The Obamamometer’s Toxic Legacy: The Rule of Lawlessness

By Jerri-Lynn Scofield, who has worked as a securities lawyer and a derivatives trader. She now spends most of her time in India and other parts of Asia researching a book about textile artisans. She also writes regularly about legal, political economy, and regulatory topics for various consulting clients and publications, as well as writes occasional travel pieces for The National.

All right, all right. I can’t take it any more. Yesterday I read a Facebook post that blamed the current US electoral predicament on the “pointless” 22nd Amendment. For those of you without a US Constitution handy, the 22nd Amendment is the one that limits US presidents to serving two terms.

That Facebook post implies that without the 22nd Amendment we’d get to see a third term for the Obamamometer. That risible suggestion, combined with the incessant legacy-burnishing that he’s indulged in– at least until he realized that HRC might be in trouble and started to hit the campaign trail in earnest– made me realize the time for shredding  aspects of that legacy is way overdue.

When the Obamamometer finally settles on what he’ll do next– whether that would be run a sports team, become a venture capitalist, found a new religion, cure cancer, or merely hob nob with the global elite and play lots of golf, I’m sure he’ll make a fine job job of it– just as he’s done with his Presidency.  Over the next couple of months, I intend to post occasionally on this legacy: but rather than burnishing that record, I’ll indulge in a bit of legacy busting.

First up, the rule of law and corporate crime.

The Holder Doctrine

Federal prosecutors, and regulatory agencies, have turned into toothless tigers when it comes to prosecuting C-suite types, and pursuing corporations seriously, for economic crimes.  Both financial institutions and their management got virtually a free pass for their activities that led to the Great Recession. And not only for those, but for subsequent foreclosure abuses, LIBOR and other  market manipulations, money laundering, tax scams, and doing business contrary to US sanctions policy. Yet to date, not a single C-suite type has been indicted.

It’s not just financial institutions that’ve received a free pass.  Big Pharma, for example, has also been lucky, as have companies that have engaged in creative tax minimization strategies (Apple, anyone?). And if looked at from the perspective of legal topics, rather than corporate actors, entire areas of law– antitrust, for example– are not really relevant anymore.

You don’t have to take my word for it. No less a source than the NY Times’ DealBook column– not a venue, incidentally, renowned for its trenchant, timely critiques of either Wall Street or other corporate behavior– in September lamented, Law Enforcement ‘Not Winning’ War on White Collar Crime. I wrote about this article in a September post and so won’t rehash all  the arguments I made then here. But a few points are in order.

The lack of enforcement not only means that the guilty don’t pay. It also determines what corporate strategies get pursued, which business models are developed or rejected,  what attitudes corporations take to risk, and how resources get allocated to name just a few consequences.  And as I’ll discuss below, it also shapes how attorneys practice law, and the impact their advice carries in deterring certain types of corporate behavior.

I never thought I’d be nostalgic for President George W. Bush’s Department of Justice (DoJ).  Now, I’m well aware of the scandal  that ensued over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales imposing ideological litmus tests on assistant US attornies. Nonetheless, in the wake of the collapse of the dotcom bubble, the Bush DoJ actually enforced the law. It prosecuted cases and claimed scalps. Companies such as Adelphi, Enron and WorldCom all saw top-level management prosecuted, and malefactors sent to jail.

Change We Can’t Believe In

Those who voted for Hope and Change in 2008 certainly got the change part– at least with respect to the DoJ. But  when we look at the DoJ’s enforcement priorities and the track record that followed, it’s perhaps not the change they were hoping for. The Obamamometer’s first Attorney General, Eric Holder, outlined and followed what came to be known as the Holder doctrine.

Allow me to quote from my September post:

[Under the Holder doctrine the DoJ eschewed criminal charges against companies and executives, instead opting for negotiated settlements (often imposing de minimis, slap-on-the wrist penalties that were significantly undersized compared to the magnitude of damage done, especially by TBTF banks and other financial predators, to name just a few).

The DoJ under Obama’s second AG, Loretta Lynch, originally followed the Holder doctrine, until that was superseded when Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates authored a memo outlining a new approach in September 2015. Under this approach, the DoJ intended to increase accountability for corporate wrongdoing, and this included an increased focus on pursuing criminal charges against responsible individuals. The DoJ sought to drive a legal wedge between individuals and the corporations for whom they worked by only allowing corporations to receive “cooperation credit” that would reduce their potential exposure (including penalties) if the corporation cooperates in surrendering as early as possible comprehensive detailed information concerning the individual misconduct.

