Commentary Magazine


Topic: Lamar Smith

RE: Republicans and the Hispanic Vote

Jen, I’d be cautious with those CNN exit polls, which do indeed show a better-than-expected Hispanic Republican vote. While analyzing exit polling data for small populations is always dicey, according to this analysis, it was particularly so for Hispanic voters in 2010.

If Republicans like Rep. Lamar Smith spent a fraction of their time talking to Hispanics about shared conservative values, the numbers would grow. There is no question that many Hispanics have more in common with conservatives who support patriotism, traditional families, and limited government than they do with the likes of Pelosi and Reid. But the latter reach out and make Hispanics feel comfortable in their midst, and too few in the Republican Party even bother to try. Maybe Rubio, Sandoval, Martinez, et al. will increase the comfort level for Hispanics within the Republican Party, making outreach come more naturally.

Jen, I’d be cautious with those CNN exit polls, which do indeed show a better-than-expected Hispanic Republican vote. While analyzing exit polling data for small populations is always dicey, according to this analysis, it was particularly so for Hispanic voters in 2010.

If Republicans like Rep. Lamar Smith spent a fraction of their time talking to Hispanics about shared conservative values, the numbers would grow. There is no question that many Hispanics have more in common with conservatives who support patriotism, traditional families, and limited government than they do with the likes of Pelosi and Reid. But the latter reach out and make Hispanics feel comfortable in their midst, and too few in the Republican Party even bother to try. Maybe Rubio, Sandoval, Martinez, et al. will increase the comfort level for Hispanics within the Republican Party, making outreach come more naturally.

Read Less

Republicans and the Hispanic Vote

Rep. Lamar Smith gets it partially right when he touts the election of Hispanic Republican candidates and of non-Hispanic pro-border-enforcement Republicans with the help of a significant number of Hispanic voters. “Exit polls reported by CNN and updated this week reveal that a historically robust 38 percent of Hispanic voters cast ballots for House Republican candidates in 2010 — more than in 2006 (30 percent) and 2008 (29 percent).” He observes:

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, one of the most trusted commentators on Spanish-language television, concluded that “the United States moved to the right, and Latino politicians did so too — among them, a new generation of Hispanic Republicans who support policies that are essentially opposed to the undocumented immigrants in this country.”

Who are these pro-rule-of-law Hispanic rising stars in the Republican Party? Voters elected Susana Martinez governor of New Mexico, Brian Sandoval governor of Nevada and Florida’s Marco Rubio to the U.S. Senate. Bill Flores, Francisco Canseco, Jaime Herrera, Raul Labrador and David Rivera went to the U.S. House of Representatives.

But we should add a couple of caveats. First, Smith notes that Gov. Jan Brewer got 28 percent of the vote, a good result, he suggests, since in 2006 the GOP candidate got 26 percent. Umm … I don’t think barely exceeding the vote totals for 2006, a wipe-out year for the Republicans, should be the goal for the GOP. (Moreover, the percentage of voters who are Hispanic has been increasing in each election, so Republicans will need to do better with each election if they are to retain that share of the general electorate.) And while Rick Perry got 38 percent of the Hispanic vote, he got 55 percent of the overall electorate, suggesting that a huge gap still remains in the GOP’s appeal to Hispanics.

Second, Smith ignores the real issues: tone, rhetoric, and position on legal immigration. Marco Rubio believes in border control, but his life story is built around the immigrant experience, and he eschews inflammatory language that has plagued Republicans like Tom Tancredo. As Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell pointed out to me a few years ago, if the Republicans want to continue to make progress among Hispanic voters, they need to object to the “illegal” part, not the “immigration” part, of the equation.

Smith is on solid ground with his conclusion:

On many of the most important issues of our day – jobs, education, support for small businesses and the economy – the Republican positions line up with Hispanic values. Republican approaches to better education, small businesses and job creation demonstrate that the GOP will put policy over politics when it comes to Hispanic outreach. The right way to attract Hispanic support is to emphasize our shared values.

Too often, Republicans assume that their positions are so intrinsically true that they need no explanation. Wrong. If they want to attract a growing portion of the electorate, they need to explain both that Republicans value Hispanics’ contributions and participation in American society and that school choice, low taxes, reasonable regulation, and other mainstays of the GOP agenda are the best avenue to upward mobility and progress for Hispanics, and for all Americans. Election of impressive candidates like Rubio, Gov. Susana Martinez, Gov. Brian Sandoval, and Reps. Bill Flores, Francisco Canseco, Jaime Herrera, Raul Labrador, and David Rivera is a good start but hardly sufficient.

Rep. Lamar Smith gets it partially right when he touts the election of Hispanic Republican candidates and of non-Hispanic pro-border-enforcement Republicans with the help of a significant number of Hispanic voters. “Exit polls reported by CNN and updated this week reveal that a historically robust 38 percent of Hispanic voters cast ballots for House Republican candidates in 2010 — more than in 2006 (30 percent) and 2008 (29 percent).” He observes:

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, one of the most trusted commentators on Spanish-language television, concluded that “the United States moved to the right, and Latino politicians did so too — among them, a new generation of Hispanic Republicans who support policies that are essentially opposed to the undocumented immigrants in this country.”

Who are these pro-rule-of-law Hispanic rising stars in the Republican Party? Voters elected Susana Martinez governor of New Mexico, Brian Sandoval governor of Nevada and Florida’s Marco Rubio to the U.S. Senate. Bill Flores, Francisco Canseco, Jaime Herrera, Raul Labrador and David Rivera went to the U.S. House of Representatives.

But we should add a couple of caveats. First, Smith notes that Gov. Jan Brewer got 28 percent of the vote, a good result, he suggests, since in 2006 the GOP candidate got 26 percent. Umm … I don’t think barely exceeding the vote totals for 2006, a wipe-out year for the Republicans, should be the goal for the GOP. (Moreover, the percentage of voters who are Hispanic has been increasing in each election, so Republicans will need to do better with each election if they are to retain that share of the general electorate.) And while Rick Perry got 38 percent of the Hispanic vote, he got 55 percent of the overall electorate, suggesting that a huge gap still remains in the GOP’s appeal to Hispanics.

Second, Smith ignores the real issues: tone, rhetoric, and position on legal immigration. Marco Rubio believes in border control, but his life story is built around the immigrant experience, and he eschews inflammatory language that has plagued Republicans like Tom Tancredo. As Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell pointed out to me a few years ago, if the Republicans want to continue to make progress among Hispanic voters, they need to object to the “illegal” part, not the “immigration” part, of the equation.

Smith is on solid ground with his conclusion:

On many of the most important issues of our day – jobs, education, support for small businesses and the economy – the Republican positions line up with Hispanic values. Republican approaches to better education, small businesses and job creation demonstrate that the GOP will put policy over politics when it comes to Hispanic outreach. The right way to attract Hispanic support is to emphasize our shared values.

Too often, Republicans assume that their positions are so intrinsically true that they need no explanation. Wrong. If they want to attract a growing portion of the electorate, they need to explain both that Republicans value Hispanics’ contributions and participation in American society and that school choice, low taxes, reasonable regulation, and other mainstays of the GOP agenda are the best avenue to upward mobility and progress for Hispanics, and for all Americans. Election of impressive candidates like Rubio, Gov. Susana Martinez, Gov. Brian Sandoval, and Reps. Bill Flores, Francisco Canseco, Jaime Herrera, Raul Labrador, and David Rivera is a good start but hardly sufficient.

Read Less

Watching DOJ

Judicial Watch continues to document the New Black Panther Party scandal, which was first reported by conservative media and now has attracted mainstream coverage. (But not the Gray Lady, which may have a tough time explaining to her readers next year why House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is issuing all those subpoenas. Imagine tuning into Mad Men for the first time after a couple of seasons; you see the dilemma — at some point, there’s no use trying to catch up.)

In the latest batch of disclosures, Judicial Watch tells us:

[I]t has obtained documents from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) that provide new evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP). These new documents, which include internal DOJ email correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision. The new documents were obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No.10-851)).

You mean Perez gave false testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights? Oh yes: Read More

Judicial Watch continues to document the New Black Panther Party scandal, which was first reported by conservative media and now has attracted mainstream coverage. (But not the Gray Lady, which may have a tough time explaining to her readers next year why House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith is issuing all those subpoenas. Imagine tuning into Mad Men for the first time after a couple of seasons; you see the dilemma — at some point, there’s no use trying to catch up.)

