Archive for the ‘Lawyers’ Category
Thursday, Cleta Mitchell testified that the IRS scandal is real and that the investigation is a sham:
I wholeheartedly agree. During her testimony, Ms. Mitchell delivered this devastating information:
When Lois Lerner and President Obama accused line agents in Cincinnati of being responsible, ladies and gentlemen, that is a lie and I knew when Lois Lerner said that in May of 2010, when she admitted it was happening, after we knew it was happening — we knew we were being targeted — it’s just that she admitted it. But I knew it hadn’t happened in Cincinnati because the first time I became aware of this, another group I represent filed for tax exempt status in 2009. And besides cashing our check for our filing fee, we did not hear from the IRS again until June of 2010. And we didn’t hear from Cincinnati. We heard from Washington.
Ms. Mitchell was a one-woman Cat-4 hurricane yesterday. Unfortunately for Democrats, she wasn’t done with that refutation of the Democrats’ chanting points:
This group did one thing, one thing only. For all of the fall of 2009 until the spring of 2010, it lobbied against Obamacare, something that it is allowed to do 100% of the time. We did not get the tax exempt status for that organization until July of 2013.
Ms. Mitchell’s law firm is one of the top law firms in the nation. They didn’t get that reputation by being sloppy. Their record-keeping is meticulous. For the Democrats to insist that this is a sideshow and that the scandal is phony is belied by these documents. It’s real. It’s chilling political speech. That’s the Chicago Machine’s way.
The IRS is picking up where the FEC was told it couldn’t go in Citizens United v. the FEC. The IRS is using the FEC’s definitions in its rulemaking to stifle political speech.
Watch the entire video. It’s riveting TV. In fact, I’d recommend watching Catherine Engelbrecht’s opening statement, too:
I’m thankful that citizens like Cleta Mitchell and Catherine Engelbrecht have stepped forward rather than being silenced. They’re the personification of American patriots.
Technorati: Cleta Mitchell, Catherine Engelbrecht, IRS Investigation, OSHA, FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Federal Elections Commission, Weaponized Government, Citizens United, TEA Party, Censorship, Obama Administration, Democrats, Elections
Andy McCarthy’s article brilliantly exposes President Obama as a serial liar. Liar is a strong word, especially when used in connection with a sitting US president. Unfortunately for this administration, Mr. McCarthy has proof that President Obama is a serial liar:
But that’s not the half of it. Obama’s claim that unwelcome cancellations are confined to the individual-insurance market is another brazen lie. In the weekend column, I link to the excellent work of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, who has demonstrated that, for over three years, the Obama administration’s internal estimates have shown that most Americans who are covered by “employer plans” will also lose their coverage under Obamacare. Mind you, 156 million Americans get health coverage through their jobs.
John cites the Federal Register, dated June 17, 2010, beginning at page 34,552 (Vol. 75, No. 116). It includes a chart that outlines the Obama administration’s projections. The chart indicates that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013. In fact, for small-business employers, the high-end estimate is a staggering 80 percent (and even on the low end, it’s just a shade under half, 49 percent).
That’s proof that President Obama knew he wasn’t telling the truth when he said people could keep their plans if they liked their plans. That’s part of the proof that President Obama repeatedly lied to the American people but it isn’t all of it:
My friends at the American Freedom Law Center (on whose advisory board I sit) are representing Priests for Life, a group aggrieved by Obamacare’s denial of religious liberty — specifically, the ACA’s mandate that believers, despite their faith-based objections, provide their employees with coverage for the use of abortifacients and contraceptives. On October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion:
The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way. [Citing, among other sources, the Federal Register.] Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.
HHS and the Justice Department cite the same section of the Federal Register referred to by John Hinderaker, as well as an annual survey on “Employer Health Benefits” compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2012.
The Obama Justice Department verified as fact that the grandfathering provision would be rendered moot by the end of 2013. That isn’t just the 5% in the individual market. It includes the “156 million Americans” who “get health coverage through their jobs.”
The last time I checked, 156,000,000 people is approximately 50% of the population of the United States. Based on HHS’s calculations, tens of millions of people will be pushed into the exchanges as a direct result of the Affordable Care Act.
President Obama had hoped he’d solve his credibility problems with his disastrous press conference last Thursday. Based on Andy McCarthy’s and John Hinderaker’s work, it appears President Obama’s problems are just beginning.
