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 . . .
Holder Has A History
Bill Clinton's former Deputy Attorney General, has been named Attorney General.  Holder was involved in the pardon of Marc Rich, the Democratic donor who had fled the country to avoid prosecution on 51 counts of tax fraud and was not eligible for a pardon under Justice Department guidelines.  Rich's ex-wife, Denise, was a major contributor to Clinton campaigns and to the Clinton library fund -- and probably one of Clinton's bimbos.

Mr. Holder's recommendation to pardon circumvented normal procedures and kept other Justice Department lawyers in the dark.  A congressional committee described his conduct as "unconscionable."

Then there was Holder’s involvement in the Elian Gonzalez case in 2000. It was Holder, for the first time in history, that took a child from his residence at the point of a gun to enforce his custody position, even though he did not have an legal order authorizing it.

Holder denied that Gonzalez was taken at the point of a gun.  When he was confronted with the fact that there was a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun, Holder defended himself, saying "They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively."

 

    
Holder also argued that members of a terrorist organization should get clemency.  He was grilled in Congress after the Clinton Administration pardoned FALN terrorists before leaving office.  This testimony on the Clinton pardons of the 16 FALN terrorists took place in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Chairman Orrin Hatch grilled Holder because the FALN terrorists never even requested clemency...
And, the Clinton Administration never even contacted the victim's families.

Then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and the pardon attorney continued to invoke the president's executive privilege throughout the testimony. (video)

Attorney General Of The United States Of America
Eric Holder's Baffling KSM Decision
David Beamer says that on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to question Attorney General Eric Holder about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in criminal courts rather than military tribunals.  As the father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight 93, I was able to attend that hearing.  What transpired caused me great concern and shook my confidence in Obama's administration.

The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), displayed the division in our country not only visually -- the Democrats were seated on the left and the Republicans on the right -- but in every aspect of the proceedings.  I expected that some members would agree with Mr. Holder and that others would have challenging questions about his decision.  What I did not anticipate was the level of partisanship showed by the Democrats.  It seemed clear to me and other family members of victims that party loyalty is trumping concern for America's security interests.

In his opening remarks, Attorney General Holder acknowledged that these defendants could have been brought to trial in civilian court or before military tribunals.  But he made the argument that trying them in our criminal courts would restore the integrity of our judicial system.  He assured us that the trials would be quick, that the safety of New Yorkers would be paramount, that classified information would not be revealed, that the evidence was overwhelming, and that justice would be served.
    

    
Then he said that the USS Cole attackers would be tried in military courts since they attacked our military.  So how does Mr. Holder categorize the Pentagon?  Inexplicably, he offered up the body count of 9/11, the fact that civilian deaths outnumbered military ones, as a rationale for his decision.

Then the Republican members proceeded to ask Mr. Holder thoughtful questions.  Some examples:

How can we be assured that these enemies will be found guilty?  Given that criminal courts are now the presumed venue for those captured on the battlefield, will soldiers need to read them their rights at the time of capture?  Since you wish to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis to the presumed civil venue, don't all those captured need to be read their rights and have the opportunity to remain silent?  Won't this venue expose intelligence to our enemies?  Can our classified information really be secured?  Can we in fact predict how the judge will rule?  If these people are brought into the country will they get additional rights under immigration law?  What if they claim asylum?

The attorney general seemed bewildered in the face of these inquiries.  Recurring themes in his responses included, "I think," and "I can't imagine," and "I am not an expert in immigration."

Has our attorney general not considered these issues, or imagined the possible unintended consequences that will arise from his historic decision?  It certainly seemed that way.  If he had, he would have had better answers.

Continue reading here . . .

Holder assures us that the trials will be quick, and that the safety of New Yorkers would be paramount.  However, NY's slimy Sen. Schumer surely doesn't believe it.  He wants $100 million to cover the costs of the trail and security.


And, anybody that believes this decision, to provide KSM with all the rights and protections of an American citizen, was made by Eric Holder has their head up their address.

Obama's fingerprints are all over this.  He's just doing what he said he would do for a brother, "I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Did U.S. Attorney General Secretly Counsel Land?

The affidavit of Mr. Robert D. Douglas, dated Sept. 26, sworn before Mr. Lamar Rozier, notary public in the state of Georgia, Bacon County, submitted in support of Attorney Orly Taitz’s latest Motion of Recusal against Judge Clay D. Land.

His affidavit reads as follows:

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary, Lamar Rozier

on this 26th day of September, 2009, personally appeared Robert D. Douglas, known to me to be a credible person and of lawful age, who being by me first duly shown on his oath deposes and says:

On the day of he hearing for Major Stephan Cook before Federal Judge Clay D. Land, Columbus, Ga., my wife, my wife’s sister, her husband and I had entered the little coffee shop directly across from the Court House while waiting for the doors to open to the public.  I was sitting in the small seating area, set aside for their customers, while facing and looking directly at the entrance to the shop. All persons entering had to pass withing 8-10 feet from where I was sitting.

I looked up and immediately recognized an individual entering and approaching the serving counter, due to his well known TV displayed distinguishing features: his trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion.  I knew instantly it was non other than Eric Holder, the current Attorney General of the United States.  I called this to the attention of those present and all agreed it appeared to be who I readily recognized.  He entered unguarded, no accompanying entourage and probably thought he would not be recognized.

Red flags went up immediately in my mind and the questions remain, as yet.  Why does the Attorney General of the United States need to be present in an obscure hearing well of his beaten path?  Could it possible be, since Holder did not present himself in open court, he may have had a little "whisper in the ear" to a Federal Judge in order to bias his judicial vision and adhere to the President’s agenda of obstruction?

Only Judge Clay D. Land can answer those question.

Robert D. Douglas

[address redacted]

  
Holder’s presence is not that unbelievable, because quite contrary to the logic of their position Obama supporters have consistently shown irrational passion to defend Obama from what they claim are ridiculous charges.

Update 10/04/2009 -- 6:30 PM EDST:

Indeed, the lengths Obama’s supporters will go to deny the facts, can be seen from one comment at The Right Side of Life, where it is claimed that this affidavit, transcribed above, has not been submitted as evidence on Judge Land’s Docket. Also in the comment section of TRSOL article, there is a link to Holder’s schedule for the day, which leaves a seemingly 18 hour window between 9PM July 15th, and 3 PM, July 16th, Eastern Daylight Savings Time.
Eric Holder Meets With CAIR

Debbie Schlussel says Politico’s Josh Gerstein posted a "scoop" -- which wasn’t a scoop at all, since she broke the story seven and nine months ago.  And, of course, Politico’s partner in promotion and denying proper credit where it’s due, Matt Drudge, followed suit linking to the unoriginal piece.

 

The story was ostensibly about Attorney General Eric Holder speaking to a group of left-wing interest groups, including CAIR, but it was mostly about how the group regularly meets with the FBI, including CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid (DS exclusive reporting: real name, Delano Anthony Willis, Jr., who has quite a rap sheet).  This, as the story notes, violates the FBI claim they won’t meet with the extremist CAIR -– the Council on American Islamic Relations.  But, hello . . ., I reported months ago that they were still meeting with each other and that the embargo/boycott/ban was bogus.   Phony.   A lie.   A fraud.  Fiction.

 

The FBI is still meeting with CAIR.  CAIR-Michigan was still meeting with the FBI as part of a larger "dialog" group of Arabs and Muslims.