In the latest batch of disclosures, Judicial Watch tells us:

[I]t has obtained documents from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) that provide new evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP). These new documents, which include internal DOJ email correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision. The new documents were obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No.10-851)).

You mean Perez gave false testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights? Oh yes:

The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. Both DOJ officials were involved in detailed discussions regarding the NBPP decision. …

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political appointees were involved in the NBPP decision. Perez suggested that the dispute was merely “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.”

In fact, political appointee Sam Hirsch sent an April 30, 2009, email to Steven Rosenbaum (then-Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Rights) thanking Rosenbaum for “doing everything you’re doing to make sure that this case is properly resolved.” The next day, the DOJ began to reverse course on its NBPP voter intimidation lawsuit.

We’re going to see where the e-mail trail leads. There will be several storylines. First, how far will the scandal go? The administration may try to “amputate” at the assistant attorney general level (Perez), but evidence already revealed suggests that the associate attorney general level (the #3 position) can’t escape. But of course, the key question will be whether Eric Holder himself will be shoved off the stage. (We are going to get that frank discussion on race he’s been pining for regardless.)

Second, we’ll see how much interference Democrats are willing to run for the White House. The administration’s toady commissioner Michael Yaki tried his best to derail the commission’s investigation but wound up only embarrassing himself as the evidence gushed forth. Will House Democrats be in the mood to follow that path — or is this a fine opportunity to display their “independence” from the White House?

And finally, we’ll find out how much the administration has learned and how beholden it is to liberal activists. The Obama team has two options: (1) admit fault, repudiate a race-specific view of civil rights enforcement (e.g., only whites can be defendants), come clean, and let heads roll; or (2) fight tooth and nail, keep stonewalling, and reassure the NAACP and other liberal civil rights groups that they will stick with the left-leaning party line (i.e., civil rights laws are there to protect only “traditional” victims).

This issue is not remotely the biggest headache the administration will have to face in the next two years, but it sure will be revealing. And quite entertaining, I suspect.

Read Less

Flotsam and Jetsam

So much for the notion that it wasn’t a referendum on Obama. “I’m not recommending for every future President that they take a shellacking like they — like I did last night.” Notice the “I.”

So much for the Bill Clinton–like adjustment. “Obama admits he got a ’shellacking,’ but shows no sign of budging on core agenda.”

So much for the wishful thinking of the left blogosphere: “Republicans have picked up a net gain of 53 seats and were leading for another 13 Democratic-held seats. If current trend holds, Republicans could record their largest gains in the House in more than 70 years.”

So much for historical accuracy: “The newly divided government could be a recipe for gridlock or, as some veteran Capitol Hill operatives suggest, an opportunity for President Barack Obama and Congress to improve their weak standing with the American public by working together — a la Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich.” Um, I don’t think Gingrich improved his standing.

So much for lessons learned. The left blogosphere is still spinning: “I think the root of the Democrats’ political troubles lies in the initial flurry of activity — the stimulus, restructuring TARP, and the auto bailout. In the public mind, this all become jumbled together as ‘the bailouts’ — a conflation carefully nurtured by Republicans — even though obviously Keynesian fiscal policy is not the same thing as a bailout. But the truth is that all those policies were highly unpopular, and all came to symbolize big government rescuing bad actors while average people paid the bill. It became a frame that colored perceptions of the entire Democratic agenda.” It didn’t “symbolize” big government — together with ObamaCare, it was big government.

So much for Rahm Emanuel’s handiwork. “The Democrats who handed Speaker Nancy Pelosi her majority were largely wiped out of Congress on Tuesday. Fourteen members of the freshman class of 2006, dubbed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) as her ‘majority makers,’ and 21 freshman elected in 2008 lost their seats with a handful of races still undecided. Republicans were able to win several more open seats that Democrats had won in those cycles.” No wonder Rahm developed a yen to be mayor.

So much for getting our money back. “GM said it intends to sell almost a quarter of its 1.5 billion shares of common stock, at a price between $26 to $29 a share. It also intends to sell 60 million shares of preferred stock with a liquidation value of $50 a share. That price range would suggest that the Treasury Department’s 60.8% stake in the company would be worth between $23.7 billion to $26.5 billion once the stock starts trading. That value would be well below the $40 billion in taxpayer money GM received from the government and has yet to repay.”

So much for stonewalling. Rep. Lamar Smith, who together with Rep. Frank Wolf labored to get to the bottom of the New Black Panther Party scandal, will be the House Judiciary chairman. Eric Holder therefore may be the first subpoenaed member of the administration. I sense a stampede of officials at DOJ running to spend more time with their families.

So much for the notion that it wasn’t a referendum on Obama. “I’m not recommending for every future President that they take a shellacking like they — like I did last night.” Notice the “I.”

So much for the Bill Clinton–like adjustment. “Obama admits he got a ’shellacking,’ but shows no sign of budging on core agenda.”

So much for the wishful thinking of the left blogosphere: “Republicans have picked up a net gain of 53 seats and were leading for another 13 Democratic-held seats. If current trend holds, Republicans could record their largest gains in the House in more than 70 years.”

So much for historical accuracy: “The newly divided government could be a recipe for gridlock or, as some veteran Capitol Hill operatives suggest, an opportunity for President Barack Obama and Congress to improve their weak standing with the American public by working together — a la Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich.” Um, I don’t think Gingrich improved his standing.

So much for lessons learned. The left blogosphere is still spinning: “I think the root of the Democrats’ political troubles lies in the initial flurry of activity — the stimulus, restructuring TARP, and the auto bailout. In the public mind, this all become jumbled together as ‘the bailouts’ — a conflation carefully nurtured by Republicans — even though obviously Keynesian fiscal policy is not the same thing as a bailout. But the truth is that all those policies were highly unpopular, and all came to symbolize big government rescuing bad actors while average people paid the bill. It became a frame that colored perceptions of the entire Democratic agenda.” It didn’t “symbolize” big government — together with ObamaCare, it was big government.

So much for Rahm Emanuel’s handiwork. “The Democrats who handed Speaker Nancy Pelosi her majority were largely wiped out of Congress on Tuesday. Fourteen members of the freshman class of 2006, dubbed by Pelosi (D-Calif.) as her ‘majority makers,’ and 21 freshman elected in 2008 lost their seats with a handful of races still undecided. Republicans were able to win several more open seats that Democrats had won in those cycles.” No wonder Rahm developed a yen to be mayor.

So much for getting our money back. “GM said it intends to sell almost a quarter of its 1.5 billion shares of common stock, at a price between $26 to $29 a share. It also intends to sell 60 million shares of preferred stock with a liquidation value of $50 a share. That price range would suggest that the Treasury Department’s 60.8% stake in the company would be worth between $23.7 billion to $26.5 billion once the stock starts trading. That value would be well below the $40 billion in taxpayer money GM received from the government and has yet to repay.”

So much for stonewalling. Rep. Lamar Smith, who together with Rep. Frank Wolf labored to get to the bottom of the New Black Panther Party scandal, will be the House Judiciary chairman. Eric Holder therefore may be the first subpoenaed member of the administration. I sense a stampede of officials at DOJ running to spend more time with their families.

Read Less

Hiding Facts in a Scandal Never Works

Since the Obama team pulled the plug on the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, the administration has tried to keep the facts under wraps and the relevant documents and witnesses from surfacing. But this never works in Washington. In these sorts of scandals, the facts will still come out one way or another.

The new Congress with GOP chairmen will have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and then take the administration to federal court if its stonewalling continues. Judicial Watch is already in federal court challenging the administration’s withholding of documents from Thomas Perrelli, the associate attorney general. Then there are Justice Department attorneys who fear they may be caught in the scandal — because they complied with Obama appointees’ directions to withhold documents improperly, provided misleading answers to discovery requests, or aided in obstructing investigations. Now they may very well decide to assist investigators in an effort to distance themselves from the wrongdoers. There are many witnesses to the meetings, e-mails, documents, and discussions described by  Chris Coates and J. Christian Adams. It’s inconceivable all of them will remain silent.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Glenn Fine, is, or should be, another source of concern for the administration. When Reps. Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith were struggling in 2009 to get facts about the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, they wrote to Fine to implore him to open an investigation. Now, for many years, Fine has pushed for greater statutory authority to act as DOJ’s centralized watchdog, which in essence would overshadow the Office of Professional Responsibility (whose reputation has been poor and only deteriorated when its work on the John Yoo and Jay Bybee investigation was repudiated). In 2009, Fine said he lacked the authority to pursue the matter. But that was when the Obama team was riding high and ample evidence of systemic wrongdoing hadn’t been confirmed. In September 2010, both Obama’s political standing and the state of the evidence have changed.

