and law partners who comprise the corporate bar, and our major media would never turn a blind eye to terror, right?
Well, unless the terrorists are Cubans — the right sort of Cubans, that is. Or unless the "terrorists" increase quarterly profits. American justice, after all, is all about equal rights for all.
Unless equal rights to a safe workplace, labor organizing, or safe food/air/water actually cost some stockholder somewhere something someday.
The most prosperous positions for attorneys are as corporate counsel – the consiglieri for the serial poisoners and serial killers otherwise known as corporate America. Members of the Bar.
Who pushes the Bush Reich’s assertion that torture and extra-judicial murder are Executive Privilege? Members of the Bar.
Who pushes that Exxon should be let off the hook for letting a known drunk foul Alaska and cause billions of irremediable damages? Members of the Bar.
Who are serving as the uniformed cogs in the DOD’s homicidal Gitmo show trials? Members of the Bar.
Who appear meekly to seek "Justice" before the same federal jurist who — as a U.S. Attorney — railroaded the people’s choice for Governor, Siegelman, into prison? Members of the Bar.
And where are the members of the Bar gathering outside the Federal Courthouses and Pentagon doorways and UC Regents’ meetings to demand their erstwhile colleagues — willing collaborators in corporate crimes and crimes of official Power — be removed from the Bar?
Where are the members of the Bar sitting in the damn doorways of Power until their voices are heard?
*crickets*
Back to Eric H. Holder, former MCI board member, partner at Covington & Burling (with a practice in "White collar defense and investigations: Congressional investigations and internal investigations"), former DOJ Public Integrity Section Federal attorney, former Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, former US Attorney (and first African-American) of the District of Columbia, former number two – Deputy Attorney General – of the entire Department of Justice!
Twenty-five years of public service – and even with his failure to recuse himself when his buddy John Quinn came calling for a Presidential pardon for a fugitive commodities trader – an impressive one.
Eric H. Holder was even selected to serve on the US Sentencing Commission Ad Hoc Advisory Group "that examined, and made recommendations to revise, the organizational sentencing guidelines".
The same Ad Hoc Advisory Group the USSC relied upon in endorsing government-coerced waivers of the attorney-client privilege and work product productions —
On April 30, 2004, the U.S. Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress a number of amendments to Chapter 8 of the Guidelines relating to ""organizations""-a broad term that includes corporations, partnerships, unions, non-profit organizations, governments, and other entities.
a result that freaked out organizations from the ACLU to the National Association of Manufacturers.
OK – IANAL. Maybe forcing waiver of attorney-client privilege is the best legal innovation since footnotes. But anything so draconian that it brings together the American Chemical Association, NAM, and the ACLU gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Why?
With exceptions such as the ACLU, the EFF, the NLG, EPIC, The Southwest Center For Biological Diversity, and the like, the normative culture in American law appears to have become a culture of depravity.
Like medicine, the cultural norms and ethical norms are generated by the practioners. At any given moment, the norms of both professional communities reflect prevailing values. So at one time in America, physician participation in executions was normative: today it is proscribed. Medicine still has a long way to go: members of my profession are complicit and responsible for torture and for the illegal use of psychotropic drugs in the new "Security State" the Bush Reich has brought upon us.
Even the best-intentioned members of any profession can be so inured to cultural norms that we don’t see what is before us until an outsider tells us the professional norm is naked – and ugly.
I’ve every reason to respect Scott Horton and the attorneys who write for FDL. I believe they are good people with honorable values. Though I’ve never met them, I just know they are: their actions and writings tell me.
Yet even Scott Horton was inured to the fact that a war criminal like John Yoo is a member of the Bar.
But I’m still haunted by a question a student put to me following a presentation I made at Columbia University on Tuesday evening. "If the bar is so serious about this," the student said, "then explain to me how it’s possible that John Yoo and his confederates haven’t been disbarred." I started to answer about the complexity of the disbarment process, but I stopped. The student was right. If the bar were serious about this, it should have used its disciplinary tools to deal with it. This is not a case of an eccentric academic mouthing some cock-eyed theories. It is about a government official using the power of a government office to induce people to commit serious crimes.
