Eric Holder

Custom Search

  

The Attorney General of the United States of America

 

Eric Holder
 

     

 


help fight the media
  
 

 

 

 

 
Items are archived in order of discovery.  Previous years in left column . . .
The Decline Of Justice
Jennifer Rubin got Judge Michael Mukasey to talk about what has happened to the Department of Justice since he turned it over to Eric Holder. The result is explosive. Mukasey is a sober and distinguished judge and lawyer with first-hand knowledge of many of the relevant facts, so his characterizations should be given considerable weight.  In a nutshell, he says that Eric Holder (presumably with the blessing of Barack Obama) has politicized the Department of Justice to a shocking extent.  You should read it all, but here are a few excerpts:
    

In a far-ranging interview, he candidly asserts that Holder's conduct in several key respects has been "amazing."  That's not meant as a compliment. ...

In August 2009, Holder authorized the reinvestigation of CIA operatives who had employed enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorist detainees.  It had the feel of a witch hunt: Career prosecutors who investigated the interrogators under the previous administration had concluded there was no basis for a criminal prosecution.  A year and a half later, the Holder reinvestigation is still dragging on.  "I have to believe that the effect on people involved in national security is devastating," says Mukasey, "in part because the cases were closed before."  ... Mukasey, moreover, finds it "amazing" that Holder "conceded he didn't read the [career] prosecutors' memo" that recommended against prosecution.

With regard to the New Black Panther party controversy ... Mukasey is flabbergasted that the attorney general would declare in a New York Times interview that in effect "there is nothing to see."  Mukasey says, "I can't see how he would bring himself to say such a thing.  There are investigations pending" -- by the Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility.  The case against the New Black Panthers for intimidating voters at a Philadelphia precinct in 2008 was already won when Holder's team ordered the charges dropped; famed civil rights attorney Bartle Bull deemed it, "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."  Says Mukasey, with a measure of indignation, "It seems to me you don't whitewash such a thing."

    
But, says John Hinderaker, that's how it goes at Eric Holder's Department of Justice.  If you threaten voters with a club at a polling place you are off the hook -- depending on your race, of course.  If you are a CIA agent loyally trying to protect your country, and have already been cleared of any wrongdoing, Holder reopens the investigation so he can harass you for a few more years.  The politicizing of the Department by Obama and Holder is a major scandal, but one that has so far escaped any serious scrutiny.
Witching Hour For Black Panthers
The Washington Times says the Black Panther voter-intimidation scandal is approaching the boiling point on four different burners.  Evidence grows that the Justice Department is using illegitimate means to keep a lid on legitimate investigations.  Because his department can’t be trusted to police itself, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. needs to appoint a special counsel.

On Wednesday, Judicial Watch -- a private watchdog -- filed a brief in its case seeking release of official memoranda, arguing that government stonewalling, "is about political interference in [Justice’s] decision-making process and [the department‘s] efforts to avoid public scrutiny of that interference."  Most abused is the "deliberative process" privilege, which is intended for discussions made before and during litigation but is being claimed for documents created after the Black Panther case was concluded.

On Thursday night, Todd Gaziano of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights protested, "The department doggedly continues to obstruct this investigation … Even the privileges that are recognized law (as opposed to being newly invented) are not valid against the [Civil Rights] Commission."  His most significant revelation is that, "The department‘s own Office of Legal Counsel has issued at least two opinions, which are binding on the department unless overruled, that came to the same conclusion."

Holder has been hiding behind questionable self-investigations made by his own department.  On Wednesday, former Justice attorney Hans von Spakovsky, now at the Heritage Foundation, challenged the bona fides of Robin Ashton, the new head of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility.  OPR, which investigates ethics charges against department lawyers, has delayed for 17 months its inquiry into alleged wrongdoing by officials who dismissed complaints against the Black Panthers.  Von Spakovsky warns Ashton is "completely untrustworthy," especially regarding allegations of improperly "rifling through confidential files and documents," and charges Holder and other bureaucrats with directly compromising the overall OPR investigation.

