In his forthcoming book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, former Department Of Justice attorney and Republican activist J. Christian Adams desperately tries to maintain his credibility by doubling down on accusations of racially charged corruption in the Civil Rights Division. The book is filled with falsehoods, misrepresentations, and baseless allegations.
Adams Resigned From The DOJ Claiming Their Decision Not To Pursue Charges Against Some Defendants In New Black Panthers Case Demonstrated Unprecedented, Racially Charged Corruption. In a June 2010 Washington Times op-ed, Adams wrote:
On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney. [Washington Times, 6/25/10]
GOP Civil Rights Commissioner Thernstrom Criticized The Case As “Very Small Potatoes.” In a July 2010 National Review Online blog post, Abigail Thernstrom, then vice-chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, wrote:
Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high.
In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far -- after months of hearings, testimony and investigation -- no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case. [National Review Online, 7/6/2010]
Bipartisan Agreement: New Black Panthers Case Is A Phony Scandal. Numerous media and political figures, including Fox News contributors and Republicans, dismissed Adams' phony scandal surrounding the New Black Panthers Party. [Media Matters, 7/17/10]
DOJ's Ethics Office Found “No Evidence” To Support Adams' Claims, Said DOJ Attorneys “Acted Appropriately.”In a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Robin Ashton of the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility wrote:
Based on the results of our investigation, we concluded that Department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately, in the exercise of their supervisory duties in connection with the dismissal of the three defendants in the NBPP case.
We found no evidence of improper political interference or influence from within or outside the Department in connection with the decision in the case.
We found no evidence that political considerations were a motivating factor in reaching the decision. [DOJ Letter to Rep. Smith, 3/29/11]
Adams Book: “In Injustice, Adams Reveals: The Inside Story Of How The Obama DOJ Spiked The Voter Intimidation Lawsuit Against The New Black Panther Party.” From the book jacket of Injustice:
In Injustice, Adams reveals:
- The inside story of how the Obama DOJ spiked the voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party - and the Panthers' little-known public appearance with Obama. [Injustice, book jacket]
Adams Advances This False Claim In The Book. In Injustice, Adams writes: “The DOJ's dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case - a case I brought and ultimately resigned over - gave the public a glimpse of the racially discriminatory worldview that characterizes this influential government agency.” [Injustice, p. 4]
But The Obama DOJ Obtained Default Judgment Against One Of The Defendants. On May 18, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party who carried a nightstick outside a Philadelphia polling center, and ordered that:
2. The defendant Minister King Samir Shabazz is ENJOINED from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the City of Philadelphia, or from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b);
3. This Court shall maintain jurisdiction over this matter until November 15, 2012 to enforce this Order as necessary; [Order, U.S. v The New Black Panther Party For Self-Defense, et al., 5/18/09]
Adams Acknowledged The Action Against Shabazz Later In The Book. From Injustice:
On May I5 -- the deadline to file the documents outlining the requested relief - the team gathered in Coates' office to await a phone call with a definitive order on how to proceed with the case. When the phone rang, Coates picked it up, quietly took some notes, and then hung up. Our orders were to dismiss the case entirely against Jerry Jackson, the New Black Panther Party; and Malik Zulu Shabazz. Only King Samir Shabazz would be subject to legal penalty, and only for a few years, and only within the city limits of Philadelphia. [Injustice, p. 131]
Adams Book: “In Injustice, Adams Reveals: The Inside Story Of ... The Panthers' Little-Known Public Appearance With Obama.” From the book jacket of Injustice:
In Injustice, Adams reveals:
- The inside story of how the Obama DOJ spiked the voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party - and the Panthers' little-known public appearance with Obama. [Injustice, book jacket]
Adams Explains That The “Public Appearance” Was Both Of Them Appearing At The Annual Commemoration Of The Selma March. From Injustice:
Fittingly, [Obama] timed his visit to coincide with Bloody Sunday jubilee weekend, the annual commemoration of the 1965 marches culminating in the event's re-enactment on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. [...]
Several other speakers advanced to the pulpit to greet Obama. Then, a woman stepped forward and uttered a shocking welcome address. “My name is Pastor Estella Shabazz. ... My husband, he's stuck outside, he couldn't get through the crowd, I bring greetings from him also, who is the National Spokesman of the New Black Panther Party, along with the Chief of the New Black Panther Party is outside also, they are also here in support of Senator Barack Obama.”
Obama and other notables, including Hillary Clinton and AI Sharpton, addressed the crowd from a portable podium at the top of the chapel's entryway stairs. The speakers were all people one would expect to hear at this kind of high-profile event, with one exception: New Black Panther Party chief Malik Zulu Shabazz, a future defendant in a DOJ voter intimidation lawsuit.
When the speeches ended, the crowd began the memorial walk to Edmund Pettus Bridge. For the duration of that one-mile trek, video reveals that the uniformed New Black Panther members shadowed close behind Obama, who showed no aversion to their presence.
Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama's campaign. [Injustice, p. 105-106, 108-109]
Adams Compares Them Appearing At The Same Event, Planned By Neither, To Bush Speaking At Bob Jones University. From Injustice:
One can only imagine the media firestorm that would have erupted if a Republican presidential candidate had marched next to a racist hate group. And in fact, when then-candidate George W. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University on February 2, 2000, the media outcry was riotous. Over the ensuing five weeks, the New York Times printed no fewer than twenty-one critical articles on the speech under headlines such as “Right Wing Baggage Puts Drag on Bush Caravan.” Keep in mind that Bob Jones' primary sin was to ban interracial dating - an undesirable policy to be sure, but hardly comparable to the Panthers' exhortations to racial murder. Even after the university ended its interracial dating ban the month following Bush's visit, the media continued to denounce Bush relentlessly over the incident. [Injustice, p. 110-111]
Adams Says Holder's “Common Cause” Comment Means He Grants “Favors” For Black Criminals. Adams opens his book by citing a 1996 profile of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in which Holder discussed a quote from the Rev. Samuel D. Proctor about how “black people have a common cause that requires attending to”:
When asked to explain the passage, Holder replied, “It really says that ... I am not the tall U.S. attorney, I am not the thin United States Attorney. I am the black United States attorney. And he was saying that no matter how successful you are, there's a common cause that bonds the black United States attorney with the black criminal or the black doctor with the black homeless person.”