Sure enough, Fine recently informed Wolf and Smith that he’s now undertaking that investigation. The New Black Panther Party scandal might finally give Fine the visibility and respect he has long sought. And it sure won’t harm his reputation with the new Congress.

Since the Obama team pulled the plug on the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, the administration has tried to keep the facts under wraps and the relevant documents and witnesses from surfacing. But this never works in Washington. In these sorts of scandals, the facts will still come out one way or another.

The new Congress with GOP chairmen will have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and then take the administration to federal court if its stonewalling continues. Judicial Watch is already in federal court challenging the administration’s withholding of documents from Thomas Perrelli, the associate attorney general. Then there are Justice Department attorneys who fear they may be caught in the scandal — because they complied with Obama appointees’ directions to withhold documents improperly, provided misleading answers to discovery requests, or aided in obstructing investigations. Now they may very well decide to assist investigators in an effort to distance themselves from the wrongdoers. There are many witnesses to the meetings, e-mails, documents, and discussions described by  Chris Coates and J. Christian Adams. It’s inconceivable all of them will remain silent.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Glenn Fine, is, or should be, another source of concern for the administration. When Reps. Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith were struggling in 2009 to get facts about the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, they wrote to Fine to implore him to open an investigation. Now, for many years, Fine has pushed for greater statutory authority to act as DOJ’s centralized watchdog, which in essence would overshadow the Office of Professional Responsibility (whose reputation has been poor and only deteriorated when its work on the John Yoo and Jay Bybee investigation was repudiated). In 2009, Fine said he lacked the authority to pursue the matter. But that was when the Obama team was riding high and ample evidence of systemic wrongdoing hadn’t been confirmed. In September 2010, both Obama’s political standing and the state of the evidence have changed.

Sure enough, Fine recently informed Wolf and Smith that he’s now undertaking that investigation. The New Black Panther Party scandal might finally give Fine the visibility and respect he has long sought. And it sure won’t harm his reputation with the new Congress.

Read Less

New Black Panthers — GOP Turns Up the Heat

Republicans on the Hill are turning their sights to the mushrooming New Black Panther Party scandal. Two of the latest developments signal the more aggressive stance from Republicans.

First, Rep. Lamar Smith (one of the few congressmen who has diligently hounded the administration for answers about the dismissal of the voter-intimidation case and for its position on enforcement of the civil rights laws) wrote to the president. As Ranking Chair on the House Judiciary Committee, he is asking for a special prosecutor to be appointed not only to investigate the dismissal of a single case but also to determine whether the Obama Justice Department is operating under a “no lawsuits against minorities” rule.

Then on Friday, in the Senate, the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee — all seven, including Lindsey Graham — sent a letter to Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. They list the relevant facts of the case, and they also make clear there is more at issue than a single case. The senators recap testimony that the assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez, may have provided untruthful testimony and that the deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, Julie Fernandes, said that the Department wouldn’t pursue cases with minority defendants and white victims. They conclude that if the allegations are true, the Obama Justice Department is guilty of “politicization and possible corruption.” They demand a hearing. The kicker is subtle and in the final line: “Given the importance of this oversight matter, we believe that holding a hearing on this issue should take priority over other Committee business.”

Are the Republicans threatening to hold up confirmation hearings? Could filibusters be in the future? There is the Elena Kagan vote and also the hearing to fill the No. 2 slot in Justice. (The controversial James Cole awaits his confirmation hearing.) If the Obama administration wants to move forward on its issues and appointments, the Republicans seem to be implying that the stonewall act of Eric Holder, aided and abetted by the slothful Democratic chairmen, must end. Seems fair, right?

Maybe now the mainstream media will recognize that this story is hardly about a single case, as noxious as it was to forfeit a default judgment against blatant violators of the Voting Rights Act. Face the Nation is scheduled to take a look at the matter today. (I wonder if the guests have been warned not to bring up the network’s yearlong refusal to cover the story.) We will see whether the mainstream media perk up and admit there is, in fact, a scandal of significant proportions that needs to be fully investigated.

The Democrats may be more motivated now than they were a month or a year ago to look into the allegations for two reasons. First, if one or both of the houses flip to Republican control, Rep. Lamar Smith will be Chairman Smith, and Republicans will have subpoena power. Perhaps now is the time for the Obami and House Democrats to make amends with Smith, whose requests and inquiries have been repeatedly ignored. There is nothing quite like a new chairman with an axe to grind. Similarly in the Senate, wouldn’t it be better for the Democrats to have a hearing under the protective eye of Sen. Leahy? It’s a big risk to let things build and to hope that all the polls showing an impending landslide are wrong. They could be facing Chairman Kyl, you know.

Second, Congress is soon to recess. What if — like Rep. Brad Sherman — more Democrats are “ambushed” by constituents demanding answers about the case? (Note to Democratic friends: read up about the case; the voters don’t like it when you say you’ve never heard about something because the New York Times didn’t report on it.) Certainly, if confronted by irate voters, Democrats would prefer to say: “Yes, I’m concerned too about equal enforcement of civil rights laws. We sure are going to have a hearing on that. Now, let’s get back to the real issue in the campaign: George W. Bush.” Well, you get the idea.

Even if the media is in damage-control mode — playing dumb about the wider implications of the case — Republicans have no intention of going along with the charade. As a result, an unseemly scandal is about to get a whole lot more attention. Like it or not, the media may be obliged to follow the story — the whole story.

Republicans on the Hill are turning their sights to the mushrooming New Black Panther Party scandal. Two of the latest developments signal the more aggressive stance from Republicans.

First, Rep. Lamar Smith (one of the few congressmen who has diligently hounded the administration for answers about the dismissal of the voter-intimidation case and for its position on enforcement of the civil rights laws) wrote to the president. As Ranking Chair on the House Judiciary Committee, he is asking for a special prosecutor to be appointed not only to investigate the dismissal of a single case but also to determine whether the Obama Justice Department is operating under a “no lawsuits against minorities” rule.

Then on Friday, in the Senate, the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee — all seven, including Lindsey Graham — sent a letter to Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. They list the relevant facts of the case, and they also make clear there is more at issue than a single case. The senators recap testimony that the assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez, may have provided untruthful testimony and that the deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, Julie Fernandes, said that the Department wouldn’t pursue cases with minority defendants and white victims. They conclude that if the allegations are true, the Obama Justice Department is guilty of “politicization and possible corruption.” They demand a hearing. The kicker is subtle and in the final line: “Given the importance of this oversight matter, we believe that holding a hearing on this issue should take priority over other Committee business.”

Are the Republicans threatening to hold up confirmation hearings? Could filibusters be in the future? There is the Elena Kagan vote and also the hearing to fill the No. 2 slot in Justice. (The controversial James Cole awaits his confirmation hearing.) If the Obama administration wants to move forward on its issues and appointments, the Republicans seem to be implying that the stonewall act of Eric Holder, aided and abetted by the slothful Democratic chairmen, must end. Seems fair, right?

Maybe now the mainstream media will recognize that this story is hardly about a single case, as noxious as it was to forfeit a default judgment against blatant violators of the Voting Rights Act. Face the Nation is scheduled to take a look at the matter today. (I wonder if the guests have been warned not to bring up the network’s yearlong refusal to cover the story.) We will see whether the mainstream media perk up and admit there is, in fact, a scandal of significant proportions that needs to be fully investigated.

