Tagged: Eric Holder

Why Is Greg Thorpe The Only GSK Whistle-Blower Willing To Speak The Truth About GSK’s 3 Billion Quid Pro Quo (Sham-Fine) With The US Department Of Justice?…

Greg Thorpe originally blew the whistle on GSK’s fraudulent activity- and it was as a direct result of Greg’s actions- that GSK were fined 3 Billion in 2012 by the department of Justice. Greg regularly leaves comments on this blog, and they are always extremely interesting, particularly in relation to the department of Justice- GSK fine -debacle.

I call this scandal a debacle because I have long thought that GSK’s fine of 3 billion, and the corporate integrity agreement etc, was merely a little slap on the wrist for GSK. People died because of GSK’s various unethical shenanigans; crimes committed by GSK over many years: many patients were harmed, maimed or killed. GSK should have had its license to trade revoked, instead the department of Justice fined them 3 months profits and allowed to them continue on -business as usual. The executives all sailed off into the sunset, dripping with even more wealth and money than they had previously earned – golden parachutes all-round for the GSK top brass-despite being party to the biggest health care fraud of the 21st century.

Astounding isn’t it?

I’ve always felt that the whole thing stank to high heaven, and furthermore, I have always wondered, why is Greg the only whistle-blower willing to tell the truth about this sham fine?

There were, apparently, another 5 whistle-blowers- why do they not speak out about the quid pro quo? Why do they not criticize Eric Holder and the revolving door? Why do they not speak out about this grave travesty of justice to consumers and patients? Why do they not speak about this slap on the wrist for GSK? Why do they not tell the public that far from being a success for patients, this fine was merely a sleight of hand and a smokescreen?- as GSK were allowed to continue on- as evident by their China-Bribe scandal in 214, to commit more bribery and fraud in different countries, further afield.

Why do they not inform the public about the real scandals of this debacle?

Thankfully, we have people like Greg, he’s not afraid to speak out- here is his latest comment-


May 13, 2017 – 3:58 pm High Plains Drifter

There are hundreds if not thousands in the DOJ that are to say the least, are not interested in real justice or the truth. They are not in lockstep with Jeff Sessions to say the least. They regularly monitor this site. Truthman knows this. I hate to coin a phrase, but this swamp cannot be fully drained.

I have been threatened and put myself at risk with everything I say…they violated my constitutional rights by putting a gag order on me for 9 1/2 years…so GSK could continue to reap off label marketing profits and worst of all patients and physicians were kept in the dark. The law I filed under, the False Claims Act has no provision for this conduct, for such a length of time. They are allowed to seal the case only to investigate whether it has merit. I was interviewed under oath by the FBI…3 months after I filed. every government agency was present who had a stake in the case…DEA, HHS, FDA, DOD, IRS, CIA, VA ,DOJ, FBI and others…Shortly after that, I was informed through Counsel that DOJ had dozens of people on the case, and a entire floor at DOJ working on the case. I assume this was true. The False Claims Act seal is to only be extended after they decide to take the case, usually 6 months, for good cause. Obviously it became apparent after 9 years that the seal only remained in place so DOJ could secretly, without public knowledge cut a deal with GSK or go to trial. During this long, long period of time, I was never told that they had joined my complaint until the 11th hour AFTER the settlement was reached. They used this tactic to threaten me with non joining and tossing me out for 9 years plus. During this time, patients continued to receive prescriptions on the 9 drugs I reported …physicians were kept in the dark. In short, the carnage continued…I consistently objected but to no avail. The lead prosecutor told me after I demanded that this go to trial that they “would bankrupt the company, and nobody would get anything”…at the time I thought the statement may have merit, although I now know it was sheer B.S. It would be hard to bankrupt a company with a market cap approaching 200 billion dollars or more.. So I kept my mouth shut while people died, and that haunts me to this day. It included my mother who developed congestive heart failure while kept on Avandia, for diabetes. I did not know GSK had hidden data showing it caused CHF, until it was too late. Hundreds of thousands of patients suffered the same effect, and this was going on with all the drugs reported…but did the DOJ care. Hell no they kept all of this important data sealed from patients and physicians. Why ?