Has anyone ever asked Holder what exactly is the “common cause” that binds the black attorney general and the black criminal? More important, what should the black attorney general do about this common cause? Should the black criminal feel empathy for the black attorney general, or more likely, do the favors only flow in one direction? [Injustice, p. 2]
Adams Claims Holder's Statement Exposes The “Racialist Views” That Are “Familiar” To Civil Rights Division Attorneys. Adams writes:
It may seem shocking to hear these racialist views ascribed to America's top law enforcement officer. But to people who have worked inside the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, these attitudes are perfectly familiar. [Injustice, p. 2]
Holder Explained That The “Common Cause” Philosophy Directs Him To “Be Tough On Criminals” -- Not Do Them “Favors” -- As Well As To “Deal With The Social Problems That Breed Crime.” From a 1997 NPR profile of Holder:
CHITRA RAGAVAN: Holder grew up in Queens, New York. His father was an immigrant from Barbados. He says his childhood was free of racial strife and chock full of opportunities. But as a young man, he found a small quotation that cast an indelible impression on him. It was written by the Reverend Samuel Proctor of Harlem, and it was about being black and being successful.
HOLDER: I have it, in fact, right here in my wallet, and it's something that I carry around with me because I think it reflects in a really fundamental way a strong belief that I have. It says that blackness is another issue entirely apart from class in America. No matter how affluent, educated and mobile a black person becomes, his race defines him more particularly than anything else. There is a sense...
RAGAVAN: That belief has long shaped Holder's views on law enforcement. He says crime can only be combated by a dual approach: be tough on criminals, but also deal with the social problems that breed crime.
So when Holder became Washington, DC's first black U.S. attorney, he sent some of his prosecutors to work in poor communities, to deal with crime at its roots and to build trust.
HOLDER: The thing that I think most moves me in this is the notion that no matter how successful you become, there is still something that ties you to a person who is dealing with a drug problem; who is an unwed mother; that as long as there are people who are discriminated against because of their race, there is still something that must bind us as black people.
RAGAVAN: Holder says that one of the most distressing parts of his career was as a DC Superior Court judge, when he would send 30, 40, 50 black men to jail every week. Some defense lawyers say Holder actually has been conventionally punitive, endorsing mandatory prison sentences for some drug offenses, and for what one lawyer described as “prosecuting everything to the hilt.”[NPR, All Things Considered via Nexis, 9/30/97, emphasis added]
Adams: Disability Rights Section's “Zealous” Enforcement Brings Companies “Practically To Their Knees.” FromInjustice:
The stakes are high, because the Civil Rights Division wields enormous jurisdiction over the American economy. The Disability Rights Section, for example, zealously enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act and has brought movie theatres like AMC and Cinemark, Norwegian Cruise Lines, the USGA, Days inn, and the International House of Pancakes practically to their knees. [Injustice, p. 6-7]
Bush DOJ Was Responsible For Cinemark, AMC, And Norwegian Cruise Lines Cases. From a July 2006 DOJ press release:
In June 2005, the Department secured a successful ruling from the Supreme Court confirming that the ADA covers foreign-flagged cruise ships within U.S. waters. In Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., the Supreme Court agreed with the position of the United States that Title III of the ADA generally applies to all cruise ships within the waters of the United States, including those with foreign-flags.
The Department has recently negotiated nationwide consent decrees with the country's largest movie theater chains to provide “comparable lines of sight” for patrons who use wheelchairs at stadium style movie theaters. As a result of these agreements, wheelchair seating in all future construction must be located near the middle of the auditorium or farther back in areas where most other patrons choose to sit, and within existing theaters, many auditoriums will be modified with new or additional ramps and other improvements that will permit location of wheelchair seats in the stadium section or on the aisle at the back of the traditional seating section. Agreements were entered with Cinemark USA, Inc. (Dec. 2004), Regal Cinemas (June 2005), and National Amusements (Jan. 2006). On Jan. 10, 2006, the district court in United States v. AMC Entertainment, Inc. entered summary judgment in favor of the United States requiring AMC to remedy ADA violations at theaters across that chain, although the Order does not include theaters formerly owned by Loews Theaters that were recently acquired by AMC in a merger. The AMC ruling obligates AMC to add ramps at 350 auditoriums and improve nearly 1300 other auditoriums by moving wheelchair locations farther back. [DOJ press release, 7/27/06]
Adams Suggests Voting Section Chief Opposed Brown Investigation Due To Liberal “Ideology.” In Injustice, Adams writes of efforts by DOJ attorneys Christopher Cox and Karen Ditzler to begin a civil investigation into the activities of Ike Brown, a black Democratic Party official in Noxubee County, Mississippi, who worked to disenfranchise white voters. Adams suggests Joseph Rich, former Voting Section chief for DOJ, tried to cover up recommendations to investigate Ike Brown:
Despite his ostracism from his colleagues, Coates pressed forward with the Ike Brown case. After observing the Brown machine in action during the runoff elections, Coates and Ditzler prepared a memorandum recommending an investigation commence against Brown, the Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee, and the Noxubee County Election Commission. Following normal procedure, the memo was forwarded to the Voting Section chief, who is typically tasked with reviewing recommendations and passing them up to the political appointees, usually to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Unfortunately, the section chief who received Coates' memo was the same one who sought to squash the original election coverage - Joseph Rich.
After Rich received Coates' memo, Rich reviewed it and then forwarded it to Hans von Spakovsky and Bradley Schlozman for approval. But by the time it reached its recipients, something strange had happened: its most important part - Coates' recommendation to investigate Ike Brown, the Noxubee Democratic Executive Committee, and the county Election Commission -- had vanished. Rich had simply erased the recommendation out of the memo. The ruse was only discovered when Coates and von Spakovsky discussed the case after running into each other at a DOJ social event. After that, Rich was ordered to restore Coates' recommendation and resubmit the memo.