I’m thinking that the Democratic Party should be given a new name. I’m thinking Exaggerations R Us fits perfectly. After reading Ed Morrissey’s post about DOJ exaggerations, I started thinking about other exaggerations I’ve heard. This post jumped to mind. First, here are the statistics that Ed cited:
The audit by the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, found that the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) overstated the number of terrorism-related defendants who had been found guilty in fiscal 2009 by 13 percent and then overstated the same statistic in fiscal 2010 by 26 percent.
Later, Ed cited this information:
Last year when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder boasted about the successes that a high-profile task force racked up pursuing mortgage fraud, the numbers he trumpeted were grossly overstated.
We’re not talking small differences here. Originally the Justice Department said 530 people were charged criminally as part of a year-long initiative by the multi-agency Mortgage Fraud Working Group. It now says the actual figure was 107 — or 80 percent less. Holder originally said the defendants had victimized more than 73,000 American homeowners. That number was revised to 17,185, while estimates of homeowner losses associated with the frauds dropped to $95 million from $1 billion.
Putting it politely, math doesn’t appear to be the Justice Department’s strong suit. Putting it impolitely, I’d say the DoJ is bullshitting the American people in an attempt to make themselves look good. Putting it bluntly, it isn’t difficult to establish as fact that Democrats lie through their teeth if it fits their cause. Here’s a perfect example of that:
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.” Id., at 783.
She rejected “as utterly incredible and unreliable” an expert’s report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card.
This was part of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ majority opinion in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections. The Democratic Party of Indiana insisted that 989,000 people in Indiana didn’t have a “driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification.” The judge’s finding of fact said that 43,000 didn’t have “a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification”, a difference of 24,300%.
These are perfect examples of the Democrats’ willingness to exaggerate to make themselves look good or to frighten people. In both of these instances, Democrats exaggerated on a grand scale.
That’s why my recommendation fits perfectly.
Technorati: Justice Department, U.S. Attorneys, Mortgage Fraud Convictions, Terrorism Convictions, Eric Holder, Inspector General Audit, Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board, Photo ID, John Paul Stevens, SCOTUS
A federal judge dismissed 2 lawsuits in-home child care small businesses filed after Gov. Dayton signed the bill into law. Here’s part of what the judge wrote of the dismissal:
Chief Judge Michael Davis wrote the “plaintiffs express a fear that, one day, there may be a certified union for family child care providers who accept State subsidies and that, one day, such a union may decide to impose a fair share fee on nonmembers of the union… Plaintiffs request that the Court peer into a crystal ball, predict the future, and then opine on the constitutionality of a speculative scenario…Courts may not give such advisory opinions. Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe.”
Gov. Dayton issued this statement on Judge Davis’ dismissal:
I am very pleased that both lawsuits seeking to prevent child care providers from deciding for themselves whether or not to form a union have been dismissed by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court. I believe that working men and women should have the right to vote on forming a union, and that the Court’s decisions will permit such an election to be held.
Gov. Dayton’s victory might be temporary. The judge didn’t say the small business leaders’ lawsuit was without merit. He simply said it wasn’t ripe. That’s something echoed by the plaintiffs’ attorney Doug Seaton:
He’s dismissed the case but he’s dismissed it on the basis that nothing is ripe, nothing has happened yet in his view. We think enough has happened so the judge can decide and he shouldn’t dismiss the case but because of that part of the decision it’s possible that our evaluation will be- we’re better off to wait until there’s a filing by AFSCME or some part of the process in the election takes place and then it’s very clear- it is ripe. So that would be one avenue to re-file after a matter of time and developments or directly go to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file an appeal of this decision.
Hollee Saville, one of the leaders of the anti-unionization fight, issued this statement on Judge Davis’ dismissal:
This is NOT over! We believe the Judge has erred and are considering our options to appeal or refile as the election process proceeds, but this challenge is not over. We remain convinced that home child care providers are not subject to unionization by the state under this statute.
Providers, PLEASE register to accept CCAP NOW so that you would get a vote.
We still need help adopting licensed family child care providers for mailings (any amount makes a difference) and will need help calling eligible voters soon, since we’re sure that AFSCME will present their 500 cards soon.
PLEASE visit www.MinnesotaFamilyChildcare.com to see how you can help.
