Eric Holder Wants To Lower Standard Of Proof For Civil Rights Laws

As he prepares to leave office in a few weeks, Eric Holder plant to push for a lower standard of proof for civil rights laws after not being able to prove a civil rights violation in the case of Trayvon Martin, and will probably have the same outcome in the Michael Brown case.

Attorney General Eric Holder plans to push, during his final weeks in office, a new standard of proof for civil-rights offenses, saying in an exit interview with POLITICO that such a change would make the federal government “a better backstop” against discrimination in cases like Ferguson and Trayvon Martin.

From a report in today's Politico we learn

In a lengthy discussion ranging from his own exposure to the civil rights movement of the ’60s to today’s controversies surrounding the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Holder also acknowledged that he felt some of his own struggles with Republicans in Congress during his six years in office were driven partly by race.

“There have been times when I thought that’s at least a piece of it,” Holder said, adding that “I think that the primary motivator has probably been political in nature … [but] you can’t let it deflect you from … your eyes on the prize.”

Eric Holder has a chip on his shoulder so huge I am surprised he can walk.  If he really believes there was racism involved  for congress to investigate fast and furious, the new black panther case, the IRS scandal, etc. then the guy has issues.

Holder told POLITICO that between now and his departure, probably in early March when the Senate is expected to confirm Loretta Lynch as his successor, he will call for a lower standard of proof for civil-rights crimes. Such a change would make it easier for the federal government to bring charges in the case of a future Ferguson or Trayvon Martin

“I think some serious consideration needs to be given to the standard of proof that has to be met before federal involvement is appropriate, and that’s something that I am going to be talking about before I leave office,” Holder, 64, said

The attorney general’s comments appeared to be aimed partly at preparing the country for the possibility that no federal charges would be brought in the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., last summer. Holder said the inquiry would be completed when he left office, expected around the second week of March.

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that the Martin investigation had been closed, with “insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges” against George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch coordinator who shot the unarmed black teenager to death back in 2012.

Asked if the bar for federal involvement in the civil rights offenses is too high for federal prosecutors to make cases in shootings like those of Martin and Brown, Holder suggested it was.

Perhaps Holder isn't the best judge of what is and isn't racial in nature.

Remember the New Black Panther case? Eric Holder's Justice Department dropped the already won case of voter intimidation because of the belief that it was impossible for blacks to violate someone's civil rights?

In Sept. 2010 Christopher Coates, former chief of the Justice Department’s Voting Section, and still a DOJ employee defied his bosses orders and testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to discuss the reasons why the New Black Panther Voter intimidation case (NBPP) was dropped even though the Judge had ruled that the DOJ had already won the case.

Coates' testimony was a shocking indictment of the rampant racism against Caucasians in the Obama administration's Department of Justice. He accused the administration of using race to determine which cases are prosecuted. Corroborating the testimony of J. Christian Adams who quit the DOJ because the NBPP case was dropped, Coates illustrated that the issue goes way beyond that specific case; the real issue is the organization charged with protecting civil rights is now a tool for increasing discrimination in the country, but this time against Caucasians.
The election of President Obama brought to positions of influence and power within the civil rights division many of the very people who had demonstrated hostility to the concept of equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

When Holder was asked about the NBPP case in front of congress he said,

" When you compare what people endured in the South in the '60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia… I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people"

Interestingly Mr. Holder didn't deny that the NBPP broke the law and forgets that as Attorney General all Americans are his people.

Does the man who runs this department sound like someone who can conduct a fair investigation of a white police officer shooting a black teenager?

We are talking about an Attorney General who called laws passed by states to enforce US immigration law as racist. He accuses states trying to protect "one man one vote" for all its citizens with voter ID laws racist. Let's face it is a guy who sees a racist under every bed.

Recently he talked about the criticism of President Obama and himself as racist:

There's a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that's directed at me [and] directed at the president. You know, people talking about taking their country back," Holder said. "There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don't think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there's a racial animus.

If being race-neutral is important to being fair, it is impossible for Attorney General Holder to be fair in the Michael Brown case. Eric Holder is a man who sees everything through the prism of race and the "white man" is always the oppressor.

He may be Attorney General, but he has a warped view of Racism and Civil Rights.
If fairness and justice is the goal Eric Holder should not be allowed within ten miles of civil rights laws.