Rich's insubordination demonstrates the difficult time Republicans will have controlling the entrenched career ranks in the Civil Rights Division even if they retake the White House. The division's section chiefs are mostly radicals who will not necessarily follow orders or policies that conflict with their ideology. After all, the prospect of advancing their agenda is what attracted many of them to the Civil Rights Division in the first place. [Injustice, p. 53-55]
Rich Testified That He Had Already Referred The Matter For Possible Criminal Prosecution. From Rich's December 2010 declaration to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:
Mr. Coates asserts in his testimony that (a) sometime in the winter of 2003-2004 he wrote a preliminary memorandum recommending that the Voting Section go forward with an investigation of possible violations of the Voting Rights Act committed during the August 2003 Noxubee County primary and argued that a civil injunction against the alleged wrongdoers was the best way to proceed, and (b) that I forwarded his memo to my supervisors but deleted his recommendation to initiate an investigation. What this testimony does not mention is that by the winter of 2003-2004, the Criminal Division had already been referred the matter to investigate whether Brown's actions violated any federal election crimes laws. As I explained in my August 23rd declaration, both before and after the August 5, 2003 primary election in Noxubee County which was monitored by five attorneys from the Voting Section, including Mr. Coates, memos from the Voting Section were sent to the Election Crimes Branch of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section to ensure close coordination in the Department's consideration of this matter. Furthermore, shortly after the review of an August 19, 2003 twenty seven page report prepared by all attorneys who monitored the election, I recommended to my superiors that the matter be referred to the Criminal Division for investigation before any civil investigation was initiated. This recommendation was approved. As noted in the August 23rd declaration, it is standard practice in the Department that any civil investigation of a matter is put on hold pending completion of criminal investigation of the matter.[Declaration of Joseph D. Rich to the USCCR, 10/20/10, emphasis added]
Adams: Obama Was “Hounding” Tanner For “Overruling DOJ Lawyers” On GA Voter ID Law. From Injustice:
For example, On [sic] December 14, 2007, when John Tanner announced he was resigning as Voting Section chief to do a detail, Obama pounced on one of his frequent targets. “It is unacceptable that the Administration is simply shuffling deck chairs by moving Mr. Tanner,” he lectured. “I called on him to be fired.” Then-Senator Obama had been hounding Tanner for months, having shot off a letter to the DOJ on October 19 demanding his dismissal. Tanner, you see, had the audacity to overrule DOJ lawyers who found that a photo ID requirement for voting in Georgia would discriminate against blacks. Leftwing activists claim virtually any photographic ID requirement for voting is racist, and Tanner's apostasy on this issue was clearly intolerable - even though the Georgia law was eventually upheld by every appellate state and federal court that reviewed it. Obama's demand may have marked the first time a presidential candidate has called for a specific civil servant to be fired. [Injustice, p. 74]
Obama Actually Called For Tanner's Firing For “Offensive” Testimony That Minorities “Benefit” From Voter ID Requirements Because “They Die First.” From an October 20, 2007, FoxNews.com article:
Sen. Barack Obama on Friday demanded the Justice Department fire one of its officials over remarks made about elderly minorities not aging like white Americans, because they die first.
Pointing to comments made by Voting Section Chief John Tanner at a Los Angeles event earlier this month, Obama called the language “erroneous, offensive, and dangerous.”
In a letter directed to Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, Obama on Friday pointed to one portion of Tanner's comments as evidence that voter ID restrictions “do not disenfranchise minorities, and in fact they actually benefit minorities.”
“Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first,” Tanner said.
“There are inequities in health care,” Tanner continued. “There are a variety of inequities in this country. And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities; just the math is such as that.”
Obama said in his letter: “Such comments are patently erroneous, offensive, and dangerous, and they are especially troubling coming from the federal official charged with protecting voting rights in this country.”
“For Mr. Tanner to now suggest, in an effort to defend his erroneous decision, that photo identification are not necessary for minority voters because 'they die first' shows just how far the Justice Department has fallen,” Obama wrote. [FoxNews.com, 10/20/07]
OPR/IG Later Reported That Tanner Had Asked For His Coffee “Mary Frances Berry Style - Black And Bitter.” A July 2008 report from the Department of Justice Inspector General's Office and the Office of Professional Responsibility stated:
In that incident in August 2004, Voting Section Chief John Tanner sent an e-mail to Schlozman asking Schlozman to bring coffee for him to a meeting both were scheduled to attend. Schlozman replied asking Tanner how he liked his coffee. Tanner's response was, “Mary Frances Berry style - black and bitter.” Berry is an African-American who was the Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from November 1993 until late 2004. Schlozman forwarded the e-mail chain to several Department officials (including Principal DAAG Bradshaw) but not Acosta, with the comment, “Y'all will appreciate Tanner's response.” Acosta said that when he was made aware of the incident, he required Schlozman to make a written apology to him for his role in forwarding the e-mail and that Schlozman did so. Acosta said that he believed Schlozman wrote him the apology in an e-mail, but we were unable to retrieve Acosta's e-mails and did not find such an e-mail among Schlozman's recovered e-mail messages. [IG/OPR report, “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division,” 7/2/08]
Tanner Apologized To Berry, Said He Used Phrase After Hearing An African-American Order Coffee “Black And Sweet -- Like Me.” From a January 2009 TPM Muckraker article:
Now Tanner is trying to make amends. Moments ago he forwarded to TPMmuckraker a letter of apology he sent to Berry dated January 13.
Tanner -- who has a history of questionable racial remarks and appears still to be working on voting issues on DOJ's payroll -- explains that he only used the phrase because he had recently heard an African-American customer at a coffee shop order coffee “black and sweet -- like me.”
Still, he says, it was “a very poor choice of words,” “flippant” and “ill-considered.”
