McCarthy – Civil Rights violations? Yes, on Zimmerman.

Editor’s Note – Civil rights violations on Trayvon Martin by Zimmerman? How about Zimmerman’s civil rights to a fair trial and ‘double jeopardy’? Will there be “triple jeopardy” a civil suit as well?

As each day goes by since the Zimmerman case ended in a ‘not guilty’ verdict, the rhetoric just rises and rises. Now its a civil rights case to so many who did not like the verdict. Therefore, they want another crack at Zimmerman – there must be a way to get that “white Hispanic” to pay for his sins – a theme based in emotion and zealotry. A theme many in the media continue to whip up as they employ words and phrases that are just not true yet raise the blood pressure of those who are ignorant of the law and act out of emotion.

As we pointed out yesterday, and as clear thinking jurists who know and understand the law point out, there never should have been a criminal case. The ‘Special Prosecutor’ appointed by Governor Rick Scott of Florida, Angela Corey, should have never been appointed in the first place because the legal system there was doing its job as well as any jurisdiction in the United States. Alan Dershowitz is openly calling for her disbarment.

Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case — but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias. (Newsmax)

Angela Corey and Eric Holder
Angela Corey and Eric Holder

We agree, Corey should be sanctioned and disbarred for her actions. She filed charges even though a Gran Jury was already scheduled that she cancelled and then she hid exculpatory information and other evidence from the defense. But that is not all. Now her ilk and the race-baiters of this age want Eric Holder to investigate and bring Federal Civil Rights charges against Zimmerman.

What about Zimmerman’s civil rights? There is no Federal interest in this criminal case, but there is a political interest. So now George Zimmerman faces ‘double jeopardy’!

He was tarred and feathered in the media, the DoJ actively helped organize protests against him, ‘community organizers’ descended upon him, politicians ratcheted up the heat, the President weighed in, the NAACP and the Black Panthers foamed at the mouth, and the man was declared guilty before he even went on trial.

Talk about civil rights violations. We also wonder why Rick Scott has been so quiet. Please read the words of a true legal expert, Andy C. McCarthy on the subject:

For Politicized Justice Department, Zimmerman ‘Civil Rights’ Case Is CIA Interrogators Case All Over Again

For those of us who are very proud of our service in the Justice Department – I was a federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years – there is nothing more appalling than seeing the attorney general of the United States heaping praise on, and joining in the machinations of, a race-mongering political demagogue such as Al Sharpton. As I’ve summarized before, Sharpton not only has a history of obstructing the administration of justice but was actively threatening, at the very time Eric Holder colluded with him, to “occupy” Sanford, Fla., if the state declined to file charges against George Zimmerman.

Alan Dershowitz – Noted Harvard Law Professor calls for Corey to be disbarred

In my two decades at the U.S. attorney’s office in New York, most of my best friends and many of the best prosecutors I knew were liberal Democrats. This made for lively debates when we’d go out for beers on a Friday night. But it had nothing to do with our performance of the job.

We all understood that our duty was to keep the politics out of the courtroom and out of law enforcement. And it wasn’t hard to do: It was what the judges expected of us, it was what we expected of the judges, and it was what ordinary citizens who serve on juries were told in every single trial — decide the case based on evidence, not passion, prejudice, fear or favor.

This ethos is being destroyed by Holder and the other movement progressives he has strategically installed in various DOJ policy-making posts (see, e.g., here). Indeed, it is being destroyed by the Obama administration more broadly, which is how you get an IRS bureaucracy – traditionally apolitical and independent – that now harasses and discriminates against conservative groups. That happens only one of two ways: Either the IRS bureaucrats were directed to politicize their mission or they felt encouraged to do so by the “community organizer” approach to governance quite consciously instilled by President Obama.

As I recounted over the weekend, after a Florida state jury acquitted Zimmerman on all counts in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Holder’s Department announced the resuscitation of its preposterous civil-rights investigation of Zimmerman. The main Obama/Holder precedent on which I’d rely to evaluate what’s going on – which is politics, not law – is Holder’s reopening, and later quiet dropping of, the investigation of CIA agents involved in the Bush-era enhanced-interrogation program.

Observe that what the Justice Department has announced is an investigation, not a prosecution. This is the same pedantic distinction Holder drew when he was caught misleading Congress in connection with the surveillance of Fox News correspondent James Rosen. Investigation is cost-free for Holder. The only one who gets harmed is Zimmerman, because he has to live in fear of prosecution, and the continued investigation means a continued spotlight which implies continued harassment by the hard Left. Holder only gets hurt if he actually tries to file charges – he will be humiliated if the grand jury refuses to indict or a jury (or the trial judge) laughs the case out of court.

As I argued last year when Holder did his Sharpton collaboration,

(a) the civil-rights statutes are of dubious constitutionality in terms of federal jurisdiction over intrastate activity by private citizens that involves no federal interest; and

(b) even if that were not so, a federal civil-rights case against Zimmerman would be weaker than the state murder case – if it is possible, there is even less evidence that Zimmerman intended to interfere with Martin’s enjoyment of a recognized federal civil right than that Zimmerman possessed the criminal intent required to sustain a murder conviction.