Is Holder Stonewalling New Black Panther Inquiry?
Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Va.), a Philadelphia native, and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Lamar Smith (R-Texas) sent a letter, on November 10, to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting information about the Justice Department’s inquiry into the sudden and unusual dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.

The congressmen are concerned that the Justice Department (DOJ) is using the investigation as a means to continue stonewalling Congress in this matter.  It has been three months since DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility initiated an investigation at the request of Smith and Wolf.

Yet, despite repeated requests made during the past three months DOJ has not provided Congress with a clear explanation for why the Civil Rights Division dismissed the complaint.

According to Messrs. Smith and Wolf, "Congress and the American people must have confidence that the Department’s Voting Rights Act enforcement is free of improper political motives … it is important for Congress, in furtherance of its oversight obligations, to receive answers before the end of this year -- before we enter a political season" so that voters can be assured that voter intimidation will not be tolerated.

Justice Department attorneys filed charges in January against three individuals and the New Black Panther Party for allegedly threatening voters at a poll in Philadelphia during last November’s presidential election.  The Justice Department effectively won the case when the defendants declined to appear before the court and challenge the charges.

Yet, when the Obama administration took control of the Justice Department, the case against the Democratic Party’s political ally was suddenly dropped.  There were no new facts or evidence to justify the decision.  The impression that politics played a role in the decision has been a source of concern for Rep. Wolf who has been a strident defender of voting rights.

Not only has Congress made unanswered inquiries into this matter, so too has the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.  The Commission’s chairman, Gerald Reynolds, sent a letter on September 30 to Mr. Holder saying the responses were "overdue" and asking for "Department officials to fully cooperate" with the Commission’s investigation as required by federal law.

Mr. Reynolds noted that the Commission still has not received any of the documents they requested in their initial June inquiries.  He said this information is needed because the Commission is responsible to investigate voting rights deprivations and evaluate federal enforcement of federal voting rights laws.  They want to form an independent opinion about DOJ’s enforcement actions and the potential impact on future voter intimidation enforcement.  It may also try "to determine whether any decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper influences."

As of this date, neither members of Congress nor members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission have called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate the matter.
ACORN and Justice Department Plot Thickens
Following the courageous expose by two young investigative journalists released on the pages of this very blog, there were widespread calls for a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the criminal enterprise that is ACORN.  One would think there would be swift, decisive action from the administration that promised to be the most transparent in history.  Despite the urging of some in congress and action on the regional level, and an internal investigation into funding, terrorist sympathizer U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee a criminal investigation of ACORN.  There’s no evidence that any internal investigation is ongoing or making any progress since a 2008 request from Indiana’s Secretary of State.  Instead, Obama’s political arm is attempting to dismiss it as a "fear campaign" while ACORN insinuates that it is racist.  Yes, they are still playing that card.

What’s Holder’s hold-up?  One major factor of course is that ACORN serves as a taxpayer-funded Democrat army.  As with unions, it behooves Democrats to ignore corruption amongst the ranks of the powerful forces that elect them. What appears on the surface to be mere political payback for a job well done is in fact much more insidious.  One family’s involvement with ACORN and the Obama administration is of particular interest and elucidates the complicated web of connections and cash behind ACORN and Obama.

 

Meet the Ratners here . . .

 

Meanwhile, ACORN is suing the federal government, saying that Congress violated the U.S. Constitution when it barred the group from receiving federal funds -- only in America!

Cover-Up At The Obama-Holder Justice Department
Paul Mirengoff directs us to this Washington Times editorial that updates the growing scandal at the Obama-Holder Justice Department over the New Black Panther case.  As the Times reminds us, that case involves paramilitary-garbed Panthers caught on videotape engaged in intimidating activities outside a Philadelphia polling booth on Election Day 2008.  A judge was ready to enter a default judgment against the Black Panthers, based on a case brought by career Justice Department attorneys, but the Obama administration decided last spring to drop three of the four cases and punish the final one with only a weak injunction.

Now the Justice Department is attempting to cover its tracks on this matter.  Thus, last week it ordered two key career attorneys not to comply with a subpoena about the case issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.  The Commission has the power to issue subpoenas, and the law requires that "all federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the Commission."  The Justice Department, however, is citing its own regulations as a basis for ignoring the subpoena.

The career DOJ attorneys are caught in the middle.  According to the Times, one of them has been advised by his personal attorney that failure to comply with the subpoena could put him at risk of prosecution, although presumably not during the tenure of the Obama administration.

In addition, congressional Republicans are accusing Thomas Perez, head of the Civil Rights Division, of not telling the truth while under oath.  Perez testified before Congress that, in the case of the one New Black Panther thug against whom charges were not dropped, "the maximum penalty was sought and obtained."  That penalty, says the Times, consisted of an injunction barring him from brandishing a weapon near a polling place, within Philadelphia, through Nov. 15, 2012.

It's difficult to imagine that this was the maximum penalty available, and the Times maintains that it was not.  First, the injunction could have been broader geographically and could have run for a longer period of time.  Second, if DOJ had sought a criminal indictment, Title 18, Section 245 of the U.S. Code provides that those found guilty of voter intimidation "shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

The more the Obama-Holder Justice Department covers up and dissembles, the more traction this story is likely to get.  And the chances are not inconsiderable that Republicans will obtain congressional subpoena power at some not too distant point in the future.  But perhaps the truth is sufficiently damaging that merely delaying it from being revealed is well worth the price.

The brothers are all sticking together on this one.  Malik Shabazz, the racist leader of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, defended Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and a decision by the Justice Department to drop a voter intimidation suit against the group.
The Dove That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Scott at Powerline blog has a comment, or two, on Chris Wallace's interview of Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan on FOX News Sunday this morning.  The interview transcript will be posted on RealClearPolitics this afternoon. At the moment I'm writing from memory.

 

In the middle of the interview Wallace asked Brennan why the administration was treating Nigerian terrorist bomber Umar Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant rather than an enemy combatant.  Wallace referred to the fact that Abdulmuttalab had reportedly been cooperating with authorities until he obtained a lawyer.

 

Brennan declined to challenge the premise of the question, but he talked a bit around the question.  He stated that Abdulmutallab was apprehended in Detroit.  He referred to the treatment of Richard Reid and others by the Bush administration as criminal defendants.  He asserted that Abdulmutallab might start talking at a later date when it may serve his interest in the criminal process.  He emphasized that the determination regarding Abdulmutallab's treatment was made by the Department of Justice.

 

Eureka!  The DoJ determination takes us back to the administration's treatment of Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a criminal defendant.  No reason of law or justice, history or tradition, supports the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. in federal court.  Indeed, as Thomas Sowell observed, it is something of an obscenity.

 

Cloaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. with the constitutional protections afforded American citizens comes at a steep price.  In the case of Omar Abdulmutallab the cost is foregone intelligence regarding the planning of future attacks on American citizens.

 

Why is the Obama administration paying the price?  In his interview with Wallace, Brennan simply stated and reiterated the conclusion.  Missing is any statement of the rationale that supports the conclusion.  The Obama administration is stalwart in its refusal to articulate the rationale supporting the treatment of particular perpetrators as criminal defendants rather than enemy combatants.

 

Attorney General Holder's announcement of the "forum decisions for 10 Guantanamo Bay detainees" likewise lacked the statement of a rationale. Addressing KSM et al., here is what Holder said:

 

I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years.  The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures....

