Senator Patrick Leahy is shooting down a request by GOP Senators for public hearings into the Black Panther voter intimidation case, a move that will anger conservatives who were hoping for a public airing of the issue to prove the Obama administration is riddled with anti-white discrimination.
In a sharply-worded letter responding to the request for hearings from Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking GOPer on the Judiciary Committee, Leahy told Sessions that the accusations are fueled by partisanship and conservative media and appear to have no merit, and that further hearings would interfere with the multiple inquiries that are already underway. Leahy chairs the committee.
A source sends over a
copy of the letter. Conservatives have argued that the Obama Justice Department improperly narrowed the case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation in 2008, even though the evidence allegedly would have supported a broader prosecution.
But the letter runs through a series of reasons why this is bogus:
What makes allegations of politicization especially hard to credit is that the Department's decision to seek civil penalties rather than criminal sanctions in this case pre-dates the Obama administration. As made clear by the January 7, 2009, civil complaint filed by Attorney General Mukasey and others at the Department, that decision was made during the Bush administration. Another decision by experienced career attorneys evaluating the case was to pursue those civil penalties and obtain an injunction against King Shamir Shabazz, the only party alleged to have a stick outside the polling place.
I have no reason to second guess the initial decision made under Attorney General Mukasey and the Bush administration not to seek criminal prosecution stemming from the incident. and, instead, to bring a civil proceeding. Likewise, I have seen no credible basis to second guess the decision by career attorneys later in the case about how to proceed and resolve it with an injunction against Mr. Shabazz. Just as I trust that the law and the facts informed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Acting Assistant Attorney General Bradley Schlozman -- despite findings of serious wrongdoing by the Department's own Inspector General -- the Justice Department exercised its authority in the case arising from the 2008 incident. Prosecutorial discretion is a hallmark of the Justice Department, and, as a former prosecutor, it is a principle I respect....
In addition to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission consideration that is ongoing, I understand that in response to a request from members of Congress, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is reviewing the matter. I would not want to do anything to interfere with that inquiry.
The current partisan focus on this issue seems to be a product of the election year calendar more than credible evidence of wrongdoing. The insinuation that there may be "widespread politicization and possible corruption" seems to echo the ongoing drumbeat on partisan advocacy cable and radio shows. Questions about this incident have been asked and answered numerous times. Reviews are ongoing.
This, of course, will only further embolden conservative critics to argue that Dems are complicit in some kind of coverup of anti-white discrimination within the Obama adminstration. Of course, there's nothing that could conceivably silence this criticism, and agreeing to hearings certainly wouldn't have done it.
They didn't care when Bush was in office, now they care? Wonder if they Republicans are interested in investigating the Bush administration for war crimes?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