The Democrats may be more motivated now than they were a month or a year ago to look into the allegations for two reasons. First, if one or both of the houses flip to Republican control, Rep. Lamar Smith will be Chairman Smith, and Republicans will have subpoena power. Perhaps now is the time for the Obami and House Democrats to make amends with Smith, whose requests and inquiries have been repeatedly ignored. There is nothing quite like a new chairman with an axe to grind. Similarly in the Senate, wouldn’t it be better for the Democrats to have a hearing under the protective eye of Sen. Leahy? It’s a big risk to let things build and to hope that all the polls showing an impending landslide are wrong. They could be facing Chairman Kyl, you know.

Second, Congress is soon to recess. What if — like Rep. Brad Sherman — more Democrats are “ambushed” by constituents demanding answers about the case? (Note to Democratic friends: read up about the case; the voters don’t like it when you say you’ve never heard about something because the New York Times didn’t report on it.) Certainly, if confronted by irate voters, Democrats would prefer to say: “Yes, I’m concerned too about equal enforcement of civil rights laws. We sure are going to have a hearing on that. Now, let’s get back to the real issue in the campaign: George W. Bush.” Well, you get the idea.

Even if the media is in damage-control mode — playing dumb about the wider implications of the case — Republicans have no intention of going along with the charade. As a result, an unseemly scandal is about to get a whole lot more attention. Like it or not, the media may be obliged to follow the story — the whole story.

Read Less

Don’t Give Me the Facts, I’ve Got My Story

I’m amazed how Politico can run a story trying to debunk the New Black Panther scandal without interviewing trial team member Christian Adams or any other former or current Justice Department attorney, without relating any of Adams’s testimony, without referencing the voluminous research and evidence unearthed by other news outlets, without contacting the offices of congressmen (Reps. Lamar Smith and Frank Wolf) who have been pressing for answers from the administration, and without even mentioning the allegations that the Justice Department won’t file civil rights cases against minorities. For over a year, Politico — as well as every other mainstream outlet — ignored the story, so the name of the game, I suppose, is to explain that they didn’t miss anything.

It is especially odd that a good reporter like Ben Smith wouldn’t make the effort to interview Adams. Adams is doing extensive interviews and is readily available. He’s not been critiquing the media coverage, but did promptly respond to my request for comment on the Politico story (he really is very easy to reach). He told me that Smith did contact him,  and Adams responded saying he was away for the day but inviting Smith to contact him if it was urgent. Adams never heard anything further from Smith. Adams continued:

My area of expertise is the law and the truth about the case. All I can do is provide truthful testimony and information. I know what [trial team leader] Chris Coates would testify to, and I know there are multiple corroborating witnesses both inside and outside the Department. So to me things like Ben Smith are a short lived distraction that in the long run don’t seem to matter given the facts. The idea that I would quit a job to no pay to make something up isn’t resonating beyond a core of sycophantic nuts. If I’m lying or exaggerating, charge me with perjury.

Adams is right that the facts are there — multiple witnesses, documents, and e-mails. They establish that a meritorious case of voter intimidation was dropped by Obama political appointees and that there is an aversion in the Obama administration to filing cases against minorities. That only conservative outlets have bothered to root around and uncover the story tells you more about the mainstream media than it does about the merits of the case.

It’s bad enough to miss an important story; it’s worse to write a belated story which steers clear of the facts you missed. Even when all the legwork is done by others and the story is figuratively handed to them, and even explained to them, some reporters can’t be bothered with the facts.

One final point: it’s not just right wingers who recognize that this is a legitimate and important story. The Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander does a mea culpa for the Post’s delinquency in reporting. Bravo. (Oh, if only Politico were so professional and candid.) I look forward to the Post’s future reporting — there certainly is plenty to investigate.

UPDATE: Jan Crawford, the fine legal reporter previously with ABC and now with CBS, has a comprehensive report here. Stephen Hayes’s excellent summary of the case and of the mainstream media’s disinclination to report on it is here.

I’m amazed how Politico can run a story trying to debunk the New Black Panther scandal without interviewing trial team member Christian Adams or any other former or current Justice Department attorney, without relating any of Adams’s testimony, without referencing the voluminous research and evidence unearthed by other news outlets, without contacting the offices of congressmen (Reps. Lamar Smith and Frank Wolf) who have been pressing for answers from the administration, and without even mentioning the allegations that the Justice Department won’t file civil rights cases against minorities. For over a year, Politico — as well as every other mainstream outlet — ignored the story, so the name of the game, I suppose, is to explain that they didn’t miss anything.

It is especially odd that a good reporter like Ben Smith wouldn’t make the effort to interview Adams. Adams is doing extensive interviews and is readily available. He’s not been critiquing the media coverage, but did promptly respond to my request for comment on the Politico story (he really is very easy to reach). He told me that Smith did contact him,  and Adams responded saying he was away for the day but inviting Smith to contact him if it was urgent. Adams never heard anything further from Smith. Adams continued:

My area of expertise is the law and the truth about the case. All I can do is provide truthful testimony and information. I know what [trial team leader] Chris Coates would testify to, and I know there are multiple corroborating witnesses both inside and outside the Department. So to me things like Ben Smith are a short lived distraction that in the long run don’t seem to matter given the facts. The idea that I would quit a job to no pay to make something up isn’t resonating beyond a core of sycophantic nuts. If I’m lying or exaggerating, charge me with perjury.

Adams is right that the facts are there — multiple witnesses, documents, and e-mails. They establish that a meritorious case of voter intimidation was dropped by Obama political appointees and that there is an aversion in the Obama administration to filing cases against minorities. That only conservative outlets have bothered to root around and uncover the story tells you more about the mainstream media than it does about the merits of the case.

It’s bad enough to miss an important story; it’s worse to write a belated story which steers clear of the facts you missed. Even when all the legwork is done by others and the story is figuratively handed to them, and even explained to them, some reporters can’t be bothered with the facts.

One final point: it’s not just right wingers who recognize that this is a legitimate and important story. The Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander does a mea culpa for the Post’s delinquency in reporting. Bravo. (Oh, if only Politico were so professional and candid.) I look forward to the Post’s future reporting — there certainly is plenty to investigate.

UPDATE: Jan Crawford, the fine legal reporter previously with ABC and now with CBS, has a comprehensive report here. Stephen Hayes’s excellent summary of the case and of the mainstream media’s disinclination to report on it is here.

Read Less

RE: Forcing a Vote on Jobs-Gate

As I noted yesterday, House Republicans introduced a resolution earlier in the month to require the Justice Department to turn over any documents on the job offers to Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff. Predictably, the Democrats voted down the resolution in the House Judiciary Committee by a 15-12 vote. Ranking member Lamar Smith had this to say after the vote:

I’m disappointed that Judiciary Committee Democrats today voted against requiring the Obama administration to make good on its promise of openness and transparency.  Allegations of unethical and possibly criminal conduct by Administration officials should be taken seriously by Congress.  Unfortunately, when it’s comes to possible misconduct by the Obama administration, Democrats in Congress seem eager to sweep the allegations under the rug. … I am disappointed that this Resolution of Inquiry is even necessary.  But the Administration has ignored all efforts to conduct meaningful oversight. If the Administration has nothing to hide, why not provide Congress with the requested documents and restore integrity to our election process?

The Democrats say that the resolution was “political.” Oh, puhleez. The White House tenders jobs to get two candidates out of primary races and then House Democrats vote in lockstep not to force it to disclose even what was said to whom. But the Republicans are playing politics? And so what if they are? What’s the excuse for not turning over the information — it would look bad? It would be embarrassing? When Democrats skewered the hapless Alberto Gonzales for firing the U.S. attorney, they were playing politics too; but that’s an observation, not an excuse for refusing to turn over relevant documents.

This is a powerful advertisement for divided government. If the administration isn’t going to allow scrutiny of its behavior, and House Democrats aren’t going to demand it, then voters who have come to loathe backroom deals and self-serving pols may conclude either that the House needs new management or that the White House does. Maybe both.

As I noted yesterday, House Republicans introduced a resolution earlier in the month to require the Justice Department to turn over any documents on the job offers to Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff. Predictably, the Democrats voted down the resolution in the House Judiciary Committee by a 15-12 vote. Ranking member Lamar Smith had this to say after the vote:

I’m disappointed that Judiciary Committee Democrats today voted against requiring the Obama administration to make good on its promise of openness and transparency.  Allegations of unethical and possibly criminal conduct by Administration officials should be taken seriously by Congress.  Unfortunately, when it’s comes to possible misconduct by the Obama administration, Democrats in Congress seem eager to sweep the allegations under the rug. … I am disappointed that this Resolution of Inquiry is even necessary.  But the Administration has ignored all efforts to conduct meaningful oversight. If the Administration has nothing to hide, why not provide Congress with the requested documents and restore integrity to our election process?