The final internal review into Justice’s seemingly race-based decision-making also lies in question.  In September, Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine announced he would examine "whether the Voting Section has enforced the civil rights laws in a non-discriminatory manner; and whether any Voting Section employees have been harassed for participating in the investigation or prosecution of particular matters."  Today, Fine retires from his post with that examination not even close to being finished.  His successor will be appointed by Obama based on Holder‘s recommendation.  That’s hardly a recipe for investigatory independence.
Collusion Between Justice Department And ACLU
Patriot Action Network is reporting that documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information request reveal that the Department of Justice colluded with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) while preparing its lawsuit against Arizona and the state's immigration enforcement law.  Emails between the two organizations that were obtained by Judicial Watch revealed information sharing and strategy discussions.

One email exchange obtained by Judicial Watch involved the leader of the ACLU's Immigrants' Right Project, Lucas Guttentag, and the Deputy Solicitor General, Edwin Kneedler.  The email exchange revealed that the two men had met briefly to discuss their respective cases and discussed district court rules and legal strategies.

Another email exchange revealed a conversation between ACLU staffers and the Assistant U.S. Attorney Josh Wilkenfeld who signed the government's pleadings in the lawsuit against Arizona.

"It is one thing to share the ACLU’s disrespect for the rule of law but it is quite another to collude with the organization on a prosecutorial strategy against the State of Arizona.  Frankly, these new documents show it is hard to tell where the ACLU ends and the Justice Department begins," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  "The Obama Justice Department is supposed to be an independent, nonpartisan law enforcement agency.  Many Americans will be disturbed, though maybe not surprised, to find that Eric Holder’s Justice Department is colluding with one of the most leftist organizations in the nation.  We know whose 'side' this Justice Department in on when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws."
More Proof of Unequal Justice from Obama's Department Of Justice
Ben Johnson says Barack Obama has provided yet more proof that only his administration’s allies enjoy the equal protection of the law; conservatives should expect no right to justice in Obama’s America.  We have learned, from firsthand testimony, that civil rights protections do not apply when Black Panthers deny white citizens the right to vote.  We have seen that immigration laws do not apply in Arizona.  And the president has made clear he feels his administration will ignore court decrees and impose ObamaCare.  Now those on Obama’s enemies list cannot expect to receive their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  FOIA allows private citizens access to government documents, which are often expose treasure trove of government corruption.  J. Christian Adams, who blew the whistle on the Justice Department’s racialist justice, reveals that Obama promptly filled some FOIA requests:
   

•  Gerry Hebert, noted free speech opponent, partisan liberal, and former career Voting Section lawyer who testified against now-Senator Jeff Sessions when he was nominated to the federal judiciary.  Same day service.
•  Kristen Clarke, NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Clarke sought the dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther party.  Same day service.
•  Ari Shapiro of National Public Radio.  Five day service.
•  Nicholas Espiritu of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.  Next day service.
•  Eugene Lee of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.  Three day service.
•  Edward DuBose, president of Georgia NAACP.  Same day service.
•  Raul Arroyo-Mendoza of the Advancement Project.  Same day service.
•  Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.  Two day service.

    
Others did not enjoy the same treatment:
    

•  Jed Babbin, editor at Human Events.  Six month wait.
•  Jerry Seper, Washington Times.  Six month wait.
•  Jim Boulet of the English First Foundation.  No reply at all.
•  Jenny Small of Judicial Watch.  Five month wait.
•  Republican Pennsylvania state Representative Stephen Barrar.  Four month wait.
•  Jason Torchinsky, former DOJ and now ace GOP lawyer.  No reply at all.
•  Ben Conery, Washington Times.  Five month wait.

    
Despite the media’s attempts to portray Barack Obama as a learned professor, and perhaps the most brilliant senator since Cicero, he remains what he has always been at core: a left-wing radical and community organizer.  Those who are part of his coalition receive government favors; those who are not are denied equal protection of the law.  (This, and pure cowardice, explains why some "conservatives" were so quick to toady to Obama before or soon after his election.)  Black Panthers, the NAACP, illegal immigrants, and NPR are his team players; conservative journalists, Republicans, and those who believe all Americans should speak the English language are not.