There’s much more in a similar vein in that earlier post, for those with an interest. But the bottom line for purposes of this post is what has this supposed policy shift, from Holder’s doctrine to Yates’s memo, meant in practice. The short answer: bupkis. We’re still waiting for the more robust enforcement approach the Yates memo supposedly heralded to kick in.  As an attorney I know  who specializes in white collar defense work summed it up to me, “The DoJ’s walking a new walk, and talking a new talk, but nothing’s really changed.”

In fact, in only two areas have we seen the DoJ take a muscular approach toward enforcement during the Obamamometer’s administration, insider trading, and offenses under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

Insider Trading

US Attorney for the southern district of New York Preet Bharara has compiled an undefeated string of convictions for insider trading (some of which may be at risk of being overturned due to some appellate decisions, which are beyond the scope of this post). But as I wrote last month in The SEC Fiddles While the System Burns: Insider Trading Enforcement As Securities Law Theater, focusing on insider trading as an enforcement priority constitutes a form of securities law theater. Scare prosecutorial resources are expended on insider trading abuses, rather than being deployed to investigate, punish, and (hopefully) deter, far more serious systemic problems.

The insider trading focus provides the illusion that the DoJ is doing something about high-level cheating.  Yet it has little broader deterrent effect on stymieing the wider corporate scams that misallocate resources and erode confidence in the integrity of the system. Insider trading enforcement is usually directed at individuals, and doesn’t implicate wider considerations of corporate strategy or policy. Prosecuting insider traders maintains the myth that the greatest threats to US capitalism are individual bad corporate actors, rather than anything more sweeping or systemic. Catch the bad actors, fine them or throw them in jail, and never think about any deeper problems.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Another area highlighted as an enforcement priority is bribery and foreign corruption, with prosecutions undertaken under authority of the FCPA.  Allow me to quote from a speech made by assistant attorney general Leslie R. Caldwell last week:

The effects of foreign corruption are not just felt overseas. In today’s global economy, the negative effects of foreign corruption flow back to the United States. American companies are harmed by global corruption when they are denied the ability to compete in a fair and transparent marketplace. Instead of being rewarded for their efficiency, innovation and honest business practices, U.S. companies suffer at the hands of corrupt governments and lose out to corrupt competitors.


This is why the fight against international corruption has been, and continues to be, a core priority of the Department of Justice. It has been a core priority for the Criminal Division, and our commitment to the fight against foreign bribery is reflected in our robust enforcement record in this area, which includes charges against corporations and individuals alike from all over the world. Since 2009, the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section has convicted more than 65 individuals in [FCPA]  and FCPA-related cases, and resolved criminal cases against more than 65 companies with penalties and forfeiture of approximately $4.5 billion.

Sounds reasonable, right?  I mean, after all, no one would come right out in favor of more international corruption?

But when we unpack it, we butt up against a few problems. First, to quote my contact the white collar defense specialist again. The lack of an effective DoJ deterrent has enormously complicated his practice and his ability to get his clients to understand and act on prudent legal advice. “What I’ve seen happening more and more in the last couple of years is the chairs of audit committees of major companies openly mocking the DoJ’s enforcement capability.”  This leads the companies to pursue courses of action that they wouldn’t dare to undertake if they worried that the DoJ would aggressively pursue securities law violations.

Where does this leave their lawyers?  Well, it often means that they must either moderate their advice, or risk losing their clients. Clients who want to do something will resist their impulses and continue to listen to what they hear as their lawyers crying wolf only for so long.  Eventually, the less scrupulous among them are going to ignore the contrary advice, or get another lawyer.  The lack of effective enforcement at the DoJ hinders the efforts of the best, most prudent, and most ethical members of the legal profession to practice law as we would want them to.

So, what happens instead?  Well, the most scrupulous of them will continue to give what they regard as sound legal advice (even if what some privately call the Department of Jokes does not enforce the law in a way that lends credence to that approach). But that means they often have to develop new areas of expertise when their clients beat a path away from their doors. “We have to act sometimes as shoe salesmen, flogging competence in FCPA violations, that occur in subsidiaries or with foreign suppliers,” says my white collar defense specialist contact. “This work leads us to countries and legal systems we don’t know well, to uncover chickenshit violations that occur far from home.” Far better, he believes, would be for the DoJ to focus on law-breaking that occurs in the United States, as that could be effectively deterred by the agency refocusing its enforcement priorities.  Now that would be a legacy we could all believe in.

