Department of Justice Eric Holder is Corrupt
Department of Justice Eric Holder is Corrupt. New details regarding the Benghazi disaster, the IRS’ harassment of conservatives and the Justice Department’s spying on journalists materialize daily. Every revelation fuels investigative fires likely to confirm how high each scandal scaled the bureaucratic hierarchy. Eventually, those responsible must face consequences for corruption and deceit.
Unlike the inquiries surrounding Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service’s political bullying, the scandal implicating Eric Holder’s Justice Department with unconstitutional spying activities is fairly straightforward.
As reported, the DoJ secretly obtained two months of phone records from journalists, treading on the First Amendment in the process. According to Holder, Deputy Attorney General James Cole “ultimately authorized the subpoena”, but he can no longer hide behind the desks of his subordinates. The buck stops with him.
Political savvy would dictate Holder apologizes, order that Deputy Cole bend to the Associated Press’ request to destroy the records and detail actionable steps preventing future breaches of conduct. But, since the story broke, the Attorney General has continually demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law and affinity for arbitrary justice.
Holder defended the power abuse claiming the safety of the American people was at risk because of the leak. Holder has declined to say if any review of the Justice Department’s policy on searches of reporters’ records would ever occur.
The Associated Press countered his claim and rebuked the charge, but no further comment was issued from the DoJ. Some speculators believe the Department simply wanted revenge for a whistleblower’s leak and violated the privacy of hundreds because it could.
As if unrepentant malfeasance wasn’t enough, Holder later told NPR that he “isn’t sure” how many similar seizures he’s authorized. “I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications.” Holder values our cherished constitutional protections so dearly that he can’t recall when he’s allowed violations.
These actions should be the proverbial nail in the coffin for an Attorney General whose reputation and integrity are already stained by years of constitutional hypocrisy and abusive, negligent conduct.
1. ARBITRARY LAWLESSNESS
During his tenure, Holder has defended the assassination of an American citizen and his teenage son based on allegations. When questioned, Holder argued that “due process” does not mean what centuries of legal tradition have defined it to mean.
According to the AG, Congress, by passing 2001’s Authorization for Use of Military Force, granted the president execution powers for anyone deemed a terrorist. “Terrorist” status, which according to Biden includes the Tea Party, can be exclusively decided by the president and his elite group of counselors just like the kings of Europe.
When challenged on equally controversial statements, he refused to concede the illegality of government assassination of non-combatants without due process on U.S. soil.
He later informed Congress that the president can authorize lethal force against Americans that are “imminent threats” without charges or evidence, and that Congress is powerless to limit this presidential right. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) later extracted from Holder that the executive interpretation of “imminent” does not always mean “immediate”.
A 13-hour filibuster by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was required for Holder to clarify that President Obama could not murder Americans with drones.
2. SELECTIVE FEDERAL INTIMIDATION
Holder arbitrarily invokes the Supremacy Clause to bully states nullifying unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, federal laws when it pleases him. He deliberately leverages the power of the Justice Department when it is politically satisfactory.
He now allows states to nullify the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and legislate the will of their people without prosecution, but warns states nullifying Washington’s failed gun-grabbing efforts that federal law reigns supreme. His defenses are often simplistic and smack of authoritarianism, revealing a belief that the Tenth Amendment does not exist.
The expensive, fruitless war on marijuana perpetuates violence along the southern border, has cost the taxpayers dearly, normalizes paramilitary police-state tactics and is overwhelmingly unpopular. After several states nullified unconstitutional federal prohibition, the Department of Justice threatened them with prosecution, attacked businesses and property and continued to incarcerate private citizens that disobey federal authority.
Holder remains firm that restrictions Washington bureaucrats passed 40 years ago trumps the people’s will and the right of states to reject over-reaching federal dictates.