[M]y decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed and that was announced in July.  Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors -- including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated -- that must be considered.  In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee.

 

In his announcement Holder never got around to articulating the rationale or applying it to the cases.  He left the rationale unstated.  It is, you might say, the dove that dare not speak its name.

 

At the conclusion of his announcement Holder stated:  "For over two hundred years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice and provide accountability to victims."

 

But the United States has never tried enemy leaders responsible for acts of war in civilian courts. Never before in American history has the United States brought its martial enemies to trial in a civilian court and cloaked them with the protections of the United States Constitution. Someone in a position to do so really ought to question responsible administration officials such as Holder and Brennan in a forum designed to secure a full statement of reasons accounting for the administration's actions.

 

Brennan, who estimated Al-Qaeda had several hundred members in Yemen, also said, "indications [are] al-Qaida is planning to carry out an attack against a target" in the capital, possibly the embassy, so the U.S. and Britain bravely locked up their embassies in Yemen on Sunday -- at least they won't be able to issue any visas for jihadists.

However, Brennan doesn't consider Yemen a second front with Afghanistan and Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, and when asked if U.S. troops might be sent to Yemen, he said, "We're not talking about that at this point at all."  However, he pledged to provide the Yemeni government with "the wherewithal" to take down al-Qaida.

 

Brennan's statement, "He emphasized that the determination regarding Abdulmutallab's treatment was made by the Department of Justice," is a lie.  The AG can't order the Secretary of Defense to do anything.  They are peers.  Obama made the decision, and everyone knows it.

 

When Holder said, "In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee," it was clear to both men that Obama had given Holder the Authority to make those decisions.

 

And the fact that the Attorney General of the United States of America has declared illegal combatants, terrorist, as "criminals" is insane.

 

Do you know why John Brennan is Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser?  Brennan is the guy who sanitized Obama's passport file.

Voter Intimidation Case To Judiciary Committee
The Bulletin (Philadelphia) is reporting that Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) continues to try get answers from the Obama Justice Department about a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia.  The incident which occurred during the 2008 presidential election was summarily dismissed by Eric Holder's office.  He has stonewalled efforts to learn why ever since.

Mr. Wolf took his case to the House Judiciary Committee.  He has introduced a measure that would require the committee to deal with the issue.

He also announced that he had language inserted in the annual spending bill that funds the Justice Department requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility provide the results of the investigation it is conducting surrounding the dismissal the case to the House Appropriations Committee.  Mr. Wolf, the top Republican on the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, requested the investigation earlier this year.

Mr. Wolf introduced a Resolution of Inquiry last Wednesday and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Under House rules, committees must take action on resolutions of inquiry within 14 legislative days.  Wolf’s resolution directs the U.S. attorney general to provide Congress will "all information" relating to the decision to dismiss the case.  The committee must vote the resolution up or down.

Despite writing six requests to the attorney general six times Wolf has yet to receive a response.  He also has written DOJ’s inspector general seeking answers.
    
    
Holder has also ignored repeated inquiries from the U.S Civil Rights Commission.  The Commission's Chairman is outraged by Holder's actions.

Mr. Wolf's said that he did not want to take such a drastic measure.  However he was forced to do so since Attorney General Holder is flouting the law.

"I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case," Mr. Wolf said in a written statement, "but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted....  This House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general’s obstruction.  He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission.  It is imperative that we protect the right of all Americans to vote -- the sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy."

Justice Department attorneys filed charges in January 2009 against three members of the New Black Panther Party for allegedly threatening voters (video) at a poll in Philadelphia during last November’s presidential election.  The Justice Department effectively won the case when the defendants declined to appear before the court and challenge the charges.

Yet, when the Obama administration took control of the Justice Department (DOJ), the case was suddenly dropped against two of the three members after they already received a judgment against all three.  According to those familiar with the case there were no new facts or evidence to justify the decision.  The impression that politics played a role in the decision has been a source of concern for Rep. Wolf who has been a strident defender of voting rights.

This is an outrageous case.  Obama and Holder have been running interference for the brothers since January 21, 2009.

From the Washington Times:  The Justice Department told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to drop dead yesterday. The growing controversy is over a voter-intimidation case involving the radical New Black Panther Party and why Justice is carrying water for the villains.  The department's intransigence should frighten Congress because Justice is asserting broad privileges that undermine congressional authority to oversee government's executive branch. 

The Justice Department is out of control.  If this power grab doesn't trigger a congressional investigation, Congress is admitting it is no more than a body of lapdogs, fetching slippers for their executive masters.
-- more.
Crotch-Bomber Not Interrogated
Flopping Aces reports that the Obama Administration did not interrogate the Crotch Bomber for intelligence to stop future attacks -- the attack was treated nearly entirely as a criminal matter!

Shocking information came from Wednesday’s Senate hearings with the Administration’s top intelligence and homeland security officials. At the top of that list was the admission that Nigerian would be bomber Abdulmutallab had been interrogated with an eye towards criminal prosecution by local FBI officials.  He was not interrogated by intelligence specialists with an eye towards collecting key information that could prevent future attacks.  And after Abdulmutallab was given his Miranda rights, he stopped talking altogether.

Just who it was at the Dept. of Justice who made these decisions is not clear.  Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) has demanded answers but none have been forthcoming.  At Wednesday’s hearing Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael E. Leiter and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told lawmakers that they were not consulted about the charging decision.

Late breaking news from the White House briefing by Robert Gibbs fingers Attorney General Eric Holder as the culprit in deciding that the Crotch Bomber would be treated as a criminal and not as a terrorist.

It was also learned that a special unit to interrogate prisoners for intelligence value which Obama promised in his first days in office would replace the CIA’s program of enhanced interrogations is not even operational and was not used.

Continue reading here . . .
Tough Questions
Byron York says it seems like a pretty simple question.  Who made the decision to charge Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused terrorist arrested for trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Day, as an everyday criminal, as opposed to an enemy combatant?

After all, Abdulmutallab was trained by al Qaeda, equipped with an al Qaeda-made bomb, and dispatched by al Qaeda to bring down the airliner and its 278 passengers.  Even though the Obama administration has mostly abandoned the term "war on terror," Obama said clearly that the United States is at war with al Qaeda.  So who decided to treat Abdulmutallab as a civilian, read him the Miranda warning, and provide him with a government-paid lawyer -- giving him the right to remain silent and denying the United States potentially valuable intelligence that might have been gained by a military-style interrogation?

This week that simple question -- Who? -- became more complicated after several of the administration's top anti-terrorism officials testified on Capitol Hill.  The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, said he wasn't consulted before the decision was made.  The director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, said he wasn't consulted, either.  The secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, said she wasn't consulted.  And the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, said he wasn't consulted.

So, who made the decision?

Continue reading here . . .
Obama’s Attorney General -- For Now
Jennifer Rubin says Eric Holder is botching the war on terror.

Attorney General Eric Holder has been the Obama administration’s point man in revising the nation’s approach to terrorism.  Holder said last summer that it was his decision to reinvestigate CIA operatives who had employed enhanced interrogation techniques during the Bush administration, although these individuals had been cleared by the Justice Department’s career prosecutors.  It was Holder’s call, Obama said, to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in a New York courtroom rather than before a military tribunal.  And Holder, in a letter this past week, took responsibility for the decision to mirandize the Crotch Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and classify him as an ordinary criminal defendant rather than an enemy combatant.