Then -- in kind of a stretch -- he further explains: “The term bitter, of course, meant no sugar in the coffee, and was not meant as a reflection on you or your attitude towards a challenging situation.”
And Tanner adds: “I am well aware of your many significant contributions to our country's racial equality and justice.” [TPM Muckraker, 1/15/09]
Adams Suggests Bush Administration Was Simply Trying To Add “Attorneys With Real-World Litigation Experience In Private Practice” To Civil Rights Division. From Injustice:
The situation changed dramatically once Bush appointees took control of hiring. While many new lawyers in the Civil Rights Division still came from liberal activist groups, the Bush DOJ also hired numerous attorneys with real-world litigation experience in private practice. These attorneys -- highly experienced lawyers used to juggling huge caseloads and multiple pressing deadlines -- had a realistic view of what constitutes relevant and persuasive evidence. In contrast, the hires from the insular world of leftist nonprofits -- which the press often refers to, inaccurately, as “civil rights organizations” -- tended to have little or no real-world litigation experience, although during investigations they were often skilled at identifying the local dynamics within racial communities. The influx of experienced attorneys under Bush was a crucial correction to the abundance of lawyers who had spent their whole careers in the Civil Rights Division, breeding stagnation and process worship.
Leftwing activists in the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) joined in the attack, issuing a critical report on Bush-era DOJ hiring policies that completely omitted evidence provided to the office showing the large number of liberal attorneys hired and promoted by the Bush DOJ. [Injustice, p. 76]
DOJ IG “Found That [Bush Appointee Douglas] Schlozman Considered Political And Ideological Affiliations When Hiring... In Violation Of Department Policy And Federal Law.” A July 2008 report from the Department of Justice Inspector General's Office and the Office of Professional Responsibility concluded:
The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law -- the Civil Service Reform Act -- and Department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and committed misconduct. The evidence also showed that Division managers failed to exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that Schlozman did not engage in inappropriate hiring and personnel practices. Moreover, Schlozman made false statements about whether he considered political and ideological affiliations when he gave sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in his written responses to supplemental questions from the Committee. [IG/OPR report, “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division,” 7/2/08, emphasis added]
Adams Charges Liberals With “Hypocrisy” Because Obama Administration “Flooded” DOJ With Liberal Hires.From Injustice:
Upon President Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009, the Left's charges of biased hiring at the DOJ were quickly revealed as the most splendid hypocrisy. From the very beginning, the Obama administration flooded the Civil Rights Division with dozens of new attorneys hired for their ideological views and their affiliation with liberal activist groups. [Injustice, p. 77]
Adams Criticizes Career Attorney Loretta King For Allegedly Requiring Civil Rights Experience To Join Civil Rights Division. From Injustice:
While King's memos present “commitment to civil rights” as merely one of many considerations for hiring at DOJ, in practice it is the dominant criterion. Under Eric Holder, if a candidate has not worked for a leftist activist group or otherwise demonstrated some affinity for the Left's causes, he or she will not be hired at the Civil Rights Division -- period. King and other political appointees would habitually reject ideal attorney job applicants with near-perfect academic records and extensive litigation experience merely because they had no background with a leftwing activist group. Hiring committee members told me that during committee meetings, King would simply tut-tut “no civil rights experience” and move on to the next applicant. [Injustice, p. 78]
MainJustice.com: “It's Just Not Clear How It's Wrong To Hire Career Lawyers To Staff The Civil Rights Division Who Have A Background In Civil Rights.” The legal news website MainJustice.com wrote of similar claims offered by Adams and his allies at Pajamas Media:
J. Christian Adams and Hans Von Spakovsky - who served together in the Civil Rights Division during the George W. Bush administration - have used Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain resumes of new hires during the Barack Obama administration. In an ongoing series of posts on the Pajamas Media blogging network (co-authored with Richard Pollack), Adams and Von Spakovsky have meticulously detail the names and backgrounds of the new hires.
Their series is entitled, “Every Single One,” as in “every single one” of the new hires is a liberal. Their research found the new lawyers have worked for organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union. It apparently formed the basis of [Senator] Grassley's assertion in a congressional hearing earlier this week that the Civil Rights Division in the Obama era “has hired 96 liberals and zero conservatives.”
The punch line here is, of course, that Adams and Von Spakovsky are the ones connected to improperly politicized hiring inside the division.
The line between proper and improper hiring of career lawyers is whether someone is hired specifically for his politics rather than his qualifications.
The stumbling block for Grassley (and Adams and Von Spakovsky) is that the historical mission of the Civil Rights Division -- ensuring full voting, housing and other rights for minorities who have faced documented discrimination -- is inherently a liberal mission.
It's just not clear how it's wrong to hire career lawyers to staff the Civil Rights Division who have a background in civil rights. [MainJustice.com, 9/15/11]
Adams: Obama DOJ Took Months To Give Pajamas Media “The Same” Information A Reporter Received In Days From The Bush DOJ. From Injustice:
The DOJ's politicization under Obama and its collusion with leftwing activist groups is also evident in the department's handling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
During the Bush era, DOJ leaders quickly fulfilled FOIA requests. For instance, in 2006 Charlie Savage, then at the Boston Globe, requested all the resumes of the recently hired attorneys in the Bush Civil Rights Division. The DOJ leadership produced the materials within days, well ahead of the legal deadline - they acted so fast, in fact, that some colleagues and I complained they were rushing.
Around June 2010, Pajamas Media, a news and opinion website for which I write, requested from the DOJ the same information about Obama attorney hires that Charlie Savage had requested about Bush hires. After the request was ignored for several months, Pajamas Media renewed the request on October 13. After more stalling, Pajamas Media filed litigation to force the DOJ to fulfill the FOIA request, as it is legally required to do. After many months the DOJ finally turned over the resumes of 130 new lawyers, but it redacted key portions of the resumes, including the lawyers' prior political activities and group memberships. [Injustice, p. 91]
DOJ: Pajamas Media Actually Requested “Nearly Seven Times” More Information. After Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked the DOJ about similar allegations Adams made in a Pajamas Media article, DOJ stated in a letter that PJM had requested “nearly seven times” more information than The Boston Globe's Savage had. From the letter:
Your letter refers to allegations by a bloggers claiming that the Department's Civil Rights Division (Division) provides information in a timely manner to some, while delaying its replies to others, based on political favoritism. As discussed below, it appears that the allegations rest on comparisons of dissimilar requests. [...]
