Thursday, July 8, 2010

The DOJ & Suborning Vote Fraud

Former career DOJ attorney J Christian Adams has made several damning indictments of the Obama DOJ in the past several days - that the New Black Panther case was dropped on racial grounds, that reverse racism pervades the DOJ's Voting Rights section, and that one or more members of the DOJ has testified falsely to Congress. But as serious as those charges are, they pale in comparison to his latest charge made in sworn testimony before the Civil Rights Commission - that the DOJ is deliberately refusing to pursue cases requiring states to update and verify their voting rolls. In essence, this is aiding and abetting - if not suborning - vote fraud. This from John Fund at the WSJ:

. . . Mr. Adams leveled an even more explosive charge beyond the Panther case. He testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice's Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal "Motor Voter" law -- Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."

If true, Ms. Fernandes was endorsing a policy of ignoring federal law and encouraging potential voter fraud. Ms. Fernandes was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the Justice Department has issued a statement accusing Mr. Adams of "distorting facts" in general and having a political agenda.

But there is some evidence backing up Mr. Adams. Last year, Justice abandoned a case it had pursued for three years against Missouri for failing to clean up its rolls. When filed in 2005, one-third of Missouri counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. What's more, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who this year is her party's candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat, contended that her office had no obligation to ensure individual counties were complying with the federal law mandating a cleanup of their voter rolls.

The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri's voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue.

Mr. Adams' allegations would seem to call for the senior management of Justice to be compelled to testify under oath to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But Justice is making none of its officials available and is refusing to enforce subpoenas issued by the commission. The more this story develops, the more it appears Justice is engaged in a massive coverup of its politicization of voting rights cases.

On a related note, as to our modern "early voting" practices, see this from Tom Blumer at Bizzy Blog.

The bedrock foundation of our nation is the sanctity of the ballot box. If our citizens come to perceive that fraud pervades their vote, then people will begin to feel that their vote does not count and that they are being ruled by people who have gotten their seat by criminal means. When that happens, democracy ends and blood in the streets begins. The left is playing a dangerous game indeed.


suek said...

So...if the DOJ is selectively applying the law, doesn't that constitute out and out governmental corruption?

If so, do we have any options other than violence in the streets?

GW said...

I am out of my element on this. Yes, it seems to me to be corruption. That said, I am not sure which, if any, law applies and if there is any recourse to any court other than the one of public opinion. This should be the subject of Senate and House inquiries, at a minimum - but we can't expect anything like that until January at the earliest.