What should Obama do in response to allegations of politicization of his DOJ over the New Black Panthers case?
Corruption of the Department of Justice is a serious offense and must have serious consequences, irrespective of who is in charge. Obama must make it clear that all laws will be equally enforced in his Administration, and that anybody who, by word or deed of omission or commission, does otherwise will be immediately terminated.
The prioritization of each case and the allocation of limited staff, physical, and fiscal resources to a case should be based on objective criteria such as the number and seriousness of the violations, the scope of the practice, whether it occurred under the color of law or the lack of enforcement thereof, and whether it is ongoing, but not subjective criteria such as the politics of the individuals involved or the political consequences of pursuing a case. By these objective standards, the highest priority of the Civil Rights Division of Obama’s DOJ must be pursuing criminal charges against G.W. Bush and his appointees for criminal violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 via the corruption of his DOJ in the period 2001-2008. There can be no impeachment proceedings against G.W. Bush, because he no longer holds elective office. However, the statute of limitations on crimes committed by G.W. Bush and his appointees during his presidency is not up. By the Right’s new standard of civil and voter rights justice for Obama’s DOJ, the Right should be outraged by Obama’s hypocrisy if his DOJ does not pursue this case against the former President because of its political consequences. Conversely, the lowest priority and fewest resources should be assigned to an isolated incident by a small group of agitators who will be arrested on the spot if they try it again.
Here are the relevant website references for your consideration.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/13/have-your-facts-megyn-kelly-vs-kirsten-powers-on-nbpp-thug-case/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/185556/new-black-panther-party-voter-intimidation-case-dismissal-part-iii/peter-kirsanow
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/09/new-black-panther-leader-defends-group-voter-intimidation-case/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/obama-has-violated-his-oath-of-office-in-racist-dept-of-justice-decision-to-drop-new-black-panther-p.html
If the decision was based on political considerations, such as not wanting to revisit the ACORN case in another guise, then the Obama Administration would be guilty of the same offense that the G.W. Bush Administration was guilty of – politicizing justice at the DOJ. Nevertheless, even if this allegation is true, there is no evidence that this policy of not pursuing allegations of voter intimidation against people of color in the Civil Rights Division of Obama’s DOJ exists or, if it exists, that it comes from the White House.
There is no question that hiring and firing in G.W. Bush’s DOJ was based on a conservative values litmus test and that cases against prominent Republican politicians were either not pursued or delayed until after an election. This was also true of decisions not to pursue numerous cases of Republican voter registration irregularities and voter intimidation prior to, during, and after the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. The Republican-dominated Congress failed to investigate any of these irregularities. Only when the Democrats took over did the systematic corruption of the DOJ come under official Congressional scrutiny. Nevertheless, as Megyn Kelly correctly observes in her reply to Kristen Powers, two wrongs do not make a right, tacitly conceding that DOJ injustices were committed by the previous administration.
If we score one for Megyn Kelley on the argument that two wrongs don’t make a right, we must score one for Kristen Powers on her arguments regarding the inconsistencies of the Right on the issue of the politicizing of the DOJ. She infers from the evidence at hand that the outrage from the Right over the alleged corruption of the Obama Administration’s DOJ appears to be manufactured, is disproportionate to the alleged offense, and is hypocritical relative to the standards of behavior applied to the previous Administration. If, as some on the Right are now demanding, Obama should be impeached for violating his oath of office over this issue, even though there is no evidence that Obama had any direct or indirect involvement in the dismissals or downgrading of charges or injunctions, shouldn’t these same standards of behavior apply to G.W. Bush?