Obama believes he can trust certain media outlets -- like NPR -- to overlook any untoward details in administration documents, spin them to his favor, or lack the capability and work ethic to identify them in the first place.  Jerry Seper, Jed Babbin, and Jim Boulet would keep him honest.  Obama is petrified of the avalanche of investigations the Republican Congress could unleash.

Adams' revelations again prove that denial of equal justice is endemic under Barack Obama.  Republicans should investigate whether this omnipresent evil rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and act accordingly.
Obama Decides Which Laws To Enforce & Which To Ignore
Curt asks, so what is one of the presidential responsibilities given to him in our Constitution?
    

"he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

    
But in Obama’s America it’s only the ones he agrees with.

His use of regulatory governing is well known, what with his czars and all, but now he has decided to use the Department of Justice (DoJ) once again and this time it involves gay marriage and state rights:
    

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states.
~~~

    
President Obama believes that section -- Section 3 -- "is unconstitutional" given the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (including its equal protection component), Holder wrote, and the president has instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

President Obama "has made the determination," Holder wrote, that Section 3 "as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."
~~~

    
But now, "under heightened scrutiny" since the 2nd circuit court asked for the administration to defend its position given lack of precedent, Holder wrote, the government’s ability to defend the law can no longer be made by "advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review.  Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress' actual justifications for the law."