Even a genuinely independent and ethical thinker like Scott Horton was brought up
short when Yoo’s bar Card was questioned. To his credit, he admitted he’d never considered it. His interlocutor?
A law student — someone too new to the culture of American law to have been inculcated in the cultural norm of depravity I’ve described above.
The cultural norms of medicine, and especially psychoanalysis, were once every bit as insular, self-absorbed, self-protective, and depraved as is the legal culture I describe above. When I commenced my psych training in the late ’80s it was still routine to meet (and be trained and supervised by) psychiatrists who were now married to the patient they’d started fucking … while they were that patient’s doc. That behavior among therapists is now illegal.
Until the normative American legal culture of aiding those complicit in corporate death squads, mass poisoning (and its progeny: mass carcinogenesis, mass mutagensis, mass reproductive disorders, mass learning disorders), serial killings of industrial employees, and complicity in the same abuses of federal and state power for which the Allies hung Nazi leaders at Nuremberg (and their instruments at other post-war trials) goes through the same wrenching changes medicine is part-way through, the culture of depravity will still be blithely excused as "our adversial system".
The blindness will be so severe that even those touting a candidate for Attorney General will use a high-powered role in securing a "slap on the wrist" for corporate officers’ complicity in death squads as a telling indication of power — rather than a stunning indictment of the candidates’ ethics and morality.
And even a former professor of Consitutional Law who is now the Democratic candidate for President may be blind to the true significance of bringing that high-powered corporate lawyer into his campaign, much less his Cabinet.
After nearly thirty years of Presidents in thrall to corporate power, America is on the verge of social collapse. In selecting corporate servants to staff his Administration, President Obama can speed our goverment and our Republic’s rush to destruction.
In rejecting corporate sevants and the amorality they serve as he chooses his Cabinet, President Obama can reverse the megacorps’ lethal corrosion of our society and Federal Government.
Assume Obama wins the presidency…. Is Holder attorney general?
Holder doesn’t hesitate. "I got to tell you, that’s going to be up to the president," he says. "And I will not be the president. I will also tell you that I am married to a wonderful woman who is a doctor. Her name is Sharon Malone. And Sharon Malone tells me that I won’t be going anywhere except back to my law firm. So I think President Obama is going to have to talk to Sharon, and she’s a pretty formidable person."
Dr. Malone sounds like a very wise doctor to me. Let’s hope President Obama will follow her prescription.
Let’s hope President Obama chooses an Attorney General — and executive appointees — for We the People, not for the megacorps.
We’ve been dying for that.
[image credit: RO-BOT]




53 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Hey, Kirk Murphy! I’ll let folks know you’re here.
Kirk:
Did you see Greenwald’s column today? I’d like to know what you think about what he wrote.
Breaking news on CNN: Obama picks Daschle for HHS/health czar.
Do we really want lawyers to refuse to represent unpopular clients because you don’t like them? I do not want to live in that country.
Glenn Greenwald always says it better than I could, and usually in a calm and unhyperbolic way:
Thank you for posting the link. I was trying to make the same point. Glenn makes other great points as well in that blog post.
OT Sorry Daschle to be Sec of HHS
I just finished reading Glen Greenwald’s piece also. Personally, I’m feeling much more comfortable with Holder than I was yesterday.
I agree with you. There are lawyers every day representing scum of the earth clients – should they not? How is that different than a pharmacist denying someone contraception because of their religious beliefs?
The law is the law, let’s keep the personal crap out of it. If a lawyer represents and murderer and the murderer is acquitted, then the prosecutor did a pretty shitty job.
To the OP — you are welcome to join the circular firing squad. I for one am choosing to work from the inside instead of pissing with the outs.
At this very moment there is a massive march in Columbia by native groups who are protesting Uribe’s behavior for among many other things, turning the paramilitaries loose on them. There is minimal international news coverage of the event. This is a march that has been going on for days and is scheduled to reach Bogata soon.