At the heart of this fight is whether a legislature can write legislation that changes a private sector employer into a public sector employee without the employer’s consent. If the court rules that legislatures have that authority, then there’s nothing that legislatures couldn’t do.
As for Gov. Dayton’s statement, he’s intentionally omitting a pair of important points. First, legislatures shouldn’t have the right to call for a vote when existing federal legislation prohibits that vote. Also, legislatures shouldn’t have the right to write legislation that says private sector employers aren’t private sector employers. That’s what the DFL’s bill essentially does.
Finally, the DFL is playing with political fire with this issue. Anti-unionization activists are upset with the DFL for essentially throwing them under the bus to pay off the DFL’s political allies. The DFL stepped on a political landmine with this. Passing this legislation is motivating voters to vote against the DFL.
UPDATE: Here’s how Sen. Dave Thompson responded to last night’s child care ruling:
“On Sunday, July 28, 2013, The Honorable Michael Davis issued an order dismissing claims against Governor Mark Dayton pertaining to the childcare unionization legislation that was passed and signed into law during the 2013 legislative session. Of course, I am saddened by the decision, but am glad Judge Davis left the door open for the childcare providers to re-assert their claims at a later date.
“It is sad that these independent business people must work through the courts to try and stop the impact of this damaging law. This is what happens when elected officials put political interests ahead of the people. Governor Dayton and Democrats in the legislature have chosen to reward campaign contributors and union bosses while at the same time bullying childcare providers, most of whom are self-employed women.
“Rest assured if I am honored to be your next governor, I would make it a priority to repeal this ill advised and harmful law. This is an example of special interest politics at its worst, and Minnesotans should not stand for it.”
Here’s a quick quiz for voters: when was the last time the DFL didn’t side with their special interest allies?
Tags: Child Care Unionization, Mark Dayton, AFSCME, Mike Nelson, Corruption, Public Employees, PEUs, DFL, Hollee Saville, Doug Seaton, Small Businesses, Child Care Providers, CCAP, Federal Lawsuit, Michael Davis, Federal District Court, Dismissal
Yesterday, Al Sharpton said that he hopes continued pressure on the DOJ would force them to file a civil rights case against George Zimmerman:
Sharpton has said he hopes continued public pressure will force the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against Zimmerman.
That isn’t surprising. Sharpton’s been a hustler and liar for decades. He’s most famous for the Tawana Brawley fiasco. Since the verdict, he’s a) advocated for ignoring Florida’s manslaughter, b) brushed aside the fact that proof doesn’t exist that George Zimmerman acted with racial malice and c) insisted that Eric Holder ignore federal hate crimes laws.
From the start, the media, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the special prosecutors who tried the case have tried painting Trayvon Martin as a cherub-faced 12-year-old boy. They’ve omitted the parts about how he was prone to violence, that he was 4 inches taller than George Zimmerman and that the items he bought at the neighborhood store are ingredients to a drink that causes paranoia and fits of violence.
This video by Bill Whittle highlights the things Al Sharpton and the prosecutors didn’t and won’t tell people:
Setting those things aside, justice can’t be achieved through mob rule, which is what Sharpton specializes in. Sharpton also specializes in omitting key truths if they interfere with his storyline. That isn’t just speculation. Here’s what he omitted during the Tawana Brawley fiasco:
Much of the grand jury evidence pointed to a possible motive for Brawley’s falsifying the incident: trying to avoid violent punishment from her mother and her stepfather Ralph King. Witnesses testified that Glenda Brawley had previously beaten her daughter for running away and for spending nights with boys. King had a history of violence that included stabbing his first wife 14 times, later shooting and killing her. There was considerable evidence that King could and would violently attack Brawley: when Brawley had been arrested on a shoplifting charge the previous May, King attempted to beat her for the offense while at the police station. Witnesses have also described King as having talked about his stepdaughter in a sexualized manner. On the day of her alleged disappearance, Brawley had skipped school to visit boyfriend Todd Buxton, who was serving a six-month jail sentence. When Buxton’s mother (with whom she had visited Buxton in jail) urged her to get home before she got in trouble, Brawley told her, “I’m already in trouble.” She described how angry Ralph King was over a previous incident of her staying out late.
There was evidence that Brawley’s mother and King participated knowingly in the hoax. Neighbors told the grand jury that in February they overheard Glenda Brawley saying to Mr. King, “You shouldn’t have took the money because after it all comes out, they’re going to find out the truth.” Another neighbor heard Mrs. Brawley say, “They know we’re lying and they’re going to find out and come and get us.”