Bottom Line

On the contrary, one persistent legacy of the Obamamometer is to say one thing and then do another.  The DoJ has recently signalled its intention to get tougher on white collar crime.  But so far, there’s been no follow through on the rhetoric.  Instead, we see federal prosecutors  either turning a blind eye to major problems, or conducting various forms of enforcement theater– much sound and fury, but in the end, signifying nothing.

Some legacy!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Steve H.

    “… I’m sure he’ll make a fine job job of it– just as he’s done with his Presidency.”

    “… one persistent legacy of the Obamamometer is to say one thing and then do another.”

    “… the job of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to attract attention away from it.
    Zaphod Beeblebrox was amazingly good at his job.” – D. Adams

    1. Portia

      The Galactic President, yes. and maybe the real Ruler of the Universe is “a man living in a shack with his cat who doesn’t believe anything is real or certain except that which he is seeing and hearing at that moment.” [Wikipedia] Except he won’t answer any of our questions…

    2. Ian Ollmann

      Given how former Presidents usually make their money and Obama’s impressive skills as an orator, I can only imagine that his future occupation is all but self-evident.

  2. Mark John

    Thanks. It will be a meaningful discussion to delineate what the Obama rhetoric was and what the actual policies and results were and the reasons for this.

    It was an utterly disappointing presidency in my view, and I give him no pass for not fighting for the progressive and ethical policies on which he vigorously campaigned.

  3. Anon

    I watched the Obamarama at a 2008 campaign rally. During the speech I turned to a friend and said, “This guy is nothing more than a Slick Willy.” Eight years later I look like the Oracle of Delphi. (Except this guy turned out to be slippery than Willy.)

    There is simply no end to the political psycopathy in the U.S.

    1. Kurt Sperry

      I was so naive back in 2008 that I bought the whole Hope and Change schtick. It’s so embarrassing to think back on now in hindsight. I’ll never believe a Democrat again–unless they are telling me what I don’t want to hear. Lesson learned.

      1. oho

        ya, and i wish i could get my $80 contribution back.

        will never donate to any Democrat for the rest of my life. (ps, never have donated to the GOP)

    2. HopeLB

      I saw Obama in 08′. What struck me as a tell was his fawning talk about the founding father Alexander Hamilton,the pro Central Bankster. Last night they had a Federalist Historian who wrote a book about Hamilton on c-span. This historian said he wished Jefferson had never come back from France and that the US would be better off for it. These banksters are sure trying to burnish their legacy even historically. Did Goldman produce “Hamilton”?

    3. Pablo

      I think Obama was shielded from criticism because he is the First Black President. Obama lied through his teeth during his Presidential campaigns. At least part of the reason no one called him on it is because of his race. I note in passing what Hillary supporters say about her: “I am voting for Hillary because “we” need a woman President”. No policy discussion here.

  4. cocomaan

    This passage about the Bush DOJ hit home hard.

    It prosecuted cases and claimed scalps. Companies such as Adelphi, Enron and WorldCom all saw top-level management prosecuted, and malefactors sent to jail.

    You’re completely right. I cannot imagine Obama’s DOJ dismantling any company so thoroughly. All we’ve seen out of them are settlements. Now, that’s not to say that these settlements aren’t a big deal (look at Deutsche Bank’s, a major factor in their systemic risk) but have any companies faced the kind of scrutiny of Enron or WorldCom?

    Holder was the only AG to ever be held in contempt of Congress over his gun running insanity. And his actions on marijuana (prosecuting like a madman until CO legalized and now staying silent but not rescheduling) have been completely embarrassing and a waste of everyone’s time.

    1. lyman alpha blob

      Yeah I actually bought a few hundred shares of Enron after the share price collapsed thinking Georgie would never let his buddy Ken Lay down. Even though I lost a few bucks I was glad to be proven wrong.

      All of these companies went belly up and somehow the world didn’t end, as Holder has tried to convince us it would had he actually done his damn job.

    2. trgahan

      Be careful….with agencies you need to differentiate between employees, bureaucrats, and political appointees. There are undercurrents that have nothing to do with politics and lag times in political appointed staffing and such.

      As it happened in 2001-2002, outside the AG, the DOJ at the time was more Clinton’s than Bush’s. Bush would go on to gut the DOJ’s white color crime division leaving it effectively toothless by time Obama took office.

