top | item 29459512

(no title)

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-wal...

discuss

blendergeek|4 years 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-genera...

[2] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/l...

chollida1|4 years ago

[deleted]

throw10920|4 years 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). 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|4 years 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|4 years 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.

shkkmo|4 years 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.