Ultimately, the man Sharpton accused of raping Ms. Brawley filed a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton. Here’s that lawsuit’s outcome:
In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one.
Now Sharpton has a semi-national TV audience (He’s got a show on MSNBC) from which to spew his hatred and lies. Sharpton’s platform is different but his lies and omissions remain consistent.
In any other administration, I’d say I’d be surprised to see the DOJ file charges against Zimmerman. With the Obama/Holder DOJ, I’d be upset but not surprised if they filed charges against George Zimmerman. The facts and the law just don’t support the prosecution of George Zimmerman.
Then again, the facts and the law haven’t stopped Al Sharpton, President Obama or Eric Holder in the past.
Karen Cyson’s monthly op-ed is stunningly propagandist in nature. Here’s a sampling of Cyson’s propaganda:
The right to vote for representation was a catalyst for the American Revolution. It wasn’t until 124 years later, in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment, that women were given that right.
How patronizing then that the current conflagration about a child care providers union isn’t about whether to form a union, but whether the providers be allowed to vote on whether to form a union.
That’s right. Another 93 years later, many in a mostly male Minnesota government are telling a mostly female profession, “Now, now, little lady. We know what’s best for you. Don’t you go worrying your pretty little head over this dang union thing.”
If Ms. Cyson didn’t have a history of spewing liberal propaganda, I’d be upset. The truth is that Ms. Cyson didn’t accidentally get her facts badly wrong on this issue. It’s that she’s lying through her teeth.
I watched about 4 hrs. of the debate on the House floor. Rep. Mike Nelson carried the bill for the DFL. Rep. Nelson is “a trades business agent for the Lakes and Plains Regional Council of Carpenters and Joiners.” In short, he’s belonged to a carpenters union for over 20 years. While I can’t find his voting record on union issues, I’m betting the ranch it’s 100%.
By comparison, the chief Republicans fighting against the DFL’s child care unionization legislation were Rep. Mary Franson, Rep. Sarah Anderson and Rep. Joyce Peppin. Rep. Franson, in fact, read from a legal study from the law firm of Seaton, Peters and Revnew that talks about the NLRA, aka the National Labor Relations Act. Here’s a quote from the NLRA:
Federal law mandates that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to “…dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it…” 29 U.S.C. 158 (a)(2)
One of the highlights of the child care debate came after Rep. Nelson said for the umpteenth time that the BMS, aka the Bureau of Mediation Services, “has been doing these elections for 40 years and they’ve been doing a fine job.” That’s when Rep. Anderson asked Rep. Nelson if the BMS had ever been audited. He admitted he didn’t know, at which point Rep. Anderson asked “Then how do you know that they’ve been doing a fine job?”
At another key point, Rep. Nelson argued against an amendment on the font size of the print on the mailer sent to child care providers. He held up a mailer that met the requirements of the amendment. Minutes later, Rep. Peppin introduced a mailer she’d gotten from the child care providers still outside the House floor at 4:05 am. Rep. Peppin showed that this mailer had lots of fine print that was difficult to read.
That’s before talking about Hollee Saville, the leader of the opposition to the DFL’s child care unionization efforts. Saying that Hollee is well-informed on this issue is understatement. She’s the heart and soul of the leadership that’s trying to defeat this illegal effort.
That’s before talking about the dozens of women outside the House floor who oppose the legislation. They outnumbered the pro-union child care advocates by a wide margin.
Ms. Cyson’s statement that an all-male gang of legislators told the women that they “know what’s best for you. Don’t you go worrying your pretty little head over this dang union thing” is pure bullshit. In fact, the DFL told the women child care providers that they knew best of how to run their child care small businessses. They did it by having Rep. Nelson, a pro-union man, repeatedly say that the “BMS has been doing these elections for 40 years and have been doing a fine job.”
That’s proof positive that the DFL, not a bunch of know-it-all men, told the women who run child chare small businesses they the DFL knows what’s best for these women. The DFL essentially said that these female entrepreneurs shouldn’t “worry their pretty little heads” about unionization.
Finally, Rep. Nelson admitted in an interview on WCCO radio that this was a payoff to AFSCME:
Thankfully, this legislation will be defeated in the federal court system. The NLRA is quite clear that it doesn’t allow business owners to “dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.” Further, governments can’t say that private sector business owners are public sector union employees just because it says so.
