How The Obama Era Department Of Justice Is Funding Left Wing Liberal Lunatics To Further Their Own Political Agenda.


Ideas have consequences. In 2013, during the preliminary investigation for the
book, Extortion GAI researchers detected a pattern of federal lawsuits and settlements
brought by a newly created office within the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. Assistant
Attorney General Tom Perez made the DOJ’s intentions clear in his January 14, 2010 speech to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition – Annual Wall Street Conference.

Mr. Perez stated: “Fair lending is a top priority for the Civil Rights Division, and I have taken a number of critical steps to ensure that we put our best forward. I have hired a Special Counsel for Fair Lending to spearhead our efforts. We are also establishing a
dedicated Fair Lending unit within the Division’s Housing Section. The unit will root
out lending discrimination in all forms.”

In remarks at the Brookings Institution Perez stated:
The establishment of the Fair Lending Unit, with dedicated attorneys, economists,
investigators, support staff and a Special Counsel for Fair Lending, ensure that fair
lending issues receive immediate attention and high priority.
The unit already has 50 matters open, including 18 investigations. We have
identified large, mid-size and small lenders as targets of enforcement efforts and
those targets include national, regional and local actors.

What Mr. Perez did not say in these comments was that millions of dollars would
eventually be handed over, no strings attached, to activist nonprofits.
The DOJ began to file lawsuits against financial institutions based on evidence of
unfair lending practices. With the threat of protracted litigation and bad press looming, the DOJ extracted settlements before trial. These technically voluntary settlement agreements, referred to as “consent orders,” usually established a settlement fund to service claims made by victims of the defendant’s alleged illegal behavior. More often than not, the consent order specified that unclaimed funds were to be distributed to a qualified organization as approved by the Department of Justice. Moreover, many of the settlements called for large sums of money to be paid toward educational efforts, often provided by these same qualified organizations.

The DOJ filed pleadings in each case that used essentially identical language for each
complaint and settlement. This assembly line approach uses what is sometimes referred to in the legal profession as “cookbook pleadings” – those not designed for actual litigation, but intended merely to provide a basis for the settlement and payment of money. Seldom was the actual complaint filed more than a month prior to filing the consent order and occasionally within days.

A consent order, sometimes referred to as a “consent judgment” or a “consent decree,” is an order or judgment by the court where the parties have previously agreed to the settlement terms and provisions. Another feature of the consent decree is that the court
will maintain jurisdiction of the matter to supervise the implementation of the decree. The filing of the complaint serves to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

These institutions spend a vast sum of money advertising each year. A case of this
nature could have a devastating impact for any bank deemed racist. As the Wall Street
Journal reported, “The lenders quickly settled these cases rather than run the reputational risk of being called racist in court.”63 When contacted by the DOJ, often a target financial institution would want to reach a number and shut the process down as soon as possible, as one bank put it, “to avoid contested litigation.” Because the entire negotiation process occurs in the context of litigation, the internal communications of a party remain confidential protected by attorney client privilege. Thus, the public and Congress are provided very little information regarding the nature and process of the negotiations between the parties. In other words, the DOJ effectively silences the target institution without any form of congressional oversight or public scrutiny. Courts were either unaware of this mechanism of disbursement or did not comment in their review of the proposed consent orders.

The agreements were reached prior to filing the proposed order and the parties both had legal representation. A settlement in court is technically reached by the parties freely and voluntarily unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The congressional
testimony of Paul Larkin, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation in 2015
denounced the court’s limited participation in the process:

What aggravates this problem even more is that you have these sorts of settlements
gradually coming into wider and wider…Why is that a problem? Because oftentimes
there is no judicial involvement whatsoever. These agreements often are a means of
disposing not of charges or a lawsuit that has already filed. They are a means often of disposing of charges or a lawsuit before any are filed. So there is no judicial
involvement whatsoever. You have an agreement entirely between the lawyers for
the United States and the lawyers for other parties. And in this agreement they are
trying to engage in what is for all intents and purposes a sham transaction to avoid
depositing all of the money that is due to the taxpayers of the United States into the
account that the Treasury maintains, that Congress thereafter can decide how it will
be spent.

In all of the cases we reviewed in the course of our research, the court simply
accepted the proposed order, with one noted exception. In United States of America v.
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and Citizens Bank, the defendant bank gave the court reason to believe that something was amiss and the court took quite a different approach. The defendant objected to the claims made by the DOJ in the pleadings which the defendant had not seen until after the terms of settlement had been established. This anomaly opened up the process and demonstrated the pressure placed on a target institution by the federal government and its incentive to settle.

The DOJ had alleged that the defendants, Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and
Citizens Bank, had engaged in a pattern of conduct violating the Fair Housing Act and the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The proposed Agreed Order imposed a much smaller contribution amount to the settlement fund, but incorporated several of the same elements in its terms as have been seen in other consent orders for other cases.

This proposed order required that the Defendant “enter a partnership” with the City of Detroit to set up a fund in the amount of $1.625 million and provide grants to homeowners to enhance neighborhood stability and revitalization. The program was to be administered by the city or its “designated partner.” The proposed order also required the Defendant to ensure that the Defendant’s lending products and services in the Detroit area were marketed in majority-black census tracts. It also required that the bank hire two Community Development Leaders to focus primarily on generating residential mortgage loans in the “majority-black census tracts of Wayne County” as well as to facilitate the bank’s grant program.

It instated a separate fund in the amount of $400,000 with one half of that fund devoted to advertising and marketing in these same neighborhoods. The consent order required that the other half be spent on consumer education in order to sponsor programs offered by community or governmental organizations engaged in fair lending work.

Furthermore, the proposed order required that the Defendant make $1.5 million available for loan subsidies via a “special financing program” for residents in Wayne County. If the funds were not fully expended, the remaining amount was to be donated to a nonprofit housing organization in the City of Detroit or to such other organization involved with community reinvestment in the City of Detroit.

In its response to the DOJ’s Motion For Entry of Proposed Agreed Order, the Defendant described the process by which the DOJ pursued the settlement.69 It became apparent that the motivation for these banks was to settle rather than resist the claims of the DOJ.

The Defendant bank explained that it was not aware of the precise nature of the
charges until the complaint was filed. The Defendant stated:

The precise articulation of the Department’s claim was not made available to
Citizens until the Department provided Citizens with a copy of the Complaint
after it was filed with the Court on May 5, 2011. Citizens disputes the factual
and legal basis for the claim presented, and, to the extent permitted, has
included in the proposed “Agreed Order” as Part III, the “Position of Citizens
Bank” that describes its actual conduct and performance.

It went on to illuminate some of Bancorp’s considerations in reaching a settlement:
Nonetheless, threatened litigation by the Department imposes a substantial
financial burden on Citizens, particularly in the context of current economic
conditions. Thus, Citizens entered into negotiations with the Department in
an effort to avoid contested litigation. The only option afforded by the Department to avoid contested litigation was the filing of a complaint and the simultaneous presentation of an “Agreed Order.”

The Defendant further stated: Citizens pursued the negotiations to avoid the cost and burden of litigation…. The important point for Citizens is that the voluntary resolution will put the matter to rest, through entry of the Agreed Order. Then the Defendant bank reiterated their reasons for entering into settlements over litigation, which had little to do with culpability:

Perhaps there are some inconsistencies here because Citizens continues to
deny a factual or legal basis for the claim, but agrees to take certain action to
resolve the claim of the Department. But it is not uncommon for businesses
facing the prospect of very expensive litigation against the government to
seek a way to avoid the cost. If reasonable business objectives can be met,
Citizens prefers settlement to the alternative of expensive litigation, and
indeed would prefer to use the bank’s resources to assist the City of Detroit
in its continued efforts to stabilize housing conditions in the City. The bank
currently faces economic challenges that further favor settlement over
litigation.