      A more complicating factor, the entire task force that prosecuted these cases left for private firms (many now defending company actions). The DOJ’s white collar institutional knowledge went to zero overnight. To replace the talent and knowledge needed to take on further cases, on a constrained enforced austerely budget is a tall order.

      Even then, those company’s were other worldly idiotic in committing the offenses. What they did was the equivalent of leaving their wallet at the crime scene. Most company’s aren’t so careless.

      1. cocomaan

        This is a great point. Thank you for making it. Civil service is a very different animal than other, more corporate bureaucracies.

    3. crittermom

      “settlements”. Gawd, how I now hate that word!
      In fact, those ‘settlements’ usually amounted to no more than 10% of their ill-gotten profits so there was no incentive to change their evil ways.
      AND, those ‘settlements’ didn’t go to we victims, either.

      Still wondering what Obamer will put in his ‘library’. Copies of all his empty promises that got him elected a second term?

    4. BradK

      Not to mention the convenient timing of the DoJ’s “pivot” towards white collar crimes now that the statute of limitations has passed for all the pre-2008 criminal activities. Something about closing the barn door after the horses have run off.

  5. timbers

    Thank you great article. I frequently tall the young’ins that even Ronald Reagan (or was it Bush?) prosecuted the Keating 5 from the S&L crisis and even sent them to jail for a really really long time, just for shook affect in comparison to the Obamanation we have today.

    My how things have changed.

    1. apber

      The S&L crisis: ah yes, gunslinger Bill Black rode into town with his very efficient posse and got 1000s of indictments. But as great as that was, it worked only because the S&Ls were not part of the global banker cabal that effectively “selects” presidents and owns members of Congress. At the same time of the S&L crisis, the Bank of New York, HSBC and other cronies were laundering billions for the cocaine cowboys and the CIA black ops funds, but no one in these banks ever did time. In fact the top execs got 100s of millions in golden parachutes. Since that time, the Rule of Law has been diminished for certain folks and institutions, and with Holder/Obama, virtually disappeared.

  6. Bugs Bunny

    Jerry-Lynn, I know this situation:

    “Clients who want to do something will resist their impulses and continue to listen to what they hear as their lawyers crying wolf only for so long.”

    Usually the breaking point is when the client tells me “competitor X committed this 3 times that we know of last year and you’re telling me that I have to adhere strictly to the law?”

    Or even better, they’ll pull me into a meeting with some crook they’ve just recruited from competitor X to tell me how their lawyers advised them on how not to get caught.

    Painful. Glad I moved on.

    1. Jeremy Grimm

      I respect that you moved on.
      Obama’s legacy — turning Corporate attorneys into proto mob consiglieres?

      1. Katharine

        >I respect that you moved on.
        I too. The obvious answer to that “You’re telling me I have to obey the law” bs is, yes, if you want to be my client, but not everybody gives it, either literally or by their actions.

  7. Kokuanani

    Jerri-Lynn, I think it’s “Alberto” Gonzales, although maybe his similarity to “Fredo” confused you.

    1. Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author

      You’re absolutely right. Just fixed it. (Thought I’d corrected the mistake before, but see that I hadn’t.) Thanks for reading my work so carefully.

  8. Tom Stone

    I’m surprised that the GunWalker program didn’t get individual attention, conspiring to illegally sell thousands of firearms to one of the most vicious criminal groups in the Americas is a big deal. Hundreds of Mexican public officials were murdered using these guns and perhaps a thousand total. Two of the .50 BMG anti materiel rifles seized at “El Chapo” Guzman’s estate were sold to him at the behest of the US DOJ.
    When the DOJ is the largest single supplier of firearms to criminals, gets caught and no one goes to prison…WASS

  9. steelhead23

    I think you may be to harsh on Eric and Loretta. My guess regarding Obama’s legal legacy is that he “would rather look forward than back,” meaning that he was afraid to aggressively prosecute financial crimes for fear it could bring down the system – and I believe that fear was fed by the likes of Timothy Geithner, who as Sec. Treas. didn’t want the job of liquidating firms he had done business with at the NY Fed. Hence, prosecuting Wall Street would have required the AGs to butt heads with fellow cabinet members – and while the Obamamometer understands the law well enough, he doesn’t understand macroeconomics at all and was deathly afraid of causing an economic catastrophe. And please note, the literati (or those generally accepted as knowledgeable on economics) mostly shared a view that the big banks were innocent, duped by the likes of Angelo Mozilo and fraudulent borrowers. (Aside: I’d bet that even after The Big Short and Econned, most still cling to that explanation for the crisis)

    Many seem enthralled by the recent release of Hillary Clinton’s emails, looking for a pay to play smoking gun. I’d be much more interested in the notes from Obama’s meetings with T. Geithner in early 08. That’s when the real crimes were committed.