3. THE DOJ’S AGGRESSIVE WAR ON TRUTH
The Department of Justice is a hotbed of corruption and whistleblowers are systematically destroyed and intimidated into silence. Six individuals have been prosecuted under Holder, more than any other administration. He has argued that journalists are not legally protected against criminal charges should they fail to reveal their sources when the government wants them.
Continuing its war on truth, the department wasted taxpayer resources building a case against WikiLeaks whistleblowing leader Julian Assange for his role in disseminating documents that embarassed corrupt bureaucrats. As reported by the New York Times, Holder was grasping to prosecute Assange, “as a co-conspirator to the leaking … to make an example of him as a deterrent to further mass leaking“.
4. ELITIST HYPOCRISY
During Fast and Furious scandal, Holder was caught lying under oath. This alone was grounds for impeachment, but the AG was saved from implication in the deadly gun-smuggling scandal by Obama’s Nixonian assertion of executive privilege. Though Holder exerted his expectation of privacy for the powerful, his bureaucracy asserts average Americans have no privilege of privacy from the prying eyes of justice.
The Department of Justice believes they don’t need a search warrant to review Americans’ e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files any time they desire despite court rulings to the contrary.
As reported by Declan McCullagh at CNET, “The Justice Department’s disinclination to seek warrants for private files stored on the servers of companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft continued even after a federal appeals court in 2010 ruled that warrantless access to e-mail violates the Fourth Amendment.”
The American people do not know how this information is being used or abused and why the Justice Department feels entitled to the private lives of anyone and everyone, because under Holder’s leadership, a culture of elitism and power-privilege has infected the Justice Department.
Establishing and perpetuating separate rules for the powerful and the powerless is the opposite of justice. Dangerous precedents were set post 9/11 and powers the federal government gifted itself have only continued to expand.
As Esquire’s Charles Pierce explained, “Yes, the Bush people wiretapped without warrants. Yes, they trod upon the rule of law. Yes, they set all manner of horrible precedents for future presidents to follow. Yes, the phone companies rolled over, the way they all rolled over, and doesn’t the president’s reversal on telecom immunity back during the 2008 campaign look even more interesting now? And, no, none of that matters.”
The American system was designed to restrain power-hungry bureaucrats, and it has failed. Secrecy, corruption and selective prosecutions are usually the marks of third world nations that manipulate the law, or circumvent it, to maintain power and crush dissent. The only way to restore any semblance of integrity and justice to the Department Holder administrates is to remove him from office.
Successors must know that feigning ignorance and blatant malfeasance will no longer be tolerated without consequences. Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell was incarcerated for 19 months at Maxwell Air Force Base for his involvement in the Watergate scandal.
Considering Holder’s activities, resignation should be the least of his concerns. If he does not resign, Congress must act to impeach him or admit complicity.
In an August 2013 interview, former Department of Justice Civil Rights lawyer and whistle blower J Christian Adamsexposed Holder’s DoJ as a political cesspool maintained by progressives. Here is a small part of what he had to offer:
“One of the things I was brought in there to do was to simply be objective and neutral, but see, that’s high heresy. They don’t want people who are objective and neutral. They want people who are part of the orthodoxy, so during the Bush administration, a very small number of people were brought in and it was like an anti-body in the system. The left went absolutely wild. They had congressional hearings. They could not abide by people who were willing to enforce the law to protect everybody.”
What Adams exposed in this interview was institutionalized racism. This progressive insanity did not begin with Eric Holder to be sure – but he has done nothing to reverse the trend, either – he’s made it worse. (Evidence of Eric Holder’s racism isn’t hard to find – all you really have to do is put your favorite search engine to work.)
Following Holder’s “Nation of cowards” speech, award-winning novelist Larrey Anderson wrote:
Sorry, Mr. Holder, it isn’t cowardice that keeps Americans from discussing racism — it is the fact that there is nothing to talk about. The racist America that you are talking about started to disappear at least thirty years ago.
There are, of course, certain communities in this country that have been deliberately and continually segregated by people like you. In these communities people eat, drink, and breathe racism.