There is doubt whether Holder was acting independently in all these critical decisions, and whether the White House would not, at the very least, have weighed in.  Either way, Holder has become the Obama’s Achilles' heel, a lightning rod for critics and a headache for supporters.

Defending his KSM decision, Holder appeared ill-prepared in Senate testimony last November.  A fumbling attorney general was stumped by Senator Lindsey Graham’s questions probing what other enemy combatant seized on foreign soil had been tried in federal court.  The answer, after a painful pause, was supplied by Graham:  There has never been one.  Nor did Holder rule out Mirandizing Osama bin Laden if he were captured.

It is not merely poor preparation that has plagued the nation’s top law enforcement figure.  As New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, and a bipartisan parade of senators came forward objecting to KSM’s trial in Manhattan, it became evident Holder had failed to consult with city officials before announcing the decision.  New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly revealed, "There was no consultation...with the police department.  That decision was made.  We were informed.  Mayor Bloomberg then blasted away:  "It would be great if the federal government could find a site that didn’t cost a billion dollars...  It’s going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people... Yeah, and I mean -- the suggestion of a military base is probably a reasonably good one."  Some 18 senators then joined in proposing legislation to block a civilian trial.

Holder, in short, utterly failed to build support for what he bragged would be the "trial of the century."  Even liberal pundits were left sputtering that Holder had botched what was to be the showcase for the criminal justice approach to fighting terrorism.

Holder is now on the hot seat for his decision to mirandize Abdulmutallab, indict him in federal court, and permit him to remain silent for weeks.

Continue reading here . . .

I have repeatedly opined that the decision was made by Obama, since Holder and Defense Secretary Gates are peers, and neither one can give the other directives.  The following item has a segment that, to my mind, clearly indicates Obama is making these decisions.
Holder Admits DoJ Officials Worked For Terrorists
Byron York says Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department.  But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported.  And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Holder's admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed last November by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley.  Noting that one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden's driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee, "the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department."

In his response, Holder has given Grassley almost nothing.  He says nine Obama political appointees at the Justice Department have advocated on behalf of detainees, but did not identify any of the nine other than the two, Katyal and Daskal, whose names Grassley already knew.  "To the best of our knowledge," Holder writes,
    

...during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.

    
Holder says other Obama appointees, like Holder himself, came from law firms which represented detainees but did no work on behalf of the terrorist prisoners.  But other than Katyal and Daskal, Holder does not reveal any names of any Obama appointees, nor does he mention the cases they worked on.

And what are they recused from, anyway?  Very little.  Holder writes that Katyal has not worked on any Guantanamo detainee matters but has participated in litigation involving detainees who continue to be detained at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan and in litigation involving [Ali Saleh Kahlah] al-Marri, who was detained on U.S. soil."  As for Daskal, "she has generally worked on policy issues related to detainees," Holder writes.  "Her detainee-related work has been fully consistent with advice she received from career department officials regarding her obligations."

As for everyone else, Holder lists no names and no cases, but in a paragraph filled with modifiers, he makes it clear that all the lawyers who had advocated for detainees are free to work on general detainee matters.
    

The senior Department officials referenced above, like other political appointees who are similarly situated, have recused from particular matters regarding specific detainees in which their former firms represent the detainee or another party and from decisions relating specifically to the dispositions of particular detainees represented by their former firms.  These recusals pertain to decisions relating to particular matters involving specific parties who are or have been represented by their former law firms within the relevant time period.  However, as noted above, these senior officials have been authorized to participate in policy and legal decisions regarding detainee matters, in particular matters regarding specific detainees whom their prior employer did not represent, and in decisions relating to the disposition of such detainees.

    
Finally, it is possible that there are more than nine political appointees who worked for detainees.  Holder tells Grassley that he did not survey the Justice Department as a whole but instead canvassed several large offices within the organization.

Bottom line: Holder revealed no names beyond the two already publicly known.  He revealed no cases from which Justice political appointees recused themselves.  The letter, which will likely be interpreted on Capitol Hill as a thumb-your-nose statement, is sure to anger Republican senators more than satisfy them.
    
We know that Obama has DoJ attorneys illegally defending him against the reasonable inquiries of the American People -- now we find out Holder's attorneys are representing terrorists -- this is some administration.
DOJ:  Department Of Jihad
Investors.com says the Justice Department employs nine lawyers previously involved in the defense of terrorist detainees.  This is a colossal conflict of interest.  Just whose side are they on?

From the dropping of a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party to the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed in a civilian court within blocks of where the World Trade Center once stood, the actions and attitudes of the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder toward the thugs and terrorists who threaten us has grown curiouser and curiouser.

We may now have a clue as to why.  Last November, Sen. Charles Grassley, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the Justice Department how many of its lawyers had defended terrorist detainees over whom the department holds sway.

Grassley knew from earlier press reports of two such lawyers who worked on behalf of detainees at the liberal organization Human Rights Watch.  He wanted to know how many more there were.  Last Friday, Holder answered nine.

"To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees," Holder said in a letter dated Feb. 18.  "Four others contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees."

So the decision to Mirandize the Crotch Bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, and to quickly get him lawyered up was made by a department populated by leftist lawyers who believe terror is a law enforcement matter and who have tried to get off those actively trying to kill us.

We still have no official answer to what the Justice Department would do if Osama bin Laden were captured.

"It's like they're bringing al-Qaida lawyers inside the Department of Justice," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the plane driven by terrorists into the Pentagon, following KSM's plan.

We still have not been told all the lawyers' names.  Like the detainees they represented, presumably they have the right to remain silent.  So much for transparency.

Lawyers in private practice are free to choose their clients and their reasons for defending them.  But these lawyers are in the employ of the American people and have the task of prosecuting those who try to kill them.  Some chose to defend enemies who are making war on America.  We have a right to know who they are, who their clients were and why they defended them.
Another Far Left Nut
Jim Hoft says Eric Holder has hired another far left nut.

Jennifer Daskal (photo) is a radical far left American lawyer who serves as senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, and focuses on issues of terrorism, criminal law and immigration.  She is also currently a political hire at Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, which is seeking to prosecute terror suspects through the criminal justice system instead of through military tribunals.

In 2008, Daskal claimed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was tortured and recommended that his guilty plea be thrown out of court.  Now this radical is working for the Obama Administration, in the Justice department, of all places -- it figures.

Human Rights Watch reported:
    

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others announced that they plan to plead guilty to conspiring in the September 11 attacks and related crimes at a hearing before US military commissions at Guantanamo today. All five defendants face the death penalty.

"What should have been a major victory in holding the 9/11 defendants accountable for terrible crimes has been tainted by torture and an unfair military commissions process," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.  "These five men are known to have been mistreated and tortured during their years in CIA custody, including the acknowledged waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."

Prior to their transfer to the US military detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay in 2006, all five defendants were held for years in secret CIA detention.  Earlier this year, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden acknowledged that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been subjected to "waterboarding" -- a form of mock drowning that has been prosecuted as torture by the United States for more than 100 years.  Other defendants are believed to have been subjected to other abusive interrogation methods such as extended sleep deprivation, the use of painful stress positions, and forced nudity, while in CIA custody.

Under the rules of the military commissions, a judge cannot accept a guilty plea unless he determines that the plea is voluntary and free of coercion.