That legislative record, Holder wrote, "contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny.  The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships -- precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

~~~

    
Instead of allowing the judicial branch to decide whether a certain group met the 14th Amendment scrutiny, Obama has decided all by his lonesome that sexual orientation should be included.  This was a statute that was voted in by a 85-14 majority in the Senate and a 342-67 majority in the House.  Then it was signed by President Clinton.  To order the DoJ to stop defending a federal statute, voted into law by overwhelming majorities and signed into law by the President of the United States is a MAJOR power grab and one which may come back to bite him in the ass.

Continue reading here . . .
The Attorney General Of The United States Is A Racist
Josh Gerstein says Attorney General Eric Holder finally got fed up lost it Tuesday with claims that the Justice Department went easy in a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African American.
 

Yup!  That's Eric.
     
He's correct.  Holder's Justice department didn't go "easy" on the Black Panthers.

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and
ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day (2008), according to documents and interviews.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course. 
The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20, 2009.


Holder's frustration over the criticism became evident during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) accused the Justice Department of failing to cooperate with a Civil Rights Commission investigation into the handling of the 2008 incident in which Black Panthers in intimidating outfits and wielding a club stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia.

The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

In his statement, Holder stated, "This Department of Justice does not enforce the law on the basis of race."  Now, he intended this as a denial, but it seems more like a Freudian admission.

After all, it is precisely what Holder’s Justice Department stands accused of, "not enforcing the law on the basis of race."

Also, in Holder's rant, he says, "I would disagree very vehemently with the notion that there’s overwhelming evidence that that is in fact true," clearly indicating that Holder knows there's evidence of racial bias in Holder's Justice Department.  He's just arguing how much evidence -- a little evidence, a lot of evidence, or overwhelming evidence.


Holder's statement clearly indicates a definite bias (in likely violation of ethics rules) in choosing who he will/won’t prosecute. This represents a conflict of interest that makes him unable to function in the role of the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

Holder needs to answer a few questions.  Is he an American first and foremost, or an African-American first and foremost?  Does he represent all Americans, or just the ones that share his skin color?

Holder, needs to be reminded that when he took the job, every American citizen became his people.  It's clear he either forgot, or rejects the notion out of hand.

The irony here is that Holder can say and use the term "my people," but if you or I uttered the term "you people," that would be racist.  What do you think the reaction in the ObamaMedia would be if Sarah Palin referred to "my people?"

Related: 
AG Holder Admits To Racist Interpretation Of The Law

Related: 
Where "My Peoples" At?

Eric Holder has a "history."
More Holder Shenanigans
    
    
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) Senior Special Agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.  Assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson's job was to stop gun trafficking across the border.  Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.  Investigators call the tactic letting guns "walk."  In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.  Dodson's bosses say that never happened.  Now, he's risking his job to go public.  Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department.  The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel.  And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

This is turning into a big deal.

Justice Department head Eric Holder said the inspector general is investigating. "The aim of the ATF is to try to stop the flow of guns. I think they do a good job in that regard. Questions have been raised by ATF agents about the way in which some of these operations have been conducted. I think those questions have to be taken seriously, and on that basis, I've asked the inspector general to look at it."
Holder Ignores Demands
Bob Unruh says a lawsuit has been filed against Obama's Justice Department for refusing to release details about how agency officials decided to abandon a voter intimidation case that staff members had brought -- and won -- against members of the New Black Panther Party.

The lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, over a refusal by the federal agency to provide information about the decision.

At issue in the case is whether the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People "improperly influenced" the Justice Department, the nation's highest law enforcement agency, "to drop a lawsuit against members of the Black Panthers who allegedly threatened and intimidated white voters outside a polling station during the 2008 election."

Because Kristen Clark, of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, reportedly met with Justice Department officials to discuss the case just before the agency announced plans to dismiss the action, questions arose about the influence that may have been exerted.

Judicial Watch in November 2010 filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records of communications between the agency's Civil Rights Division and the NAACP.  Under federal requirements, Attorney General Eric Holder's agency was supposed to have responded by Dec. 3, 2010.

"However, to date, no documents have been produced," the Judicial Watch announcement said.

"Who is running the Justice Department?  That is what we're trying to find out with this lawsuit.  I find it outrageous that leftist special interest groups seem to be directing the activities of the nation's top law enforcement agency," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a prepared statement about the case:
    