When faced with the prospect of extended litigation, expense, and bad publicity,
many targeted institutions choose to settle rather than resist the questionable and
disputable claims brought by the DOJ.

On May 24, 2011, the Court issued a scathing order denying approval of the
proposed consent order. The Court had its own reasons for refusing to approve
the consent order.

The Court noted: In reviewing the Agreed Order, it (1) fails to define terms; (2) lacks completeness; (3) contains superfluous clauses; (4) lacks clarity; and (5) is void of provisions for the Court to effectively oversee the parties’ obligations under the Agreed Order during its anticipated term.

Others, in the banking industry, have criticized the DOJ practices that have
resulted in these settlements.…there is a troubling lack of transparency with the DOJ’s growing fair lending actions. DOJ’s unprecedented actions and the legal theory upon which they are based are shrouded in secrecy, as targeted banks are forced to enter into
confidentiality agreements. Community banks work hard to comply with laws and regulations and consistently seek information and guidance on how to implement applicable rules in this ever-changing lending and regulatory environment. By requiring banks to enter into confidentiality agreements regarding the investigations, enforcement and settlement agreements, DOJ is thwarting banks’ ability to assess and refine, if necessary, their policies or practices to ensure compliance with fair lending laws.

This approach is counter to the intent of well-functioning fair lending laws.
Mr. Perez and the newly created Fair Lending Unit in the Housing and Civil
Enforcement Section of the DOJ had a different take on the Citizens case. In his estimation this had been a cooperative effort to right wrongs recognized by all.

He states:
Both Citizens and Midwest worked collaboratively with the Department to develop
these creative solutions, and were eager to find solutions that allow them to remedy
the harm done while also reaching new customers.

Toward the end of his remarks Mr. Perez addressed concerns that he had gleaned
from “…listening sessions we have conducted with industry stakeholders.” Among those
concerns were “transparency” in the DOJ processes; promptness of decisions by the DOJ
because “the cloud of uncertainty that looms during the pendency of an investigation can take a toll” and uncertainty regarding the legal theories that the DOJ was using. Mr. Perez described an “…unprecedented level of collaboration and coordination between DOJ and its partner agencies.”

The banking industry was concerned about the “harmful and inappropriate fair lending actions” of the DOJ, as expressed in a letter addressed to Eric Holder. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate made this observation: …the DOJ used the settlement process to achieve policy goals—including the
distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars from private companies to third-party
housing counseling groups—that would not have been possible in litigation. In other words, the DOJ used the threat of litigation—and the corresponding financial and reputational costs—to cause banks to take actions that a court would not have
ordered them to do. (emphasis added)

Even as early as 2010, some members of Congress had begun to take notice that all was not right in the new administration’s Justice Department.

 

Congress Takes Notice

ScreenHunter_2657 Jun. 27 21.16

See  entire 115 page Government Accountability Institute report here: FOLLOW THE MONEY: HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FUNDS PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS

Related Article:

HEADLINE JUNE 27, 2017: Hidden Government Forcing Taxpayers To Finance Their Own Destruction

Peter Schweizer‘s Government Accountability Institute issued a report in October 2016, “Follow the Money: How the Department of Justice Funds Progressive Activists,” that detailed the stunning amount of money the DoJ has been awarding to left-wing groups. Under Eric Holder’s DoJ, financial institutions paid an unprecedented $110 billion in fines, much of which came in through out-of-court settlements.

Many of the cases were based on tenuous grounds, such as “disparate impact” which assumes racism based solely on the proportion of loans awarded to minorities. According to the report, “The DOJ used the threat of litigation—and the corresponding financial and reputational costs—to cause banks to take actions that a court would not have ordered them to do.”

We are still trying to figure out where it all went. But we do have some ideas. As with Obama’s corrupt green energy subsidies, it seems apparent that Holder’s DoJ extorted huge sums from banks specifically to funnel money to political allies. Schweizer documents how the DoJ flagrantly misused this money:

See full article here: Hidden Government Forcing Taxpayers To Finance Their Own Destruction

holder the dept of just us

Advertisements

From Flipping The Senate To Remembering The Fast And Furious Murder Of Our Border Patrolman Brian Terry


Republicans wrapped up Senate control before midnight, their wish list becoming reality:

WISH LIST —Win seats being vacated by retiring Democrats in West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota: Check. —Defeat vulnerable Democratic incumbents in states such as Arkansas, Colorado, North Carolina: Check.

—Protect Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts from a challenge by independent Greg Orman, a man who could help Democrats keep control if the race for a Senate majority came down to a photo finish. Check. —Fend off Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in her head-on bid for an upset against Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader now set to become majority leader. Check.

—See former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown defeat Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen across the state line in New Hampshire. Well, you can’t have everything.

THE NUMBERS

Republicans needed a net gain of six seats to win control. They got that, and more.

On Tuesday, 36 seats were contested. Going into the election, Democrats held a 53-45 Senate majority, with two independents usually backing them. Tuesday’s winners will serve for six years, until the end of the next president’s first term.

HOW IT UNFOLDED

West Virginia came first as Rep. Shelley Moore Capito defeated Democrat Natalie Tennant in the race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller. In Arkansas, two-term Sen. Mark Pryor became the first Democratic incumbent to fall, defeated by freshman Rep. Tom Cotton. And in South Dakota, former Gov. Mike Rounds won the third seat for the GOP.

Montana, an open seat, also went to Republicans, and they rolled up another hoped-for prize, a turnover in Colorado, where GOP Rep. Cory Gardner defeated incumbent Sen. Mark Udall.

Brown’s loss in New Hampshire gave Democrats reason to cheer.

But then North Carolina, the most expensive Senate race in the nation, went to Thom Tilllis, speaker of the state House, in a defeat for incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan, and it was game over for the Democratic majority.

KANSAS GOES FOR ROBERTS

In Kansas, Roberts won re-election despite a strong push by Orman in a state where the Democratic candidate dropped out. Roberts found himself in an unexpectedly close race after he came under fire for being out of touch with the state.

Georgia, another question mark, also stayed in the GOP column.

EYES ON IOWA

Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley in a feisty contest enlivened with TV ads about castrating hogs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada had called the outcome of that race critical. But it wasn’t needed to clinch GOP control.

WHY IT MATTERS

The Republican takeover of the Senate is sure to complicate President Barack Obama’s agenda in his final two years in office.

But it also raises expectations that Republicans use their dual legislative majorities to govern, not just hold up what Obama wants to do.

Yet the dynamics that have produced so much gridlock in Washington still exist. Obama could veto GOP legislation. Senate Democrats could employ the same delaying tactics on GOP initiatives that Republicans have been using against them.

http://www.mail.com/news/politics/3191848-senate-news-guide-republicans-win-senate.html#.7518-stage-hero1-12


Watching Elections?

DOJ Drops 64,280 Docs On Fast And Furious, Hoping You Wouldn’t Notice…

The Department of Justice turned over 64,280 pages of documents related to Operation Fast and Furious on Monday– timing that Republican members believe is suspicious.

A majority of the 64,280 pages are outside the scope of executive privilege, despite President Barack Obama’s invocation of the right, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa said in a press release chiding the timing of the release.

The documents pertain to Operation Fast and Furious, a sting operation started by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in October 2009. In it, ATF tracked guns sold out of Arizona gun shops. One of the weapons that was supposed to be tracked in the operation was used in the fatal December 2010 shooting of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry.