    1. Wisdom Seeker

      History is going to record Obama’s legacy as being the third massive credit bubble in 2 decades, together with a massive erosion in the rule of law. Obama’s cowardice in failing to pursue real justice for the public, including his failure to prosecute individual criminals at the major banks, will be a major stain.

      Dot-Com bubble = fool me once, shame on you
      Housing bubble = fool me twice, shame on me
      Current bubble = fool me three times, shame on Obama…

    2. NotTimothyGeithner

      How is it a harsh criticism? Even if we accept Obama’s good intentions, what was next? It’s completely deluded to say the economy would get better with rampant fraud and corruption. Screw this whole “he doesn’t understand economics enough.” He can read. The Founder of the Federal Reserve, Senator Glass, was a newspaper editor. Obama ran for President not a seat on the PTA. He should have quit if he couldn’t handle it.

      1. zapster

        Remember, he was a Chicago boy. If he ever took an econ class, it was pure Friedman. And that stuff sticks like glue.

    3. integer

      And please note, the literati (or those generally accepted as knowledgeable on economics) mostly shared a view that the big banks were innocent

      Hmmm. A bit like Gruber was knowledgeable about health care? I sense a pattern here.

      (YouTube link is to Trey Gowdy grilling Gruber and worth watching to the end)

  10. Bob

    Such charity by many posters towards the Obama administration. But the truth is that he and his team have been hell bent on purposefully moving the Democratic Party as far to the right as they could and jettisoning all liberal, progressive, new deal thinking and supporters all the while lying through their teeth about it. And they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. And with the upcoming passage of TPP, TISA, and the rest, it’s game over for anyone who isn’t part of the billionaire clan.

  11. RBHoughton

    The Rule of Law is one of those things that we all suppose is A GOOD THING. It is only recently, now wealth has become so pervasive, that we see how a few dollars can buy impunity from justice. The high-powered lawyer is the latest incarnation of the papal indulgence. Prison and purgatory are optional.

    The magic reason is the burden of proof in criminal law – beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defendant has to establish is a doubt he did the dirty deed and he’s off.

    There is another way of creating a respect for fairness and justice. Its the adoption of the Rule of Propriety. We no longer concern ourselves with the endless variety of means a crook will use to cheat his way to a fortune. We simply require him at all times to justify his acts. You can actually see this system operating in Asia and, whilst its under attack, it is a beautiful thing to behold.

  12. Elizabeth

    I never voted for Obama because I thought he was an empty suit. After enduring 8 years of George Bush, who couldn’t speak coherently, anyone would have seemed like a scholar. I agree with someone upthread that Obama has eviscerated the rule of law, started more wars than any other president, protected criminal banksters, and lies about the spectacular ‘recovery” we are all enjoying. The political corruption has been laid bare.

    If Hillary wins, I wonder if she’ll keep the Terror Tuesdays going? One shudders to think about it.

  13. oh

    Thank you Jerri-Lynn for this piece. The grifter will go on to own a vulture venture fund a sports team or a strip club but he’ll receive his just due from karma.

  14. Crazy Horse

    Obama’s legacy:

    Obama came into office at a unique point in US history when a true leader could actually have moved a nation sick of decades of Bush/Cheney wars and shaken by economic collapse in a very different direction.

    Instead, President Obama:

    1- Changed the methodology of American foreign policy from the rendition and torture practiced by Bush/Cheney to that of assassination by remote control drones. As a result he became the world’s most prolific terrorist.

    2- Facilitated the MERS fraud and transfer of millions of American homes into the hands of vulture capitalist landlords.

    3- Presided over the largest re-distribution of wealth from the middle class to the ruling elite in the nation’s history.

    4- Effectively suspended the rule of law regarding financial crimes. Created the Department of Injustice to shelter high level fraud and influence peddling as perfected by the Clinton Crime Syndicate.