The Democrats say that the resolution was “political.” Oh, puhleez. The White House tenders jobs to get two candidates out of primary races and then House Democrats vote in lockstep not to force it to disclose even what was said to whom. But the Republicans are playing politics? And so what if they are? What’s the excuse for not turning over the information — it would look bad? It would be embarrassing? When Democrats skewered the hapless Alberto Gonzales for firing the U.S. attorney, they were playing politics too; but that’s an observation, not an excuse for refusing to turn over relevant documents.

This is a powerful advertisement for divided government. If the administration isn’t going to allow scrutiny of its behavior, and House Democrats aren’t going to demand it, then voters who have come to loathe backroom deals and self-serving pols may conclude either that the House needs new management or that the White House does. Maybe both.

Read Less

Forcing a Vote on Jobs-Gate

Earlier this month, House Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Constitution Subcommittee ranking member Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) introduced a resolution demanding that the administration turn over information about the Department of Justice’s involvement in the White House’s efforts to drive Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff out of their Senate primary races. That resolution will be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee today. As a GOP staffer explained, House Democrats “will be forced to vote on whether to hold the Administration accountable to its promises of transparency and change—especially with regard to providing documents on the Sestak-Romanoff job offers.”

I imagine there will be some vigorous debate and some feisty speeches from House Republicans. The resolution will almost certainly fail on a party-line vote, but it’s one more sign that Washington will be a very different place if the Republicans take over majority control of one or both houses in November. In the meantime it will be interesting to see how Democrats will defend their refusal to get basic information about the Blago-lite operation being run out of the White House.

Earlier this month, House Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Constitution Subcommittee ranking member Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) introduced a resolution demanding that the administration turn over information about the Department of Justice’s involvement in the White House’s efforts to drive Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff out of their Senate primary races. That resolution will be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee today. As a GOP staffer explained, House Democrats “will be forced to vote on whether to hold the Administration accountable to its promises of transparency and change—especially with regard to providing documents on the Sestak-Romanoff job offers.”

I imagine there will be some vigorous debate and some feisty speeches from House Republicans. The resolution will almost certainly fail on a party-line vote, but it’s one more sign that Washington will be a very different place if the Republicans take over majority control of one or both houses in November. In the meantime it will be interesting to see how Democrats will defend their refusal to get basic information about the Blago-lite operation being run out of the White House.

Read Less

Holder Stumped: Did Jihadism Motivate the Attacks on His Watch?

Eric Holder reached a new low (he’s had a run of them, so this is no small distinction) in this performance before Congress. Stumbling on and on under questioning by Rep. Lamar Smith, Holder makes apparent the Obama administration’s political and moral confusion about the enemy we are fighting. The question is simple: did radical Islam motivate the attacks that have occurred since Obama assumed the presidency?

Holder seems utterly unwilling or unable to formulate a coherent response, and tragically unable to distinguish between radical jihadism and the Muslim religion more generally. If you want to know what is deficient in the Obama team’s conception and approach to the war against Islamic fundamentalists, you will find no better example. One wonders — how would Obama respond?

Eric Holder reached a new low (he’s had a run of them, so this is no small distinction) in this performance before Congress. Stumbling on and on under questioning by Rep. Lamar Smith, Holder makes apparent the Obama administration’s political and moral confusion about the enemy we are fighting. The question is simple: did radical Islam motivate the attacks that have occurred since Obama assumed the presidency?

Holder seems utterly unwilling or unable to formulate a coherent response, and tragically unable to distinguish between radical jihadism and the Muslim religion more generally. If you want to know what is deficient in the Obama team’s conception and approach to the war against Islamic fundamentalists, you will find no better example. One wonders — how would Obama respond?

Read Less

Flotsam and Jetsam

Michael Rubin: “[Iran] Foreign Minister Mottaki: ‘Mr. [Yukiya] Amanu’s [IAEA] report shows that he is relatively new in his job. It takes some time until he reaches the maturity of Mr. El Baradei.’ That’s a bit like Hitler complaining that Churchill doesn’t have the maturity of Chamberlain. Congratulations to the IAEA for putting mission first, and leaving politics to the politicians.”

James Capretta on ObamaCare II: “The latest Obama plan would still pile a massive new health-entitlement program on top of the unaffordable ones already on the books. The Congressional Budget Office says the cost of the coverage expansions in the Senate bill (upon which the president’s plan is based) will reach $200 billion annually by 2019 and increase 8 percent every year thereafter. The Obama plan would increase those costs with even more expensive promises. Over the next decade, the plan would cost at least $1.2 trillion. Over a full ten years of implementation, its cost would approach $2.5 trillion.”

Even the Washington Post‘s editors don’t have nice things to say about Obama: “Overall, though, the president has proposed a plan whose uncertain savings are made even less certain, and whose known costs are increased. Already a trillion-dollar plan was ‘paid for’ with hundreds of billions of dollars in promised ‘savings’ from Medicare; already it ignored a known cost of well over $200 billion in Medicare payments to physicians; already it relegated too many reforms to pilot programs with long horizons. Now it postpones the key savings mechanism [the Cadillac excise tax]. Administration officials argue that Mr. Obama deserves credit for not dropping the tax altogether. But when did he stand up and fight for the better approach?”

Might it be all that talk of ObamaCare II? “For the second straight week, Republican candidates lead Democrats by nine points in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.”

Not buying Eric Holder’s latest: “Republicans are hitting back against Democratic claims that a guilty plea from an al Qaeda operative in federal court is proof the criminal justice system is up to the task of prosecuting terrorism suspects. … Republicans, however, remain steadfastly opposed to trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts and argued that the [Najibullah] Zazi case has no bearing on other prospective terrorism prosecutions, because Zazi is a legal permanent resident of the United States, while most accused terrorists are citizens of other countries who are not entitled to the constitutional rights civilian trials afford.” Rep. Lamar Smith chides Holder: ”But comparing the prosecution of Zazi — a legal permanent resident of the U.S. — to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — who engaged in an act of war against the U.S. by plotting the mass murder of Americans on 9/11 — is misleading at best.” Holder’s response? Still waiting.

Leslie Gelb points out that Rahm Emanuel is defending himself by dumping on Obama. ”In other words, Mr. Obama could have thrived and saved himself on key issues had he only listened to Rahm. It sure looks like Rahm (or someone near and dear to him) trying to save himself at the president’s expense.” Or maybe anti-Rahm forces are trying to make Rahm look like a disloyal snitch.

Not a headline Gov. Charlie Crist wants to see: “Wounded Crist Campaign Losing Staff.”

Sen. Harry Reid gets criticized for saying that unemployment contributes to domestic abuse. (“I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don’t have jobs.”) He actually has a point and certainly has said dumber, less defensible things. But he now has the ability to make even a plausible observation seem like a gaffe.

Michael Rubin: “[Iran] Foreign Minister Mottaki: ‘Mr. [Yukiya] Amanu’s [IAEA] report shows that he is relatively new in his job. It takes some time until he reaches the maturity of Mr. El Baradei.’ That’s a bit like Hitler complaining that Churchill doesn’t have the maturity of Chamberlain. Congratulations to the IAEA for putting mission first, and leaving politics to the politicians.”

James Capretta on ObamaCare II: “The latest Obama plan would still pile a massive new health-entitlement program on top of the unaffordable ones already on the books. The Congressional Budget Office says the cost of the coverage expansions in the Senate bill (upon which the president’s plan is based) will reach $200 billion annually by 2019 and increase 8 percent every year thereafter. The Obama plan would increase those costs with even more expensive promises. Over the next decade, the plan would cost at least $1.2 trillion. Over a full ten years of implementation, its cost would approach $2.5 trillion.”