BRIAN TERRY RIP

Keep reading…

http://weaselzippers.us/204548-watching-elections-doj-drops-64280-docs-on-fast-and-furious-hoping-you-wouldnt-notice/


Election Eve Dump: Justice Department Releases 64,280 Pages Of ‘Fast And Furious’ Docs

4:57 PM 11/04/2014 Chuck Ross

The Department of Justice turned over 64,280 pages of documents related to Operation Fast and Furious on Monday– timing that Republican members believe is suspicious.

A majority of the 64,280 pages are outside the scope of executive privilege, despite President Barack Obama’s invocation of the right, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa said in a press release chiding the timing of the release.

The documents pertain to Operation Fast and Furious, a sting operation started by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in October 2009. In it, ATF tracked guns sold out of Arizona gun shops. One of the weapons that was supposed to be tracked in the operation was used in the fatal December 2010 shooting of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry.

The release comes after a federal judge ruled on Aug. 20 that the DOJ must turn over documents sought by the oversight committee. The agency had withheld them after Obama asserted executive privilege to block their release the night before Attorney General Eric Holder was to be held in contempt of Congress in June 2012 for failing to turn them over.

“The sheer volume of last night’s document production — which consists entirely of documents that the Justice Department itself acknowledges are not covered by executive privilege — shows that the president and the attorney general attempted to extend the scope of the executive privilege well beyond its historical boundaries to avoid disclosing documents that embarrass or otherwise implicate senior Obama administration officials,” reads the oversight committee press release.

According to the press release, around two-thirds of the released documents are “well outside the scope of Executive Privilege.”

fast and furious brian terry speaking

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/election-eve-dump-justice-department-releases-64280-pages-of-fast-and-furious-docs/

Operation PATCON & The Strategy of Tensions (FBI Anti-Patriot False Flag Terrorism) Eric Holder Manipulating The American Mind


waco just doing their jobs

 

==============================================================

PATCON (FBI Anti-Patriot False Flag Terrorism) Research Pack, v1

(Download ZIP package by clicking below.)

https://ia700508.us.archive.org/33/items/PatconfbiAnti-patriotFalseFlagTerrorismResearchPackV1/PatconfbiAnti-patriotFalseFlagTerrorismResearchPackV1.zip

https://ia700508.us.archive.org/33/items/PatconfbiAnti-patriotFalseFlagTerrorismResearchPackV1/PatconfbiAnti-patriotFalseFlagTerrorismResearchPackV1_meta.xml

In order to discredit and implicate “right-wing terror groups”, the FBI evidently instituted a “sting” program to help create such groups, supply them with weapons and explosives, and then move them on to violent acts. The purpose? Ultimately to enact otherwise impossible anti-constitutional legislation, to futher erode protections of privacy, and to further limit the right of US citizens to posess firearms.

A long legacy of violent acts seems thereby to have been artficially created: the Stockton Schoolyard Massacre, the 1993 Twin Towers bombing (proven to be FBI created), and the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing. In 1999, FBI “Project Meggido” officially declared certain conservative Christian groups as ‘terrorists’.

oklahoma_city_bombing

All this appeared to the public to give some credence to Bill Clinton’s strange announcement of a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” – a ‘conspiracy’ he evidently had a hand in creating himself.

bill clinton

PATCON seems to have morphed for some time (ca 2000) to include factes necessary for perpetrating the 9/11 attacks, under the administration of George Bush. This included, for examle, shadowing Mossad agents, who were in turn shadowing the ‘hijackers’ who had CIA-supplied passports, but doing nothing to stop them. You will note in certain of the documents contained in this pack references to “middle-eastern” men etc. … and remembering “Middle East Terrorists” working together with the FBI for the WTC-93 bombing… the framework for 9/11 already being laid.

WTC 1993 trade-center-bombing-explosion

In the same year as the original World Trade Center bombing, the FBI circulated a peculiar memo (in this package) suddenly calling for PATCON to stop – sort of. The memo seems to leave some ambiguity as to whether the program is ending, or if agents were just to stop talking about it. Remember “class-1″ FBI operations involve illegal activities (carried out by FBI agents) to begin with, and the revelations of FBI involvement in that WTC attack might have made things a little too hot to go on without ‘deniability’.

Under the Obama administration, however, PATCON (though “officialy” ended as a class-1 illegal operation in 1993), seems to have been restored to its original purposes, and once more under the watchful eye of Eric Holder (assistant in the original PATCON). This time, it takes the form of engendering bloodshed and violence using the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme. This FBI-sponsored gun running to Mexican drug cartels was ment to frame lawful US gun owners and firearms dealers as the cause of the violence. Again, the purpose was to get anti-Constitutional legislation passed.

BRIAN TERRY RIP

 

“Operation Gladio” – The Violent Cold War Black Op Continues Today – 2013

https://archive.org/details/operationGladio-TheViolentColdWarBlackOpContinuesToday-2013

Delve into the forbidden history of once-hidden programs of terror and public manipulation, born after World War 2 and continuing – almost unchanged – to the present day. This affects your life from behind the scenes right now.

The BBC documentary referred to in this video has been recovered, will be linked here soon.

Gladio – Behind False Flag Terrorism

More on how this impacts your life today:

FALSE FLAG

Secret History – Khazarian (Israeli) False-Flag Terrorism – Documentary

The Sandy Hook False-Flag 2012 Murders – The Evidence Mounts

Eric Holder and the FBI’s ‘Patriot Conspiracy’ (PATCON) False-Flag Terror Program – 2011 Interview

The ‘Batman Massacre’ Has Hallmarks of A False Flag – Author Fritz Springmeier

PATCON (FBI Anti-Patriot False Flag Terrorism) Research Pack, v1

Adam Lanza / Sandy Hook Staged Massacre – Mysteries, Fakery, and Similarities to Other False Flag Events

The Sandy Hook Coverup — Full Movie

Terror Storm – Full Movie – Special Edition Re-Mastered with Extra Features – in HD

Sourcery of Sandy Hook

Revealed – An FBI Agent Armed the Black Panthers

The Terror Within – Former DHS Officer Julia Davis Speaks Out – The Real Purpose of ‘War on Terror’ IS Terror

dhs whistleblower julia

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/9860

The strategy of tension: A tactic to divide, manipulate and control people

 

The strategy of tension (Italian: strategia della tensione) in any language, even as reported by Wikipedia in an article dotted with claims for documentation that appear to be distractions, is a tactic that aims to divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateur, and false flag terrorist actions. Sound like today’s news? It’s not. But it does have an inglorious tradition that goes back to the CIA-supported, neofascist movement, Operation Gladio, post World War II.

The observation of the strategy of tension began with accusations that the United States government and the Greek military junta of 1967–1974 supported far-right terrorist groups in Italy and Turkey, where communism was growing in popularity, to spread panic among the population who would, in turn, demand stronger and more dictatorial governments.

Is it not like President Obama’s (NDAA) National Defense Appropriation Act, in which he includes the right for the military to indefinitely detain people affiliated with “terrorism,” including American citizens, without proof or legal representation or a trial? It even includes the right to kill any person associated with terrorists. Yes, the strategy of tension is an old terror chestnut brought back to frighten the liberal left citizens challenging right-wing power and actions.

The term “Strategy of tension” recurred during the trials that followed in the 1970s and 1980s Years of Lead ( “anni di piombo”), during which terror attacks and assassinations were committed by apparently neofascist terrorists (with such names as Ordine Nuovo, Avanguardia Nazionale or Fronte Nazionale), reeking with Italian patriotism.