    
Of course, the fact that such a twisted radical is serving in the Holder Justice Department, surprises no one.

More -- at least 9 Holder Justice officials have previously represented terrorists.
This Guy Won't Last Long


      
A Third Former DOJ Official Steps Forward To Support Adams
Pajamas Media says several former Department of Justice (DOJ) employees have been in contact with Pajamas Media, interested in publicly supporting J. Christian Adams as he comes forward about the DOJ’s failure to enforce the country’s laws from a race-neutral perspective.

These former DOJ employees have expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance, and outstanding record of enforcing the law without racial bias.

Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ, and offer their own accounts of the DOJ’s hostility to race-neutral law enforcement.

Click here to read the statements (Updates) of Mark Corallo, former Department of Justice Director of Public Affairs, and Robert Driscoll, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Department Of Justice Is Corrupt
The Washington Times reports the Justice Department’s decision to file the lawsuit against Arizona comes on the heels of the re-emergence of accusations that the department’s handling of the Philadelphia Black Panther voter intimidation case was not prosecuted due to the racial politics at DoJ, according to a former lawyer at the Department who testified in front of the Civil Rights Commission on Tuesday.

While the government’s case against Arizona does not include issues regarding racial profiling, it appears some at DoJ, who worked on the Black Panther case, will now be working on Arizona immigration law case.

"As I was reading through the complaint of the Arizona case, I did notice some of the names were the same.  The interesting thing here is that you have the Justice Department within a short period of time dropping a slam-dunk lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party…and bringing a nearly impossible claim against the state of Arizona," explained Mr. Kobach.

"So they drop the slam-dunk, and they’re attempting the half-court shot.  What’s going on here?  In both cases, if you’re going to bring one of the cases, you’re going to bring the Black Panther case, but they have already conceded defeat," he said.

Mr. Kobach finds it hard to believe that the government, in the Arizona case, is bringing a case where there is "not a single precedent in all the federal appellate court opinions or Supreme Court opinions that support" the case.  "So, they’re doing the legally unwise thing in both instances -- the legally questionable thing."

The government’s odd behavior in the legal process does make the co-author of Arizona’s law suspicious, though, if there is something more political going on at DoJ than what is being admitted to.

"That tells me there are some very perverse political forces at work either within the Justice Department, or in the White House forcing the Justice Department to do this, and I don’t know which it is, but its really troubling."

RelatedThe Obama Justice Department stands accused in the Black Panther case -- racism rules.

We're in terrible trouble when the Justice Department becomes so blatantly political.
"Never Bring Another Lawsuit Against a Black"
    

Obama Appointee, "Never bring another lawsuit against a black"  (08:34)  YouTube link
     
Bob Parks says that not only does Todd Gaziano (Congressional appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights) claim that the 2008 Election Day voter intimidation charge against the Philadelphia New Black Panther Party was "open and shut," but that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes ordered, "Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do."

Like the Van Jones story, the ACORN story, and the Charlie Bolden/Muslim outreach story, this is another example of stories the ObamaMedia doesn’t want you to know about.  And why not?

They don’t fit the narrative.

This video is longer than most, and contains a couple of previously-seen snippets, but it is a killer, must-see video.  The charges made in this video will bring down Holder if proven.

Related:
  Black Panther who threatened Philly voters is a credentialed Democratic poll watcher and his interests include "Killing Crakkkas."
Deliberate Nonfeasance At Justice
John Steele Gordon says if this article is even half true, it should be a major scandal and pretty much proof positive that the Obama Justice Department is totally politicized.

The so-called Motor Voter Law of 1993 (a time when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency) requires states to provide voter registration materials at many state offices, such as state departments of motor vehicles and welfare offices.  Also, it requires the states to purge their voter rolls of the dead, felons, people who have moved, and others not eligible to vote.

According to J. Christopher Adams, who recently resigned from the DOJ and has been testifying in front of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission -- which the department had forbidden him to do when he was an employee, despite a subpoena -- the Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes told the Voting Rights Section at a meeting that, "We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law.  It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."

Nothing equivocal about that.  Indeed, it’s a plain and simple statement that the Obama Justice Department intends to commit nonfeasance regarding the enforcement of this provision of a duly enacted law.  But that, of course, puts Ms. Fernandes and her boss, Eric Holder, in flat violation of their oaths of office:
    

I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.

    
Enforcing the law is, perhaps, the prime duty of the Department of Justice.

The only reason I can think of why the DOJ would not want to purge the voter rolls of the names of those ineligible to vote is to make voter fraud as easy to accomplish as possible.

Chicago politics indeed.
Deliberate Nonfeasance At Justice
John Steele Gordon says if this article is even half true, it should be a major scandal and pretty much proof positive that the Obama Justice Department is totally politicized.

The so-called Motor Voter Law of 1993 (a time when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency) requires states to provide voter registration materials at many state offices, such as state departments of motor vehicles and welfare offices.  Also, it requires the states to purge their voter rolls of the dead, felons, people who have moved, and others not eligible to vote.

According to J. Christopher Adams, who recently resigned from the DOJ and has been testifying in front of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission -- which the department had forbidden him to do when he was an employee, despite a subpoena -- the Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes told the Voting Rights Section at a meeting that, "We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law.  It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."

Nothing equivocal about that.  Indeed, it’s a plain and simple statement that the Obama Justice Department intends to commit nonfeasance regarding the enforcement of this provision of a duly enacted law.  But that, of course, puts Ms. Fernandes and her boss, Eric Holder, in flat violation of their oaths of office:
    

I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.

    
Enforcing the law is, perhaps, the prime duty of the Department of Justice.

The only reason I can think of why the DOJ would not want to purge the voter rolls of the names of those ineligible to vote is to make voter fraud as easy to accomplish as possible.

Chicago politics indeed.
Justice Announces Investigation
Mike Levine is reporting that the Justice Department's internal watchdog is launching an investigation into the Justice Department's enforcement of civil rights laws, eliciting praise from Republicans on Capitol Hill who have been blasting the Justice Department for months over a controversial voting rights case.

For more than a year, Republicans and others have been questioning why the Obama administration reversed course on a federal lawsuit against two members of the New Black Panther Party, who were videotaped outside a Philadelphia polling station on Election Day 2008.  The two were dressed in military-style uniforms, and one was holding a nightstick.  The issue escalated in June when a former Justice Department attorney, J. Christian Adams, alleged it was all part of an Obama administration policy to avoid prosecuting minorities, an allegation the Justice Department has strongly denied.

On Monday, the Justice Department's Inspector General said his office does not have legal authority or jurisdiction to investigate the handling of the New Black Panther Party case specifically, but it does have authority to look "more broadly [at] the overall enforcement of civil rights laws by the Voting Section," including "information about cases such as the New Black Panther Party matter and others."

"This review will examine, among other issues, the types of cases brought by the Voting Section and any changes in these types of cases over time; any changes in Voting Section enforcement policies or procedures over time; 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 of prosecution of particular matters," Inspector General Glenn Fine wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar, R-Tex., and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., two outspoken critics of the Justice Department's handling of the New Black Panther Party case.  "We believe that our review of these issues will address many of the issues raised in your recent letters to me."

In response, Smith issued a statement saying he was "pleased" to learn that Justice Department investigators will be looking into the issue.

"Recent allegations of politicization within the Justice Department raise serious concerns," he said.  "In order to preserve equality under the law, we must ensure that the Justice Department enforces the law without prejudice.  I look forward to seeing the results of Inspector General Fine’s review of this matter."