Even the Washington Post‘s editors don’t have nice things to say about Obama: “Overall, though, the president has proposed a plan whose uncertain savings are made even less certain, and whose known costs are increased. Already a trillion-dollar plan was ‘paid for’ with hundreds of billions of dollars in promised ‘savings’ from Medicare; already it ignored a known cost of well over $200 billion in Medicare payments to physicians; already it relegated too many reforms to pilot programs with long horizons. Now it postpones the key savings mechanism [the Cadillac excise tax]. Administration officials argue that Mr. Obama deserves credit for not dropping the tax altogether. But when did he stand up and fight for the better approach?”

Might it be all that talk of ObamaCare II? “For the second straight week, Republican candidates lead Democrats by nine points in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.”

Not buying Eric Holder’s latest: “Republicans are hitting back against Democratic claims that a guilty plea from an al Qaeda operative in federal court is proof the criminal justice system is up to the task of prosecuting terrorism suspects. … Republicans, however, remain steadfastly opposed to trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts and argued that the [Najibullah] Zazi case has no bearing on other prospective terrorism prosecutions, because Zazi is a legal permanent resident of the United States, while most accused terrorists are citizens of other countries who are not entitled to the constitutional rights civilian trials afford.” Rep. Lamar Smith chides Holder: ”But comparing the prosecution of Zazi — a legal permanent resident of the U.S. — to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — who engaged in an act of war against the U.S. by plotting the mass murder of Americans on 9/11 — is misleading at best.” Holder’s response? Still waiting.

Leslie Gelb points out that Rahm Emanuel is defending himself by dumping on Obama. ”In other words, Mr. Obama could have thrived and saved himself on key issues had he only listened to Rahm. It sure looks like Rahm (or someone near and dear to him) trying to save himself at the president’s expense.” Or maybe anti-Rahm forces are trying to make Rahm look like a disloyal snitch.

Not a headline Gov. Charlie Crist wants to see: “Wounded Crist Campaign Losing Staff.”

Sen. Harry Reid gets criticized for saying that unemployment contributes to domestic abuse. (“I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don’t have jobs.”) He actually has a point and certainly has said dumber, less defensible things. But he now has the ability to make even a plausible observation seem like a gaffe.

Read Less

Civil Rights Laws Run Only One Way?

A curious report appears over at Main Justice, a website that offers nice juicy gossip and often mirrors the liberal legal party line from the Justice Department. It seems that one of the New Black Panther Party members at issue in the controversial dismissal of the Election Day voter-intimidation case is hopping mad:

Last week in a podcast interview, [New Black Panther Party president Malik Zulu] Shabazz let loose — with a racially tinged rant against the Republicans he said are trying to turn the issue into campaign ads for this fall’s midterm elections. “These right-wing white, red-faced, red-neck Republicans are attacking the hell out of the New Black Panther Party, and we’re organizing now to fight back,” Shabazz told the podcast host, a man who calls himself “Brother Gary” and hosts a show called Conscious Chats on Blogtalk Radio.

Shabazz singled out GOP Reps. Frank Wolf (Va.) and Lamar Smith (Texas) — two critics on the House Judiciary Committee — along with “Old Uncle Tom, Michael Steele, the black Negro who heads the Republican National Committee.”

“We gearing up for a showdown with this cracker,” Shabazz said, although it wasn’t clear to whom he was referring. “He keep talking – we going to Capitol Hill, we’re just gearing up right now, we’ll go to Capitol Hill.”

Well, probably not what the Holder Justice Department was anxious to hear as it attempts to stonewall its way through the inquiry. But what’s even more interesting is the apparent “defense” offered by Main Justice for those Obama officials who chose to dismiss the case over the objections of career attorneys: “No actual voters came forward to complain — the objections came from white Republican poll watchers.”

So is that what’s at the root of the case here — the notion that voter-intimidation claims are less than valid if white Republicans bring them? The behavior of the New Black Panther Party members was, after all, captured on videotape, so the conduct of the defendants is really not in dispute. What seems to be gnawing at the liberal legal types, however, is that a voter-intimidation case could be instituted by whites — white Republicans no less. Read More

A curious report appears over at Main Justice, a website that offers nice juicy gossip and often mirrors the liberal legal party line from the Justice Department. It seems that one of the New Black Panther Party members at issue in the controversial dismissal of the Election Day voter-intimidation case is hopping mad:

Last week in a podcast interview, [New Black Panther Party president Malik Zulu] Shabazz let loose — with a racially tinged rant against the Republicans he said are trying to turn the issue into campaign ads for this fall’s midterm elections. “These right-wing white, red-faced, red-neck Republicans are attacking the hell out of the New Black Panther Party, and we’re organizing now to fight back,” Shabazz told the podcast host, a man who calls himself “Brother Gary” and hosts a show called Conscious Chats on Blogtalk Radio.

Shabazz singled out GOP Reps. Frank Wolf (Va.) and Lamar Smith (Texas) — two critics on the House Judiciary Committee — along with “Old Uncle Tom, Michael Steele, the black Negro who heads the Republican National Committee.”

“We gearing up for a showdown with this cracker,” Shabazz said, although it wasn’t clear to whom he was referring. “He keep talking – we going to Capitol Hill, we’re just gearing up right now, we’ll go to Capitol Hill.”

Well, probably not what the Holder Justice Department was anxious to hear as it attempts to stonewall its way through the inquiry. But what’s even more interesting is the apparent “defense” offered by Main Justice for those Obama officials who chose to dismiss the case over the objections of career attorneys: “No actual voters came forward to complain — the objections came from white Republican poll watchers.”

So is that what’s at the root of the case here — the notion that voter-intimidation claims are less than valid if white Republicans bring them? The behavior of the New Black Panther Party members was, after all, captured on videotape, so the conduct of the defendants is really not in dispute. What seems to be gnawing at the liberal legal types, however, is that a voter-intimidation case could be instituted by whites — white Republicans no less.

This only serves to highlight the remarks of Chris Coates, the head of the Justice Department’s trial team, who upon his departure had these pointed words for his colleagues (paraphrased by Hans von Spakovsky):

Since many minority officials are now involved in the administration of elections in many jurisdictions, it is imperative that they believe that the anti-discrimination and anti-intimidation provisions of the Voting Rights Act will be enforced against them by the Justice Department, just as it is imperative that white election officials believe that Justice will enforce the provisions of the Voting Rights Act against them. I fear that actions that indicate that the Justice Department is not in the business of suing minority election officials, or not in the business of filing suits to protect white voters from discrimination or intimidation, will only encourage election officials, who are so inclined, to violate the Voting Rights Act.

I cannot imagine that any lawyers who believe in the rule of law would want to encourage violations of the Voting Rights Act by anyone, whether the wrongdoers are members of a minority group or white people.

It’s hard to believe that had the polling place been in Alabama and the intimidators been clad in KKK garb that the Obama Justice Department would not have proceeded full steam ahead against all defendants to the full extent of the law. But when the roles were reversed, a different standard seemed to apply. Indeed, Coates is no stranger to that double standard of enforcement from the liberal civil rights lawyers who dominate the Civil Rights Division. He explained his experience in a voter-intimidation case he brought when the victims were white and the perpetrator African American:

Selective enforcement of the law, including the Voting Rights Act, on the basis of race is just not fair and does not achieve justice.

I have had many discussions concerning these cases. In one of my discussions concerning the Ike Brown case, I had a lawyer say he was opposed to our filing such suits. When I asked why, he said that only when he could go to Mississippi (perhaps 50 years from now) and find no disparities between the socioeconomic levels of black and white residents, might he support such a suit. But until that day, he did not think that we should be filing voting-rights cases against blacks or on behalf of white voters.

The problem with such enforcement is that it is not in compliance with the statute enacted by Congress. There is simply nothing in the VRA itself or its legislative history that supports the claim that it should not be equally enforced until racial socioeconomic parity is achieved. Such an enforcement policy might be consistent with certain political ideologies, but it is not consistent with the Voting Rights Act that Justice is responsible for enforcing.

And that may be what is at the root of the New Black Panther Party case — the unspoken but endemic belief on the Left that the civil rights laws run only one way. The Obama administration must sense that this is anathema to most Americans. Hence, the stonewall. But having dismissed the New Black Panther Party case, it should now explain its decision and justify that approach to civil rights enforcement. Does the administration really believe that it simply isn’t right to prosecute a case where white Republicans are bringing the claim? It sure does look that way.