In reality, it was primarily members and international supporters of the Italian Communist Party who invented and popularized the term “strategy of tension”. They meant to draw attention to the crimes of the Italian Right and far-right parties who were allegedly supported by the foreign belligerents. Again, these tragedies are not unlike the invocation of terrorist acts like Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon and the Aurora bomber—all designed to instill fear and a desire for more protection?

“The strategy of tension” grew out of the post-WW II Operation Gladio, Italy’s branch of the secret pre-positioned NATOstay-behind” armies of Western Europe. These armies were set up to perform resistance, partisan, and guerrilla activities in the event of Soviet invasion; equivalent units were set up by other NATO members in their states. It is claimed that Gladio units were engaged in destabilization at the behest of the United States and other Western governments, intelligence agencies (e.g., the CIA), the P2 Masonic lodge, the Order of the Solar Temple, various church-related organizations, and domestic influences such as organized crime.

This is all verifiable history, like the creation today of a paramilitary controlled surveillance society, which prides itself on more and more protection, even total domination as in martiall law put into effect in Boston when bad things went bad with the Boston Marathon. In fact, there is a likely probability that Craft International, a mercenary company like Xe or Blackwell SF, which the CIA uses with impunity, was largely responsible. It is the premier technique of right-wing false-flag operatives.

Back in post-WWII days, the claims were backed by judicial proof which established that European fascist dictatorships of the time (the Greek junta and the secret services of Francisco Franco) were heavily involved in supporting and arming Italian neo-fascist and neo-nazi groups, such as Ordine Nuovo and Avanguardia Nazionale.

In this case it was assassinations, as Avanguardia Nazionale hitman Pierluigi Concutelli used an Ingram MAC-10 SMG to assassinate magistrate Vittorio Occorsio in the 1970s. It has been proven that Avanguardia Nazionale secured the weapon from the CIA via Francoist Spain. General Gianadelio Maletti, commander of the counter-intelligence section of the Italian military intelligence service from 1971 to 1975, stated that his men in the region of Venice discovered a right-wing terrorist cell that was supplied military explosives from Germany, and he alleged that US intelligence services instigated and abetted right-wing terrorism in Italy during the 1970s.

Carlo Digilio, an Italian neofascist, code named “Uncle Otto,” coordinated CIA activities in the Italian regions of Veneto and Friuli from the 1960s to the 1970s, recruiting former fascists to serve the NATO and U.S. interests in Italy. He himself had been recruited in Verona by U.S. Navy Captain David Carrett.

These groups began to pursue an ostensibly extreme right-wing anti-communist agenda using violent means, including false flag bombings that were then blamed on extra-parliamentary left-wing militant organizations, to discredit the political Left, in general, at a time in Italy when the Italian Communist Party was very close to becoming the majority in the government. Today, we can substitute the word “terrorist” for Communist, yesterday’s boogeyman.

It should be noted that the actions carried out by these extreme groups were meant primarily to agitate and control public opinion, creating fears about the Communist Party. At the time, they created massive public concern and widespread paranoia. According to the “strategia della tensione” theory, this was de rigeur.

Examples of such actions include the 1972 Peteano bombing, long thought to have been carried out by the Red Brigades, but for which the neofascist terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra has been imprisoned, the attempted assassination of former Interior Minister Mariano Rumor on 17 May 1973 or the Bologna railway station bombing known as the Bologna massacre of 1980.

Today, we can look back to 9/11/2001 for the starting point of a more contemporary “strategy of tension” that endures until this day, and is used internationally by the US government and its allies for regime change, assassinations, hit lists, drone-bombings and the like.

The Guardian (UK), in an article published on June 24, 2000, reported that the parliamentarians of the Left Democrats, wrote a report to a subcommittee of the Italian Parliament about what they viewed as United States support for ‘anti-left terror in Italy’, and the activities of Gladio.

The report by the Left Democrats claimed that the aim of this alleged support for Gladio was to make the public think that the bombings were committed by a communist [sic terrorist] insurgency, to promote the formation of an authoritarian government, and to prevent the Italian Communist Party (PCI) from joining the ruling Democrazia Cristiana (DC) in a national unity government (the “Historic Compromise” between Aldo Moro (who was subsequently assassinated) and Enrico Berlinguer, respective leaders of the DC and of the PCI).

An astonishing observation of the terrorism in Italy that was blamed on communists is that it coincided with election victories for the communists at the polls. So as the PCI was gaining popular support, the number of civilian-targeted bombings, random knee-cappings, and high-profile kidnappings blamed on communist terrorists increased markedly.

Furthermore, starting with the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing and the 1972 Peteano attack, several bombings carried out by the far-right were at first blamed on anarchists (for the first one) and, for the second one, on the Red Brigades (BR)—although it was later found that neofascists, such as Vincenzo Vinciguerra, had organized them. Piazza Fontana’s bombing, in December 1969, marked the beginning of the “strategia della tensione,” which ended around the time of the Bologna railway station bombing in 1980. Post 9/11, there were train bombings in Madrid in 2004 and on July 7, 2005 in London’s subway bombing, the latter backed by MI6.

The report from the Left Democrats of Italy to a subcommittee of the Italian Parliament apparently concluded that the strategy of tension followed by Gladio had been supported by the United States to “stop the PCI, and, to a certain degree, also the PSI from reaching executive power in the country”.

Members of the Democratic Party of the Left (PDS), part of the Commission on Terrorism headed by Senator Giovanni Pellegrino and created in 1988, also described the Italian peninsula since the end of World War II as a “country with ‘limited sovereignty’” and as an “American colony”

The centrist Italian Republican party described the claims as worthy of a 1970s Maoist group. Aldo Giannuli, a historian who works as a consultant to the parliamentary terrorism commission, sees the release of the Left Democrats’ report as a maneuver dictated primarily by domestic political considerations. “Since they have been in power, the Left Democrats have given us very little help in gaining access to security service archives,” he said. “This is a falsely courageous report.”

The existence of US Army Field Manual 30–31B lends even more credibility to the accusations that the CIA tried to destabilize democratic nations to foster U.S. interests. The United States maintains that such a manual is a forgery and has found Soviet defectors willing to testify that it was put together by the KGB. However Licio Gelli, grand master of the P2 Masonic Lodge involved in all of the murkiest and bloodiest episodes of the “strategy of tension,” repeated openly and bluntly (for example, to BBC journalist Allan Francovich) to have received his copy directly from the hands of CIA men.

Piazza Fontana bombing

In December 1969, four bombs struck Rome’s Monument of Vittorio Emanuele II (Altare della Patria), the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, Milan’s Banca Commerciale and the Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura. The later attack, known as the Piazza Fontana bombing of 12 December 1969, killed 16 and injured 90, marking the beginning of this violent period.

Giuseppe Pinelli, a young anarchist, was interrogated about the crime, and died in police custody. After his suspicious death, which was claimed to be suicide by the authorities, investigator Luigi Calabresi came under violent criticism from the left and many intellectuals, considering him the person responsible for Pinelli’s death; Calabresi would be murdered two and a half years later. Think of ex-FBI terror chief John O’Neil, killed on his first day of work in the WTC, after resigning from the FBI.

Think about the Reichstag bombing. The paradigm for that act, in which several communists were accused, included the main “suspect” who was mentally ill and was sentenced to be decapitated and his several cronies hanged. Yet, it was Goering who orchestrated the fire. Think about the Oklahoma bombings, another false-flag attack blamed on domestic terrorists.