They have been joined by the striking sugar cane cutters who have been on strike. Several military leaders have been dismissed for a culture of promotion by body count.
Lawyers can represent anyone they want, but voters have a right to object to their having prestigious government jobs if we don’t like the clients they choose to represent.
Yes he does, as usual. He is on my daily reading list, along with FDL. I was discomfited by LHP’s discomfort yesterday with Holder, as I especially respect her opinions on legal-related matters. (She was bullish on Mukasey, though, so not perfect.) Glenn points out that Holder is something of a mixed bag. But conflating him with death squads is over the top, imho.
There is a big difference between representing a criminal on trial and refusing to give a morning after pill to a rape victim. In the first case, the lawyer is doing what his/her code of conduct requires him/her to do and looking out for the well-being of the client. In the second case the pharmacist is going AGAINST his/her code of conduct and putting his/her own feelings ahead of the well-being of the client so that the client suffers. The two situations are opposites, not similar.
You have that view in common with Monica Goodling. I respectfully invite you to reconsider it.
Save the Unions!
Get your facts straight before you shoot. Goodling was referring to getting hired as a career civil servant, a whole different category than top political appointments.
Sorry, but USAs are political appointments.
The U.S. Attorney General is seventh in line of succession to the presidency.
“then the prosecutor did a pretty shitty job.”
You may think that is logical thinking but it is not. Winning and losing don’t necessarily have much to do with the quality of the work. Sometimes it can be manipulation of facts, a bias jury, an inferior judge, etc.
USAs yes AUSAs no
Right you are. So my point becomes a more complicated one. In choosing a high level political appointee (we’re talking about several levels above USAttys, who are higher to do a specific job) all sorts of non-job related criteria are brought into consideration. Heading DOJ is not just about being a good lawyer. So who Holder chose to represent reflects on his character.
Make that “hired” not “higher”
precisely the point – they are not career civil servants which is where goodling was inappropriately (and illegally) applying political criteria. i’d be very happy for holder to apply for such a position and in that case would argue as you are .
The Bar should be taken away from the lawyers and handed over to an outside, disinterested 3rd party. Let actual human beings decide when the lines are crossed and kick the shits out unceremoniously and without recourse.
Manipulation of facts has to do with quality of work. A good attorney, either defense or prosecutorial should be on top of that. A inferior judge can be challenged on appeal.
OT
Kashkari announces “Mission Accomplished” according to cnbc.
I caught a bit of Ramsey Clark being interviewed this morning. He is a former Attorney General. He represented Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. Perhaps his representation of these demon leaders reflects on his character, but if so, it reflects in a good way. Glenn Greenwald explains why that is so.
I am not advocating for appointment of Eric Holder. But guilt by association is something I have had quite enough of this year. Holder is a lawyer. If his ethics and honor are questioned it should not be on the basis of who he represented.
My point is: maybe, maybe not.
Or things are not black and white, absolute thinking gets you into trouble.
As I write this I am remembering my own absolute, some would say, rabid statements on FDL over the years. Perhaps, I am talking to myself here.
NO. The entire legal system is broken.
ALL lawyers should be GS positions with fixed salaries based on their level. All people and corporations get a lawyer (or lawyers) from the pool of GS position lawyers when they need them. No rich people get special lawyers or representation – they are on absolutely even footing with the poorest poor.
These lawyers would be outside the control of the Executive Branch and legislative (same as the Justice Department should be so the Prez can no longer poison the department). The biggest corporation down to the lowliest pickpocket gets equal access to the same GS level lawyers. The only lawyers would then be those who actually believe in the law and the Constitution rather than people fed entirely by greed and self-aggrandizement.
The system should also be focused on truth in a scientific sense rather than in the bogus legalese sense. Not truth as it can be “proven” only after trickery that would get a scientist accused and convicted of scientific fraud (as the current system works) but the truth as the evidence objectively points…ALL the evidence. No selective throwing out of evidence for any reason (except scientifically illegitimate “evidence” such as that obtained by torture/abuse/threat). If the cops violate civil/constitutional rights while obtaining scientifically valid evidence, then rather than throwing out the legitimate (objectively) evidence, the COPS get punished, along with their bosses. The way it is now, society gets punished while the cops just keep on collecting their pay.
