Wednesday
May142008
Congress investigates Federal Justice System for selective prosecution
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 5:54PM
The Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a second hearing to address "Allegations of Selective Prosecution" and "The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System."
Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) said the Judiciary Committee has previously investigated "whether the Department of Justice has allowed politics to seep into its decision-making" and now turns its attention to allegations of "Democrats being disproportionately targeted for Federal prosecutions under the current Administration." Sanchez also raised concerns that the DOJ has "investigated allegations of voter fraud" but has ignored vote suppression, citing many recent incidents of Republican efforts to deter non-Republican voters and thwart opposition "get out the vote" campaigns in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Sanchez said that the DOJ's failure to send a witness to testify despite an invitation was "unfortunate."
Witness Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH) testified about the 2002 Election Day phone-jamming operation conducted by Republican political operatives, noting that witness Allen Raymond had pled guilty for his involvement in the case and that former Republican National Committee Director James Tobin was convicted as well and later acquitted on appeal. He said that it is "unclear" whether the White House was involved in the scandal despite suspicious phone calls made to the White House that day, although witness Paul Twomey said there was "numerous evidence" of its involvement. Finally, Hodes said that there were "major delays" in prosecuting the case and that the DOJ had "at the very least" a "conflict of interest" in its investigation, and Twomey said that the DOJ has "decidedly Republican" interests.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that previous hearings had shown "there was no illegal or unethical conduct" and cited former Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) 2004 congressional case as evidence that the DOJ was "using politics to help one party over another." Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) countered by saying that the hearing was discussing people who had violated laws and been found guilty and said that "the RNC is in big trouble."
Witness Mark Crispin Miller, political analyst and NYU professor, said the DOJ should work to prosecute unlawful Democratic practices as well, and deplored electronic ballot counting machines as a "secret vote count." He said that voter fraud is a "minor problem" that would be much better solved by video cameras in voting areas as opposed to "laws that disenfranchise tens of thousands of people."
Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) said the Judiciary Committee has previously investigated "whether the Department of Justice has allowed politics to seep into its decision-making" and now turns its attention to allegations of "Democrats being disproportionately targeted for Federal prosecutions under the current Administration." Sanchez also raised concerns that the DOJ has "investigated allegations of voter fraud" but has ignored vote suppression, citing many recent incidents of Republican efforts to deter non-Republican voters and thwart opposition "get out the vote" campaigns in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Sanchez said that the DOJ's failure to send a witness to testify despite an invitation was "unfortunate."
Witness Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH) testified about the 2002 Election Day phone-jamming operation conducted by Republican political operatives, noting that witness Allen Raymond had pled guilty for his involvement in the case and that former Republican National Committee Director James Tobin was convicted as well and later acquitted on appeal. He said that it is "unclear" whether the White House was involved in the scandal despite suspicious phone calls made to the White House that day, although witness Paul Twomey said there was "numerous evidence" of its involvement. Finally, Hodes said that there were "major delays" in prosecuting the case and that the DOJ had "at the very least" a "conflict of interest" in its investigation, and Twomey said that the DOJ has "decidedly Republican" interests.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that previous hearings had shown "there was no illegal or unethical conduct" and cited former Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) 2004 congressional case as evidence that the DOJ was "using politics to help one party over another." Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) countered by saying that the hearing was discussing people who had violated laws and been found guilty and said that "the RNC is in big trouble."
Witness Mark Crispin Miller, political analyst and NYU professor, said the DOJ should work to prosecute unlawful Democratic practices as well, and deplored electronic ballot counting machines as a "secret vote count." He said that voter fraud is a "minor problem" that would be much better solved by video cameras in voting areas as opposed to "laws that disenfranchise tens of thousands of people."
Reader Comments (1)
Selective prosecution?
Someone should hold hearings on why the DOJ can rush to investigate every conceivable slight against one group or another but won't investigate
death threats made against a defendant in a courtroom by a uniformed member of a militant hate group;
witness arrest and intimidation; warrants obtained through false info; evidence tampering; police destruction of evidence (tapes, phone records) needed by the defense; falsified medical and police reports; etc.
Yes, I'm talking about the Duke lacrosse prosecution--"Scottsboro II", with just the colors reversed. You won't find a bigger deprivation of rights and example of railroading against unpopular defendants since 1931.
But no DOJ interest at all. . .