Think of the World Trade Center bombing of Tower 1 in 1993, blamed on the blind Sheik Rahman when it was the FBI who engineered the event. Think about 9/11/2001 and the fact that NORAD, flying exercises on the Northeast seaboard was not available to get a plane in the air to defend New York City. Then NORAD blamed the tragedy on 19 Muslim terrorists. More likely it was the Israeli Mossad, who stood most to gain.

In 1997, the courts condemned Leonardo Marino and Ovidio Bompressi for carrying out Piazza Fontana bombing, and Adriano Sofri and Giorgio Pietrostefani for ordering it. At the time of the murder, all four belonged to the extreme left-wing group Lotta Continua. After Pinelli, the police investigated another anarchist, Pietro Valpreda. He quickly became a hero to the left, who perceived him to be a victim of a plot to attribute a fascist bombing to the left. The leftist environment produced an investigative book, La strage di Stato (“The state massacre”), in which they claimed the state was attacking anarchists because they (by definition) could not have a political party to defend them, as communists would have had.

Neo-fascist terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie was then arrested in Caracas, Venezuela, in 1989 and rendered to Italy to stand trial for his role. Delle Chiaie was however acquitted by the Assise Court in Catanzaro in 1989, along with fellow accused Massimiliano Fachini.

Think of the true culprits behind the 9/11 attack, NORAD and the Israeli Mossad, who have successfully laid the blame on Muslim terrorists.

In 1998, David Carrett, a U.S. Navy captain, was indicted by a Milanese magistrate, Guido Salvini, on charges of political and military espionage and his participation in the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing, among other events. Judge Guido Salvini also opened a case against Sergio Minetto, an Italian official for the US-NATO intelligence network, and pentito Carlo Digilio. La Repubblica underlined that Carlo Rocchi, the CIA’s man in Milan, was surprised in 1995 searching for information concerning Operation Gladio, thus demonstrating that all was not over.

A June 20, 2001, conviction of Italian Neo-fascists Carlo Maria Maggi, Delfo Zorzi and Giancarlo Rognoni was overturned in March 2004. Carlo Digilio, a suspected CIA informant, received immunity from prosecution by becoming a witness for the state (in agreement with the pentiti laws). All were declared not guilty.

According to extreme right-wing Ordine Nuovo member Vincenzo Vinciguerra, “The December 1969 explosion was supposed to be the detonator which would have convinced the political and military authorities to declare a state of emergency.” Does it sound familiar, followers of Sandy Hook and the Boston Massacre?

The first judicial investigation concerning the 1974 Piazza della Loggia bombing led to the condemnation in 1979 of a member of the Brescian far-right movement. However, this first sentence was canceled in 1983 and the suspect absolved in 1985 by the Court of Cassation. A second investigation led to the accusation of another far-right activist, who was thereafter absolved in 1989 because of insufficient proof.

A third investigation is still in active. On May 19, 2005, the Court of Cassation confirmed the arrest warrant against Delfo Zorzi, a former member of the Ordine Nuovo neo-fascist group, who was also suspected of being the material executor of the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing. Alongside Delfo Zorzi, his neo-fascist comrades Carlo Maria Maggi and Maurizio Tramonte, all members of the Ordine Nuovo group founded in 1956 by Pino Rauti, are also suspected of having organized the Piazza della Loggia bombing.

Bologna railway bombing, August 2, 1980

The Bologna railway bombing killed 85 persons and injured 200. A long, troubled and controversial court case and political issue ensued. The relatives of the victims formed an association (Association tra i famigliari delle vittime della strage alla stazione di Bologna del 2 agosto 1980) to raise and maintain civil awareness on the Bologna massacre. On 23 November 1995 the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) upheld the sentences of the second appeals court:

Role of Italian intelligence services

In 1974, Vito Miceli, P2 member, chief of the SIOS (Servizio Informazioni), Army Intelligence’s Service from 1969 and SID‘s head from 1970 to 1974, was arrested on charges of “conspiracy against the state” concerning investigations about Rosa dei venti, a state-infiltrated group involved in terrorist acts. In 1977, the secret services were reorganized in a democratic attempt. With law #801 of 24/10/1977, SID was divided into SISMI (Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare), SISDE (Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Democratica) and CESIS (Comitato Esecutivo per i Servizi di Informazione e Sicurezza). The CESIS had a coordination role, led by the President of Council.

It was a very simple strategy: Bombs were built by chemistry students, some of them were optimistic and believed that they could bring freedom to their colleagues in Yugoslavia and Romania. Other people were pessimistic and believed that the leadership would be replaced by people more loyal to Moscow, after which would come what Senator Giulio Andreotti has called “the great silence”.

Counter-Guerrilla

Turkey has a history of involvement in similar plots. The Turkish branch of Gladio, known as Counter-Guerrilla, allegedly followed a similar strategy in order to justify the 1980 military coup. Turkish secret police are also believed to have instigated the bombing of the Turkish consulate in Thessaloniki, Greece in 1955, leading to the Istanbul Pogrom against the Greek minority of Istanbul. Today, the Turkish government has exploded in violent response to gatherings of Turkish people in an Istanbul park to protest Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s intended destruction of the park to build a shopping mall. Erdoğan has condemned the protestors as rebels wanting to destroy the country.

On and on it goes, the “strategy of tension” in the U.S. and around the world, using tactics that aim to divide, manipulate, and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist actions. It also points to a universal conspiracy of the right to run these techniques in any country in the world that has a democratic or left-leaning government. And that definitely is not just yesterday’s news? That is the future unless we change it.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. An EBook version of his book of poems “State Of Shock,” on 9/11 and its after effects is now available at Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com. He has also written hundreds of articles on politics and government as Associate Editor of Intrepid Report (formerly Online Journal). Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.

– See more at: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/9860#sthash.wk6O9z3s.dpuf

 

Past Time To Arrest Eric Holder The Criminal Scumbag Of The DOJ


holder behind bars

I have attached a long list of archived articles that demonstrate very clearly the criminality of the so-called AG Eric Holder. Dept of Justice
Yah right. *spits* Insane Hussein 0bama & Holder makes me sick
Watch this 30 second video clip and THEN tell me Holder ISN’T certifiable!!…

PATCON is an acronym for “Patriot Conspiracy”, a Clinton-Reno-Holder, FBI and ATF undercover operation. PATCON was designed to infiltrate and incite the milita and evangelical Christians to violence so that the Department of Justice could crush them.

Ruby Ridge was a PATCON operation. Waco was a PATCON operation. And so, too, I believe was the Oklahoma City Bombing. As well as any number of ‘school shootings’ and other ‘massacres’.

After watching these news broadcast excerpts, it is very difficult to come to any other conclusion, but that McVeigh’s ‘truck bomb’ was little more than a decoy for an FBI-run false-flag terror operation – for which they were already poised in nearby hotels to emerge as the ‘heroes’.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0 SAYS BRAINWASH THE PEOPLE?

http://www.tpnn.com/…/congressman-at-hearing-eric…/
http://joemiller.us/…/eric-holder-state-attorneys…/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/attorney…/article/2543100
http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/…/eric-holder…/
http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/holder-sues-to-protect-islam/
http://www.breitbart.com/…/Obama-Plans-Pardons-of…
http://www.westernjournalism.com/holder-was-responsible…/
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/did-eric-holder…/
http://www.riflewarrior.com/who_killed_terry_yeakey.htm
http://moralmatters.org/…/eric-holder-the-devils…/

PATCON & THE STRATEGY OF TENSIONS                                       https://archive.org/details/OklahomaCityBombingSecrets-PatconAndTheStrategyOfTensions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odMSCCvhBGI
http://www.breitbart.com/…/Holder-begs-court-to…
http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/…/eric-holder-wants…/
http://b4in.info/jYjH wants to force gunowners to wear ID braclet????
http://www.redflagnews.com/…/what-the-doj-doesnt-want…
http://www.newsmax.com/…/holde…/2014/05/08/id/570273/…
http://www.wnd.com/…/eric-holder-leads-top-12-porn…/
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55303 THE LINCHPIN
http://www.theblaze.com/…/watch-sen-ted-cruz-lock…/
THERE IS NO DOJ INVESTIGATION OF THE IRS (imagine that! im so shocked)
http://gopthedailydose.com/…/watch-smoke-clearing-irs…/


This next article is written by my friend John Gaultier

COMPLETE CRIMINAL BIO OF ERIC HOLDER. Yes this man has represented JUSTICE in AMERICA…. Shame on us! RESTORE AMERICA!!