In his letter, Fine emphasized that his office's unwillingness to look into the New Black Panther Party case is motivated solely by the law, not "by any hesitancy to investigate the Department's senior political leadership."  In addition, Fine noted that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which does have authority to investigate such a case, is "near the end" of its investigation into the New Black Panther Party case.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, led by a conservative majority, has also been investigating the case.

Continue reading here . . .
No Black Hole For Black Panthers
The Washington Times says Attorney General Holder can't hide testimony forever.

The Obama Justice Department can put an end to the scandal surrounding the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case.  All Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. would have to do is allow members of his Voting Rights Section to answer a few simple questions under oath, without waiving a single legal privilege.

On Friday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights approved two letters to Mr. Holder.  Both ask, again, for more cooperation than the Justice Department has provided for 16 months.  The commission is seeking information about an alleged "broad culture of hostility to race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws; a pattern of harassment and intimidation against those who work on suits in which the defendants are racial minorities; and instructions from a political appointee that basic voting rights laws will not be enforced against racial minorities during this administration."

On the Black Panther case, the department has made stunningly expansive claims that a "deliberative process" privilege obviates the need for a transparent administration, but "instructions from a political appointee" carry no such privilege.  They don't involve discussions about how and whether to prosecute specific cases but instead pertain to broad policy pronouncements.  No valid legal argument could claim such policy choices are exempt from disclosure to an independent commission, Congress or the public.

Respected Justice lawyers J. Christian Adams (now in private practice) and Christopher Coates testified under oath that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes told employees of the Voting Rights Section that the department would not enforce certain portions of voting laws.  Mr. Coates said Ms. Fernandes told staff in September 2009, "the Obama administration was only interested in bringing traditional types of [Voting Rights Act] Section 2 cases" -- meaning only those that protected minorities, not ones that protect whites.

According to Mr. Coates and Mr. Adams, Ms. Fernandes told staffers at a November 2009 lunch meeting, "the Obama administration was not interested" in enforcing the part of the national "Motor Voter" law requiring states to remove the names of dead people and felons from their voting rolls.  Mr. Coates further testified that when he wrote a memo recommending the department act against eight states for failure to abide by this law, the Holder team ignored it.  To this day, Justice has taken no public action against these states.

This controversy is about the integrity of the voting process, which is the heart of our constitutional republic.  Mr. Holder would serve the public interest by permitting Ms. Fernandes to testify under oath and clear her name, if she has been slandered.  Allowing testimony from other lawyers present at those meetings could help clear up any misunderstanding about the policies the Obama administration is pursuing.  If the attorney general continues to stonewall transparency, it looks like he's hiding something.
Obama Administration Backs Disputed Mosque Expansion
Jerry Seper is reporting that the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division Tuesday came out in support of the construction and expansion of an Islamic mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn., that local landowners and others have bitterly opposed.

A "friend of the court" brief was filed in a pending lawsuit in state court against Rutherford County, Tenn.  The county had granted permission for the construction of the $5 million mosque on a 15-acre site.

The move comes in the wake of a bitter national debate in New York City over a planned mosque and Islamic community center to be built just two blocks from the Sept. 11 ground zero site.

The Justice Department's brief argued that Islam is a religion entitled to protection under the First Amendment, noting that "consistent among all three branches of government, the United States has recognized Islam as a major world religion."  It also said that Rutherford County properly determined it must treat the mosque project as it would other proposals for construction of places of worship.

"A mosque is quite plainly a place of worship, and the county rightly recognized that it had an obligation to treat mosques the same as churches, synagogue or any other religious assemblies," said Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, who heads the department's Civil Rights Division.

"This is not only common sense; it is required by federal law," said Mr. Perez, who visited Murfreesboro earlier this month to reassure local Muslims that the department would take seriously any civil rights violations.

Continue reading here . . .

To put this action into context, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, is the Justice Department unit that dropped the New Black Panther case, and has a policy of enforcing laws only for minorities.
Worst Fears About Holder Justice Department Race Policies Confirmed
Congratulations to the editors at the Washington Post.  Seventeen months after the Eric Holder Justice Department dismissed a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, the Post gets around to printing a thorough vetting of the dismissal.  While other media like Breitbart/The Bigs, Fox News, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Investors Business Daily, Pajamas Media, and Drudge have had dozens of stories on the corrupt New Black Panther dismissal, the Washington Post is in the game at last.

The story is a shocker too.  The shock comes from the middle of the road and factual nature of the story.

There are small problems with the story.  For one, the Washington Post is the only outlet that calls King Samir Shabazz by his old "slave name" (Shabazz’s own words) of Maruse Heath.  Even Heath doesn’t call himself Heath.  Of course this takes some of the sting off Shabazz’s rants against Jews and calls to kill "cracker babies in their crib."

The Post’s decision to change a man’s name for him is controversial.  It has no place.

But overall, the story is very bad news for Eric Holder.  It debunks many of the myths spun by the administration.  Inside DOJ sources describe deep hostility to protecting whites at Justice.  DOJ sources say Panther prosecutor Christian Adams never allowed his conservative views to influence his work, contradicting administration spin.  And perhaps most damning of all to Holder, sources defending the administration defend the idea that whites aren’t protected by the Civil Rights laws.  The latter is the blockbuster news in the Post piece.

The Post also shatters the false administration spin that only low level career lawyers had a fight among themselves: "After the Obama administration took over, high-level political appointees relayed their thoughts on the case in a stream of internal e-mails in the days leading to the dismissal."  The administration told Congress and the public a lie for over a year, and now the Washington Post even knows.

The Post’s Jerry Markon and Krissah Thompson write, "But neighbors said they view Jackson and Heath -- who declined to comment -- as annoyances rather than threats."  What did you expect the neighbors to say?

The Post has a major revelation, the first on the record confirmation of the attitude inside the Civil Rights Division that whites should not necessarily be protected by the civil rights laws:

"The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around," said one Justice Department official not authorized to speak publicly, referring to the white Alabama police commissioner who cracked down on civil rights protesters such as Lewis, now a Democratic congressman from Georgia."

This is a startling admission.  It is part and parcel of a wide hostility to protecting whites who are victims of racial discrimination, as Christopher Coates and Adams alleged all along.  That admission is a major mistake for the administration and should be made well known before the upcoming election.

Continue reading here . . .
Justice Denied
Quin Hillyer says that under attorney general Eric Holder, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is dangerously politicized, radically leftist, racialist, lawless, and at times corrupt.  The good news is that it's also often incompetent.  This means the Holderites can bungle their leftist lawlessness so badly that even the most reticent of judges are obliged to smack them down.

The abuses by the Holderites are legion.  They range from DOJ's infamous abandonment of the already-won voter-intimidation case against several New Black Panthers to multi-faceted assaults on traditional standards of voting rights and obligations; from a growing list of lawsuits deliberately destructive of border security and citizenship laws to outrageously race-based bullying tactics; from efforts to undermine military discipline and state sovereignty on homosexual-related issues to the dangerous obsession with terrorists' "rights" to the detriment of national security; and, finally, to the selection of judges openly contemptuous of the existing law-all while dedicated to a vision of judge-imposed "universal justice" based not on the text of American statutes but instead on the reigning cultural standards of coastal and international elites.  While doing all this, the Holderites operate the least transparent DOJ in decades, treat congressmen and independent agencies with contempt, and claim breathtakingly spurious "privileges" against disclosure of public information.

