Unethical Quote Of The Week: Attorney General Eric Holder

“While the grand jury proceeding in St. Louis County has concluded, the Justice Department’s investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown remains ongoing.  Though we have shared information with local prosecutors during the course of our investigation, the federal inquiry has been independent of the local one from the start, and remains so now.  Even at this mature stage of the investigation, we have avoided prejudging any of the evidence.  And although federal civil rights law imposes a high legal bar in these types of cases, we have resisted forming premature conclusions.”

—-Attorney General Eric Holder’s official statement following the announcement that the grand jury would not be handing down an indictment against Michale Brown’s shooter, Officer Wilson.

Sure, why change now?

Sure, why change now?

Why is this statement so unethical? There are three reasons.

1. The positioning of this statement, at the very beginning of the whole release, suggests and is meant to suggest that Holder and the Justice Department are in sympathy with those who believe that Wilson should be prosecuted. It translates into “Don’t despair! There is still hope! Your black Attorney General is doing all he can to get this racist cop and avenge Mike Brown!” for many who read or heard it, and that was the intent.

2. This is misrepresentation, essentially a lie, designed to mislead. No legal experts believe that there is any chance that the Justice Department will find probable cause to make a civil rights case against Wilson, and Holder is too good a lawyer—or once was—not to know that.  The bar is too high, and the evidence isn’t there, just as it wasn’t there in the equally futile civil rights investigation against George Zimmerman. Most, if not all, of those determined to see Wilson punished don’t comprehend what the investigation of the shooting by Justice signifies, and think it is just a separate chance to get him on trial for murder. Holder, again intentionally, did nothing to enlighten them.

3. To the extent that anyone does believe that the Justice investigation holds out hope of an indictment against Wilson, Holder is setting Brown’s supporters up for a second disappointment, and conceivably setting up Ferguson and the nation for a second round of rioting when the inevitable bad news comes down. Good plan.

What an ethics disaster and a national disgrace Eric Holder has been as Attorney General. And he is clearly determined to be both until the day he walks out of Justice for good….and I do mean “for good.

 

13 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Attorney General Eric Holder

  1. I have to admit, my first train of thought reading this was “Well, what harm does the investigation do? At the end of the day, the government exists to serve the people, the attorney general represents the government. There’s an argument there.” Then I thought, “No Jeff, It’s a lawyer’s job to tell his clients they don’t have a case, Holder should stand up and tell America the truth, and move on to cases that aren’t so stupid.”

    I don’t understand why the race baiters pick these cases, Martin and Brown…. But they aren’t talking about the 12 year old shot for having a BB gun, or the guy who was shot in Wal Mart, who was trying to buy an airsoft rifle. Can someone tell me why they pick these shitty cases to fight over, and then act so bloody surprised when they fall through?

    • So they can use the technical term “unarmed”? That’s all I can think of.

      In the case of the 12-year old or the Wal-Mart shopper, one could make a case that it was understandable confusion over the gun that caused the problem. Obviously, there are many who disagree with that characterization. But, in an attempt to gain the most sympathy, the biggest fuss is raised when you can use the term “unarmed black teenager”, slap a photo of an 11-year old on the news and claim racial profiling.

    • Because they don’t want to backtrack, meaning that when they do bring up those cases (as several of them actually have) they’re used primarily as accessories to prove their point about the one making headlines.

  2. Curious minds want to know:
    >Most, if not all, of those determined to see Wilson punished don’t comprehend what the investigation of the shooting by Justice signifies, and think it is just a separate chance to get him on trial for murder.

    Not being that knowledgeable of the legal system, what is the DOJ investigation for? I’m assuming it can’t be for murder (double jeopardy and all that), but then again I’m a far from a lawyer as you can possibly get.

    • It will be for infringing on Brown’s civil rights, based on racial bias. The law makes it a crime to deprive a citizen of his rights under color of law.

      This truly idiotic Slate piece—the guy really thinks that the law should be applied in a way that a white cop shooting any black perp would be guilty, as I read him. He thinks intent shouldn’t matter:

      Can the Justice Department prove to a grand jury (let alone a trial jury) that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown for the purpose of violating his rights? The answer is almost certainly no—which is why the government won’t bring any charges.
      This outcome is, no doubt, unjust.

      What? It’s unjust to require that before you imprison an officer for illegally robbing a citizen of his “right to life,” you need to prove that this was his intent? How can Slate publish such nonsense?

      But I digress. What I started to say was that the article makes it clear what the current standard IS, and that Justice can’t possibly meet it.

  3. The federal government is a different sovereign, so no double jeopardy. I believe the Rodney King officers were successfully prosecuted by the feds for civil rights violations after the state-level acquittal.

  4. http://www.elderstatement.com/2014/11/ferguson-obscures-much-bigger-problems.html

    The chief said: “Well, I was on my phone, yes. That is true. I was following developments with a 5-year-old girl sitting on her dad’s lap who just got shot in the head by a drive-by shooting. If some of the people gave a good goddamn about the victimization of people in this community by crime, I’d take some of their invective more seriously.

    “The greatest racial disparity in the city of Milwaukee is getting shot and killed — hello! Eighty percent of my homicide victims — every year — are African-American; 80 percent of our aggravated assault victims are African-American; 80 percent of our shooting victims who survive their shooting are African-American.

    “Now, they know all about the last three people who have been killed by the Milwaukee Police Department over the course of the last several years. There’s not one of them that can name one of the last three homicide victims we’ve had in this city. … But this community is at risk all right, and it’s not because men and women in blue risk their lives protecting it. It’s at risk because we have large numbers of high-capacity, quality firearms in the hands of remorseless criminals who don’t care who they shoot.

    any comments?

  5. Jack: Your opinion as a lawyer. By what justification did Holder even insert himself into this case? From what I can see, the shooting was entirely a local incident to the City of Ferguson. In fact, I don;t even see what justification the State of Missouri had being in on it until the threat of insurrection spread outside the Ferguson city limits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.