PATRIOTS … REALIZE THAT THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE APPROVED THIS MAN TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THEY KNEW THE FACTS TOO! IF HARRY REID IS SENATE MAJORITY LEADER AFTER NOV 4th… THEN THE NEXT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL BE APPROVED BY THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED SENATE. WE WILL GET ANOTHER OBAMA ENFORCER THUG. THAT IS WHY WE MUST VOTE ALL REPUBLICANS TO THE SENATE!

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE “CRIMINAL ATTORNEY GENERAL” IN ONE POST! NOW YOU KNOW WHY OBAMA DID NOT FIRE HIM !!

Was originally appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by President Bill Clinton

  • Vetted the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001
  • Was deeply involved in Clinton’s pardons of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists
  • Condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment”
  • Was appointed U.S. Attorney General by President Barack Obama
  • Strong opponent of gun rights
  • Sought to try islamic terrorists in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals
  • Filed suit against several states that had passed laws designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration
  • Opposes efforts to purge voter rolls of ineligible names, or to enact voter-ID laws

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. was born on January 21, 1951 in the Bronx, New York and was raised in Elmhurst, Queens. His father (1905-1970) hailed from Barbados and worked as a real estate broker; his mother (Miriam) was the American-born daughter of immigrants from Saint Philip, Barbados.
In 1969 Holder enrolled at Columbia University, where he became involved in what he would later describe as the “rise of black consciousness” protests on campus. As a freshman, he took a leadership role with the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the school’s abandoned ROTC (Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps) office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge” — “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.” In 1970, while still a freshman, Holder participated in a five-day occupation of that office; according to some accounts, the occupiers were armed. In addition, Holder and SAAS also occupied the office of Henry Coleman, Dean of Freshmen, until their demands were met.
Holder graduated from Columbia University in 1973 with a degree in American history. Three years later he earned a J.D. from Columbia Law School. During one of the summers between his law-school academic years, Holder worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Holder was employed by the U.S. Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section from 1976 to 1988. In 1988 President Ronald Reagan appointed him as a Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Five years later, President Bill Clinton appointed Holder as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997 Clinton nominated Holder to replace Jamie Gorelick, the retiring Deputy Attorney General in Janet Reno’s Justice Department; Holder was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous vote.
As Deputy Attorney General, Holder, as The Washington Post explains, “was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.” Indeed, Holder was a key figure entrusted with the task of vetting the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001. The beneficiaries of those pardons included such notables as former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg (who was involved in the deadly 1981 armed robbery of a Brink’s armored car) and Linda Evans (who had used false identification to buy firearms, had harbored a fugitive, and was in possession of 740 pounds of dynamite at the time of her arrest in 1985).
HOLDER AND THE PARDON OF MARC RICH
Holder played a particularly significant role in what was perhaps the most infamous of Clinton’s 176 pardons—the one granted to the billionaire financier Marc Rich, a fugitive oil broker who had illegally purchased oil from Iran during the American trade embargo, and had then proceeded to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations. Rich later renounced his American citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and the illegal oil transactions with Iran.
Over the years, Rich’s ex-wife Denise had funneled at least $1.5 million to Clinton interests. Some $1.2 million went to the Democratic National Committee, $75,000 went to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and $450,000 helped finance the Bill Clinton Library in Arkansas.  Mrs. Rich also had given expensive gifts to the Clintons and, according to some rumors, had a very close relationship with the President.
According to The New York Times:

“Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter—a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was ‘neutral, leaning toward’ favorable—helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members.”

The Times details the sequence of events:

“Holder’s role in the Rich issue actually began … [a]t a corporate dinner in November 1998, [where] Mr. Holder was seated at a table with a public-relations executive named Gershon Kekst, who had been trying to help Mr. Rich resolve his legal troubles. When Mr. Kekst learned that his dinner companion was the deputy attorney general, he proceeded to bring up the case of an unnamed acquaintance who had been ‘improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor.’ … A person in that situation, Mr. Holder advised, should ‘hire a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, we work it out.’ Mr. Kekst wanted to know if Mr. Holder could suggest a lawyer. Mr. Holder pointed to a former White House counsel sitting nearby. ‘There’s Jack Quinn,’ he said. ‘He’s a perfect example.’ Months later, Mr. Rich’s advisers settled on Mr. Quinn to lead the legal efforts …”

Between October 1999 and January 2001, Holder and Quinn discussed the Rich case on at least six separate occasions. Says The New York Times:

“In February 2000, Mr. Quinn sent Mr. Holder a memorandum entitled ‘Why D.O.J. [Department of Justice] Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment.’ About a month later, Mr. Holder spoke with Mr. Quinn again and told him that ‘we’re all sympathetic’ and that the legal ‘equities’ in the issue were ‘on your side.’ … By the fall of 2000, efforts to re-open the criminal case were dead, and Mr. Rich’s lawyers had moved on to the idea of a pardon. Again, Mr. Quinn turned to Mr. Holder. On Nov. 21, 2000, at the close of a meeting on a separate topic, Mr. Quinn took Mr. Holder aside, told him he was planning on filing a lengthy pardon petition with the White House and asked whether the White House should contact Mr. Holder for his opinion … In a separate e-mail message that Mr. Quinn [had] sent three days before that to other members of the Rich team,… he wrote: ‘Spoke to him last evening. Says to go straight to W.H. [White House]. Also says timing is good.’ …

“For the next months, Mr. Rich’s team pressed ahead with the pardon … On Jan. 19, 2001, Mr. Quinn called Mr. Holder and let him know that the White House would be contacting him for his recommendation on the pardon, which he said was receiving ‘serious consideration.’ Mr. Holder told him that he did not have a personal problem with the pardon, and Mr. Quinn quickly passed on the gist of the conversation to the White House. Minutes later, Mr. Holder received a call from Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, who had opposed the pardon idea and was surprised to hear that Mr. Holder apparently felt differently.

“Mr. Holder, according to Ms. Nolan’s testimony, told her that if the Israelis were in fact pushing for the pardon, he would find that ‘persuasive’ and would be ‘neutral leaning toward’ favorable.”