No, the legal system is bullshit and needs fixing.
If I didn’t misread my quick review of his wiki, he represented those people after he was AG. And I’d be willing to bet that a whole bunch of people would have thrown that in his face had he been proposed for AG after representing them. More likely, because those would have been controversial they would have prevented him from ever being considered. So perhaps your example reinforces my point.
And there is a difference in respresenting scumbags because of a principle versus representing them for money.
I was trying to respond to this criterion as being inappropriate:
I think Holder can be questioned concerning his philosophy, and his beliefs about the role of DOJ and the AG in relation to the President. I think that the fact that he is a Democrat can be taken into account. He should have to answer any questions the Senators have about his actions as Deputy AG. These and many other things are fair subjects of inquiry.
Perfect example of why the legal system is broken and bogus. Facts are facts, in the scientific sense. You cannot “manipulate” them in a valid scientific based system. They are what they are. You cannot throw out inconvenient facts or ignore facts simply because the way they were collected are unfortunate (you CAN punish those who collect in illegal and unfortunate ways but the facts are still the facts and have an objective value REGARDLESS).
Legal decisions of guilt/innocence should be arrived at, to the greatest extent possible, based upon scientific rules of evidence, not “legal” rules of evidence.
So all scum bags should have pro bono representation, only?
I think we just disagree.
No. Scumbags should have representation EQUAL in every way to that of major corporations or the wealthy. The best way to do this is to take the profit motive out of the legal system: all lawyers for the defense must be public defenders. NO private lawyers. No profits – GS salary and benefits. Same scale as prosecutors.
Equal, equal, equal. For all by all.
Well we certainly disagree. However, please do not misrepresent what I type to make your point. My comment about the motive for taking scumbags as clients was directed specifically at the contrast between your example and the subject of this post. You know perfectly well I was not espousing it as a general rule.
You may have had a bad experience with the legal system, and I am sorry if that is the case. It is not a perfect system. But I disagree with the insults you throw at it, and your cure is far worse than whatever ails it.
This is getting personal. I am done.
Someone should stick this in Obama’s face and see what he has to say.
Of course this is the kind of thing that makes TV all the time….
But wait, I know Obama is really going to get things done – no maybe not in the next 4 years – see we have to re-elect him in 2012…then he will be Free…to do what he wants. That is when he is going to do the right thing.
When its people million dollar job to cover up the cover up of the cover up we are in a sick place.
There is a Judicial system and a legal system and they are different. The purpose of the judicial system is to apply the facts of the case to the legal system. The judicial system is an adversarial system where each side hires practitioners of the system to represent and present the facts to the benefit of their respective sides.
I neglected to say what is noted in and around this post – that its not just the players but the system that has been setup (by past and present players) – that there is a niche for lawyer, reports, etc to just grab a check and perpetuate. That for instance the lawyer is expected to get these billion dollar killers off without a scratch and the reporter is paid to not report the story (or if so to make sure to have the kid gloves on).
Its as if a scientist was paid to say the earth is flat, or there is no global warming… oh wait, we do that as well.
OH? how so? Explain why a scientifically-based legal system would be worse than the current manipulated facts system? Or was it the equal salaries for defense attorneys and prosecutors, no exceptions? SURELY greed isn’t the motive for good lawyers? Surely they would love the Constitution and the law even without lavish paychecks, perks, etc? SURELY if a prosecutor can live on a GS salary, so can a defense lawyer?
Surely you don’t believe that people should simply get the legal protection that they can afford and screw those who can’t afford anything? Surely you don’t believe that the rich and powerful deserve better representation than the poorest poor?
I’m gonna respectfully disagree with Glenzilla here, which is rare for me. I don’t think anyone is faulting Holder for representing Chaquita. Everyone is entitled to representation.
I think it is the result, the insider with money gets soemthing better than justice while regular folk don’t. The same staink that attaches to the Marc Rich pardon, that you can buy your way out of criminal prosecution.
