3 ms·

It's called the (Eric) Holder doctrine: > That sentiment was echoed as late as 2012 by Lanny Breuer, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal divisio

It's called the (Eric) Holder doctrine: > That sentiment was echoed as late as 2012 by Lanny Breuer, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, who said in a speech at the New York City Bar Association that he felt it was his duty to consider the health of the company, the industry, and the markets in deciding whether or not to file charges. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wal...

blendergeek 5y ago
Here is the 2012 speech from Lanny Breuer [1]. And here is the 1999 memo from (then Deputy Attorney General) Eric Holder [2 PDF]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-lanny-breuer-speaks-new-york-city-bar-association https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-genera... [2] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2010/04/11/charging-corps.PDF https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/l...
chollida1 5y ago
That in no way backs up your claim. 1) That was 10 years ago 2) All they said was that they consider the country as a whole when laying charges, they said nothing about they are specifically not charging banks due to this. And the fact that they just laid a huge fine against JPM blows your entire argument out of the water. I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > . 1) That was 10 years ago The Holder doctrine, (as explained in the article that was provided as a source) dates from 1999 and is thus over two decades old. This doctrine was referenced in 2012 by the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. If you believe this doctrine is no longer followed, it would behoove you to provide evidence of your own that "too big to jail" hasn't been a guiding doctrine for over two decades. > I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it. Calling someone a troll never improves any discussion and is inappropriate on HN.
- throw10920 5y ago
  > I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it. Please don't include stuff like this in your comments. It degrades HN, and does not "assume good faith", as the HN guidelines ask you to do (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). The commenter could be uninformed, or have genuinely thought that their quote backed up their position (and just been wrong). Saying that you're "being trolled by an anonymous account" is bad form and definitely not the kind of stuff that I want to see on HN.
- saghm 5y ago
  > That in no way backs up your claim. 1) That was 10 years ago What does "ten years ago" have to do with it? The original claim said nothing about when it was said; you're the only one who brought that up.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  It seems odd that you initially 'graciously' let the OP "go back 5 years" to back up their claim, and then immediately retorted "that was 10 years ago. You're trolling me", like you were entirely aware of what they might be talking about.

blendergeek 5y ago

Here is the 2012 speech from Lanny Breuer [1]. And here is the 1999 memo from (then Deputy Attorney General) Eric Holder [2 PDF]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-lanny-breuer-speaks-new-york-city-bar-association https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-genera... [2] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2010/04/11/charging-corps.PDF https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/l...

chollida1 5y ago

That in no way backs up your claim. 1) That was 10 years ago 2) All they said was that they consider the country as a whole when laying charges, they said nothing about they are specifically not charging banks due to this. And the fact that they just laid a huge fine against JPM blows your entire argument out of the water. I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it.

shkkmo 5y ago
> . 1) That was 10 years ago The Holder doctrine, (as explained in the article that was provided as a source) dates from 1999 and is thus over two decades old. This doctrine was referenced in 2012 by the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. If you believe this doctrine is no longer followed, it would behoove you to provide evidence of your own that "too big to jail" hasn't been a guiding doctrine for over two decades. > I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it. Calling someone a troll never improves any discussion and is inappropriate on HN.
throw10920 5y ago
> I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it. Please don't include stuff like this in your comments. It degrades HN, and does not "assume good faith", as the HN guidelines ask you to do (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). The commenter could be uninformed, or have genuinely thought that their quote backed up their position (and just been wrong). Saying that you're "being trolled by an anonymous account" is bad form and definitely not the kind of stuff that I want to see on HN.
saghm 5y ago
> That in no way backs up your claim. 1) That was 10 years ago What does "ten years ago" have to do with it? The original claim said nothing about when it was said; you're the only one who brought that up.
FireBeyond 5y ago
It seems odd that you initially 'graciously' let the OP "go back 5 years" to back up their claim, and then immediately retorted "that was 10 years ago. You're trolling me", like you were entirely aware of what they might be talking about.