Attorney General Eric Holder has once (twice, actually) again demonstrated why he has no business being attorney general or occupying any other government position.
Last week, he was responding to leaks coming out of the grand jury in St Louis investigating the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. The leak tended to indicate that the case was going in Officer Wilson's favor. Holder didn't like that. Even though it is not a federal grand jury, he spoke out and said that people need to shut up.
True enough, grand jury information is not supposed to be divulged, but it is not the DOJ's grand jury. It is Holder who should have shut up.
Now this week Holder gives an interview on Wednesday in which he says that it is "pretty clear" that "wholesale changes" need to be made in the Ferguson Police Department. Of course, he added that since the separate DOJ investigation is still underway he can't say exactly what changes.
Really?
Could it be that if Officer Wilson is exonerated, that no changes are necessary? Police Chief Thomas Jackson has quickly and rightfully objected to Holder's pre-judging of the facts. It is no secret that Holder and his henchmen in DOJ want the chief to resign.
Indeed, Holder's comments in both instances are inappropriate and irresponsible-not worthy of an attorney, let alone the US attorney general. He is not in charge of the St Louis County grand jury, and he is pre-judging the Ferguson Police Department before all the facts are in.
If there is any agency where wholesale changes are necessary it is the current Justice Department, which has been thoroughly politicized and corrupted under Eric Holder.
6 comments:
A couple of weeks ago the NY Times (hardly a right-wing rag) reported that "officials" involved in this deal stated that the Federal civil rights investigation was continuing, but that so far the evidence did not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson.
The newspaper article included the disclaimer "The account of Officer Wilson’s version of events did not come from the Ferguson Police Department or from officials whose activities are being investigated as part of the civil rights inquiry". That would appear to leave the culprits to be most likely either members of Holder's own DOJ or possibly one or more grand jury witnesses, who are essentially/generally NOT bound by grand jury secrecy rules once they have testified. Could be a grand jury member or someone from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, but I seriously doubt that.
It is fairly obvious that Holder sees his Federal civil rights case against Wilson going down the drain to the extent that even Holder would not be able to prosecute Wilson on little or no evidence without further exposing himself for what he really is, which is, among other things, a stone racist. Obama is also complicit in this for not telling Holder to "shut up", is he not??
It is unbelievable how Holder can call the Kettle black when his DoJ is one of the dirtiest in the history of the United States. Police Chief Thomas Jackson has every right to condemn Holder for his "pre-judging" in the Ferguson case. Hmmm, pre-judging, is that not prejudice.
Holder has lied to the Congress and worked with the White House in the form of Valerie Jarrett (the President's Chief of Staff) regarding the Fast and 'Furious scandal. Many people were shot by weapons suppled by Holder, when sent to the Mexican Cartels and he knows it. Yet Holder has the stones to prejudice the Ferguson findings, smear the Officer who acted within policy and procedure and call for wholesale changes in the department before any conclusions are made by the poisoned Civil Rights Division of the DoJ. But this is what happens to blind justice when Holder has an advisor called Al Sharpton.
Squid
Could it be that if Officer Wilson is exonerated, that no changes are necessary?
That is highly unlikely. If the local police did not have a bad reputation with the citizens they supposedly serve and protect, then the death of Jackson would have been a minor blip in the evening news. Some common personal experience made it resonate as a cause for protest.
Be careful what you say Gary. Taking your question at face value, anyone who sees a need for reform would have to demand Wilson be fired and charged, because if he wasn't, well, then there is no need to reform anything. So the road to reform requires that the officer, guilty or innocent, be sacrificed.
When did Jackson die?
Sacrifice an innocent police officer?? Really?? What happened to the concept that it is better that 100 (or 1000, or whatever your favorite number is) guilty men go free rather than have one innocent man be wrongfully convicted??
While I understand that "reform" requires change, this would seem a little drastic.
Brown, not Jackson. Blogger doesn't allow one to see the original post when typing in a comment, which leads to some confusion at times.
Elwood, I was posing how Gary's logic puts advocates of reform in a position where to move forward, they have to advocate sacrificing the police officer. If we strip away Gary's ill-considered question, we can move beyond that. Reform should not rest on finding an innocent officer guilty, nor should a finding of innocence be taken to mean no reform at all is necessary.
Post a Comment