"The Obama Justice Department has made a mess of the Black Panther lawsuit.  We already know the Justice Department's decision to drop the case was tainted by politics and racism.  There is something amiss in the Holder Justice Department.  And its casual violations of the freedom of information law highlight this administration's contempt for transparency and the rule of law."

    
According to the lawsuit, "As of the date of this complaint, defendant has failed to produce any records responsive to the request or demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production.  Nor has it indicated whether or when any responsive records will be produced. In fact, defendant has failed to respond to the request in any manner."

Continue reading here . . .
DOJ Probe Concludes Panthers Case Handled Appropriately
Pete Yost reports on a case that has drawn strong criticism from Republican conservatives, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has found no evidence that politics played a role when department attorneys dismissed three defendants from a voting rights lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party.

OPR, which investigates allegations of attorney misconduct, concluded that the government lawyers' work on the lawsuit in 2009 was based on a good-faith assessment of the law and the facts and had a reasonable basis.

"We found no evidence of improper political interference or influence from within or outside the department" and the government attorneys acted appropriately in the exercise of their supervisory duties, OPR said in a letter Tuesday to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

"We found no evidence to support allegations -- which were raised during the course of our investigation -- that the decision-makers, either in bringing or dismissing the claims, were influenced by the race of the defendants," OPR's letter added.

"We found no evidence of improper political interference or influence from within or outside the department."

According to the Washington Times, Congressional testimony has revealed that the NAACP spoke regularly about the Black Panther voter intimidation case to the Justice Department and lobbied for the case to be dismissed.

A federal commission had to postpone a vote on a report that criticizes the Justice Department's handling of a voter-intimidation lawsuit Friday after a Democratic panelist walked out of the meeting in protest.

The draft of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report says that Justice tried to hide the extensive involvement of high-level political officials in the dismissal of the suit against members of the New Black Panther Party.  The move, the report says, indicates that Justice's Civil Rights Division is failing to protect white voters and is "at war with its core mission of guaranteeing equal protection (under) the laws for all Americans.'

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) that provide new evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP).  These new documents, which include internal DOJ email correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision.  The new documents were obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No.10-851)).

 

The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli.  Both DOJ officials were involved in detailed discussions regarding the NBPP decision.


And that's just a taste.  There's a ton of evidence "of improper political interference or influence from within or outside the department."
Top 10 Reasons Eric Holder Should Not Be Attorney General
Human Events recently editorialized that Eric Holder should have never been confirmed as attorney general and that his priorities are dangerous.  Here are the Top 10 Reasons (in addition to the one above) Eric Holder Should Not Be Attorney General:
    

1. Wants special rights for Muslims.

2. Hostile to Second Amendment.

3. Weak on terror.

4. Arizona immigration suit.

5. Refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

6. Opposition to the death penalty.

7. Voter intimidation case dropped.

8. Civil rights division disarray.

9. Clemency for terrorists, pardon for fugitive.

10. "Nation of cowards"

    
Amplified here . . .
Holder Gives Obama Carte Blank
Charlie Savage says Obama had the constitutional power to lawfully launch military strikes in Libya without permission from Congress because he "could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest," the Justice Department concluded in an internal memorandum released on Thursday.

The 14-page document, addressed to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., was signed by Caroline D. Krass, the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the executive branch about whether proposed actions are lawful.

The memorandum laid out in detail the thinking of the administration’s legal team about the scope of Obama’s power to initiate hostilities unilaterally under his authority as commander in chief -- confirming, as The New York Times has reported, that the administration’s argument centers on the idea that hostilities of limited nature, scope and duration do not rise to the level of a "war" that would trigger Congress’s powers under the Constitution.
    

The War Powers Resolution is found as 50 USC S.1541-1548, passed in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.  It's supposed to be the mechanism by which the President may use US Armed Forces.  It spells out the situations under which the president may deploy American forces with and without a Congressional declaration of war.

The particularly relevant portion is S.1541(c), which reads:

(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    
The arguments laid out in the memorandum are a striking departure from Obama’s own interpretation of the president’s constitutional powers before being elected.

As a United States senator and presidential candidate, Obama in December 2007 expressed a significantly more limited view of executive power to launch military attacks on another country without Congressional authorization, absent an imminent threat.

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said in reply to a question about whether the president could bomb suspected nuclear sites in Iran without Congressional authorization.

I read the entire War Powers Resolution.  Nowhere in that document is the president authorized to go to war because he "could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest."