Ms. Cyson should pay attention to the laws on the books. She shouldn’t be ignoring the ones she doesn’t like.
Alan Dershowitz, the famed civil rights attorney and Harvard Law School professor, is upset with the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial:
Immediately after the verdict was announced, however, the NAACP and outspoken activist Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to launch a federal civil-rights probe, charging that the case had been racially tainted.
Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.
“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” said the criminal-law expert. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”
The evidence in this case was contradictory. That means the jury couldn’t have honestly been certain of anything. That’s reasonable doubt. The jury could’ve said that they found the evidence sufficient to convict. That’s what race-baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and President Obama were counting on. They’d pinned their hopes on the jury voting on their emotions, not the evidence.
To their credit, the jury didn’t take the bait from these race hustlers. They followed the law. They examined the evidence. They concluded that George Zimmerman acted in self defense. Either that or they concluded that the prosecution didn’t meet their burden of proving their theory of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for “disciplinary action.”
He criticized the state’s probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.
“The prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder,” the Harvard professor told Newsmax. “She deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.
“That violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,” he said.
It’s quite stunning to hear of a special prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense team. The picture of George Zimmerman’s bloody head alone should’ve eliminated the charges of second degree murder before the trial. It also should’ve put into question whether there was a case for manslaughter.
That’s because the picture showed that it was reasonable for George Zimmerman to think his life was in danger. Regardless of who followed who, the reality is that George Zimmerman’s worries were legitimate the minute Trayvon Martin started bashing George Zimmerman’s head into the pavement.
The race-baiting industry won’t stop because hatemongers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama need it to continue. That’s the sad commentary on America.
Tags: Angela Corey, Special Prosecutor, Ethhics Sanctions, Civil Rights Violations, Prosecutors, Exculpatory Evidence, Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, Self Defense, Reasonable Doubt
Amidst all the talk about Eric Holder’s semi-off-the-record meeting with news organizations, one thing is getting lost. I think that’s intentional. Holder’s only hope of hanging onto his job is to get the media to return to their lapdog posture. Eric Holder knows that the media doesn’t trust him, at least for the moment. He’s hoping that his charm offensive will give them the political cover they need to pretend he didn’t just violate their rights to do investigative journalism.
The American people, however, aren’t fooled. Neither is Fox News. It’s their responsibility to remind people that Holder didn’t hesitate in tossing the Constitution aside, especially the Bill of Rights. He didn’t respect the media’s First Amendment rights to report on the government’s actions.
That’s actually the lesser of the violations he made. When he signed a warrant application that accused James Rosen of being a criminal co-conspirator in order to rifle through Rosen’s private emails without his knowledge, he deprived Rosen and Fox News of their due process rights. That’s a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Why should people trust Mr. Holder when he didn’t hesitate to ignore the highest laws governing the federal government? This isn’t an aberration, either. Mr. Holder lobbied President Clinton to pardon the biggest tax cheat, Marc Rich, in U.S. history. Mr. Holder dropped the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party after the Mukasey Justice Department had won the case.
The media shouldn’t be given the option to ignore Mr. Holder’s outrageous behavior. This isn’t about him ‘accepting responsibility’, whatever that means. It’s about him getting prosecuted for his wrongdoings. That includes prosecuting him for lying to Congress. It includes prosecuting him for lying to a judge, too.
Why should news organizations trust Mr. Holder when they don’t know how many times he signed off on looking through their reporters’ phone logs and reading their reporters’ emails? We know he signed off on more than just the Rosen warrant because he testified he didn’t know how many times he’d signed off on warrants that let authorities surreptitiously read Rosen’s emails and look at his phone records. When that application was approved, it also gave federal authorities permission to look at Mr. Rosen’s parents’ phone records.
We know from their statements the last week that they never intended to prosecute Rosen. If that’s true, why did the Justice Department need to prevent Rosen’s and Fox’s attorneys from arguing against the warrant in court?
Finally, it’s safe to conclude that Holder’s actions prove that his respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is selective at best.
Follow this link for more on this topic.