For example, it is alleged that two FOIA requests for resumes - one submitted in February 2006 by a Boston Globe reporter and one submitted in 2010 - received different treatment despite requesting “the exact same information,” and, specifically, that a response to the 2010 request was unduly delayed. These two requests, however, were quite different in scope. The 2006 request was for copies of resumes and application-related documents for career attorneys hired into three of the Civil Rights Division's Sections from January 2001 to approximately January 2006. By contrast, the 2010 request sought nearly a decade's worth of resumes for the entire Division, including all 12 Sections as well as the Office of the Assistant Attorney General - in sum, nearly seven times as many new hires as the 2006 request. In accordance with the Division's usual protocol, the FOIA Office began processing that request immediately, sending an interim response the day after it was received. That process requires a time-consuming line-by-line review of the resumes before public release, consistent with our obligations to protect the privacy of attorney hires."
In short, based on our initial review of the allegations that are referenced in your letter, we are not aware of evidence that the Civil Rights Division allows politics or any improper factors to play a role in the handling of records requests. [DOJ Letter to Rep. Smith, 4/14/11]
Adams: Reaction To Pajamas Media FOIA Is “Part Of A Pervasive Pattern Of Partisan Obstructionism Of FOIA Requests. From Injustice:
But the stonewalling is also part of a pervasive pattern of partisan obstructionism of FOIA requests; the Holder Civil Rights Division provides fast, favored access for leftwing organizations and for friendly media outlets like National Public Radio, while Republican or conservative-leaning requestors often have to wait nearly a year for a reply, if any is forthcoming at all.
In February 2011, I obtained DOJ logs that clearly showed the Civil Rights Division's systematic bias in fulfilling FOIA requests. [Injustice, p. 92]
DOJ: ”Allegations Rest On Comparisons Of Dissimilar Requests." DOJ responded to similar claims in the letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) by pointing out that Adams had compared some document requests given priority for legitimate reasons with other requests that had not receive that same priority:
In accordance with the Division's usual protocol, the FOIA Office began processing that request immediately, sending an interim response the day after it was received. That process requires a time-consuming line-by-line review of the resumes before public release, consistent with our obligations to protect the privacy of attorney hires."
The Voting Section prioritizes requests for Section 5 submission files when the jurisdiction's submission is pending before the Attorney General. ... This helps ensure that interested parties have a meaningful opportunity to receive and review a pending submission, and prepare and present a comment on that submission, as Congress provided in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in time to be considered during the statutorily-mandated 60-day review period. If the request letter cites the FOIA but seeks pending Section 5 files, it is treated as a pending Section 5 request and processed accordingly. Because of these procedures, it is not meaningful to compare the handling of requests for pending Section 5 records with the handling of requests for closed Section 5 files or FOIA requests for other types of records. [DOJ letter To Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), 4/14/11]
DOJ: Adams Cherry-Picked Requests From Supposedly Liberal Sources That Took Less Time. From the DOJ letter:
[T]he blog post cited in your letter alleges that Eugene Lee received responses to his FOIA requests only three days after submitting them. The log that we provided with our letter to you of August 12, 2010 included three requests to the Division by Mr. Lee. Two of these three requests, however, were requests for copies of pending Section 5 submission files that were handled under the procedure described above. On the other hand, Mr. Lee's third request was for a closed Section 5 submission file (which was processed by the FOIA office due to the need for redactions). It did not receive the same priority as pending Section 5 requests, and took 172 days to fill. Another example is the request of Raul Arroyo-Mendoza, who is also alleged to have received “same day service.” Mr. Arroyo-Mendoza has made many requests over the last two years. While he received quick turnaround for requests relating to pending Section 5 submissions, he waited 18 months for the Division to complete processing on his request for a closed Section 5 submission file, which includes voluminous records and required redactions. [DOJ Letter To Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), 4/14/11]
Adams: “The Official Obama Campaign Website Posted The Panthers' Endorsement Of Obama.” From Injustice:
[W]e cannot dismiss the disturbing possibility that the Panthers' presence in Selma and on the podium outside Brown Chapel, as well as their positioning behind Obama during the march, was collaborative and deliberate. It is plausible that the Obama campaign acquiesced to the overtures of people like Malik Zulu Shabazz.
The images of Obama and the Panthers together were useful to Obama, providing signs of his racial “authenticity” for important voting segments. And after all, it's clear that some elements in the Obama campaign sympathized with the Panthers; in March 2008,the official Obama campaign website posted the Panthers' endorsement of Obama, then quickly removed it when it drew negative attention. [Injustice, p. 110, emphasis added]
In Fact, The New Black Panther Blog Post Was User-Generated And Was Subsequently Removed By The Obama Campaign Because The Group “Advocates Violence.” From a March 20, 2008, Washington Times article:
The New Black Panther Party, a “black power” group that calls on blacks to arm themselves and frequently espouses anti-white and anti-Semitic rhetoric, posted an endorsement on the Web site that said: “Obama will stir the 'Melting Pot' into a better 'Molten America.' ”
The campaign yesterday took down the Black Panthers' page on the Web site.
“We removed the user-generated blog post because we don't condone any group that advocates violence,” Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor told reporter S.A. Miller of The Washington Times. “Senator Obama gave a 37-minute speech about race [Tuesday], and we hope people will focus on that and not what one individual posted on a blog.”