There was no declaration of war.  There was no specific statutory authorization.  There was no national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Obama's actions in Libya are clearly illegal, no matter what Holder says.

Based on Holder's finding, Obama can send the troops anywhere, at any time, and for any reason -- whenever Obama, acting alone, with no consultation with Congress, "could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest."

That is a power wielded only by kings and dictators.
Obama Justice Department Saves Muslim Brotherhood Fronts
Ryan Mauro is reporting that investigative journalist Patrick Poole has broken a blockbuster story about how the Obama Administration’s Justice Department blocked plans to prosecute a co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and others labeled "unindicted co-conspirators" in the Holy Land Foundation trial.  Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has written a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and is requesting answers by April 25.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) were all designated by the federal government as "unindicted co-conspirators" in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood front found guilty of covertly financing Hamas.  A total of 246 organizations and individuals received the label but have yet to face prosecution.  Now, a high-level Justice Department source has informed Patrick Poole that this is because of a decision by the Obama Administration, in what the source called "a political decision from the get-go."  A second Justice Department source substantiated the tip.

A March 31, 2010 report titled "Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad," referring to one of the co-founders of CAIR, was sent from Assistant Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler.  The document claims that Ahmad would not be prosecuted because of fears that jury nullification would result.  The source of the information rejects this and says it is just an excuse to not move forward.

Rep. Peter King has confirmed the story and is now putting Attorney General Eric Holder in the hot seat.  King writes that he has been "reliably informed" that the decision to not prosecute the unindicted co-conspirators "was usurped by high-ranking officials at Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the prosecution at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case."

King requests a reply by April 25 but it is unclear what will follow if the response is unsatisfactory.  David Rusin, the director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, told FrontPage that "if Congress subpoenas Justice Department files on the organizations, incriminating details go public."  Such an investigation would be "a nightmare in the making for groups like CAIR and ISNA, whose very lifeblood has been the ability to camouflage their radicalism with the aid of gullible dupes in government and the press."

The government has expressed certainty that these groups and individuals are part of a Muslim Brotherhood network with the objective of assisting Hamas.  In December 2007, a federal court filing flatly stated, "From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists" and "the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists."

Continue reading here . . .
Most Corrupt  Lawyer In US Says Raid Was Legal
Skookum says the revolution eats its own children partially because so many of them were nothing more than Useful Idiots and they no longer serve a purpose.  Eric Holder will be one of the first to be discarded.

The guy who wants to prosecute a SEAL for slapping a terrorist and put Chaney and Bush in prison for the water boarding that provided the intel for the killing of Bin Laden, says the raid was perfectly legal.  Obama can invade another country and kill a foreign national, steal the body, and abduct family members.  This has now been uncovered in the Constitution and confirmed by our Attorney General Eric Holder.

Obama is granted special privileges with SEAL Team 6 and according to Holder, he but not Bush, can do no wrong.  Oh, for the record, SEAL Team 6, was called Chaney’s Execution Squad during the Bush Administration.

Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful on Tuesday the U.S. operation to go into Pakistan that resulted in the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the taking of his body.

The acts taken were "lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way.  The people who were responsible for that action, both in the decision making and the effecting of that decision, handled themselves I think quite well," Holder told the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like the SEAL guys and all our troops in uniform, but I don’t like hypocritical political behavior.  The only way Obama has a chance of being elected is by following Bush policies and the only way he managed to get elected was to sanctimoniously criticize Bush’s policies.  There is a serious disconnect here.  These Democrats are either stupid or extremely biased and hypocritical in their opinions on war, torture, and prisoners.  All through history, war has been considered a serious business that required tough hard men to fight hard enough to win.  The Democrats seem okay with that, if there is a Democrat in the White house.

Now why is an AG determining our legal status in another country’s sovereignty and declaring assassination as legal all of a sudden, but don’t you dare water board them or you will go to prison.  Who needs the Sunday Funnies, we have the Holder Justice Department.
Eric Holder's Bin Laden Moment
The Wall Street Journal says the moment has come for Eric Holder to end his investigation of the CIA's interrogators of terrorist detainees.

As the whole of America takes a bin Laden victory lap, let us pause to remember some of this celebrated event's most forgotten men, the Central Intelligence Agency officers who sit under the cloud of a criminal investigation begun in 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder into their interrogations of captured terrorists.

That's right, the Americans whose interrogation of al Qaeda operatives put in motion the death of this mass murderer may themselves face prosecution by the country they were trying to protect.

It is time for the Holder CIA investigation to end.  The death of bin Laden 10 years after 9/11 makes the Holder investigation of the CIA interrogators politically, emotionally and morally moot. 