There’s no question that Eric Holder wasn’t the US Attorney General when thugs from the NBPP threatened voters, including legendary civil rights attorney Bartle Bull. He wasn’t the US Attorney General when the DOJ won the civil case against the NBPP. What’s indisputable, though, is that Holder was the US Attorney General whose DOJ dropped the case after a previous DOJ team of attorneys had won the case.
New evidence has surfaced showing a high-ranking DOJ official, Thomas Perez, lied under oath. This scandal is about to get major national press thanks to this video:
First, let’s review what’s known. Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request, which led to Judge Reggie Walton’s ruling. Here’s the vital part of Judge Walton’s ruling:
Judicial Watch…has obtained documents from the Obama [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 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.
Here’s one of the emails disclosed by the DOJ:
For example, in one April 30, 2009, email from Hirsch to Perrelli, with the subject title “Fw: New Black Panther Party Update,” Hirsch writes:
I need to discuss this with you tomorrow morning. I’ll send you another email on this shortly.
If you want to discuss it this evening, please let me know which number to call and when.
This entire administration must go, starting with Eric Holder. That means prosecuting him for politically undermining a case involving a voting rights violations.
That includes criminal prosecution of Gen. Holder and President Obama’s political appointees. President Obama’s political appointees undermined the American system of justice through acts of political sabotage that helped their political allies. That’s corruption of the worst kind.
The indictment against this administration keeps getting longer. What’s worse for this administration is that it keeps revealing more corruption and economic ineptitude.
When I first read this article, I thought I was seeing things. Unfortunately, I hadn’t. Here’s what I’m talking about:
But the state has no obligation to verify eligibility before counting votes, nor would doing so be practical, countered Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hartshorn, representing Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson.
That’s an odd interpretation of Article VII of Minnesota’s Constitution:
Section 1. ELIGIBILITY; PLACE OF VOTING; INELIGIBLE PERSONS. Every person 18 years of age or more who has been a citizen of the United States for three months and who has resided in the precinct for 30 days next preceding an election shall be entitled to vote in that precinct. The place of voting by one otherwise qualified who has changed his residence within 30 days preceding the election shall be prescribed by law. The following persons shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state: A person not meeting the above requirements; a person who has been convicted of treason or felony, unless restored to civil rights; a person under guardianship, or a person who is insane or not mentally competent.
Article VII, Sect. 1 specifically says that people who don’t meet the Constitution’s requirements “shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state.”
The Secretary of State is known as the chief election official in Minnesota just like the Attorney General is known as the chief law enforcement official in Minnesota. They, along with the state auditor, the governor and the leiutenant governor are the 5 “constitutional offices.”
What Assistant Attorney General Hartshorn just said in U.S. District Court is that Minnesota’s constitutional officers, specifically the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, aren’t required to uphold Minnesota’s Constitution.
That argument wouldn’t work in a Minnesota court. If it wouldn’t work in here, it certainly won’t fly in any US appellate court with the exception of the Ninth Circuit.
Hartshorn isn’t going beyond the bizarre statements in Mark Ritchie’s memo in favor of dismissal motion:
In their responsive memorandum, Plaintiffs once again proceed from the premise that the Minnesota Constitution imposes an obligation on Defendants to “confirm” or “verify” voter eligibility before counting votes. This time, Plaintiffs repeatedly assert that that obligation is contained in the phrase “any election” in Minn. Const. art. VII, § 1.
(See 2d. Pls. Mem. 3, 7, 13, 16, 17, 19.) As Plaintiffs concede, however, that section of the state constitution merely provides that a “person not entitled to vote cannot vote in ‘any election.’” (2d. Pls. Mem. 7 (emphasis added).) There is nothing in the words “any election,” in art. VII, § 1, or elsewhere in Minnesota law that places upon Defendants an affirmative obligation to prevent such persons from committing felony voter fraud.
What Mr. Hartshorn is arguing is that the chief election official doesn’t have a responsibility for upholding Minnesota’s election laws. What he’s arguing is that a) the Secretary of State’s office is a ceremonial office devoid of official constitutional responsibilities and b) Minnesota’s constitution doesn’t require that the Constitution be upheld.
He’s also arguing that the chief law enforcement officer in the state isn’t responsible for enforcing the requirements codified into Minnesota’s Constitution.
These are absurd arguments that attempt to shirk the Secretary of State’s and the Attorney General’s responsibilities. It’s absurd to think that the Constitution requires something but Minnesota state statutes doesn’t compel anyone to enforce those requirements.