So when all is said and done, I believe the Justice Department will not indict Zimmerman, the trial would be too embarrassing for DOJ.

Nevertheless, it could be a long time before “all is said and done,” and in the meantime mere investigation is tactically shrewd for a political operator such as Holder. Recall that Holder, as an Obama campaign operative in 2008, stoked Obama’s Bush-deranged political base by promising a “reckoning” against Bush officials for purported war crimes.

Al Aharpton - remember Tawana Brawley?
Al Aharpton – remember Tawana Brawley?

Of course, there were no prosecutable crimes by the CIA and other officials – career prosecutors had scrutinized the allegations arising out of interrogations and determined that no colorable charges could be brought. Holder reopened the case anyway, continued the investigation for a couple of years, and then quietly dropped it.

The advantage for our Janus-faced attorney general was that he could promise Obama’s angry base that he was actively looking into matter while simultaneously telling Congress and the media that it was absurd to accuse him of harassing the CIA (and thus endangering our security) since he hadn’t actually brought any charges. This kept the issue alive, which was politically useful for the hard-left groups continuing to campaign against Bush, but spared DOJ the humiliation of a trial on a shoddy indictment.

Expect a reprise on Zimmerman. Holder tells the Left he is aggressively investigating; but tells Congress he is just poking around in a responsible way, hasn’t really done anything in the way of filing charges, and respects the verdict in Florida. No charges get filed, but the racial-grievance industry has a green-light to continue agitating, Zimmerman endures the anxiety and expense of a continuing threat of prosecution, and we all watch the spectacle of our justice system used as a tool of racial politics and political fundraising.

As some of us warned five years ago, to confirm Holder as attorney general was to guarantee politicized justice – that, after all, is what “social justice” is.


Holder's Revenge – Reverse Discrimination

Editors Note – The battlefronts around the globe are growing exponentially as more hot zones are growing out of burning embers. There is one distinct hot zone upon America now that is festering with the help of the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

This smoldering ember is bursting into flames, into a true civil and racial meltdown in America with fuel being added by the likes of Spike Lee, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, and Sheila Jackson Lee. There can be no denial that the White House and the DoJ have the matches and these grass fires around the country will soon become an explosive fire where more deaths will hit the headlines.

The White House owns the media and they too are fanning the flames. The next phone call Mr. Obama makes should be to NBC. He should tell them to stop fanning the flames through “creative editing”. NBC is supposedly conducting an internal investigation, but if the President were genuine about the need for truth to emerge, he should start by demanding that NBC apologize to this nation.

Today aired a portion of the 911 clip, where Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The Today Show - Deliberately mis-led America

However, the full call actually has Zimmerman stating: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

The 911 operator replies: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?”, to which Zimmerman responds: “He looks black.”

Holder’s Revenge

By John T. Bennett

American Thinker

Reverse discrimination against whites has just begun, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.  Now, the exploitation of Trayvon Martin’s death has thrown the cycle of racial resentment and favoritism into overdrive.

There has been much poisonous rhetoric following Trayvon Martin’s death, and more is sure to come.  It is hard to imagine that any other current topic could result in racial madness exceeding that tragedy.  Nonetheless, an exceptionally ominous and instructive remark was recently made byAttorney General Eric Holder — a remark more outlandish than any heard so far in our national conversation about Martin.

Attorney General Holder recently addressed the question of affirmative action, and for how long it would be required.  He answered, stunningly, that reverse discrimination has only just begun: “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said.  “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin[.] … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

We see in these remarks the soil out of which rises the bitter fruit of racial resentment.  Holder’s attitude is best summed up as the elite victim mentality.  The belief is one of perpetual entitlement, fueled by bitterness, and given the stamp of official approval by politicians at the highest levels of national office.  The Trayvon Martin upheaval is made possible by this carefully cultivated attitude, which exists within all income levels.  Whether it’s under the guise of injustice, inequality, underrepresentation, or white supremacy, the effect of the attitude is the same: sheer resentment towards the majority and its institutions.

Not all minorities share this attitude, while many non-minorities do.  For instance, Professor William B. Eimicke of Columbia University supports a lawsuit against New York City because the city doesn’t have enough black firefighters.  Eimicke, who is white, says, “The reality is the [fire] department should look like the city it serves.”  In other words, the fire department has something wrong with it because there are not enough blacks employed.  This is an example of an educated, mainstream leader promoting an arbitrary standard of underrepresentation.  Such standards will only fuel more demands for special treatment, and more resentment when the arbitrary standard proves predictably impossible to meet.

Take the example of Eimicke’s fellow Columbia faculty.  Of the 70 core faculty members in Prof. Eimicke’s department, there are 3 blacks.  Seventy-five percent of the faculty is white, and 4% is black, whereas New York City is 45% white and 27% black.  Presumably, the principle that a fire department “should look like the city it serves” also applies to the faculty of a tony university.  If the faculty “should look like the city it serves,” then Columbia needs to expedite the removal of white professors.  Will Eimicke enlist in the righteous cause of minority representation and quit?  Or is that a sacrifice he prefers to delegate to students or middle- and working-class whites?  We all know the answer: elite liberal hypocrisy protects many academics and politicians from the application of their own dogmas.  Columbia’s faculty will never match the ethnic makeup of New York Citybecause professors are typically protected from purported racial favoritism, while firemen are fair game.

