Skip to main content

View Diary: Lanny Breuer Resigns from Department of Justice, Joins Wall Street Law Firm (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Geez. (10+ / 0-)

    1.  If you wanted a list of Covington attorneys with government experience, they've compiled a PDF for you.

    2.  They are not knowing for representing Wall Street clients, but they have other controversial clients as any major defense-side firm will.  Wiki adds:

    Major companies that have been represented by attorneys of the firm include: Apple, Bank of America, the original Big East Conference (set to be renamed by July 2013), Bunge, Deere & Company, Eastman Kodak Company, Eli Lilly, General Electric Company, Giorgio Armani, IBM Corporation, Harley-Davidson, match.com, Microsoft Corporation, Morgan Stanley, NASCAR, National Basketball Association, National Football League, Procter & Gamble, and Verizon.[6]
    I would not call them a Wall Street firm either.
    •  Can't help but giggle at (0+ / 0-)

      "match.com".  With that for a client you know they're up to no good.

    •  Not sure if ironic or just stupid (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Dburn

      You rattle off almost the entire Dow Jones as their client list and you're hesitant to call them a Wall Street firm?

      Some people on this site, I swear. Just forget it.

      Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

      by aguadito on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:56:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When lawyers talk about Wall Street firms ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auron renouille

        .... we mean "firms which represent leading financial services companies," and not just "firms which represent large corporations."

        Words matter.

        •  The fine details by which thieves segregate (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tool, wonmug, dfarrah, Dburn

          themselves are not of great importance to honest people.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:13:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  leading financial service companies? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dburn

          you mean like multiple firms in the list you provided?

          Bank of America
          Morgan Stanley
          GE (HUGE finance arm)

          those aren't leading financial services companies?

          But hey, thanks for answering the question of whether you were being ironic or stupid.

          words matter

          facts matter.

          derpy derp.

          Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

          by aguadito on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:28:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, they do some of this work. (0+ / 0-)

            It is not what the firm is generally known for, and it doesn't have a Wall Street office.

            •  riiiiight.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dburn

              so what's important is only what the firm is KNOWN for, not what it actually does.

              gotcha.

              Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

              by aguadito on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:17:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RageKage

                If you want to use words in the way that they're actually used in the real world.

                The fundamental revolving door argument is a sound one.  What you're hearing is resistance from lawyers to the specific term "Wall Street firm" as applied to one which is generally viewed among the Bar as a DC operation.

                •  let me remind you of your own words (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dburn
                  When lawyers talk about Wall Street firms ... (1+ / 0-)
                  .... we mean "firms which represent leading financial services companies," and not just "firms which represent large corporations."
                  this was your words.

                  FIRMS WHICH REPRESENT LEADING FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES

                  and we've already demonstrated that C&B is a "leading firm" in that area.

                  you can't change things around about "oh wait, their PR machine has convinced everyone that they're just a baby-loving environmental law firm, so it's not fair to call them by what they do! stick to what they're known for"

                  so you've already lost the rhetorical classification of Breuer's role at C&B, that's over.

                  and Breuer is joining up at the white collar, corporate crime team. and he'll be surely using his DC connections to lobby and grow in his private career. it's not like he's joining to be a DC international trade lawyer at C&B. where do you think the white collar criminals are coming from? WALL STREET DUHHH

                  so instead of nitpicking the terms and defending corrupt public officials, come up with a real argument or move on to some other issue.

                  Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

                  by aguadito on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:29:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A bit of a contradiction there (0+ / 0-)

                    If the problem is that DOJ wasn't prosecuting anyone on Wall Street, then by definition that's not a fruitful area in which to be practicing white collar defense.

                    Read their website.  Some of it's Wall Street-related, most of it isn't.  I think your gaze is too narrow as to what "white collar defense" entails, but beyond the terminology we wouldn't be disagreeing much.

                    •  food for thought (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dburn

                      after the public outrage of his lack of prosecution of wall street crooks, demand for action has increased immensely, wouldn't you say?

                      among the public, among the power elites, the pressure to get some serious action done against the wall street guys is mounting.

                      in a strange way, Breuer's incompetence has actually increased the billable potential of future work at C&B, because his successor and related enforcement officials are  perhaps going to be more aggressive than ever, leading to a much higher demand by the crooks for defense.

                      Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

                      by aguadito on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:59:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I predict we'll remain frustrated. (0+ / 0-)

                        Eric Holder (a Covington alum) is still in charge, after all. :)

                      •  I have found that when arguing with (0+ / 0-)

                        a Lawyer here, especially when they are losing the argument, they act as if they are in court and tend to go for very NARROW definitions hoping, I suppose, to get their argument off on a technicality.

                         Either that, or they say they are insulted and see no reason to respond. That's usually long after a real judge would have shut them down.

                        They also have been taught in Law school to take both sides of an argument and argue with equal ferocity. That's what lets them off the corruption hook since they'll fall back on "everyone deserves a good defense" (unless of course they have no money).

                         In the real world they take the side of the argument that will pay them the most money unless they are truly a prosecutor as in a public servant. For an example of what a real prosecutor does, take a look at Carol Lams record as a prosecutor before being fired as a USA for going after Public Corruption by Bush.

                        There is no indication Breuer had any prosecutorial success in his career in his C/V. It just mentioned what he did after law school for four years in a very general way.

                        This time,  You will notice that when it was Breuer's  turn to argue the prosecution side (with equal determination to win)  he came up with all the reasons why he couldn't. No serious prosecutor would have been making economic excuses for not doing their job  when the rule of law is the foundation of our economic system. He was there for a single reason. Stop any attempt by USAs and the Prosecutors underneath him. In his PR he specifically mentioned all the USAs couldn't prosecute. This was a defense. As if to say he didn't have any control over the USAs.