There should not be a different standard for the rich and powerful. justice is supposed to be blind to weatlh and station.
I was NOT bullish on Mukasey. I never took a personal position on Mukasey. I said Mukasey enjoyed a great repuation here in NYC, which he did.
I said I hoped he would do well at DOJ, which I did hope.
He did not do well, but I never personally endorsed the guy. I had a grand total of one case infront of him, and did not feel like I knew him well enough to judge the content of his soul, which is why I confined myself to talking about his general reputation in the NY legal community.
Not who he represented, the methods and tactics he used during that representation. Very different criteria.
Life at, the top anyway, is filled with choices. In Holders’ case, you have to ask “Did he really have a choice in who he represented”, or was he assigned the case by superiors or as a matter of rotation in his private practice. It appears he took several of them solely for profit. I would want to know if he took an equal number of cases for little or no profit because the party deserved fair and equal representation. If so, no quarrel is justified.
Career wise, to not take a case on grounds of principle while working Independently is not breach of any code I know of. So I respectfully disagree with Greenwald’s inference that good lawyers are still worthy of higher office after taking bad cases -meaning the representing EXXON kind of bad- just for profit.
We only have Chief Justice Roberts to use as an example of the danger lurking behind a good attorneys’ mind. The business community under his tutelage has a score of a 100-0.
Obama too, has choices. And sadly, this good man has revealed through a series of very bad choices -primarily the support of Clinton, Lieberman and Emanuel, that a President Obama intends to represent us along the same good faith lines as that promised by Chief Justice John Roberts.
As the ground shifts under our feet, and we contemplate the desolation, not simply of prolonged despair, but also, if we are honest, of the potential of a darkening age, even one of barbarism, those things which might have mitigated, at least somewhat, our descent, the respect for law if not of civility and of humanity, among them, are lost, perhaps forever … and, as we bear witness to the abject failure of so much that has been taken for granted, by all of us, of democracy, of ’stability’ of rationality of even common decency, the ‘wisdoms’ of our nation are revealed as plundering avariocious thugs and callous, calculating little sefishnesses, while all is sketched upon a background of hubris and arrogance, as befits an empire that would rule the world …
Yet still, our ‘grasp’ is meager and the magnitude of our collective failure is debated from the comfort of our intellects as we seek, desperately, for scapegoats and someone handy to blame, the full weight of reality has not come home and we all imagine that the ‘worst’ of it will happen to someone else, somewhere else …
We cling to images and ‘feelings’ of our yesterdays, not quite able to be ‘present’, and, except for a courageous few, ‘tomorrow’ is far too much, too frightening, to contemplate …
We are teetering on the brink, as a nation, as a world society and as a species.
Please understand, I do not say these things to frighten, enervate or heighten despair.
I say these things because they must be said.
For only by acknowledging the reality of our quandry, may we realistically and reasonably hope to find a better way.
The lessons of history have fallen on deaf ears, indeed they are ignored and even denied by those who wish to play out their pathologies, unrestrained and unfettered, by thought or consequence …
For the first time in our collective journey as beings, we can see the end of our species, not by supernatual fiat, but by our own hands, by our own efforts, through greed, through indifference, and through denial of truth.
Shall we have the courage to let go our myths, our conceits, our ‘indulgences’ and our overweening pride?
Or, shall we be small, timid and obsequiously quiet?
Now is the time for powerful imagination, not frightened conformity.
Now is the time to entertain out better angels, not for advocating devils.
Heretofore we have chosen to recognize but a small swath of our genius, when, truth to tell, genius resides within all of us and capacity as well.
What refuge may be found in anger and petulant withdrawal, wrapped in fear and suspician?
What future lies in the ‘beliefs’ that only a few should always decide, that only some self-appointed elite are best able to see the truth and
that ‘power’ is something to be hoarded and kept in the hands of the few?
We need a broader, more honest view of the human experience than the models which today are at ‘play’. Whence (where and from whom) shall they come?