    5- Turned Hillary Clinton loose on Libya, allowing her to enjoy watching the sodomizing and killing of a dictator who had presided over the richest and most secular nation in Africa and create in its place an Al-Qaeda training ground to breed jihadists for clandestine use destabilizing countries like Syria.

    6- Achieved an 80% world market share in arms sales.

    7- Funded and stage-managed the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine and replaced it with a hand-picked cadre of Nazis.

    8- Unilaterally initiated economic warfare against Russia.

    9- Expanded the Russia encirclement policy using NATO as the means to force a nuclear and ABM arms race and encourage the psychopathic Neo-con wing of the Military-Industrial State that believes that it can win a nuclear war.

    10- Presided over the transition to an Orwellian police state that continually monitors every action of it’s subjects. Including this post.

    Only ten? I could go on. I haven’t even mentioned Obamacare and the TPP.

  15. VietnamVet

    Yes, the end of the rule of law for the connected is the number reason for title “Worst President Ever”. But, I was really slow to get it. I threw away my Move-On Obama T-shirt but still voted for him in 2012. What triggered the realization of the awfulness of both him and Hillary Clinton is the West’s purposeful reigniting the Cold War by funding the neo-Nazi Coup in Ukraine. Today the risk of nuclear war is greater than in 1963 during the Cuban Missile Crisis when I was a University Junior and purposefully looked for the Civil Defense Bomb Shelters on campus in case the world blew up.

  16. templar555510

    Obama was the perfect stooge . He was brought in by the powers-that-be to manage and extend where possible the status quo bequeathed to him by Bush 2 and his predecessors. And he has done exactly that . This is why the emergence of Trump is so shocking to the Corporatocracy. He’s not their man . Well not yet at any rate . And if he wins today who knows .

    What Trump and Saunders have done is lit a fire that may, or may not be extinguished, but it’s going to take a lot of hard work to even begin to dismantle the present system . It might just collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy ( now there’s an old fashioned word ) before it can be brought down by pitchforks .

  17. Vedant Desai

    I believe executive of enron , worldcom would have gone free , too, if media scrutiny at that time was same as we have right now. At that time media was much more independent from wall street than now which forced DoJ to take action. Due to media , even Kenneth Lay had become a liability to Bush instead of an asset.

  18. jackiebass

    We seem to be quick to blame the president for almost everything. The reality is that the president is only one voice. You have a do nothing obstructionist congress as well as a supreme court. Actually our government is a good example of the tail wagging the dog. Unelected officials drive policy. The president, congress and the supreme court are only figure heads. Our government and it’s policies are the result of all of the money invested by a few to create a government that serves only a few. We have the best government money can buy. The Reagan revolution ushered in what we today have as a government. The neocons determine foreign policy while the neoliberals determine economic policy. Neither serves the ordinary citizen.

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      If only the czar knew. …

      The President wields executive authority, not the Congress or the Supremes. Obama wielded enough power over the Congress in his first two years to keep his mentor, Joe Lieberman, as chair of Homeland.

  19. KYrocky

    Obama was much worse than you give him credit for. His “Fifty state solution” to shut down state’s Attorney General’s pursuing financial criminals was a full court press effort by Obama, publicly pressed for with far more energy and enthusiasm than anything else. It was, of course, a sham, a maneuver to protect financial criminals from those might attempt to enforce the law.

    Obama himself made the decision to protect those who committed the greatest financial crimes in the history of the world from any enforcement of the law. Most telling, Obama’s goal included shutting down any and investigations to determine what crimes actually took place. Obama lacked the guts to be honest with the nation about what he was doing and why he did it. Obama made a rare statement defending his actions saying that he used his “prosecutorial discretion” to not pursue investigations or legal actions against all the unknown people who committed God knows how many crimes against an unknown number of victims who were robbed on unknown billions of dollars.

    Justice requires looking back, and Obama, in his words and actions, made it emphatically clear that he had no intentions of allowing Justice to be served. America has never had another president so brazenly obstruct justice for so many. Combine this with Obama’s refusal to allow any investigation of Bush’s war crimes and war profiteering and the only picture that be be drawn of President Obama is that he has been the largest obstructer of justice in the history of any democratic nation in the world.

  20. Crazy Horse

    So we are agreed. Obama wins the Worst President Ever contest over Little Bush.

    Ain’t nostalgia and Twitter-length memory wonderful. Three months from now we will be fondly remembering the golden Obama era as we huddle underneath our desks during the newest Orange Alert.

Comments are closed.