Read Less

Re: Democrats Not Interested

Additional attendees at the hearing advise me that Chairman John Conyers did open the proceedings with a statement. On one hand, he defended the Justice Department, contending that career professionals made the decision to dismiss three Black Panther defendants and that it had turned over all “non-privileged” documents. But he also left the door open just a crack, indicating he would be willing to work with Reps. Lamar Smith and Frank Wolf but that the current motion seeking information from the Justice Department was “premature.” Perhaps the Democrats don’t want to be seen as helping to cover the tracks of those in the Justice Department who acted to dismiss a serious voter-intimidation case. Just in case the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights should turn up something, you see.

Following the hearing, Rep. Wolf issued a powerful statement that includes this:

I am deeply disappointed that Judiciary Committee defeated my resolution of inquiry on a party-line vote.  There has been no oversight, no accountability and certainly no transparency with regard to this attorney general and this Department of Justice.

Where is the ‘unprecedented transparency’ that this administration promised?  Where is the honesty and openness that the majority party pledged?  The American people deserve better.

After ignoring my seven letters over seven months and failing to comply with subpoenas issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the attorney general continues to thwart all efforts to compel an explanation for the dismissal of U.S. v. New Black Panther Party.  DOJ is claiming broad privileges – which many legal scholars question – in order to avoid disclosing any new information regarding this case.  The committee’s failure to approve my resolution has set a troubling precedent.  Is it going to continue to blindly defer to all unsubstantiated claims of privilege from the department?

He also added a few tidbits about the Justice Department’s responses: the department claimed “privilege” and redacted seven pages of a letter Wolf sent to Eric Holder and released publicly on July 31, 2009. It also withheld other letters that it previously said it was prepared to share.

Transparency, it seems, is not the order of the day.

Additional attendees at the hearing advise me that Chairman John Conyers did open the proceedings with a statement. On one hand, he defended the Justice Department, contending that career professionals made the decision to dismiss three Black Panther defendants and that it had turned over all “non-privileged” documents. But he also left the door open just a crack, indicating he would be willing to work with Reps. Lamar Smith and Frank Wolf but that the current motion seeking information from the Justice Department was “premature.” Perhaps the Democrats don’t want to be seen as helping to cover the tracks of those in the Justice Department who acted to dismiss a serious voter-intimidation case. Just in case the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights should turn up something, you see.

Following the hearing, Rep. Wolf issued a powerful statement that includes this:

I am deeply disappointed that Judiciary Committee defeated my resolution of inquiry on a party-line vote.  There has been no oversight, no accountability and certainly no transparency with regard to this attorney general and this Department of Justice.

Where is the ‘unprecedented transparency’ that this administration promised?  Where is the honesty and openness that the majority party pledged?  The American people deserve better.

After ignoring my seven letters over seven months and failing to comply with subpoenas issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the attorney general continues to thwart all efforts to compel an explanation for the dismissal of U.S. v. New Black Panther Party.  DOJ is claiming broad privileges – which many legal scholars question – in order to avoid disclosing any new information regarding this case.  The committee’s failure to approve my resolution has set a troubling precedent.  Is it going to continue to blindly defer to all unsubstantiated claims of privilege from the department?

He also added a few tidbits about the Justice Department’s responses: the department claimed “privilege” and redacted seven pages of a letter Wolf sent to Eric Holder and released publicly on July 31, 2009. It also withheld other letters that it previously said it was prepared to share.

Transparency, it seems, is not the order of the day.

Read Less

Democrats Not Interested in Voter Intimidation Case Scandal

The House Judiciary Committee took up a resolution forced by Rep. Frank Wolf, calling on the Justice Department to fork over information on its endless, secretive, and (sources with direct knowledge tell me) quite lackadaisical investigation of the Obama Justice Department’s decision to dismiss the New Black Panther Party case. As expected, the resolution was voted down on a party-line vote of 15-14. The House Democrats don’t really seem as though they need to know why the Justice Department wouldn’t enforce the law fully against all defendants (for whom the U.S. government had a default judgment in hand) who intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day, 2008. As Ranking Minority Leader Rep. Lamar Smith explained in his prepared remarks:

No facts had changed. No new evidence was uncovered. The only thing that did change is the political party in charge of the Justice Department. So why would the Obama Administration suddenly drop charges in a case that had effectively been won? It appears that the Justice Department gave a free pass to its political allies—one of the defendants against whom charges were dropped was a Democratic poll watcher. Despite continued requests from Congress, the Justice Department has refused to give any explanation for dropping the charges. The Department’s silence appears to be an admission of guilt. According to media reports, senior political appointees may have overridden the decision of career attorneys. The decision to dismiss charges against political allies who allegedly intimidated voters on Election Day 2008 reeks of political interference.

An observer at the hearing tells me that only Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee bothered to speak out against the motion, claiming that this was just an isolated incident of intimidation (is this a new standard for the enforcement of civil rights?) and going as far as to defend the New Black Panther Party as a good and honorable organization. (I suppose there may be some in the Obama Justice Department who are sympathetic to this view.) She thinks the Obama Justice Department will prosecute anyone guilty of voter intimidation. (Except in this case?)

Republicans took a different position. Rep. Trent Franks wanted to know what the Obama team is hiding and, contrary to his colleague, labeled the New Black Panther Party as a racist organization. Rep. James Sensenbrenner blasted the Justice Deaprtments invocation of privilege as reason to refuse cooperation and said Congress needs to press for answers. (That’s not happening unless the House changes control in November.) Other Republicans emphasized the egregious nature of the case, which was there for all to see on video tape, and went after the recent testimony of Civil Rights chief Thomas Perez, who claimed there was no interference with career lawyers.

This is what passes for congressional oversight these days. As Rep. Smith says, there are certainly grounds for probing further:

Yesterday, 24 hours before this markup, the Justice Department provided the Committee with responses to the Civil Rights Commission’s information requests. These comprise more of the same non-responsive replies the Justice Department provided the Commission and Congress earlier this year. The Department refused to answer, either wholly or in part, 31 of the Commission’s 49 written questions.

The Department is still either unwilling or unable to answer one simple question: what changed between January 2009 and May 2009 to justify walking away from a case of blatant voter intimidation?

But don’t hold your breath. The Democrats who railed against Alberto Gonzales and insisted on investigation after investigation during the Bush administration to uncover some alleged politicization of the administration of justice are now silent. Trust the Obama team, they say. It seems as though if anything is to be learned about this case, it will come from the efforts of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights or those within the Justice Department who are offended by Obama political appointees’ meddling in what should have been a slam-dunk victory for the U.S. government in enforcing civil rights laws.

The House Judiciary Committee took up a resolution forced by Rep. Frank Wolf, calling on the Justice Department to fork over information on its endless, secretive, and (sources with direct knowledge tell me) quite lackadaisical investigation of the Obama Justice Department’s decision to dismiss the New Black Panther Party case. As expected, the resolution was voted down on a party-line vote of 15-14. The House Democrats don’t really seem as though they need to know why the Justice Department wouldn’t enforce the law fully against all defendants (for whom the U.S. government had a default judgment in hand) who intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day, 2008. As Ranking Minority Leader Rep. Lamar Smith explained in his prepared remarks:

No facts had changed. No new evidence was uncovered. The only thing that did change is the political party in charge of the Justice Department. So why would the Obama Administration suddenly drop charges in a case that had effectively been won? It appears that the Justice Department gave a free pass to its political allies—one of the defendants against whom charges were dropped was a Democratic poll watcher. Despite continued requests from Congress, the Justice Department has refused to give any explanation for dropping the charges. The Department’s silence appears to be an admission of guilt. According to media reports, senior political appointees may have overridden the decision of career attorneys. The decision to dismiss charges against political allies who allegedly intimidated voters on Election Day 2008 reeks of political interference.

An observer at the hearing tells me that only Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee bothered to speak out against the motion, claiming that this was just an isolated incident of intimidation (is this a new standard for the enforcement of civil rights?) and going as far as to defend the New Black Panther Party as a good and honorable organization. (I suppose there may be some in the Obama Justice Department who are sympathetic to this view.) She thinks the Obama Justice Department will prosecute anyone guilty of voter intimidation. (Except in this case?)