The only reason I know now was to negotiate a sweetheart deal for GSK under a former attorney for the company….ERIC HOLDER. Holder was supposed to have recused himself. I have no evidence that he did. I BELIEVE after he gave GSK the quid pro quo for his law firm, Covington Burling….IN A FINE THAT AMOUNTED TO 3 MONTHS OF COMPANY PROFIT..that he had his hand on the trigger. Supporting this is the fact that he returned to Covington Burling to what has been reported as a “hero’s welcome and a huge raise”.They were even nice enough to give him his old office back, supposedly saved for his return. Holder committed many acts as Attorney General which warrant investigation …but none of this caliber.
GSK lost 3 billion dollars…one month of profit. Nobody was prosecuted .
Nine and one half YEARS is a long time…especially to rob the taxpayers who fund these illegal prescriptions of 40-50 billion dollars, at least. This would not even be what the punishment calls for under the statute. People should be in prison and maybe the company should be bankrupt…they continued the crimes all over the world after the settlement, while under 3 corporate integrity agreements, which called for the so called “death penalty” meaning no Federal program Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc could use ANY GSK drug..

Why? It defies anything I can come up with except massive criminal fraud and corruption at the highest levels of government. This is a huge story, what I saw and heard over ten years makes me literally sick…yet Nobody seemingly will say anything…the other , second to file whistleblowers, were a joke…copied my complaint, took their money and hid . Mere accomplices to the crimes in my opinion.

Do I fear retaliation for what I say…hell yes I do, but someone has to speak up on this.

I am hopeful someone in the DOJ will come forward, everyone cannot be corrupt or cowardly and I hope we will see under a new administration, something done.
As to the post about Jeff Sessions.. the answer is I don’t know what he can or will do. All I know is my son was in second grade when this began , now he is about to graduate from college. This hasn’t been easy for my family or me and I’m not sure if the swamp can ever be drained. I know a lot more, but someone in the DOJ has inside information…I hope they come forward. The lead investigator, Sara Bloom …would be a good start.

Will Donald Trump Be Good Or Bad For The Pharmaceutical Industry?


Under Obama we had US Attorney General – Eric Holder– and his revolving door syndrome with GlaxoSmithKline Lawyers – Covington and Burling– and the US department of Justice.

This was arguably a blatant example of a dodgy quid pro quo- conflict of interest.

Trump is more of a wild-card it seems, and considering his stance on vaccines and drug prices, nobody knows for sure what his influence will be on the pharmaceutical industry.

Will it be good or bad?

In the case of GlaxoSmithKline, as an investment, the investor from the article below- seems to think it will bode well.

However perhaps he hasn’t factored in Trump’s negative stance on vaccines.

GSK makes a vaccine called Infanrix, and Infanrix has been embroiled in controversy in recent times due to its alleged dangers (links to Autism etc).


“….Like the U.S., Italy has a national vaccine injury compensation program to give some financial support to those people who are injured by compulsory and recommended vaccinations. The Italian infant plaintiff received three doses of GlaxoSmithKline’s Infanrix Hexa, a hexavalent vaccine administered in the first year of life.  These doses occurred from March to October 2006. The vaccine is to protect children from polio, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, pertussis and Haemophilus influenza type B.  In addition to these antigens, however, the vaccine then contained thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative, aluminum, an adjuvant, as well as other toxic ingredients.  The child regressed into autism shortly after receiving the three doses.  When the parents presented their claim for compensation first to the Ministry of Health, as they were required to do, the Ministry rejected it.  Therefore, the family sued the Ministry in a court of general jurisdiction, an option which does not exist in the same form in the U.S…”

I’d like to think that Trump’s US attorney general will be a lot tougher, and a lot less friendly, to the the Pharmaceutical industry, than Obama’s was..


GlaxoSmithKline has appeal after Trump victory

By 11 November 2016
5 mins. to read
GlaxoSmithKline has appeal after Trump victory

The reaction to Donald Trump’s election victory has been surprising. First, stock markets sank. Then they rose. Now at the time of writing they are falling once more. Clearly, the only thing that investors can be certain of is that uncertainty will be high over the short to medium term.