It is a shame that racism still exists in this country. But the Eric Holders, the Jesse Jacksons, the Al Sharptons, and the Barack Obamas of the world are keeping this issue alive. Mr. Holder, the shame and the cowardice of racism belong to you… (Anderson, Larrey. Racism, Eric Holder, my Son and Me, American Thinker, Feb. 23, 2009)
The Department of Justice recently brought suit against the State of Louisiana’s school choice law – and provided a classic example of the DoJ’s institutionalized racism under Eric Holder. Here’s Breitbart:
To understand the failure of public education in this country, one must first understand that the entire system is designed for the benefit of the adults who work in it. Union dues from people working in the system are funneled into lobbying and campaign contributions to the very legislators setting the rules of thesystem. As a result, the entire political systemis biased against reform of public education.
Sometimes, however, the need for reform is so manifest that even these local obstacles can be overcome. Under the ObamaAdministration, however, opponents of reform have the ultimate “trump card.” The Feds. Late this week, the Department of Justice filed a federal suit(1) against Louisiana’s school choice law. Eric Holder’s office argues that allowing kids in failing public schools to attend better-performingprivate schools would work against its “goal” of achieving the proper racial balance in schools.
This is about as clear an example as you’re going to get. A Louisiana child’s educational opportunities must take a back seat to the DoJ’s enforced racism, even if it means that the child is forced to attend an inferior institution.
A Democratic congressman railed against a “right-wing conspiracy” of outside campaign spending and said that voter ID laws could have prevented Barack Obama’s presidency during a 2012 event in which the IRS coached black ministers in how to engage in campaign activity.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a Democrat from North Carolina and member of the CBC, used openly partisan rhetoric in his remarks before the convened black ministers, discussing a “right-wing conspiracy” and condemning voter ID laws that he claimed could have jeopardized Obama’s election to the White House.
“It is a fundamental precept that cabinet members should not engage in political activities. The most important of those cabinet members would be the attorney general of the United States. To have the attorney general actively advising political allies of the president showed remarkably poor judgment on his part,” Turley told TheDC.
“I believe this session undermined the integrity of the justice department, signaled to other Justice Department officials that the attorney general wants to support these black ministries as much as possible,” Turley said.
Update: Sept. 7, 2013: In 2012, IRS & DOJ Aided Pro-Obama Nonprofits
The IRS outrages just continue.
During the 2012 election season — when conservative groups were being targeted and GOP donors were being audited and just being a GOP donor meant heightened scrutiny from the IRS – Obama-friendly nonprofits, including black churches and black nonprofits, were regaled with special advice from the agency on how far they could participate in politics campaigning for the President and other Democrats, according to Paul Sperry writing in IBD.
What’s more, it wasn’t just top officials at the IRS who were meeting, for example, with black churches — it was also top officials at Eric Holder’s Justice Department. (Feel more confident about the DOJ’s claims it has the capacity to investigate IRS abuses fairly?)
Update: Sept. 3, 2013: The Feds’ Assault on School Choice
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division appears to be the epicenter for aggressive federal action. The office’s education section is led by Anurima Bhargava, formerly a top lawyer at the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund. Bhargava, a Harvard College graduate, is a polished advocate, couching her views in innocent-sounding language. “We are facing a severeeducational crisis, and it’s not the time to be taking tools off the table,” she told NPR, defending a program in Lousiville, Ky., that sent white students to a failing school an hour away to maintain the percentages of blackstudents in a given school.