Adams: “The Weakening Of Section 11(b) Is A Dangerous Development.” Adams argues that by dismissing parts of the case against the New Black Panther Party, the Obama administration is responsible for “weakening” the statute. From the book:
One of the tragic ironies of the lawsuit's dismissal is that, by narrowing the range of protected voters, it will mostly harm black voters in the future -- unless, of course, you lower or raise the bar depending on the race of the perpetrators. The weakening of Section 11 (b) is a dangerous development, as these protections are arguably more important than other sections of the Voting Rights Act, such as prohibitions against race-based election discrimination by state actors, provisions for federal oversight of election changes, or guaranteed access to foreign language ballots and voting assistance. Section 11 (b) is the key to the clean functioning of elections because it provides for free access to the ballot box -- without that protection, all the other protections are largely irrelevant. [Injustice, p. 125]
In Fact, The New Black Panthers Case Was Only The Third Litigation Of Section 11(b) In Its 45+ Year History. From The American Prospect:
At the heart of the New Black Panther case was Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which offers legal protections against voter intimidation. It had only been used once prior to the Bush administration -- in 1992 to prevent a statewide voter-suppression effort initiated in South Carolina by then-Sen. Jesse Helms... The Bush administration filed two Section 11(b) cases, both on behalf of white voters, both supervised by Coates: the Black Panther case and a separate case in Noxubee, Mississippi. [The American Prospect, 1/8/10]
Adams: New Black Panthers Case Had “Been Won,” But Was Dismissed Due To “A Slavish Subservience To Ideology.” From Injustice:
In the end, the OPR report revealed few details about the real reason the DOJ dismissed the Panther case. I believe, as do Chris Coates and many others within the DOJ, that the decision resulted from the Civil Rights Division's institutional hostility to protecting white victims of voting discrimination from minority wrongdoers. The fact that the Panther case had already effectively been won before it was dismissed indicates a slavish subservience to ideology by key decision-makers such as Rosenbaum and King. [Injustice, p. 164]
Perez: DOJ Had “Ethical Obligations To Ensure That Any Relief Sought Was Consistent With The Law And Supported By The Evidence.” Pennsylvania Bar Rules imposed legal and ethical duties upon prosecutors that extend through the final resolution of a case. Perez highlighted these obligations in his statement to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:
Although none of the defendants responded to the complaint, that did not absolve the Department of its legal and ethical obligations to ensure that any relief sought was consistent with the law and supported by the evidence. The entry of a default judgment is not automatic, and the Pennsylvania Bar Rules impart a clear duty of candor and honesty in any legal proceeding; those duties are only heightened in the type of ex parte hearing that occurred in this matter. See Pa. RPC 3.3(d). At the remedial stage, as with the liability stage, the Department remains obliged to ensure that the request for relief is supported by the evidence and the law. In discharging its obligations in that regard, the Department considered not only the allegations in the complaint, but also the evidence collected by the Department both before and after the filing of the complaint. [Thomas E. Perez's statement to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 5/14/10, emphasis added]
Adams Accuses Obama DOJ Of Politicization For “Spiking” Bush-Era Voting Rights Case In Missouri. From page 191 of Injustice:
While the Obama DOJ was rejecting cases that could help prevent voter fraud, it was also busy spiking similar cases begun under the Bush administration. For example, in the early days of the Obama administration, it dismissed a Bush-era case against Missouri, where some counties had more registered voters on the rolls than voting age citizens. Nothing was too surprising about the dismissal, except perhaps the willingness of some media outlets at the time to publish stories, without a whiff of skepticism, claiming the new president had purged politics from DOJ decision making. [Injustice, p. 191]
NYT: Lawsuit Against Missouri Was Part Of “Highly Suspicious Case” Connected To U.S. Attorney Scandal. According to a May 2007 New York Times editorial:
As the United States attorney scandal grows, so does the number of prosecutors who seem to have been pushed out for partisan political reasons. Another highly suspicious case has emerged in the appointment of Bradley Schlozman, a controversial elections lawyer, to replace a respected United States attorney in Missouri. From the facts available, it looks like a main reason for installing Mr. Schlozman was to help Republicans win a pivotal Missouri Senate race.
Jim Talent, the Republican incumbent, was facing a strong challenge from Claire McCaskill last year when the United States attorney, Todd Graves, resigned suddenly. Mr. Graves suspects that he may have been pushed out in part because he refused to support a baseless lawsuit against the state of Missouri that could have led to voters' being wrongly removed from the rolls. [New York Times,5/10/07]
U.S. District Court Ruled Against The Bush DOJ In The Missouri Case. The Bush administration filed a complaint against the state of Missouri in November 2005. In 2007, Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri entered judgment against the Bush DOJ, stating in part that the Missouri Secretary of State's Office had “done many of the things that the United States Government now seeks Court supervision to accomplish.” Judge Laughrey further wrote:
It is also telling that the United States has not shown that any Missouri resident was denied his or her right to vote as a result of deficiencies alleged by the United States. Nor has the United States shown that any voter fraud has occurred [United States v. Missouri, order entering judgment on behalf of defendants, 4/13/07, retrieved via Lexis]
Appellate Court Remanded Missouri Case To Consider Local Compliance With Voter Registration Laws. On July 29, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit remanded the case, asking the district court to consider whether local election agencies were complying with voter registration laws. [United States v. Missouri, 535 F.3d 844, 6/29/08, retrieved via Lexis]
DOJ Sought Dismssal Due To Outdated Evidence In Motion Signed By Member Of New Black Panthers Trial Team. In a March 4, 2009, motion for voluntary dismissal signed by Robert Popper, deputy chief of the civil rights division's voting section, the Justice Department noted that discovery in the underlying lawsuit against Missouri closed July 24, 2006, and that on October 9, 2008, the court declined a request to reopen discovery. The motion further explained:
The United States now moves for a voluntary dismissal of this matter on the ground that events have overtaken this litigation. Discovery in this action closed more than two and-one-half years ago, and the evidence in the record at that time may have limited applicability to current conditions in Missouri. As the United States would not seek an injunction on old or stale evidence, it hereby moves for this dismissal.