DWB
I used the word “bullish” in the dictionary definition of “optimistic about something’s or someone’s prospects.” I didn’t say you endorsed him, nor is that what I meant to imply. And if optimism is an inaccurate remembrance on my part of what you wrote when he was nominated, then I apologize for getting it wrong. I did not try to find it today, as searching on this site is a time-consuming deal.
Re “methods and tactics”: the post doesn’t really address that. All he is accused of is getting a favorable plea deal and helping with preparation for a 60 minutes interview. The rest of the accusations are not specific to Holder.
Yes justice should be blind and sometimes isn’t. Yes the rich and powerful can hire good lawyers that the rest of us can’t afford. But is that a reason to say that Holder should not be AG? I am agnostic on that question, but I just didn’t care for the tactics embodied in Murphy’s post, which is why I delurked. If that’s a word.
I find this kind of hysterical accusation offensive, and it is unhelpful juxtaposed with discussing the qualifications of the AG nominee:
Lawyers are favorite targets for the left and right. But most get up in the morning wanting to do a good job, and most are not dishonest, evil criminals. Some of the most honorable upstanding people I know are lawyers. That is not a popular view in this location on this date.
The good news is that Holder couldn’t possibly be worse than what we have had in the Bush years.
Yet more vindication for those of us who suspected all along the BO campaign was in fact an organ of the Clinton Machine, all along. Gonzales/Nader’s site is still up,
and still has the policy issues nailed, in nice concise statements. As does Kucinich’s, who has a message board, come to think of it:
http://votenader.org
http://kucinich.us
Have a day.
For a very long time I’ve been posting about many areas that are well known from being a family for more than 26 who is directly involved in huge criminal system. This part of the criminal system around Chicago is known as “The Combine” but better known as a “Shadow Government” or best called “The Political Mafia” and it extends all the way up and into the Federal Government. Since they joined I know about many murders, attempted murders and much more. However, the family’s main involvement was to launder “Drug & Gun Running” money straight into property using high admin officials in big Banks with mortgage fraud to hide ownership. The Drug & Gun Running part I know from the family directly involves Chiquita, Coke-a-cola and others. Chiquita is known for a recent law suit needs to be known for their part in a World Wide Drug Distribution criminal system among others. Remember, Chiquita Brands is a Sun-times News Paper company once managed by Conrad Black and a host of other Neocons. Looking at the collection of board members should explain many things.
Chicago is a huge Laundromat that’s protected by many which includes the news papers and radio station(s) and armies of people who protect and make sure the system runs smooth. Chicago gets a weekly $100 million shipment in cocaine that’s split with New York and Florida and it’s been going on for decades. Other areas of the US receive frequent huge shipments of drugs also. But there is more….
Over the last few years investigations have surfaced a 100 fleet of planes used by Companies and Elites with some busted in shipping tons of cocaine. My ex-sister-in-law’s brother “Clyde O’Connor” was busted in Mexico along with “Greg Smith” with 3.5 tons of cocaine. Both somehow got away and are still at large. Plus two separate investigations (on recent international investigation) surfaced that Clyde’s plane tail number was also used in CIA Rendition flights. It’s important to know that in the early 90’s Clyde, my brother-in-law and I were talking at a family gathering at my house. My brother-in-law then started to discuss with Clyde a new business opportunity to work with others with air shipping in huge amounts of drugs into the US and elsewhere. Shortly following this conversation, my brother-in-law put together their business, which is believed to include Obama’s law firm and Obama himself with organizing and preparing the documents registering the new company. (Needs to be proven) I want to add, that the family learned about Obama from the law firm and were told that Obama is considered the criminals system’s “Budding Shinning Star”. My brother-in-law was directly involved with Obama’s law firm back during that time while I was still married.
However, I’ve written many times around the Internet about the huge Drug System and what it is used for. As told to me by the family, the proceeds from the Drug System are to FUND “Black Op’s” which are to support another “White House Coup”. The family’s involvement with laundering money for decades has made them CIA Assets to where they brag about not worrying about ever being prosecuted. If you look at where the current investigations are, they seem to be blocked. In Mexico however, the families from people involved in the Drug system that shares with the drug system I’m talking about are complaining. Mexico has been aggressively pursuing shutting down the drug cartels. The families complain that NO ONE in the US who is involved in this huge drug system has been arrested. They want to know why?