Update: Sep. 1, 2013: Justice Department bids to trap poor, black children in ineffective schools
NINE OF 10 Louisiana children who receive vouchers to attend private schools are black. All are poor and, if not for the state assistance, would be consigned to low-performing or failing schools with little chance of learning the skills they will need to succeed as adults. So it’s bewildering, if not downright perverse, for the Obama administration to use the banner of civil rights to bring a misguided suit that would block these disadvantaged students from getting the better educational opportunities they are due. (Washington Post)
Update: Aug. 30, 2013: The Department of Injustice
In what is especially ironic for its timing 50 years after the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the Department of Justice (DOJ) last week sued to block poor black children in Louisiana from using school vouchers to attend a good school. The reason: their leaving failing schools upset the racial balance of those schools, depriving allstudents “of their right to a desegregatededucational experience.”
First, almost all of the 8,000 students using vouchers are black, so it’s absurd to argue that they discriminate against minorities. As Louisiana state superintendent of schools John White said of the suit, “it would be laughable if not being so tragic for the families.”
Update: Aug. 28, 2013: EDITORIAL: Crushing school choice
The White House has taken Louisiana’s poorest schoolchildren and crushed their hopes for a better future. Citing rules meant to end racism, the Justice Department last week asked a federal judge in New Orleans to slam shut the door on minority kids, ensuring they remain trapped in failing schools.
In 2008, Louisiana set up a scholarship program giving any student from a low-income family a chance to attend a private school that promises a better education. It’s a color-blindsystem, but the beneficiaries are overwhelmingly minority. The Justice Department insists that families in 34 of Louisiana’s worst school systems must never have a chance to take advantage of the program. Those school systems remain under desegregation orders left over from the 1970s, and the racial bean-counters in the Obama administration argue that school choice impedes the “desegregation process.”
Update: Aug. 28, 2013: Obama’s War on Black Education
And now through his Justice Department, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are again seeking to restrict poorer, inner-city black families to under-performing inner-city schools. In 2008 Louisiana lawmakers approved a voucher program for low-income New Orleans students who were in failing schools. The “Louisiana Scholarship Program” (later expanded statewide) allows children in school districts graded C, D or F to receive public money to attend private schools. In papers filed in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, the Justice Department said Louisiana distributed vouchers in 2012-13 to nearly 600 public school students.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) called the action “shameful” and said President Obama and A.G. Holder “are trying to keep kids trapped in failing public schools against the wishes of their parents.” In a news release he added,
”The Obama administration thinks parents should have to seek their approval [to] send their child to a school of [the parent's] choice. After generations of being denied a choice, parents finally can choose a school for their child, but now the federal government is stepping in to prevent parents from exercising this right. Shame on them.”
State Education Superintendent John White told the Times-Picayune that almost all the students using vouchers are black and also said it’s ironic that rules established to combat racism were being called on to keep black students in failing schools.
Author Erik Rush takes on the racial politics of both President Obama and Eric Holder in his new book on racial politics, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.”
Lady Justice may be blindfolded, but the Department of Justice is operating with eyes wide open in its repeated refusals to prosecute crimes where the defendant is black and the victim is white, as a former Justice Department whistleblower recently testified.
“As reflected by the actions of the Obama-Holder Justice Department in the New Black Panther Party case, it is now clear that this is a racist president and a racist administration,” says Rush. “We are bearing witness to an instance of racism and racial double standard on the part of this president and his administration that surpasses the surreal.” [...]
“To progressives and the establishment press, the contention that our president and this administration are racists is practically incomprehensible – but this is precisely the case,” says Rush. “This atrocity is abject racism. President Obama’s overt antiwhite, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic sentiments have been painfully evident to some observers, and suspected by others for some time.”(2)
In a bizarre twist so common among liberals, Holder himself accused his critics of racist motivations during a New York Times interview in December of 2012. When asked by The Daily Caller to provide evidence in support of Holder’s accusation, the Department of Justice could not. Holder’s use of the “more extreme segment” Straw Man was convenient, and shielded him from any need to support his own charge with something as trivial as, er, facts:
Holder said some unspecified faction — what he refers to as the “more extreme segment” — is driven to criticize both him and President Barack Obama due to the color of their skin. Holder did not appear to elaborate on who he considered to make up the “more extreme segment.” (5)
Holder’s racism led the Washington Times to call for his resignation early in 2011, calling him “a disgrace to his office and to his country.” (6)
Blogger “Marooned in Marin” reminds us that when presidential candidate Ross Perot referred to “you people” during a 1992 speech, Willie Clark, president of the N.A.A.C.P. branch in San Bernadino, California, said:
“When he said ‘you people’ or ‘your people,’ it was like waving a red flag in front of a bull,” he said. “It’s something white folks have used when they don’t want to call you nigger, but they don’t want to treat you like an equal.”