In light of the above, the United States respectfully moves this Court to approve and order the attached Stipulation and Order of Dismissal. [United States v. Missouri, plaintiff's unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal, 3/4/09, retrieved via Pacer]
Adams: Obama DOJ “Allowed States To Widely Ignore The MOVE Act.” From Injustice:
The Obama administration's selective approach to law enforcement has another wrinkle: while the administration goes above and beyond the law to make voting more convenient for welfare recipients, it shows much less resolve in ensuring the vote for U.S. military personnel stationed overseas-a group that, by a stunning coincidence, tends to vote Republican.
To better protect military voting rights, Congress passed the MOVE act in 2009 mandating, among other things, that absentee ballots be sent to military personnel at least forty-five days before an election, and that a voter registration office be opened on every military installation before the 2010 mid-terms. Yet the Obama administration has made it clear that protecting military voting rights is not an urgent matter-in February 2010, a DOJ official openly informed a convention of state officials that litigation to enforce MOVE wasn't a DOJ priority, a convention attendee told me. [...]
Then, as the 2010 election approached, the DOJ allowed states to widely ignore the MOVE act, absentee ballots were not mailed out forty-five days before the election, and military installations were not informed until after the election of the mandate to create voting offices. [Injustice, p. 191-2]
In Fact, State Waivers Were Built Into The MOVE Act. The MOVE Act requires states to send absentee ballots to overseas military troops 45 days before an election, but the legislation specifically allows states to apply for a waiver if it can prove an “undue hardship” in enforcing it, as well as outline a “comprehensive plan” by which military and overseas voters will receive ballots in time for them to be counted in the election. From a National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) summary of the MOVE Act:
A State may request a waiver from the 45 day transit time provision if the Chief State Election Official determines that the State cannot meet the requirements due to undue hardship. The undue hardship must be one of the following: (1) the date of the State primary; (2) a delay in generating ballots due to a legal contest; or (3) the State constitution prohibits the state from complying with the time frame requirements.
The waiver request must include: (1) a recognition that the purpose of the 45 day transit time is to allow UOCAVA voters enough time to vote in Federal elections; (2) an explanation of why the State cannot meet the requirement; (3) the number of days prior to Federal elections that the State requires absentee ballots be sent to UOCAVA voters; and (4) a comprehensive plan to ensure that overseas voters are able to receive and submit an absentee ballot in time for it to be counted.
If the undue hardship is based on either the State primary date or the State constitution, the waiver request must be submitted no later than 90 days before the upcoming election. [NASS Summary of the MOVE Act, 11/6/09]
Waivers Must Be Approved By The Department Of Defense. From the NASS summary:
After consulting with the Attorney General, the Department of Defense must grant the waiver request if the comprehensive plan is deemed sufficient. The Department of Defense must approve or deny a waiver request based on the State primary date or State constitution no later than 65 days before the Election. Note: In 2010, 65 days before the November 2nd Election is Sunday, August 29th.
If a State requests a waiver based on a delay in generating ballots due to a legal contest, the request must be submitted as soon as practicable. The Department of Defense must approve or deny the request no later than 5 days after the waiver request is received. [NASS Summary of the MOVE Act, 11/6/09]
Adams Condemns Obama DOJ For Defending Muslim Teacher Who Resigned After Her Request For Time Off To Make Hajj Was Denied. From Injustice:
Safoorah Khan was a math lab instructor in the Berkeley School District just outside Chicago. She had been on the job just nine months when she asked the school district superintendent for three weeks off in December 2008 to go on a Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. [...]
She was the only teacher who taught her subject in the school, which understandably denied her request to vanish from her job for three weeks. But this was a mere inconvenience for Khan, who resigned her job and went to Saudi Arabia anyway. One would think that would have ended the matter. But to the Civil Rights Division, it was just the beginning. [...]
Nevertheless, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez was out in front defending the [DOJ's] decision to sue, demonstrating again that from root to branch, the Obama DOJ is filled with crusaders who care less about what the law says and more about advancing a political cause. Without specifying whether he thought the request was reasonable, Perez described Khan's plea for three weeks' leave as “a profoundly personal request by a person of faith.” He then likened the lawsuit, which is still being litigated, to defending “the religious liberty that our forefathers came to this country for.”
Actually, it's not even close. The religious liberty of our forefathers was the liberty to worship freely without being executed, jailed, or excessively taxed. They sought freedom from government intervention in matters of conscience. They did not seek something for nothing. They did not flee the bloodshed of Europe's religious wars to seek the right to disappear for weeks at a time while still enjoying full pay and benefits. They sought freedom-period. With his comments, Perez insulted the brave history of our forefathers and the experience of legions of immigrants who set off for America to escape religious persecution. [Injustice, pp. 225-27]
In Fact, DOJ Filed Suit To Enforce Title VII Of Civil Rights Act Of 1964 After The Case Was Referred By EEOC. From the Justice Department's complaint:
This action is brought on behalf of the United States of America (“United States”) to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). [...]
Ms. Khan filed a timely charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) (Charge No. 440-2009-01534) on or about November 22, 2008, alleging that Defendant Board of Education discriminated against her in employment because of her religion. Persuant to Section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to believe that Ms. Khan's allegation of discrimination based on religion was true, attempted unsuccessfully to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of the charge, and subsequently referred the matter to the Department of Justice. [DOJ complaint, 12/13/10, via Volokh.com]
Libertarian UCLA Legal Expert: Previous Requests For “Weeks-Long Leaves” Have Been Supported By The U.S. Government And At Times By Courts. On his blog, Eugene Volokh, a libertarian UCLA law school expert on religion and the law, discussed the government's previous activity pursuing cases similar to Khan's:
[I]t turns out that requests for weeks-long leaves (as opposed to the more common Sabbatarian requests to have each Saturday and Friday night off) have been made before by members of another religious group -- and supported by the U.S. government. That group is the Worldwide Church of God, the adherents of which apparently feel obligated to take eight to ten days off every year to observe a holiday (the Feast of Tabernacles).