Chiquita as told to me by the family is directly involved in this latest WH Coup and so are all that are linked to Chiquita. If you understand how huge this criminal system is, it’s easy to understand WHY Chiquita got off so easy. And it’s also easy to understand WHY Holder is being selected to be our new AG. It’s important to remember that as told to me, “Corruption protects and safeguards the drug system from the point of origin all the way to each individual destination”.
Make no mistake about this, I’ve known about this for years. Plus I was told about 911 in 1996 only then it was explained “Something huge is going to happen that will start everything”. Also realize that Sebel Edmonds’s story explains who in the Federal area is involved in the Coup. There are Federal FBI Whistleblowers – Listen to what they have to say! The real story behind all of this insanity is we are in the midst of a WH Coup. I know the DuPont family is directly involved in this Coup as well.
There really isn’t any easy short way to explain this, so I’m sorry for the long post. I’ll answer questions if asked.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Thanks for covering this topic Kirk. We need to get this to the public before the confirmation hearings.
Yep. Though I usually have great resect for Glenn’s opinions, I don’t respect this one.
On the broadest level, attorneys collectively create their own code of ethics (via the ABA and various groups of jurists that write the conduct rules for judges). Then attorneys stand back and tell the rest of us how great their collective judgement on this topic is.
What I see is a group that includes incredibly well-paid corporate servants writing precisely the set of rules that allows corporate attorneys to make fortunes precisely for advancing corporate positions and acts that harm the rest of us.
I don’t find corporate attorneys — or those who were corporate attorneys – persuasive on this topic: they have glaring conflicts of interest.
Corporate attorneys, after all, gave us the legal fiction that the dead entities known as corporations have the same rights as living persons.
In deflecting critiques of corporate counsels’ fundamentally antisocial acts on behalf of serial murders and serial posioners (oops: that would be fatal workplace safety violations and fatal pollution), members of the Bar always deflect the topic over to respresentation for living persons accused of criminal acts.
Uhh….Monsanto is a non-living entity. Chiquita is a non-living entity.
The people I’ll be hearing about today in the grand jury are living persons (it’s a criminal grand jury).
Nothing I’ve written advocates depriving people of defense counsel.
Nothing I’ve written advocates depriving people – individual beings – of legal representation.
When Eric Holder chose to represent Chiquita, he was a partner in a prestigious law firm. He didn’t have to keep working there. Colombia’s attorney general states the firm Eric Holder chose to represent funded death squads precisely in order to kill union members:
More from Conde Nast:
That’s what Eric Holder and his firm chose to represent.
The First Amendment allows Eric and his fellow law partners in their lucrative DC practice to associate with anyone they damn well please.
The same First Amendment allows the rest of us NOT to associate with people who chose to enrich themselves by accepting money from corporations that fund death squads.
The same First Amendement allows political appointees to shun people who chose to enrich themselves by accepting money from corporations that fund death squads.
We don’t have to allow people like Holder into our living rooms: acting collectively, we don’t have to allow them into our public offices. Calling out the lawyers who are complicit in protecting the corporations who fund death squads – calling our the lawyers who are complicit in protecting serial posioners – that’s the start of changing opinion about creeps like Eric Holder.
Forty years ago drunk driving was a reliable punch line on the Tonight Show. Now drunk driving’s an automatic trip to jail. Collectively, pollution, workplace deaths, and other corporate misdeeds – the same misdeeds the corporations choose to commit in furtherance of maximal profits – they kill more Americans than drunk drivers do.
Unlike the drunk drivers, the corporate attorneys profit from their work.
Keeping people who chose to use their legal education in this way out of public life is our choice: if Glenn or other attorneys don’t like that advocacy, that’s their choice.
Those of us who’ve never had corporations as paying clients in a legal practice may well choose differently. I know I have.