Republicans took a different position. Rep. Trent Franks wanted to know what the Obama team is hiding and, contrary to his colleague, labeled the New Black Panther Party as a racist organization. Rep. James Sensenbrenner blasted the Justice Deaprtments invocation of privilege as reason to refuse cooperation and said Congress needs to press for answers. (That’s not happening unless the House changes control in November.) Other Republicans emphasized the egregious nature of the case, which was there for all to see on video tape, and went after the recent testimony of Civil Rights chief Thomas Perez, who claimed there was no interference with career lawyers.

This is what passes for congressional oversight these days. As Rep. Smith says, there are certainly grounds for probing further:

Yesterday, 24 hours before this markup, the Justice Department provided the Committee with responses to the Civil Rights Commission’s information requests. These comprise more of the same non-responsive replies the Justice Department provided the Commission and Congress earlier this year. The Department refused to answer, either wholly or in part, 31 of the Commission’s 49 written questions.

The Department is still either unwilling or unable to answer one simple question: what changed between January 2009 and May 2009 to justify walking away from a case of blatant voter intimidation?

But don’t hold your breath. The Democrats who railed against Alberto Gonzales and insisted on investigation after investigation during the Bush administration to uncover some alleged politicization of the administration of justice are now silent. Trust the Obama team, they say. It seems as though if anything is to be learned about this case, it will come from the efforts of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights or those within the Justice Department who are offended by Obama political appointees’ meddling in what should have been a slam-dunk victory for the U.S. government in enforcing civil rights laws.

Read Less

We May Learn Something, Finally

Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden stepped down from the No. 2 spot at the Justice Department. The reason, we are told, is that he really didn’t get along with the attorney general, the career lawyers, or the political appointees. And the White House didn’t care for him. Well, sometimes things just don’t work out.

But that means we’ll have a confirmation hearing for the position responsible for a great many things in the Justice Department, including criminal matters and “federal programs” (Guantanamo). A high-profile confirmation hearing provides the Senate with the opportunity to get some answers out of a very tight-lipped Justice Department.

For starters, what’s become of the internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility over the dismissal of the New Black Panthers voter-intimidation case? This week, Congressmen Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith penned a letter to Holder that read in part:

We remain concerned that the Justice Department is prolonging OPR’s investigation as a pretense to ignore inquiries from Congress and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights into the sudden and unexplained dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. Any written report by OPR will be prepared exclusively for the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, with no guarantee that it will ever be made public.

After five months of unanswered questions, the American people can tell a cover up when they see one. If the Justice Department had any credible reason for dropping these charges, what do they have to hide by providing those answers to Congress?

Perhaps if the confirmation of DOJ’s No. 2 is at issue, Holder will cough up some answers. And by the way, why was the case dismissed?

Then there’s the decision to give KSM a civilian trial. It seems that other than the lefty lawyer brigade at DOJ, Holder didn’t consult with anyone but his wife and brother, not even the New York City Police Department or the Department of Homeland Security. What process does Justice go through? Was the White House really never consulted? Which lawyers were involved, and what consideration was given to the release of national-security data? A key confirmation hearing is the time to get some information. I’m sure the most transparent administration in history will be willing to share all.

There has been precious little oversight of the Holder Justice Department by the Democratic Congress. Now senators will have their opportunity to ask some hard questions. It is, as they say, a teachable moment.

Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden stepped down from the No. 2 spot at the Justice Department. The reason, we are told, is that he really didn’t get along with the attorney general, the career lawyers, or the political appointees. And the White House didn’t care for him. Well, sometimes things just don’t work out.

But that means we’ll have a confirmation hearing for the position responsible for a great many things in the Justice Department, including criminal matters and “federal programs” (Guantanamo). A high-profile confirmation hearing provides the Senate with the opportunity to get some answers out of a very tight-lipped Justice Department.

For starters, what’s become of the internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility over the dismissal of the New Black Panthers voter-intimidation case? This week, Congressmen Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith penned a letter to Holder that read in part:

We remain concerned that the Justice Department is prolonging OPR’s investigation as a pretense to ignore inquiries from Congress and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights into the sudden and unexplained dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. Any written report by OPR will be prepared exclusively for the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, with no guarantee that it will ever be made public.

After five months of unanswered questions, the American people can tell a cover up when they see one. If the Justice Department had any credible reason for dropping these charges, what do they have to hide by providing those answers to Congress?

Perhaps if the confirmation of DOJ’s No. 2 is at issue, Holder will cough up some answers. And by the way, why was the case dismissed?

Then there’s the decision to give KSM a civilian trial. It seems that other than the lefty lawyer brigade at DOJ, Holder didn’t consult with anyone but his wife and brother, not even the New York City Police Department or the Department of Homeland Security. What process does Justice go through? Was the White House really never consulted? Which lawyers were involved, and what consideration was given to the release of national-security data? A key confirmation hearing is the time to get some information. I’m sure the most transparent administration in history will be willing to share all.

There has been precious little oversight of the Holder Justice Department by the Democratic Congress. Now senators will have their opportunity to ask some hard questions. It is, as they say, a teachable moment.

Read Less

Beleaguered “Civil Servants”?

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius offers up a profoundly confused column this morning about the U.S. Attorneys scandal.

He begins by noting the extraordinary public service that many career federal workers perform for the country, and he’s absolutely right. But then he turns to accusing the Bush administration of ignoring, abusing, and demeaning such people, using as his example the e-mails sent by Justice Department political appointees regarding the eight U.S. Attorneys dismissed by the administration. Those e-mails, he argues, offer an example of political appointees disparaging civil servants.

The only problem is that the U.S. Attorneys who were the subjects of the e-mails he quotes were themselves political appointees, not career civil servants. U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President, generally at the urging of other elected officials from the President’s party. They stay in office only as long as the President wants them to. A number of Presidents have started their terms by firing all of the nation’s U.S. Attorneys and hiring their own people in their place. (Bill Clinton did that, for instance, firing among others a U.S. Attorney investigating Clinton himself in Arkansas, as Rep. Lamar Smith points out in today’s USA Today.) So the e-mails Ignatius quotes are actually examples of politicals talking about politicals, and do nothing to make the case he wants to push. On the contrary, they show that political appointees, too, do difficult and important work for the country.

Read More

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius offers up a profoundly confused column this morning about the U.S. Attorneys scandal.

He begins by noting the extraordinary public service that many career federal workers perform for the country, and he’s absolutely right. But then he turns to accusing the Bush administration of ignoring, abusing, and demeaning such people, using as his example the e-mails sent by Justice Department political appointees regarding the eight U.S. Attorneys dismissed by the administration. Those e-mails, he argues, offer an example of political appointees disparaging civil servants.

The only problem is that the U.S. Attorneys who were the subjects of the e-mails he quotes were themselves political appointees, not career civil servants. U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President, generally at the urging of other elected officials from the President’s party. They stay in office only as long as the President wants them to. A number of Presidents have started their terms by firing all of the nation’s U.S. Attorneys and hiring their own people in their place. (Bill Clinton did that, for instance, firing among others a U.S. Attorney investigating Clinton himself in Arkansas, as Rep. Lamar Smith points out in today’s USA Today.) So the e-mails Ignatius quotes are actually examples of politicals talking about politicals, and do nothing to make the case he wants to push. On the contrary, they show that political appointees, too, do difficult and important work for the country.

His more general point that the Bush administration is uniquely dismissive of the contributions of career civil servants is no less careless and unsupported. All you have to do is talk to a civil servant who worked, say, in the Office of Management and Budget or the Drug Enforcement Agency in the Clinton years, and you will be quickly relieved of any such notion.

There is always bound to be some friction between political appointees who work to advance the agenda of the elected President and the career civil servants who see one President or another as a temporary problem. The friction is especially great when the bureaucracy is actively opposed to the President’s agenda, as often happens for instance in the State Department during Republican administrations or the Pentagon in Democratic ones. The Bush administration has faced a particularly hostile bureaucracy in a few key agencies, including several (like the CIA) that play crucial roles in the war against Islamic radicals. The administration has, on the whole, handled it well, and has actually treated civil servants with more respect than they’re accustomed to throughout the government, appointing career staff to unusually senior positions and including them in very sensitive discussions.

Whether or not that’s the case at the Justice Department, a dispute between two groups of political appointees, as in the U.S. Attorneys scandal, is beside the point.

Read Less