For some strange reason, the N.A.A.C.P. has not commented on Mr. Holder’s use of the same phrase. Apparently, Holder’s racism is okay, but Mr. Perot’s was not.
“Marooned in Marin” concluded: “Excuse me, Mister Holder, but you’re supposed to represent ALL of the American people, not just “my people.” Did you ever hear of something called the 14th Amendment? It says something in there about “equal protection under the law.” (3) Indeed – but under Holder’s DoJ, “some animals are more equal than others.”
Former Republican Congressman Allen West said that Attorney General Eric Holder’s use of the race card as a way to attack his critics was reprehensible.
“I think this is absolutely the last card in the deck, and that shows how weak their ground is,” West said in a phone interview. “But, what that means is they want to make white individuals afraid of continuing to put the pressure on Eric Holder because they don’t want to be seen as racist, and that is something that we have got to move beyond.”(4)
David Leeper, writing in the Western Free Press(7), disputed the claim that Holder is a racist, defining him as a “racialist:”
Attorney General Eric Holder is a racialist. In fact, he is a professional racialist.
Note that I am not calling Holder a racist. That’s different. A racist is a person who believes there are significant differences in abilities or character among people of different races, attributes those differences directly to race, and almost always believes that his own race is somehow superior to other races. That’s not Holder.
A racialist, on the other hand, as the term is used here, believes that racism is itself the primary driving force of events, behaviors, and outcomes in all societies. Anywhere there is a perceived injustice or inequality of outcomes, a racialist looks first to racism as the underlying cause. To an avid racialist, any other contributing factor is either subordinate or is itself tied to racism in some other form at some other time or place.*
Eric Holder is well known for his claim that we’re a “nation of cowards” when it comes to race, for his documented race-biased pursuit of justice in the DOJ, and for his recent sniveling whimper that Congressional calls for his resignation over Fast and Furious are race-based. Through these behaviors, and because of his position as US Attorney General, Holder is a quintessentialprofessional racialist.
[...] professional racialists variously use race as the basis for earning a living, making speeches, writing articles, winning elections, and determining policy. Their worldview is grounded in the notion that racism, specifically white racism, explains virtually all of society’s political and economic ills. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are perhaps the most visible, but other prominent professional racialists are Cornel West, Alan Johnson, Michael Eric Dyson, and Tim Wise.
Racialists, professional or not, use “racism” as their ever-ready trump card, instantly putting their target on the defensive. It works. The epithet racist is nasty and cutting, with an ugly sound that calls to mind Ku Kluxers, black-and-white images of 1950′s police with barking dogs, water cannons, and state governors (all Democrats, by the way) blocking the entrance of African Americans to public schools.
Old-fashioned virulent racism is all but gone now, and good riddance. But the Left is fairly teeming with racialists and racialism. Some professionals, like Jackson and Sharpton, owe their livelihood — indeed their whole raison d’être — to sniffing out and spottingperceived racism as if they were some sort of cultural pointer dogs. In fact, with old-time virulent racism so rare, these professional racialists have had to purposefully extend the definition of racism to include race-blindness.
Referring to Holder’s treatment of George Zimmerman, Ben Stein wrote:
It terrifies me that a man with the power of Eric Holder can use an explicitly racist, anti-white approach to a complex case that is itself a sideshow.(8)
Rep. Gosar Highlights Holder’s Disregard For The Law Rule Of Law