As the attorney general’s remark shows, the cycle of elite liberal hypocrisy and racial favoritism will never end, so long as liberals control racial discourse.

In the meantime, the results will become increasingly absurd.  The attorney general’s daughters, and each successive generation, will continue to benefit from affirmative action to the same degree as truly disadvantaged minorities.  This incongruity grows more and more evident, as Democratic Senator James Webb pointed out in his famous Wall Street Journal editorial piece.  Sen. Webb noted that affirmative action policies have “expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.”  Racial preferences extend to business startups, prestigious academic admissions, job promotions, and expensive government contracts.  Many of these preferences have no relationship to discrimination, oppression, or even socioeconomic class level; they even benefit recent immigrants whose ancestors never faced discrimination in America.  Instead, we are actually creating a government-sanctioned nobility — a favored class of citizens with officially endorsed, race-based hereditary privileges.

Under the sway of of identity politics and racial grievance, even the most privileged members of our society will hold onto petty gripes.  In a 2009 commencement address, the First Lady complained about her childhood experience with the University of Chicago.  Recalling that she grew up right near the campus, she stated:

[T]hat university never played a meaningful role in my academic development. The institution made no effort to reach out to me — a bright and promising student in their midst — and I had no reason to believe there was a place for me there.

That she felt entitled to be “reached out to” in the first place is astonishing.  The egomaniacal sense of entitlement contained in her remarks will strike most people as utterly foreign.  Yet this way of conceiving of one’s own position in society is commonly shared.  Amongst the lower class, this attitude takes the form of demands for “Obama money” and other such hilarity.

Perhaps Michelle Obama should have made an effort at some point to understand why young white students, many of whom were not from Chicago, would have been reticent about venturing out into the South Side of Chicago.  The reasons are not hard to discover.  Immediately after their report on the First Lady’s address, CNN aired a segment on violent crime on the South Side.  Chief Ernest Brown of Chicago’s Organized Crime Division explained the high rate of youth violence by saying that “their behavior is just inconsistent with civility.”  With that in mind, many students — of all races — may not feel that it is their place to step into another community and attempt to help its youth.  In fact, not even Dr. Martin Luther King and his family stayed in urban Chicago for long after starting to work in the city in 1966.  Cohen and Taylor write that Coretta Scott King was concerned about violence in the neighborhood, and the Kings spent little time there [1].

Our own attorney general, ostensibly committed to even-handed enforcement of the nation’s laws, referred to blacks as “my people.”  Strangely, it is socially acceptable for only certain groups to proudly claim ethnic group membership.  If similar tribal loyalties were publicly boasted by a white ethnic, that would be seen as sinister.  Just imagine the reaction if a President Bush had identified — on the basis of race –– with a victim of minority-on-white crime by saying, “Channon Christian looks like my daughters.”

Identifying with an ethnic group as one’s own “people” will lead in most cases to in-group favoritism.  Cultural pride is one thing, but proclaiming exclusive ethnic group affiliation while occupying a position of public trust is another.  This tendency is too often written off as a harmless cultural tic or a healthy form of therapeutic identity formation.  The trouble is that there is a worldview lying beneath the “my people” language.

In his remarks, the attorney general has provided the most explicit statement of ethnic favoritism and racial grievance by a high public official in American history.  And the racket has just begun: “When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?” asks Holder.  The question is rhetorical, and his constituents know the answer.

In this liberal, racialized conception of society, minority groups are supposedly not getting “benefits to which they are entitled.”  The danger in this attitude is not just that people are asking for free stuff from the government.  The danger is that minority group members are made to believe that society is purposefully withholding benefits from them due to their racial group membership.  Hence the resentment and latent animosity lurking at the core of the welfare state, and its ever-expanding legion of dependents.

This menacing fact was once openly recognized by sociologists.  Decades ago, Edward C. Banfield wrote that urban social problems will increasingly come to be regarded as the fault of “callousness or neglect by the ‘white power structure'” [2].  Just as expected, we now have a cult of anti-white resentment named Critical Race Theory being taught in law schools around the nation.

The constant use of physical metaphors like “white power structure” will guarantee that some people view themselves — usually falsely — as being intentionally excluded from that structure.  Of course, structures comprise people, so real human beings will inevitably become targets of the resentment originally intended for abstract “power structures.”

The victim mentality feeds off racial bitterness, which is constantly politicized and enflamed.  We see this in the rhetoric of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Florida), who said that Trayvon Martin was “hunted down like a dog.”  The attorney general and president are doing their part to sow the seeds of bitterness, entitlement, and racial favoritism.  By acknowledging those seeds, one begins to understand why racial double standards and potential violence are so easily stirred up amidst controversies such as the current one involving Trayvon Martin.

John T. Bennett (MA, University of Chicago, Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences ’07; JD, Emory University School of Law ’11) is a writer living in Atlanta, GA.