But it lives.

In August 2009, Attorney General Holder announced that he was extending the mandate of Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham into the CIA's so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" of terrorist detainees.  Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey had appointed Durham in 2008 as a special prosecutor to look into the CIA's destruction of videotapes made during interrogations of two al Qaeda operatives.  That investigation ended without charges last November.

Holder decided to push the Durham investigation into a second phase.  "I have concluded," he said "that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations."  Holder wasn't free-lancing; both he and Barack Obama had called waterboarding "torture."

This week the Associated Press reported that the name of bin Laden's courier came from CIA interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi, who received "harsh" interrogation at CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.  On Tuesday, Holder said the information came from a "mosaic of sources."

On June 18 last year, Holder said in a Washington speech that Durham was "close to the end of the time that he needs and will be making recommendations to me."  But nothing has happened.  Asked this week about the status of this investigation, a Justice Department spokesman for Durham, whose office is in Connecticut, said the project is "still ongoing."

Ironically, the CIA's contribution to bin Laden's end may ensure that its people will remain under this cloud.  With Obama elated over the success of his call to take down bin Laden, his poll numbers rising and his re-election campaign insulated from charges of Democratic softness on national security, what are the chances that his attorney general would wash away all that by announcing his intention to indict the men whose work may have sent his boss into Abbottabad, guns blazing? 

It is zero.

Continue reading here . . .
  
Holder should at least give our CIA guys the same consideration he gave his "peeps" in the Black Panthers.
Holder Files Murder Charges To Provide Cover for the Obama Regime
Doug Book says that in December of last year, Border Agent Brian Terry was killed by Mexican gang members in an Arizona border shootout.  Two of the weapons recovered from the scene had been part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF)’s "Project Gunrunner," a federal scheme whereby thousands of firearms were deliberately sold to known straw purchasers for Mexican drug cartels, then assisted across the border by the ATF itself.

On May 4th, Obama regime Attorney General Eric Holder sat before the House Judiciary Committee, evading California Representative Darrell Issa’s questions about the Justice Department’s involvement in ATF’s ultimately deadly Gunrunner scheme:
    

Issa:  How about the head of the Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer.  Did he authorize it?

Holder:  I’m not sure whether Mr. Breuer authorized it.  You have to understand the way in which the Department operates.  Although there are operations, this one has become -- has gotten a great deal of publicity.

Issa:  Yeah, there are dead Americans as a result of this failed and reckless program.  So I would say that it hasn’t gotten enough attention, has it Mr. Attorney General?

    
Later,  after enduring all he could stomach of Holder’s reverence for his own department’s phony investigation of the ATF, Issa finally rebuked the self-important bureaucrat, saying:
    

"We’re not looking at straw buyers, Mr. Attorney General.  We’re looking at you.  We’re looking at your key people…who should have known about this…and whether or not the Justice Department is basically guilty of allowing weapons to kill Americans and Mexicans."

    
Of course, no one who learned his arrogance at the knee of the Crown Prince of Conceit will allow himself to be beaten down with subpoenas or contempt of Congress hearings.  So, Holder has chosen a new tack.  After more than five months of inaction, a 14 count indictment for murder has been filed against Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, a Mexican illegal wounded during the shootout which took the life of Agent Terry.

Is this a sudden act of contrition or piety on the part of the Attorney General?  A bone thrown to Congress, the American people, or Brian Terry’s family?  Hardly.

With the filing of murder charges -- two days after the Issa hearing -- Holder can now claim that any and all Project Gunrunner information subpoenaed by the Issa committee may be withheld as material to the prosecution of Osorio-Arellanes.  Although Holder had ignored requests and demands for information all along, now there would be an excuse.

By the way, two other names are included in the indictment against Osorio-Arellanes, but they will not be made public.  These two were arrested along with the Mexican illegal on the night of Terry’s murder, then deported in February after pleading guilty to minor illegal entry infractions.

Is it possible they were the straw purchasers of the AK-47 used to kill Terry?  Does the regime prefer they be out of the country, rather than spilling their guts on the witness stand about how they were illegally sold weapons by the ATF?  After all, in February, Project Gunrunner had yet to attract the volume of heat and attention focused on it today, so who would notice the sudden "elimination" of two murder suspects, or rather, potential witnesses against the Regime?

The outrage over Project Gunrunner is not going away soon.  It’s anyone’s guess who will be thrown under the White House bus for this one.
Leftist Activists Convince Eric Holder’s DOJ To Set Violent Marxist Free

J. Christian Adams says Attorney General Eric Holder has a peculiar tendency to set loose militant black panthers. Everyone is already familiar with the dismissal of the voter intimidation case I brought as a Justice Department attorney. There, the DOJ dropped claims against Malik Zulu Shabazz, national head of the New Black Panther Party, and Jerry Jackson, a Philadelphia panther and Democratic Party official. But Jackson and Shabazz aren’t the only militants Holder has set loose.
    

