Possible Fireworks at Civil Rights Commission Today

The former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, Christopher Coates, has agreed to testify today to the Civil Rights Commission about the Black Panther Voter intimidation case. He refused to testify earlier because Eric Holder is forbid his from testifying. Caotes has agreed to ignore Holder. He must have something important to say. The hearing is at 9:30 AM.

Pajamas Media reported:

In a dramatic development that could shake the political leadership of the Justice Department, career lawyer Christopher Coates has sent a letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights offering to testify Friday on matters related to the controversial New Black Panthers voter-intimidation case.

Ten months ago, Coates, the award-winning former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, was subpoenaed by the Commission to testify about the case. He was subsequently instructed by DOJ officials to ignore the subpoena. Within the past hour, commissioners were informed that Chairman Gerald Reynolds had spoken with Coates and that the chairman would reconvene the Commission's ongoing hearing on Friday at 9:30 a.m. to hear Coates's testimony.

Shocker! Political Appointee Involved in Decision to Drop Black Panther Case!

Documents received by Judicial Watch contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, May testimony. Perez testified no political appointees were involved in the decision to not pursue the Black Panther voter intimidation case.

Starting on page 78 of the Civil Rights Commission May 14, 2010 (Hearing on Voter Intimidation Investigation)

25 COMMISSIONER KIRSANOW: Was there any
1 political leadership involved in the decision not to
2 pursue this particular case any further than it was?
3 ASST. ATTY. GEN. PEREZ: No. The
4 decisions were made by Loretta King in consultation
5 with Steve Rosenbaum, who is the Acting Deputy
6 Assistant Attorney General.
(emphasis mine)

Here is the not so shocking truth. Democratic election lawyer Sam Hirsch was reportedly involved in the DOJ decision.

From Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has forced disclosure of the existence of documents from the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicating Democratic election lawyer Sam Hirsch was involved in the DOJ decision to dismiss its voting rights case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense.

The records, described in a Vaughn index produced pursuant to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that no political leadership was involved in the decision (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 10-851)). (emphasis mine)

The “Vaughn index” describes documents responsive to the lawsuit currently being withheld in their entirety by the Justice Department. Read more here.

Unbelievable Video! Rep. Brad Sherman Claims He is "Not Aware" of Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case

This video is unbelievable! After being asked about the Black Panther voter intimidation case by a constituent at his Town Hall, Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman claims he is "Not Aware" the case. The reaction from the crowd indicated they believe he is lying through his teeth. This story has been hot on the Blogosphere for some time. FOX News has provided extensive coverage and even liberal CNN has reported the story. Last year a Senate confirmation of Obama's appointee to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division was held up in objection to the DOJ's handling of the case and a senior House Republican introduced a "resolution of inquiry." The case is currently under investigation by United States Commission on Civil Rights.



Transcript from Patterico's Pontifications:

QUESTIONER: “My concern this [week?] is with Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, and their lack of prosecuting after they got the judgment against the Black Panthers Party for voter intimidation. I find this really hard to swallow and I’d like to know what you think about their decision and not following through after they got a judgment. And the latest news that hits the Department of Justice — this new policy that they are not going to prosecute cases with black defendants where the plaintiffs are white. I’d like your take on this information.

SHERMAN: I am extremely sure that we do not have a policy at the Department of Justice of never prosecuting a black defendant …

[Interrupted by heckler.]

… and I’m sure they say that somewhere on the internet, but that doesn’t make it true.

[Many responses.]

As to the Black Panther Party, I’m simply not aware of that case …

[Loud boos.]