                        During a previous discussion I had with the Producer of the Untouchables. It was mentioned that the United States Attorney's Manhattan Office was contacted and they were told to contact the DOJ. That is highly unusual. The Manhattan office is known as "the office" for many of the prosecutorial successes it has had. They never have had to have someone else speak for them, except this time.

                        It was also Notable that the producer said the only contact that they had from the DOJ  after the Untouchables aired was that no one from the DOJ would ever talk to them again about anything.

                        The notion of ethics as it applies to a Lawyer,  that most people have,  has been warped into a shape no one else would recognize except a corrupt lawyer and those that defend them.

                        “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

                        by Dburn on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:10:43 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  it seems (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Dburn

                          PBS Frontline broke the unspoken rule that you must not question the public officials on matters of actual importance.

                          the public seems to be far more interested in the gaffes and the GRRR red vs. blue BATTLE ROYALE nonsense (i swear, MSNBC, FOX, all that shit reminds me of when i was a pre-teen kid watching WWF !)

                          I remember that -- that the DoJ responded by saying they would never speak with any of them again.

                          Imagine that, a journalist who actually did his job investigating a major area of incompetence, and an entire executive department has now refused to ever speak with them again.

                          I was even thinking about getting into the "investigative journalism" industry. I'm a trained economist, but I feel that I can do journalism better than the journalists i read and even who i know in person.

                          But then I saw that an investigative journalist whom i respect a lot was unemployed.  Media companies are laiyng off exactly that type of journalism from their structure.

                          So my plan is to try and get as independently wealthy as possible and hopefully in the next decade or so be able to take some meaningful action in this area, perhaps taking a year off to investigate and produce a documentary or something, i dont know.

                          Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

                          by aguadito on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:49:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Getting to financial security is much tougher (0+ / 0-)

                            but, I commend you if you get there.

                            The Untouchables was a remarkable price of investigative journalism for the time we are living in. The Inside Job was a great start too.

                            They had no political friends. Bring up the Banks to the GOP and they think you are a Ron Paul apostate . Bring it up to Democrats and some will respond intelligently but by and large there is a stunning lack of knowledge about finance and economics among Democrats. "If Obama thought it was the right thing to do , then it was the right thing to do and Paul Krugman can never be wrong".

                            Today Paul Krugman decides to write about Stockman's NYT OP-ed  on Sunday and it 's huge sensation even though Krugman took a big pass at one of the large salient points of the op-ed and that was the banks. One exchange went like this. Can we clone Krugman? Another responded "We can keep repeating his points until people start to believe him"

                            Stockman on the Banks.

                            The explosion of the housing market, abetted by phony credit ratings, securitization shenanigans and willful malpractice by mortgage lenders, originators and brokers, has been well documented. Less known is the balance-sheet explosion among the top 10 Wall Street banks during the eight years ending in 2008. Though their tiny sliver of equity capital hardly grew, their dependence on unstable “hot money” soared as the regulatory harness the Glass-Steagall Act had wisely imposed during the Depression was totally dismantled.

                            Within weeks of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September 2008, Washington, with Wall Street’s gun to its head, propped up the remnants of this financial mess in a panic-stricken melee of bailouts and money-printing that is the single most shameful chapter in American financial history.

                            There was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter, contrary to the dire warnings of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman since 2006. The Great Fear — manifested by the stock market plunge when the House voted down the TARP bailout before caving and passing it — was purely another Wall Street concoction. Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved. The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy, ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding.

                            At the same time as Stockman is accused of being a doom and gloomer for saying the economy is a wasteland, the same people agreed that a Great depression would have occurred if the Banks hadn't been bailed out. They can't tell you why. It's just repetitious , if X wrote it it must be true especially since Y agrees with it. So therefore, I'll repeat it and look smart too.

                             I think he makes some hard hitting points that people are desperately trying to fluff off. Bail out the banks was wrong ? My God, Heresy! Slander! Whatever! Off with his Head!.

                            If one mentions banks these days, they are quickly marginalized. There is a small group here that think that the banks are a huge problem, but there are just as many who attack and apologize for the Banks. Ultimately Obama has to shoulder  the responsibility for Breuer and Holder's lack of prosecutorial zeal.

                             Never mind they should have never been appointed in the first place. Anyone looking down their Partnership at Covington and Burling would have known that nothing was going to happen to the banks.

                            That wasn't a coincidence. Not even close.

                            Obama also doesn't talk to Krugman. I have no idea how worshipers of Krugman and Obama reconcile that huge gap.

                            “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

                            by Dburn on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 03:23:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  Google Covington and burling and Wall Street (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tb mare, Tool, dfarrah, Dburn

          Litigation
          During the past 25 years, the New York office of Covington has established close ties to the New York corporate and Wall Street financial communities and to the most important state and federal courts.  The office’s broad-based litigation practice, with one of the strongest white collar defense teams in New York, has more than 50 litigators, including five former federal prosecutors.  The practice is widely respected for its successful representations of Fortune 250 clients and major financial services clients in securities and corporate control litigation, class actions, commercial litigation, corporate investigations, digital media & entertainment, insurance coverage - policyholders, and executive disputes.  The deep experience of our senior lawyers and their knowledge of the New York courts are complemented by our associates, whom we consider essential members of our client teams.  Most of our 34 litigation associates clerked before federal courts; more than a dozen clerked either in the Southern District of New York or the Second Circuit.

          And you're right!  It's right there on their on heir website!

          Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. - Gandalf the Grey

          by No Exit on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:55:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (155)
  • Community (62)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Elections (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Economy (30)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (24)
  • Labor (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Education (20)
  • Environment (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site