Marilyn Buck was a Marxist terrorist who participated in conspiracies that led to the deaths of multiple police officers. Buck helped the Black Liberation Army, a violent Marxist offshoot of the black panthers, acquire weapons and ammunition. She participated in the robbery of an armored car where a guard was murdered. If that wasn’t enough, Buck was also charged with the bombing of the U.S. Senate, Ft. McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Officer’s Club and a New York City federal building. In many states, Buck’s behavior might have led to a midnight reservation in the electric chair.
   
Yet Holder’s DOJ unlocked Buck’s jail cell and set her free last summer. Justice concluded that Buck "expressed a dramatic change from her previous political philosophy." Releasing Buck reflects an alien attitude that has caused the Obama years to be characterized by an ideological disconnect with most Americans.
    

Continue reading here . . .
Portrait Of The Attorney General As A Young Militant

Paul Mirengoff says a while ago, The Daily Caller reported that, as a student at Columbia University, Eric Holder participated in an armed takeover of the University’s former ROTC office. John wrote about this at the time, but I want to expand.

   

According to the Daily Caller, Holder was among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge.” The change, the group insisted, was to be made “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.”

   

This statement shows the separatist nature of the group Holder helped lead. And, indeed, Stefan Bradley, professor of African-American studies at Saint Louis University and author of the 2009 book “Harlem vs. Columbia University,” has described the Columbia organization as separatist.

   

The Daily Caller contacted the Justice Department before running the story about Holder and the takeover. DOJ’s spokesperson spokeswoman has not responded to the question of whether Holder himself was armed, and if so, with what sort of weapon.

   

The Daily Caller’s information comes in part from statements by a friend of Holder at Columbia and in part from Holder himself. The friend, Steve Sims, told GQ magazine that he, Holder, and others “took over the ROTC lounge in Hartley Hall and created the Malcolm X Lounge.” GQ calls Sims “the attorney general’s closest friend” and “a man Holder describes as his ‘consigliere.’”

Holder himself said in a 2009 speech that he and his fellow students decided to “peacefully occupy one of the campus offices.” Presumably, this was the ROTC office.

   

The information that the occupiers were armed comes from a deleted Web page of the Black Students’ Organization (BSO) at Columbia, a successor group to the SAAS. It states: “In 1970, a group of armed black students seized the abandoned ROTC office on the first floor of Hartley Hall.” If this account is correct, then Holder either has forgotten about the arms, pretends there were no arms, or means that the occupation was “peaceful” in the sense that no one was shot.

   

Student takeovers of college buildings were all too common on Ivy League and others campuses during this period. Armed takeovers were not. However, guns were not unheard of when Black students conducted the building takeovers. The most notorious example occurred in 1969 at Cornell. A picture of armed black Cornell students made it into Newsweek Magazine.

It’s ironic that black protesters were the ones who bore arms, for they were the protesters least in need of protection. Ivy League administrators were softer on black protesters than on garden variety anti-war protesters because they feared being accused of racism. This fact is reflected in the Daily Caller article. It notes that Columbia agreed to the demand of Holder and company and never prosecuted those who took over the building and held it for the better part of a week. White anti-war protesters who took over college buildings typically were prosecuted. At Dartmouth, for example, we were sentenced to 30 days in jail.

   

I always assumed that blacks brandished guns in order to promote a certain image, including the notion that they were more serious than bourgeois, white anti-war protesters. It worked. Throughout the Ivy League, black protesters were at the top of the radical pecking order.

   

Forty years later, Holder still seems proud of his militant activity. During a 2009 commencement speech at Columbia, he boasted: “I was among a large group of students who felt strongly about the way we thought the world should be, and we weren’t afraid to make our opinions heard.” He didn’t add that they felt so strongly they violated the law and, it would appear, armed themselves in the process.

   

Nor did Holder tell his audience what, specifically, he and his comrades felt so strongly about. As noted, his outfit — SAAS –favored racial separatism. Additionally, according to Professor Bradley, they actively supported the Black Panthers, who were widely viewed by black campus radicals as role models.

   

Indeed, the Daily Caller reports that in March 1970, the SAAS released a statement supporting twenty-one Black Panthers charged with plotting to blow up department stores, railroad tracks, a police station and the New York Botanical Gardens (what the Botanical Gardens ever did to the Black Panters, I don’t know). And they held a campus rally on March 12, 1970 featuring Afeni Shakur -- one of the Panthers out on bail and the future mother of rapper Tupac Shakur.

   

Among the black Columbia professors who publicly supported Holder and the SAAS during this period was Black history teacher Hollis Lynch. Holder says that Lynch is one of four professors who has “shaped my worldview.”

   

As Attorney General, Holder presided over a Justice Department that declined to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who intimidated white voters (with a club, not guns) outside a Philadelphia polling precinct in 2008. Does part of the “worldview” Holder formed at Columbia consist of the notion that, when it comes to race, you have break some eggs to make an omelet?

   

Finally, as John asked, “did Holder ever abandon his radicalism? If so, when and why? Many people hold goofy or extreme political opinions when they are young, but most grow out of them. Has Holder? Or was the boy-radical who took over campus buildings and offices–the father to the man–the Attorney General who suppressed the voter intimidation prosecution of the New Black Panthers?”

Holder Finally Goes Too Far
  

Click image to follow Holder's role in Operation Fast & Furious
    
 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2013
All right reserved