The EEOC and the Justice Department have on several occasions sued on behalf of Worldwide Church of God members, claiming they have a right to religious accommodation.
See EEOC v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co. (4th Cir. 2008), EEOC v. Universal Manufacturing Corp. (5th Cir. 1990), and U.S. v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois Univ., 1995 WL 311336 (S.D. Ill.). And some courts have held that denial of leave indeed violated Title VII, because on the particular facts of the case the employer has not shown that granting leave would cause undue hardship. See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois Univ.; Wangsness v. Watertown School Dist. (D.S.D. 1982); Edwards v. School Bd. of City of Norton (W.D. Va. 1980) (partly modified on other grounds by the Fourth Circuit); Willey v. Maben Mfg., Inc. (N.D. Miss. 1979); Rankins v. Comm'n on Professional Competence (Cal. 1979) (discussing Title VII standards, though in a case decided under then-existing Free Exercise Clause caselaw); Neiderhuber v. Camden County Vocational & Technical School District Board of Ed. (D.N.J. 1980) (likewise). Other courts have held otherwise, based on the particular facts of those cases. Firestone Fibers; Favero v. Huntsville Indep. School. Dist. (S.D. Tex. 1996); Smith v. United Refining Co., 1980 WL 98 (W.D. Pa.). And at least one court has remanded for more factual determinations about whether there would be undue hardship. Universal Manufacturing Co.. (Note that these sorts of cases could be brought either by private plaintiffs themselves, or by the EEOC or DOJ defending the rights of those plaintiffs.) [Volokh.com, 12/14/10, emphasis added]
Adams Highlights Supposed Problem Of “Key DOJ Election Officials” Being “Large Donors To Obama.” FromInjustice:
I received an early report about the Panther incident in Philadelphia. Voting Section chief Chris Coates had kept me at the Washington desk for just this sort of eventuality. Normally another lawyer would manage all traffic on election day, but Coates didn't trust him because there were already signs within the DOJ that some attorneys had used their position and power to aid the Obama campaign. Not only were key DOJ election officials large donors to Obama, but a wave of questionable inquiries and requests had come in over the previous few months from people such as Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer. [Injustice, p. 120]
But Adams Was A McCain Donor. According to filings from the Federal Election Commission, Adams donated $1,150 to John McCain's presidential campaign in 2008. [Federal Election Commission filing, contribution date 9/12/08]
Adams Praises True The Vote. From Injustice:
[Democracy Defense League], along with similar organizations like True the Vote in Harris County, Texas, is part of a wave of grassroots organizations that have sprung up across America to combat voter fraud. These efforts are made necessary by a combination of inept enforcement of voting laws, the minimization or outright denial of the problem in academia and in the national media, and political opposition to stamping out voter fraud because the wrongdoers are political allies of the Democratic Party. [Injustice, p. 171]
Adams Previously Acknowledged That True The Vote Was His Client. From an October 2010 Adams post at BigGovernment.com:
True the Vote is a group of citizen volunteers, often old ladies or stay at home moms. I should disclose they are also a client of mine. They are dedicated to exercising rights under Texas law to stand watch and record illegal activity in the polling place. [BigGovernment.com, 10/29/10]
Adams Links Institute On Race And Justice With Communists, Claim They Received Grant To “Teach [DOJ] Lawyers About Racial Profiling By Police Departments.” From Injustice:
A stable of academics serving as paid consultants help to fuel the DOJ's fixation on racial profiling by the police. One such consultant, Dr. Jack McDevitt of Northeastern University, heads the Institute on Race and Justice (IRJ). Past collaborators with the IRJ include Angela Davis, a former member of both the Communist Party USA and the original Black Panther Party. The IRJ receives at least $40448 in DOJ funds to teach department lawyers about racial profiling by police departments. But the IRJ's reports on this issue have another deep-pocketed benefactor - George Soros and his Open Society Institute. Soros sponsored the IRJ's project “Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21st Century: Implications for Racial Justice,” the very same work that IRJ is doing for the DOJ. Thus, police departments are subjected not only to DOJ muscle, but DOJ muscle with the financial backing of George Soros. [Injustice, p. 220]
McDevitt Did Train DOJ Lawyers On Profiling, But Announcement Did Not Indicate He Had Received DOJ Funds “To Teach Department Lawyers About Racial Profiling.” From an Adams report at Pajamas Media:
On Tuesday, April 19 at 3 p.m. in the Patrick Henry Building in Washington D.C., the Department of Justice is offering training to DOJ lawyers about racially biased police profiling. I obtained the announcement from a DOJ source. It says:
The Special Litigation Section (SPL) is hosting a presentation on discriminatory police practices. The speakers will be Drs. Lorie Fridell and Jack McDevitt. Dr. Fridell is an associate professor at the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida, and a former director of the Police Executive Research Forum (“PERF”). . . .
With DOJ funds she authored, “By the Numbers: A Guide for Analzying [sic] Race Data from Vehicle Stops,” and more recently, she has developed model curriculums for police based on the social psychology of human bias, including a recent chapter titled, “Racially biased Policing: The Law Enforcement Response to the Implicit Black-Crime Association.”
Dr. McDevitt is the associate dean of the College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, where he also directs the Institute on Race and Justice. With Jack Levin he co-authored, “Hate Crimes Revisited,”and he has also authored numerous governmental reports, including “Improving the Accuracy of Bias Crimes Statistics Nationally”, which was released by the White House in 2000. [Pajamas Media, 4/18/11]
The $440,488 DOJ Grant Was For Sex Trafficking Research And Came During The Bush Administration. From a Northeastern University press release:
The Institute on Race and Justice (IRJ) at Northeastern University was awarded a $440,448 grant by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice, to develop and implement the first data collection and reporting system on cases of human trafficking. In collaboration with the Urban Institute (UI) in Washington D.C., the Human Trafficking Reporting System (HTRS) will be designed, piloted and rolled out to human trafficking task forces throughout the U.S., starting January 1, 2008. [Northeastern University press release, 9/11/07]