This isn't law enforcement and it isn't justice, but instead is subversive of both.

The politically moderate blogger and law professor Ann Althouse, who voted for Barack Obama, wrote a reaction to a November 2009 Holder testimony before the Senate that could stand as a far broader condemnation of his qualities.  Holder, she wrote, "is utterly pathetic here.  Either he knows damned well what he's doing and he's lying or he's outrageously unqualified for his job."

The New Black Panther case, which concerns the attempts of two club-wielding gang members to intimidate voters outside voting stations in Philadelphia in the 2008 election, provides a perfect window into the modus operandi of the Holder Justice Department, one which has far wider implications than just the question of whether two crackpot thugs deserved to receive stiff sanctions for clear, unambiguous attempts at voter intimidation.  How clear?  Consider the words of Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project.  He told me on September 17 that he had not delved deeply into the case, but had seen the videos and was generally aware of the controversy: "I thought that that definitely raised very serious questions about what was going on.  I think that if people were doing the same things while wearing white robes and hoods, most other people would be outraged by it -- certainly very concerned about the propriety of it."

Well, of course. Yet all along, the question asked by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which conducted an in-depth study of the matter, was a bigger one: whether case was indicative of a broad policy change at DOJ. Whistle-blowing attorney J. Christian Adams told the commission it was, and he was backed to the hilt on September 24 by his former Justice Department colleague (and onetime ACLU stalwart) Christopher Coates in riveting testimony to the commission -- and, long before that, backed in general terms by at least three other former DOJ officials.

What Adams, Coates, and the others say, and back up with a fair amount of strong circumstantial evidence combined with firsthand experience, is twofold. Their first charge is that the Holderites have consciously adopted a practice of refusing to enforce civil rights laws when the perpetrators are black (or maybe Latino) and the victims are white (or Asian). It's a charge certainly in keeping with Holder's own words to the Washington Post in 1996 that a black man's "race defines him more particularly than anything else. Black people have a common cause that requires attending to." Mr. Holder elaborated: "It really says that…I am not the tall U.S. Attorney, I am not the thin U.S. Attorney. I am the black U.S. Attorney.… There's a common cause that bonds the black U.S. Attorney with the black criminal or the black doctor with the black homeless person."

No wonder the Obama administration rushed, just a month after taking office, to file a brief effectively on behalf of the city of New Haven, Connecticut, to defend its refusal to promote, on purely racial grounds, white firefighters who had by objective standards earned the higher positions. On the same day, the Holder Justice Department ordered Dayton, Ohio, to hire a specific number of black policemen and firemen-a racial quota, pure and simple. In an Alabama-based case in September, meanwhile, a federal judge ridiculed DOJ's clumsy attempt to dismiss a challenge to the controversial Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- which requires certain jurisdictions, and only those jurisdictions, to secure "pre-clearance" from the department for any change in voting procedures, even as small as moving a polling place from a school gym to the same school's cafeteria. Federal district judge John Bates wrote that the Holderites were "unable to articulate any reason" for one of its positions, and that they could "point to no authority" for another contention. He blasted them for "fishing expeditions," and wrote that a conclusion in their favor "would be absurd."

Nothing, though, was more absurd than the Section 5 ruling by Loretta King-one of the chief racialists at DOJ and one of the major crusaders in favor of dropping the Black Panther case -- that a black-majority town in North Carolina would not be allowed to hold nonpartisan municipal elections. Even though the majority of black precincts in this majority-black town wanted no party affiliations on the label, Ms. King decided, in effect, that the black townies in Kinston, N.C., were too stupid to know their own interests. If voters don't know which candidates are Democrats, she ruled, black voters would be unable to elect their "candidates of choice" -- who, by her definition, could only be Democrats.

Continue reading here . . .
Black Ops On Black Panther Case
The Washington Times believes Obama's Justice Department has gone rogue on civil rights abuses.

The Justice Department still hasn't explained its decision to drop most of its voter-intimidation case against violent Black Panthers 18 months ago.  If the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights finally adopts its report on the controversy, the great lengths Justice officials have taken to avoid scrutiny will be exposed.

As the draft comes up for a vote on Friday, new findings from a Judicial Watch lawsuit will further eviscerate the lame excuses Justice has offered.  Even in heavily redacted form, department e-mails unearthed last week show top political appointees not just vaguely reviewing and approving the decision to drop most of the case, but actually directing and editing court filings.

This contradicts the department's official story that the decisions were made by career attorneys who merely secured pro-forma approval from political superiors.  The political interference alleged by Judicial Watch is part of a larger pattern.  Much of the information included in the Civil Rights Commission draft -- some of it first unearthed by The Washington Times -- details evidence of a broader politicization of the Justice Department.

According to the commission draft, which has been circulating for weeks, "The involvement of senior [Justice] officials by itself would not be unusual, but the Department's repeated attempts to obscure the nature of their involvement and other refusals to cooperate raise questions about what the Department is trying to hide."  The report says Justice has refused the basic step of providing the commission with original witness statements regarding the Black Panther incident.

The report also recounts the department's evolving excuses for deep-sixing the case.  At first, senior officials claimed First Amendment concerns were at play.  They weren't.  Then Justice claimed Black Panther Jerry Jackson had a right to be at the polling place because he lived there.  He didn't live there.  Next came dissembling about Jackson being a registered poll watcher, which, of course, doesn't excuse vulgar threats and voter intimidation.  Finally, it was claimed that Jackson shouldn't be charged because local police allowed him to stay on-site -- which is immaterial.  As the commission report notes, "local police officers are not charged with enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act," nor are they trained to determine what constitutes a violation.

The commission's report outlines other areas of concern.  This includes an alleged refusal to enforce some civil rights laws as well as procedural misconduct, such as repeated claims of extraordinary privileges used to block the commission from relevant documents and testimony.  Thus far, for example, Justice has gotten away with hiding information on the vague grounds that it "otherwise would undermine its ability to carry out its mission."  The whole mess is an offense against the concept of open government.

Under Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the Justice Department acts as a law unto itself, defining its own mission without regard to oversight by any other branch of government.  That's beyond all bounds in a nation of laws.
Holder Fears Terror Attacks
Aaron Klein says in a wide ranging interview, that Attorney General Eric Holder warned of the immediate need to combat the threat of homegrown Islamic extremism, stating he is alarmed by the rise in the number of Americans willing to carry out terrorist attacks.

However, the Obama administration has maintained close relationships with radical Muslim organizations, many tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to create a worldwide Islamic caliphate.  Al-Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist organizations are offshoots of the Brotherhood.

Also, Obama and White House officials long have been accused of minimizing Islamic extremism, including recent attacks carried out by U.S. Muslims.

Holder told ABC News yesterday: "It is one of the things that keeps me up at night.  You didn't worry about this even two years ago -- about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do.  And -- that is of -- of great concern.

"The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born," he said.

Still, the Obama administration has been legitimizing Islamic organizations of questionable character.

One of those organizations is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a radical Muslim group that was an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to raise money for Hamas.

ISNA's extensive relationship with the Obama administration started even before Obama took office in 2009.  One week before Obama's inauguration, Sayyid Syeed, national director of ISNA's Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances, was part of a delegation that met with the directors of Obama's transition team.  The delegation discussed a request for an executive order ending "torture."