Part of the reason for this is that Trump is a known unknown. He has no long-term track record in politics and it is impossible to know exactly what policies he will pursue. In fact, there is a good chance that even he does not yet know exactly how he will seek to improve the US economy. That’s why in my view it’s a good idea to own companies which have a relatively low positive correlation with the economy. One example of this is GlaxoSmithKline (LON:GSK), which I believe will outperform a volatile wider index over the medium term.

Old Trump Vs New Trump

Perhaps the most striking part of election night was Trump’s victory speech. It was a complete contrast to the gung-ho, pumped up and bullish tone which he had struck throughout the election campaign. Trump instead talked about uniting America and being a President for all Americans, words which at the time of writing at least, seem to have placated the markets somewhat.

However, one speech does not instantly erase the policies which Trump has been shouting about in the last couple of years. His desire to protect American jobs and make trading agreements less favourable to other countries mean that the world could take a step back from an era of increasing globalisation. Similarly, his apparent admiration for Vladimir Putin could cause uncertainty in the Middle East and even in Europe, while a tougher stance on China could lead to worsening relations between the two countries.

Volatility looks here to stay

Of course, many commentators are now claiming that Trump may govern with different policies to those on which he campaigned. Whether that proves to be correct or not, in my opinion Trump’s Presidency will include significant change on taxation, spending and foreign policy. Therefore, I believe that the uncertainty seen in stock markets since the election is just the beginning of a period of highly volatile share price movements.

In the current ‘lame duck’ period, uncertainty may not rise beyond the levels seen since the election. Barack Obama is keen to ensure a smooth handover of power and Donald Trump is unlikely to make any controversial comments regarding his plan of action. After all, he can’t do anything in terms of policy-change until he becomes President in 2017.

However, beyond the point at which Donald Trump becomes President, I believe that volatility will increase significantly. His plan to reduce taxes on businesses and on individuals while at the same time increase infrastructure spending may bring rewards in terms of job creation and GDP growth. But it also means higher risk, since debt levels are likely to rise in order to fill the hole created by higher spending and lower tax receipts. This could lead to higher uncertainty regarding the US economy’s future and cause share prices to become more volatile.

A stable solution

In such volatile times, companies which offer a consistent, stable and robust outlook could become more popular among investors. That’s why I’m optimistic about GlaxoSmithKline’s future share price performance versus the wider index. Its sales and profitability are less dependent upon the performance of the wider economy than is the case for most companies. This provides GlaxoSmithKline with defensive characteristics which are further enhanced by its diverse business model.

Essentially, GlaxoSmithKline is three businesses in one. It has a consumer goods division which sells products such as Horlicks and therefore benefits from a significant amount of customer loyalty. GlaxoSmithKline also has a pharmaceuticals division and a vaccines division. It is therefore more dependent on the patent cycle than the business cycle. When combined with its consumer division’s customer loyalty, this makes GlaxoSmithKline a robust and reliable performer which could be seen as a means of diversifying away from an uncertain economic outlook.

Future potential

GlaxoSmithKline is much more than just a defensive stock. Its drug pipeline holds significant promise in my view. For example, it spent £3.1 billion on R&D in 2015 and expects to generate a 13% internal rate of return (IRR) on this investment. Over the course of 2016/17, GlaxoSmithKline expects up to 20 Phase II starts and up to 10 Phase III starts. Looking further ahead, it has the potential to file up to 20 assets by 2020, which indicates that its sales could rise substantially over the medium term.

This should help to boost GlaxoSmithKline’s dividend payments. They are being frozen for the next couple of years as GlaxoSmithKline seeks to improve its cash position. Even without dividend growth in the near term, GlaxoSmithKline still has income appeal. It currently yields 5.1% versus 3.7% for the FTSE 100. This will help GlaxoSmithKline to record a positive total return should capital gains be difficult to achieve in a potentially uncertain period for global stock markets.


The US and global economies face a highly uncertain future. Although the next few weeks may prove to be a smooth transition, in 2017 I believe that the changes Donald Trump will seek to make to the US will cause share prices to become increasingly volatile. Although he may adopt a more conciliatory approach than he did during the campaign, Trump is likely to implement more radical policies than have been undertaken for a number of years. Even if they are successful in the long run, they are likely to cause investors to become increasingly risk-off in the short to medium term.