The next day, President Clinton signed the pardon. Clinton later cited Holder’s assessment as one of the factors that had persuaded him to issue the pardon. And once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.
Although he clearly had interceded on Rich’s behalf beginning in 1999, Holder in 2001 told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that “Mr. Rich’s name was unfamiliar to me” in 1999. Holder then elaborated that he had “gained only a passing familiarity with the underlying facts of the Rich case” during the months that followed.
But Holder’s account was entirely untrue. As early as 1995, when Holder was the Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, his office had conducted an investigation into Rich and his business interests for tax evasion and other suspicious activity. Also in 1995, Holder’s office filed a civil suit against the Swiss trading company Clarendon, Ltd. because that company, in obtaining $45 million in government contracts, had concealed the fact that it was controlled by Rich, whose history of fraud and his status as a fugitive rendered him legally ineligible for government contracts. Ultimately, Holder agreed to dismiss the case in exchange for a payment to the government of $1.2 million.
A March 2002 congressional report concluded that Rich’s lawyers had tried to circumvent prosecutors (who they knew would oppose the pardon), and instead had chosen to take their case directly to the White House. Holder’s assistance in this process, coupled with his failure to alert prosecutors of a pending pardon, was crucial, said the report.
In 2009, when President Obama nominated Holder to be Attorney General, Holder, at the nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was asked by Senator Arlen Specter: “Were you aware of the kind of record this man [Rich] had?” Holder replied:

“No I was not. And that was one of the mistakes that I made. I did not really acquaint myself with his record. I knew that the matter involved — it was a tax-fraud case; it was a substantial tax-fraud case. I knew that he was a fugitive. I did not know a lot of the underlying facts that you have described.”

In written follow-up questions, Specter asked: “Did you receive information about the facts of the Rich case from anyone other than Mr. Rich’s attorney, Jack Quinn?” Holder responded, “No.”
HOLDER AND THE PARDON OF “FALN” TERRORISTS
Holder was also intimately involved in President Clinton’s August 11, 1999 pardon of 16 members of the FALN, acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation—a violent Puerto Rican terrorist organization (as designated by the FBI) that was active in the U.S. from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.
The FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group whose overriding mission was to secure Puerto Rico’s political independence from the United States. Toward that end, between 1974 and 1983 the group detonated nearly 130 bombs in such strategically selected places as military and government buildings, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters located mainly in Chicago, New York, and Washington DC. These bombings were carried out as acts of protest against America’s political, military, financial, and corporate presence in Puerto Rico. All told, FALN bombs killed six people—including the Chilean ambassador to the United States—and wounded at least 80 others.
On April 4, 1980, eleven FALN members were arrested in Evanston, Illinois. More of their comrades would also be apprehended in Chicago in the early 1980s. All were charged with seditious conspiracy, but they refused to participate in their own trial proceedings—claiming defiantly that the U.S. government was an illegitimate entity and thus had no moral authority by which to sit in judgment of them. All the defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to federal prison terms ranging from 35 to 105 years.
On November 9, 1993, a self-identified “human rights” organization named Ofensiva ’92 filed a petition for executive clemency on behalf of 18 members of the FALN and another violent organization seeking Puerto Rican independence, Los Macheteros (“The Machete-Wielders”). According to a December 12, 1999 report issued by the House Committee on Government Reform, the prisoners themselves “refused to take part in any process that would legitimize the government’s actions against them, therefore they refused to file their own petitions.”
This presented a problem because the Department of Justice (DOJ) traditionally stipulates that clemency will be considered only if a prisoner first files a petition on his or her own behalf, an act which the Department views as a sign of contrition. Nonetheless, DOJ made an exception in this case and accepted Ofensiva ’92’s petition, a document which cast the FALN prisoners as blameless freedom fighters analogous to those Americans who had fought in the Revolutionary War against Britain.
Among the notables who joined Ofensiva ’92’s clemency crusade were Cardinal John O’Connor, Coretta Scott King, Jimmy Carter, and the National Lawyers Guild. Perhaps the most passionate support came from Democrat Representatives Luis Gutierrez (IL), Jose Serrano (NY), and Nydia Velazquez (NY), each of whom echoed Ofensiva ’92’s claim that the FALN members were “political prisoners” who deserved to be released.
The attorneys and advocates who were fighting for the freedom of the FALN prisoners first met with the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney on July 19, 1994. In October 1996 they met with Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President. They were unsuccessful, however, in their efforts to convey the legitimacy of their cause to the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), which in 1996 contacted the Justice Department and recommended against clemency; that recommendation, in turn, was forwarded to the White House.
But the matter was not over; OPA continued to meet with groups and individuals lobbying for clemency on behalf of the FALN terrorists. Then in 1997, Eric Holder—who was President Clinton’s new Deputy Attorney General (in the Justice Department headed by Janet Reno)—became involved in the case.
In this role, Holder was responsible for overseeing clemency investigations and determining which of those requests were ultimately worthy of President Clinton’s attention. As evidenced by a September 1997 memorandum from the Pardon Attorney, the Justice Department was, at this point, receiving numerous inquiries about the FALN and Macheteros—from the White House and from supporters of the prisoners. The aforementioned House Committee on Government Reform report stated: “Throughout the closing months of 1997 it appears that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was active in the issue. The privilege log reflects at least two notes regarding his questions on the clemency or his thoughts on the matter.”
On November 5, 1997, Holder met with Representatives Gutierrez, Serrano, and Velazquez to discuss the clemency issue. He advised the legislators that they might greatly increase the likelihood of a presidential pardon if they could convince the prisoners to write letters testifying as to the personal remorse they felt for their past actions. But no such letters would be produced for five months, during which time the clemency issue remained on hold. Meanwhile, in a January 6, 1998 letter a senior Justice Department official expressly referred to the FALN members as “terrorists.”
Then on April 8, 1998, Holder again met with FALN supporters. This time, they finally delivered statements from the prisoners as Holder had advised in November. But all the statements were identical—indicating that not one of the prisoners had made an effort to craft his own personal expression of repentance.
Undeterred, Holder then raised the question of whether the prisoners might at least agree to renounce future violence in exchange for clemency. One of the prisoners’ backers, Reverend Paul Sherry, made it clear that they surely “would not change their beliefs”—presumably about the issue of Puerto Rican independence—but was vague as to whether they were apt to eschew violence altogether.
Over the next few weeks, Holder and the Justice Department continued to meet with numerous advocates of clemency and to review pertinent materials which the latter brought forth on behalf of the prisoners. Holder clearly was the point man for these clemency negotiations. As Brian Blomquist wrote in the New York Post, “A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder, while [Janet] Reno’s role was minimal.” Similarly, New York Daily News reporter Edward Lewine wrote that Holder was “the Justice Department official most involved with this issue.”
Throughout the clemency review process, neither Holder nor anyone else in the Justice Department contacted any of the people who had been victimized (or whose loved ones had been victimized) by the FALN. Most were never aware that clemency for the terrorists was even being contemplated. And those few who were aware of the possibility were rebuffed in their efforts to participate in the review process.
On May 19, 1998, the Pardon Attorney sent Eric Holder a 48-page draft memorandum “concerning clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners.” Seven weeks later, on July 8, Holder sent President Clinton a “memorandum regarding clemency matter.” Indeed the Deputy Attorney General was methodically spearheading the march toward clemency—despite the fact that the sentencing judges, the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the FBI were unanimous in their opposition to pardoning the individuals in question.
In late July 1999 an attorney from Holder’s office spoke to White House Counsel Charles Ruff regarding the clemency matter. On August 9, 1999, Holder’s office and OPA held one final meeting to hammer out the details, and two days later the President made his announcement: clemency was granted to sixteen terrorists, most of whom had served only a fraction of their prison terms. Of the sixteen, twelve accepted the offer and were freed, two refused it, and two others, who already were out of prison, never responded.
Congress, for its part, was not pleased—condemning the clemencies by votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
In the aftermath of the clemencies, a Justice Department report stated that the FALN posed an “ongoing threat” to America’s national security. And in late October 1999 the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report from Attorney General Janet Reno stating that the FALN members’ “impending release from prison” would “increase the present threat” of terrorism.
In an October 20th Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and again with reporters the following day, Eric Holder denied that Reno was referring to the same FALN terrorists whose pardons he had worked so long and hard to secure. Yet when Holder was asked to identify whom Reno was in fact talking about, he responded as follows:

“I don’t know, no, I don’t know that. We might be able to get you some more information on that, but, I mean, you know, there were certain people who are due to be released, or who were at least eligible for parole, had a release date in the next, as I said, three, four years. I don’t know exactly who they were. Maybe—we might be able to get you that information.”

