Today, Dept of Justice attorney Christopher Coates testified under oath before the US Civil Rights Commission about his department's handling of the New Black Panther Party case. The Fox News report is linked below. If you can read this account and still maintain that this case is no big deal, I want to hear your reasoning.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/24/voting-rights-official-calls-black-panther-dismissal-travesty-justice/
Coates is acting courageously because he is testifying against his employers. Because he supported the statements of J. Christian Adams, the lead attorney on the case, he was transferred from Washington to South Carolina and ordered to ignore a subpoena from the Civil Rights Commission. He is relying on "whistle blower" legislation to protect him from further retaliation.
As a retired career employee of the Justice Department, I think I have a pretty good sense of when the integrity of that department has been compromised. Either civil rights protection is for all, or it is for nobody. This department is in dire need of a housecleaning.
"Bull" Conner must be laughing in his grave.
* By the way; the only major news outlet where I can find this story is Fox. As for ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN-nothing. The "big news" is that Stephen Colbert is testifying before Congress on immigration.
Sounds to me like the former Bush administration supervisor testifying that the way he was doing things was right, and the way they've done things since is wrong.
ReplyDeletePost a direct quote, in full, at length, no cherry picking sentences, of exactly what the NAACP wrote to the Justice Department. I'd like to see that. It might substantiate what you've been saying. I read the NAACP's brief in the New York gay marriage case, when they wrote that the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia could not be upheld without also finding for the plaintiffs on the "equal protection" claim to marriage for same sex couples. I can distinguish them perfectly well, and I never went to law school. Maybe they said something really stupid in this case too, and maybe Holder paid attention to it.
I also haven't forgotten the way the NAACP dumped trash on Mrs. Sherrod, squealing in terror at the con job Breitbart ran, so its not like I have great respect for the outfit. I refuse to donate until they apologize for firing W.E.B. DuBois.
But, the statements cited in the Fox News article are bland, ideological generalities. Where's the beef?
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteCareer prosecutors at Justice continue from one admin to another.
It is a testament to Coates and Adams to have the testicular tissue to testify against the Department of "Just Us". The Obama/Holder combo will finally be under the spotlight for their unequal justice for all. Unfortunately, this issue is on racial lines, which is a despicable smear on our Constitutional rights. If the DOJ is found guilty of violating the civil rights of U.S. citizens, all who participated must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
ReplyDeleteSquid
Findalis lives in her own private world, Lance. She hasn't learned that the categories which mean so much to her are, for the most part artificial. I have genes and ancestors of all three categories.
ReplyDeleteLet's get back to the main story. There is a major scandal at DOJ. One of their own career prosecutors has testified to the rot in DOJ. Meanwhile, everyone is talking about Colbert joking in Congress.
ReplyDeleteMajor scandal? There isn't even a minor scandal! The only thing that perplexes me is that Eric Holder hasn't issued a straightforward press release as follows:
ReplyDelete"The Justice Department made a sound decision on allocation of limited resources. The acts in question do not rise to the level of a federal offense. It may well constitute disorderly conduct, or other offenses traditionally within the police powers of the state. No voters were intimidate in the exercise of their electoral franchise - nor did the rag-tag chumps accused try to turn any voters away."
Why, why, does the administration give even the limited credence to this kind of "scandal" mongering that they are deluded into thinking they may have something to hide?
Remember: Watergate started out as a minor scandal.
ReplyDeleteNo Findalis, Watergate started out as a burglary, while armed if I remember correctly. It turned out the burglary itself had been ordered by the President of the United States, slightly veiled to route the blame to his closest aides. As I said, this Coates brouhaha doesn't even qualify as a MINOR scandal.
ReplyDeleteI remember Watergate very well. It started out as a third-rate burglary with no direct ties to the White House and Nixon. It ended up with most of the White House staff in prison, disgraced or both, and Nixon resigning the Presidency.
ReplyDeleteIt is minor scandals just like this one that can bring down a President. Think Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Whitewater and what happened to Clinton.
Yes, Findalis, but there WAS a burglary at the Watergate. There was something to trace back TO the White House. In this case, Gary has been trying for months to promote a scandal where there is none to begin with.
ReplyDeleteThe link back to the WH was the funds used for the "burglars" came from a slush fund set up by the Committee to Re-elect the President headed by John Mitchell, the former Attorney General.
ReplyDeleteIt took police work and 2 years, but the truth did come out. It was a nothing crime, a 3rd rate burglary, but it brought down a President and changed the country forever.