Prosecutor alleges Department of Justice bias (Politico ALMOST reports the truth)

A Justice Department prosecutor defied his superiors by testifying at a U.S. Civil Rights Commission hearing Friday, where he leveled an explosive allegation: top officials in the department gutted a voter intimidation case against a fringe African American militant group because the suspects were black and their alleged victims were white.

The prosecutor, Christopher Coates, also said the downgrading of the case against the New Black Panther Party was evidence of a Justice Department culture which discouraged “race neutral” enforcement of civil rights laws, frowned on prosecuting minority perpetrators and folded under pressure from black and Latino rights groups. After President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder took office, the culture intensified, Coates told the panel, ultimately leading to his departure as chief of the voting rights section early this year.

“They have not pursued the goal of equal protection of the law for all people,” he said.

Justice department officials, however, have vigorously defended their management of the Panthers’ case, in which two members of the small group allegedly attempted to intimidate voters at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 general election. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler in a statement Friday derided the Civil Rights Commission for its “so-called investigation” that is “thin on facts and evidence and thick on rhetoric.”

"The Department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved,” Schmaler said. “We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation.”

Poltico has a nice lengthy article on the scandal that is Eric Holder's Justice Dept. Of course they could not ignore Coates testimony, and do a fairly accurate job of quoting the better parts of his testimony.

Poltico also gives lots of ink to Justice Dept flak who disputes what Coates says. The PROBLEM with the story is the liberal bias is evident from start to finish. Two lines in the story, one at the beginning and one at the end demonstrate the writers complete lack of objectivity. First, in the very beginning he finishes a paragraph with this......... "Coates told the panel, ultimately leading to his departure as chief of the voting rights section early this year." Second, he finishes the story with a similar line..... "Coates left the Civil Rights Division early this year after falling out with higher ranking officials in the unit. He has since been working at the U.S. Attorney’s office in South Carolina."

The PROBLEM with Gersteins writing is that Coates did not LEAVE the Civil Rights Division for a job in South Carolina. he was TRANSFERRED AGAINST HIS WILL to the job in South Carolina. He was DEMOTED from his HIG PROFILE JOB and transferred to a back water job in South Carolina. Holder and his lackeys thought by transferring him to South Carolina that Coates would get the message to keep his mouth shut and not make waves. Unfortunatley for Holder and Obama, Coates is a patriot who actually believes in equal protection under the law and even though Holder ordered him to keep his mouth shut, Coates risked what is left of his career to speak truth to power. Gerstein totally covers up one of the most important aspects of the case, first in the very beginning, and finally, in the very last line. Liberal bias exposed.

When the Republicans take the House, Issa will be issuing subpeonas post haste to Holder, Perez, King, and all the other reverse racialists who run the Justice Dept. Obama will no doubt try to invoke 'executive privilege' to try to keep the truth from coming out. Fireworks will ensue, so keep an ample supply of popcorn handy.

The basic facts have been perfectly clear since November 2008. But the media have refused to report them. Now the question is, can Eric Holder be sufficiently embarrassed that Obama has to throw him under the bus?

Frankly, I doubt it. But I guess we just have to keep pushing and pushing. The facts are not really in question. We wouldn’t be hearing any of this “alleged” talk if it were a Republican administration.

A careful reading of Mr. Coates’ statement is useful. He says that using a color-blind law only to protect non-white groups can’t now be defended as prosecutorial discrection, especially in the cases he discusses. His recital suggests, to me at least, that he and his colleague Christian Adams, and some others, were trying to change an entrenched outlook that, when the laws were enacted, may have made sense as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Or at least, non-white groups were the exclusive source of cases because of what was actually on the ground in this country at that time. It looks like Bush started trying to nudge this back to a defensible color-blind position.

Obama’s people inherited the entrenched view, which seems to match their own view, and proceeded to make the problem bigger and clearer. It astounds me that they didn’t have the sense to pursue some balance. But their supporters apparently are also unbalanced.

This is a specific example of what’s wrong with many federal activities that started out to protect weak minorities and now are entrenched to support a racial spoils system. I doubt the likelihood of impeachment and even criminal prosecution against the DOJ malfeasors, because the system they are pushing can probably be shown to go back a long way, and prosecution will threaten a lot of people embedded in analogous situations that can be seen all across the federal government. What’s really needed, and what congressional hearings may provide, is to push this unholy affair into protracted public discussion. The DOJ entrenched view can’t stand on its own legs in public, and its supporters may be forced to discontinue publicly supporting it and, I hope, other racial spoils tools.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.