ISNA President Ingrid Mattson represented American Muslims at Obama's inauguration, where she offered a prayer during the televised event.  Mattson also represented ISNA at Obama's annual Ramadan dinners at the White House, including in August, where Obama expressed support for the rights of an Islamic organization, the Cordoba Initiative, to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from the area known as Ground Zero.

Meanwhile, last February, ISNA sponsored a question-and-answer session with Obama's top adviser on counter-terrorism, John Brennan.  At that session, which took place at New York University, Brennan announced the Obama administration was working to calibrate policies in the fight against terrorism that ensure Americans are "never" profiled.

"We need to be looking at ourselves as individuals.  Not the way we look or the creed we have or our ethnic background.  I consider myself a citizen of the world," he said.

Brennan told the audience the Obama administration is trying to "make sure that we as Americans can interact in a safe way, balance policies in a way that optimizes national security but also optimizes the opportunity in this country never to be profiled, never to be discriminated against."

Continue reading here . . .

Hey, Holder, They're not Americans, they're jihadists.

And Obama's personal spook, Brennan, is a piece of work.  Imagine, announcing he's a citizen of the world and promising Muslims that they will never be profiled.

And here I thought Brennan was supposed to be working for us. 
Department Of Justice Goes Black
Pamela Geller has reported extensively on Obama's Department of Injustice (DoJ) over the past two years.  In every case, the DoJ has gone to war against America.  Against the military, against free speech, against the voter, against the war on jihad, against Arizona and the protection of our borders, in support of Islamic law (sharia) and as a proponent of reverse racism ..... the list goes on.

Now, the DoJ has ditched the red, white, and blue stars and stripes and has gone black.  The move speaks volumes.  The U.S. DoJ has changed its web site.  Gone are the patriotic, distinctly proud American red, white, and blue U.S. flag decorations on the page:
    
    
         
The new banner contains a rather interesting quote:
    

"The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people."

    
Catchy, huh?  Just one tiny little (too small to be relevant obviously) point -- the quote is from C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930's was a leading proponent of the "international law" movement, which had as its goal to impose a global common law and which backed global workers' rights.'

Call it Marxism, call it Progressivism, call it Socialism -- under any of those names, it definitely makes the DoJ look corrupt in their sleek, new black website with Marxist accessories to match.

How very interesting that "they" couldn't find a nice quote from one of our Founders.

People, we have lost our Republic.  Get it back.
The Investigations Begin
Ben Johnson says new Congressional leaders have begun their investigations into the most potent scandal facing the Obama administration, one that seems destined to expose injustice at the highest levels of government. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX, the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has opened a probe into the Justice Department's handling of the Black Panther case in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.  Smith is looking into whether the case's dismissal, and the underlying culture of the department's Voting Rights division, show a decision to deny justice to a broad category of Americans based on race.  In the five-page letter, Smith writes, "Allegations that the Civil Rights Division has engaged in a practice of race-biased enforcement of voting rights law must be investigated by the Committee."

In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates -- who then headed the Voting Rights division -- testified to a "deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the" law "for the protection of white voters."  J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff.  Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama's Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees "the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters."

Four other employees have spoken of the department's hostility to enforcing the law against minorities, two having sworn affidavits to that effect.

Smith singled out the another reported refusal by Fernandes in his letter: an alleged determination not to enforce a provision of the National Voter Registration Act (known as the "Motor Voter Law") requiring localities to purge the voting rolls of dead and ineligible voters.  Smith asked if Fernandes opted to "explicitly or implicitly direct Voting Section staff not to enforce any section of any federal rights statute."

Fernandes seems to have admitted as much in public.  Discussing that specific section, she publicly stated, "We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law.  It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it." (video)

The refusal to enforce any law is troubling in itself.  The well-grounded possibility that the federal government is denying justice on racial grounds is a fundamental perversion of government that strikes at the very heart of our national principles.  In endorsing an investigation, National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy wrote, "It is a grave violation of law for the Justice Department to practice racial discrimination in deciding which cases it will bring, to determine that Americans of one race or class are not entitled to the same protection as all Americans…Under the Constitution, it is Congress's obligation to stop it."

Congress similarly has the duty to determine where this policy originated, and whether officials who publicly deny its existence are guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice.  Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, testified on May 14 that the decision to drop the case was simply "a case of career people disagreeing with career people," and that no "political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case."  However, the watchdog group Judicial Watch has uncovered proof of significant political involvement in lobbying on behalf of the Panthers.  Did Perez commit perjury?  If so, how high did the political pressure go?  Who handed down the decision to dispense race-based "justice"?  How high does the cover-up of this decision reach?  Namely, did Eric Holder or Barack Obama suborn perjury?

Answering these questions will require vigilance and indefatigable tenacity.  Their answers threaten to blow apart the Justice Department and possibly uncover an ugly core of racial discrimination at the heart of the Obama administration.
Holder Is On The Hot Seat In Black Panther Case
Ben Johnson says new Congressional leaders have begun their investigations into the most potent scandal facing the Obama administration, one that seems destined to expose injustice at the highest levels of government.  Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX, the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has opened a probe into the Department of Justice's (DoJ) handling of the Black Panther case in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.  Smith is looking into whether the case's dismissal, and the underlying culture of the department's Voting Rights division, show a decision to deny justice to a broad category of Americans based on race.  In the five-page letter, Smith writes, "Allegations that the Civil Rights Division has engaged in a practice of race-biased enforcement of voting rights law must be investigated by the Committee."

In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates -- who then headed the Voting Rights division -- testified to a "deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the" law "for the protection of white voters."  J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff.  Coates testified that Julie Fernandes, Obama's Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees, "the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters."

Four other employees have spoken of the department's hostility to enforcing the law against minorities, two having sworn affidavits to that effect.

Smith singled out the another reported refusal by Fernandes in his letter: an alleged determination not to enforce a provision of the National Voter Registration Act (known as the "Motor Voter Law") requiring localities to purge the voting rolls of dead and ineligible voters.  Smith asked if Fernandes opted to "explicitly or implicitly direct Voting Section staff not to enforce any section of any federal rights statute."

Fernandes seems to have admitted as much in public.  Discussing that specific section, she publicly stated in this video, "We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law.  It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it."

The refusal to enforce any law is troubling in itself.  The well-grounded possibility that the federal government is denying justice on racial grounds is a fundamental perversion of government that strikes at the very heart of our national principles.  In endorsing an investigation, National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy wrote, "It is a grave violation of law for the Justice Department to practice racial discrimination in deciding which cases it will bring, to determine that Americans of one race or class are not entitled to the same protection as all Americans…Under the Constitution, it is Congress's obligation to stop it."

Congress similarly has the duty to determine where this policy originated, and whether officials who publicly deny its existence are guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice.  Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, testified on May 14 that the decision to drop the case was simply "a case of career people disagreeing with career people," and that no "political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case."  However, the watchdog group Judicial Watch has uncovered proof of significant political involvement in lobbying on behalf of the Panthers.  Did Perez commit perjury?  If so, how high did the political pressure go?  Who handed down the decision to dispense race-based "justice?"  How high does the cover-up of this decision reach?  Namely, did the attorney general or the president of the United States himself suborn perjury?

Answering these questions will require vigilance and indefatigable tenacity.  Their answers threaten to blow apart the Justice Department and possibly uncover an ugly core of racial discrimination at the heart of the Obama administration.
 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved