The New Black Panthers
The slam-dunk prosecution of these thugs was dropped by Holder’s Justice Department. When asked why, Holder, on March 1, 2011, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies on March 1, 2011 that the “decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department.”
Holder lied, for the decisions were made by political appointees. J. Christian Adams, a former career DOJ attorney in the Voting Rights Section, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it was Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, who overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by Adams and his associates.
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch and a ruling by Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to a suit brought by the group show that “political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case.”
“When did you first know about the program officially I believe called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa asked Holder in sworn testimony on May 3, 2011. Holder lies to Congress in response, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”
A July 2010 memo shows Michael Walther, head of the National Drug Intelligence Center, told Holder that straw buyers in Fast and Furious “are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.”
Deaths of US Law Enforcement people resulted — and even more deaths resulted from people in Mexico who were killed by Obama’s guns. The response would seem to be, “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The Attorney General is held in contempt of Congress. What is the impact on this shocking result? Nothing. He’s still an effective tool of the Obama Administration.
Holder lied to Congress. Now we know that he personally signed off on James Rosen’s warrant. The first two judges that Holder went to personally to obtain approval for the warrant refused to sign it. Finally he found a willing tool. What did he promise the judge? Nobody knows at this point, but the Chicago Way calls for a quid pro quo (bribe/favor, whatever) to the judge. Holder’s defenders say that his statement before Congress is technically correct because he never meant to prosecute Rosen, only to find the leaker. If so, then he lied to a federal judge.
Similarly, Holder’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the Associated Press leak investigation that led to the blanket seizure of call records is not backed up by a formal recusal letter, which is required under such circumstances.