In such a situation, GlaxoSmithKline could gain in appeal. It has a well-diversified, stable business model which is not closely tied to the performance of the economy. It also has growth potential via its pipeline and offers a high yield which could appeal to defensive-minded investors. Therefore, in my opinion GlaxoSmithKline is an appealing investment following Trump’s unexpected election victory.

GSK, Eric Holder, The Department Of Justice, And The Revolving Door Syndrome…


For insiders, the Holder decision to return to Covington was never a mystery. Timothy Hester, the chairman of Covington, told the National Law Journal that Holder’s return to the firm had been “a project” of his ever since Holder left to the join the administration in 2009. When the firm moved to a new building last year, it kept an 11th-story corner office reserved for Holder.

James Garland, Holder’s former deputy chief of staff, who rejoined Covington in 2010, told the Law Journal that when Covington’s partners gathered to welcome Holder back four weeks ago, “He was so busy giving people hugs and shaking hands.”

As Covington prepared for Holder’s return, the firm continued to represent clients before the Department of Justice. For instance, Covington negotiated with the department on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline for a plea agreement in 2010.

But in the end, it was pretty convenient, wasn’t it, that “the right thing” also happened to be the strategy that preserved Democratic Party relationships with big-dollar donors, kept the client base at Holder’s old firm nice and fat, made the influential rich immeasurably richer and allowed Eric Holder himself to crash-land into a giant pile of money upon resignation.

What a coincidence! In any civilized country, it’d be a scandal. In America, though, he’s just another guy selling whatever he can to get by. It was just too bad that what Holder had to sell was the criminal justice system


N.B.: Whistleblower Greg Thorpe originally revealed this information, about the revolving door at GSK/Dept Of Justice, to me a while ago, in his comments on my blog posts. I was intending to take a break then write about it, however, it’s interesting to see the information being discussed now on various blogs.

I was going to do a post on all this sometime in the future but looks like it’s more or less already been done!

No point in repeating myself either so kudos to Bob Fiddaman for finding the original post, and his take on the debacle can be read here:


So, what input, if any at all, did Holder have regarding the negotiations of the $3 billion settlement figure, and, more importantly, could the original figure, said to be a lot more than $3 billion, have been whittled down by Holder? Furthermore, who was exactly behind the Wellbutrin promotion, was it, as some sources suggest, the current CEO of Glaxo, Andrew Witty, who, at the time of the illegal promotion, was Vice President General Manager of Marketing for Glaxo?

I’m just throwing the question out there because this revolving door between Covington and the DOJ seems, to me at least, to be bordering on being incestuous.

News of Holder’s double u-turn came via Melayna Lokosky who has wrote a quite brilliant blog post where she raises many questions regarding Holder’s latest “unethical move.”

Her blog can be read, in full, here.

Here’s the other blog post:


Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder NOW Works for Firm that Defended Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson in Their Billion Dollar Cases

By Melayna Lokosky
1 Comment

August 21, 2015

Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone article cited throughout and added August 23, 2015

Former US Attorney General Eric Holder returning to Covington is a Conlict of Interest for taxpayers.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder’s six-year career with the U.S. Department of Justice should have us questioning if Holder was setting up his defense to return to law firm Covington from the start.

Eric Holder now works for the firm he prosecuted in the Pfizer GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson Cases for the DOJ

The office thing might have been improper, but at this point, who cares? More at issue is the extraordinary run Holder just completed as one of history’s great double agents. For six years, while brilliantly disguised as the attorney general of the United States, he was actually working deep undercover, DiCaprio in The Departed-style, as the best defense lawyer Wall Street ever had.  Rolling Stone

Regardless of what you thought or think of Eric Holder his latest unethical move should have every tax paying citizen concerned. Holder went from prosecuting multi-billion dollar cases for the DOJ against Pfizer ($2.3 Billion), GlaxoSmithKline ($3 Billion) and Johnson & Johnson ($2.2 Billion) and less than nine months later Holder’s working for Covington the law firm that represented Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnsonagainst the DOJ.  If that’s not inconsistent & contradictory language to action I don’t know what is but one things for sure Covington & Holder are seeing green which should have ALLtaxpayers seeing red.

And for those that don’t think this is a big deal False Claims cases (whistleblower cases) are filed under seal meaning the public does not know about them yet (average cases are under seal between 5-10 years) but Holder would certainly have knowledge of those cases, which is without doubt a conflict of interest.

The DOJ collected $7.5 billion from  Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson’sunethical and illegal behavior at the expense of patients, consumers, employees and taxpayers and we’re likely to lose that and a whole lot more with this new Holder and Covington arrangement.   Our only solace may come from Holder’s pathological history of alleged questionable unethical & illegal activity and perhaps the DOJ will get justice and get to prosecute their old boss.  Stranger things have happened!

Is Covingtong employing tactics from The Sociopathic Business Model™

Covington Boasts of hiring former DOJ SEC EU Parliament #TheSociopathicBusinessModel

Covington is part of the problem for the people, also known as those injured by abusive corporations and taxpayers. When a law firm glibly boasts former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (whom it’s rumored they never got rid of his office during his six years with the DOJ) on the first shot of their website it’s insulting and demeaning to former victims of Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKlineJohnson & Johnson  and to taxpayers who footed the bill for these investigations.

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Bruce A. Baird

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Bruce A. Baird 2

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Bruce A. Baird 3

Taking insulting & demeaning to a new level, under Regulary Insight, Covington  states they employ five former U.S. Department Antitrust & Criminal Division heads, several former EU Parliament & EU Council officials & former ambassadors and several former U.S. Federal Trade Commission officials which only serves as welcome mat for those companies that employ tactics from The Sociopathic Business Model™; and, a huge oversight from DOJ who are clearly more worried about setting up their second career than they are protecting the American people.

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Nancy Kestenbaum

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Nancy Kestenbaum 2

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Nancy Kestenbaum 3

It’s recognized that all companies deserve legal defense and that government attorneys will eventually move to the private sector and possibly back into government; however, the ethical rules (pause for laughter*) are written to allow movement to and from the government that would otherwise create conflict.

*I borrowed a line that can’t be cited.
The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Ethan M Posner

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Ethan M Posner 2

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Ethan M Posner 3

This process must be closely regulated and not left to the unregulated discretion of one of the high ranking appointed government officials who prosecuted corporation, who’s currently embroiled in his own lawsuit (Fast & Furious), and the attorneys of alleged corporate criminals to decide what ethics are on behalf of the American people.

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Alan Vinegrad

The Sociopathic Business Model™ Covington Partner Alan Vinegrad 2

But that’s just what’s happening.  Mr. Holder should be barred from working for any law firm that represented the top 10 DOJ settlements and top 10 SEC settlements for the last 10 years for a minimum of 10 years since many of these cases are filed under seal.

Covington can keep their other bought high ranking government officials and let them figure out how to sleep at night but we must demand the immediate & permanent removal of Eric Holder from Covington.

If you've been injured by any of the companies Covington represents then call & email these attorneys and demand the immediate & permanent removal of Eric Holder from their law firm

Taken directly from Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone Article:

  • Holder failed to win a single conviction in court for any crimes related to the financial crisis.
  • Holder famously invented a concept called “collateral consequences,” under which the state could pursue non-criminal alternatives for companies if they believed prosecuting them might result in too much “collateral” damage.
  • Holder also pioneered the extrajudicial settlement, striking huge deals with companies in which judges did not sign off on the agreements.

This site refers to that as “two known corrupt entities negotiating behind closed doors on behalf of the American people,” which happens every day in whistleblower lawsuits.  The person who brings the case forward, aware of the fraud has no say in punishment or prevention and that needs to change.

  • There is a huge misconception, pushed equally by odd bedfellows in the financial community and Obama supporters, that Eric Holder didn’t send anyone from Wall Street to jail because “no one broke any laws.”

Sure tell that to the peoople that lost their houses.

  • Holder contributed countless subtle inventions to soften punishments. The most revolting in my view was allowing banks like Chase the courtesy of calling their settlements “remedial payments” instead of fines for wrongdoing.

This is a point that Covington proudly boasts that they “find creative ways to resolve cases early,” or “obtained a deferred prosecution agreeement in a civil settlement with payments spread over time for Intermune, Inc.” right on their website.

Covington deferring payments

Covington boasting about holders deferred payment showing favortism to the defense not the american people

We can’t boycott the Covington the law firm because most of us (thankfully) won’t need their services unless we own large companies who get sued for white collar crimes; but, we can BOYCOTT all* companies Covington mentions they defended (or represented) on their website to force accountability until they permanently remove Eric Holder from their law firm for conflict of interest:

Also keep in mind what we’re fighting to remove or expose via The Sociopathic Business Model™ or corrput corporate behavior Covington is defending big alleged corrupt business: banks, pharma, tech, petroleum, etc.

*this is not a full list but demonstrates Covington’s varied clients and Mr. Holder’s involvement with their firm is more than a conflict of interest for more than just the pharma and med device industry.  

  • Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson
  • Represenation of JP Morgan Chase in SEC investigation
  • Representation of SPI Group against false advertising claims concerning STOLICHNAYA vodka
  • Representation of Kentucky Fried Chicken, Microsoft, Dayton Technologies and others in connection with false advertising claims brought before the NAD
  • Representation of Adams Laboratories in a false advertising action
  • Representation of American Petroleum Institute against false advertising
  • Representation of Bacardi in its defense of a false advertising lawsuit
  • Representation of Wells Fargo Bank in numerous consumer class actions brought in state and federal courts
  • Representing Samsung in its dismissal of Motorola’s $3.5 billion antitrust
  • Representing Citibank in class action antitrust lawsuits alleging manipulation of financial benchmarks
  • Counsel to Genentech in its landmark hearing to challenge FDA’s decision to withdraw approval of Avastin for metastatic breast cancer.
  • Representing Genzyme on the consent decree for its Allston Landing manufacturing facility
  • Represented Freddie Mac in the largest-ever FEC enforcement action against a corporation
  • Successfully defended civil claims brought by the SEC and FDIC against the former CEO of IndyMac BankCorp, Michael Perry, in connection with the bank’s failure in 2008.
  • Represented the National Football League in a successful effort to pass the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
  • Represented a pharmaceutical executive in an SEC investigation into possible insider trading in offshore trusts.
  • Lead counsel to Boehringer Ingelheim in the Canadian import antitrust litigation.
  • Represented Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc
  • Lead counsel to Purdue Pharma in OxyContin®
  • National Counsel to Eli Lilly and Co
  • Counsel for AstraZeneca in the Seroquel litigation
  • Amazon.com
  • Bank of America
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Brown Brothers Harriman
  • Bunge Ltd
  • Coty, Inc.
  • Deutsche Bank AG
  • Eastman Kodak
  • Fenway Sports Group
  • General Electric
  • Hitachi
  • Investment Company Institute
  • Lehman Brothers
  • Microsoft
  • Muntajat
  • National Basketball Association
  • National Football League
  • National Hockey League
  • Natixis
  • Neuberger Berman
  • Norfolk Southern
  • PepsiCo
  • Poongsan Corporation
  • Qualcomm Incorporated
  • SandRidge Energy
  • Saudi Aramco
  • Sotheby’s
  • Sun Financial
  • Terex
  • The Noble Group
  • The Timken Company
  • United Biomedical, Inc.
  • United Technologies Corporation
  • Verizon Communications
  • Viacom
  • Vivendi
  • Weyerhaeuser


Here’s a man who just spent six years handing out soft-touch settlements to practically every Too Big to Fail bank in the world. Now he returns to a firm that represents many of those same companies: Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup, to name a few.

Collectively, the decisions he made while in office saved those firms a sum that is impossible to calculate with exactitude. But even going by the massive rises in share price observed after he handed out these deals, his service was certainly worth many billions of dollars to Wall Street.

Now he will presumably collect assloads of money from those very same bankers. It’s one of the biggest quid pro quo deals in the history of government service. Congressman Billy Tauzin once took a $2 million-a-year job lobbying for the pharmaceutical industry just a few weeks after helping to pass the revolting Prescription Drug Benefit Bill, but what Holder just did makes Tauzin look like a guy who once took a couple of Redskins tickets

Holder doesn’t look it, but he was a revolutionary. He institutionalized a radical dualistic approach to criminal justice, essentially creating a system of indulgences wherein the world’s richest companies paid cash for their sins and escaped the sterner punishments the law dictated.