Neither Holder nor the Justice Department ever provided any additional names.
In December 1999, a House Committee on Government Reform report stated:

“The 16 [FALN] terrorists appear to be most unlikely candidates. They did not personally request clemency. They did not admit to wrongdoing and they had not renounced violence before such a renunciation had been made a quid pro quo for their release. They expressed no contrition for their crimes, and were at times openly belligerent about their actions…. Notwithstanding the fact that the 16 did not express enough personal interest in the clemency process to file their own applications, the White House appeared eager to assist throughout the process. Meetings were held with supporters, and some senior staff [i.e., Holder] even suggested ways to improve the likelihood of the President granting the clemency. Overall, the White House appears to have exercised more initiative than the terrorists themselves.”

THE HOLDER-OBAMA ALLIANCE
After the end of the Clinton presidency, Holder left the Justice Department and joined (as a partner) the Washington, DC law firm of Covington & Burling (C&B). In 2004 he met Barack Obama at a dinner party hosted by former White House aide Anne Walker Marchange, a niece of Clinton friend Vernon Jordan.
In the spring of 2007, shortly after launching his White House bid, Obama asked Holder to join his presidential campaign as a legal adviser and strategist. At that time, Holder’s firm, C&B, was representing 17 Yemeni detainees (and one Pakistani national) in Guantanamo Bay. A former client of C&B was yet another Guantanamo detainee, from Kuwait, who had contributed to an anthology of detainee poetry compiled and published by Holder’s C&B colleague, Marc Falkoff. Falkoff likened the plight of these “gentle, thoughtful” poets, to that of the Jews who had been held in concentration camps during World War II. The aforementioned Kuwaiti was released from Guantanamo in 2005 and promptly resumed his terrorist activities. In March 2008 he blew himself up with a truck bomb in Mosul, Iraq, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.
In the summer of 2008, candidate Obama tapped Holder to serve on the vice presidential selection team that ultimately chose Joe Biden to be Obama’s running mate. In November 2008, President-elect Obama, who was slated to take his oath of office two months later, selected Holder to serve as his Attorney General.
HOLDER’S LOW REGARD FOR CONSERVATIVES
At an American Constitution Society gathering in 2004, Holder made the following comments:

  • “Conservatives have been defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities.”
  • Conservatives have “made a mockery of the rule of law.”
  • Conservatives try to “put the environment at risk for the sake of unproven economic theories, to play to the fears of our citizens, and not to their hopes, and to return the nation to a time that in fact never existed.”
  • Conservatives are “breathtaking” in their “arrogance,” which manifests itself in such things as “attacks on abortion rights,” “energy policies that are as shortsighted as they are ineffective,” and “tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation.”
  • The hallmarks of the “conservative agenda” include “social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer.”
  • “The nation must be convinced that it is a progressive future that holds the greatest promise for equality and the continuation of those policies that serve to support the greatest number of our people. In the short term this will not be an easy task. With the mainstream media somewhat cowered by conservative critics, and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner, and you know what I mean there, the means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.”


HOLDER AND GUN RIGHTS:

In a 1995 address to the Woman’s National Democratic Club, Holder announced the launch of a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” “What we need to do,” he explained, “is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.” Holder added that he had already asked advertising agencies to produce anti-gun ads rather than commercials “that make me buy things that I don’t really need”; that he had urged local newspapers and television stations to devote prime space and time, respectively, to anti-gun themes; and that he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of “every day, every school, and every level.”
During his tenure as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun-control legislation. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners; a three-day waiting period on all handgun sales; limits on handgun sales to no more than one per month; a ban on the possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” by anyone younger than 21; a law authorizing the federal government to shut down all gun shows; and a national gun-registration mandate.
Holder also advanced the notion that “Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence”—a statistic that was true only if one classified 18-year-old, gun-wielding gangsters as “children.” In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Holder wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post calling for a new law that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “a record of every firearm sale.” He also advocated that prospective gun buyers be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by the government.
While Holder served in the Clinton Justice Department, he oversaw the “instant” background-check system for prospective firearm purchasers. Under Holder’s watch, constant breakdowns of that system halted gun sales for hours or even days at a time. Even by the end of the Clinton administration, from September 1999 to December 2000, the system was down about one hour for every 16.7 hours of operation. The breakdowns often came in big blocks of time; gun shows sometimes were unable to sell guns during the entire weekend that they were open. Notably, the breakdowns were quickly resolved within weeks of President Bush assuming office in 2001, and the problems did not recur.
In 2008, Holder argued that “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” but only protected government militias’ rights to guns. Scholar and political commentator John Lott writes that he “can’t find even one gun control law that Holder has opposed.” “On every gun control regulation [Holder] has discussed,” says Lott, “he has been supportive, including: bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods.”

HOLDER ON THE GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION CENTER
In the latter days of the Bush administration, Holder publicly condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment.” He accused the U.S. government of having “authorized torture and … let fear take precedence over the rule of law.” Further, he demanded an immediate end to warrantless eavesdropping by intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

In April 2009, reporters asked Holder whether he might seek to prosecute CIA agents who had carried out the Bush administration policies to which the Attorney General now objected. He replied: “It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.” Four months later, however, Holder referred their cases to a special federal prosecutor with broad and independent powers. In making this decision, the Attorney General ignored the bitter opposition of CIA Director Leon Panetta and even attorneys in his (Holder’s) own Justice Department.
HOLDER AND ISLAMIC TERRORISM
In 2004 Holder filed an amicus brief on behalf of al Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla, who had been dispatched to the United States by Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to carry out a post-9/11, second wave of terrorist attacks. In the brief, Holder asserted that President Bush lacked the constitutional authority to determine the parameters of the battlefield in the war on terror. Padilla, for example, was arrested in an American airport when returning from a trip to Pakistan, where he had met with Mr. Mohammed to discuss plans for attacking U.S. interests. By Holder’s reckoning, Islamic terrorists had a right to be treated as criminal defendants, not enemy combatants, unless they were captured on a traditional battlefield.
As former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy explains, Holder’s Padilla brief was “a comprehensive attack on Bush counterterrorism, an enthusiastic endorsement of the law-enforcement approach in vogue during the Clinton era (when Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, who also signed on to the Padilla brief).”
Notably, when the U.S. Senate in early 2009 deliberated vis a vis Holder’s nomination for Attorney General, Holder failed to disclose seven legal briefs he had written or signed during the course of his professional career—most notably Amicus briefs on behalf of detained terrorists and enemy combatants like Padilla.
HOLDER SEEKS TO TRY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS IN CIVILIAN COURTS
In May 2009, Holder announced that Ahmed Ghailani—who had been indicted by a federal grand jury for the 1998 bombings (which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans) of two U.S. embassies in Africa—would be transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to New York City for trial. This would make Ghailani the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S. and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court. Said Holder:

“By prosecuting Ahmed Ghailani in federal court, we will ensure that he finally answers for his alleged role in the bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya…. This administration is committed to keeping the American people safe and upholding the rule of law, and by closing Guantanamo and bringing terrorists housed there to justice we will make our nation stronger and safer.”

On November 13, 2009, Holder announced that his Justice Department would likewise try five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, in a civilian court—the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants were Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM).
In response to Holder’s announcement, political commentator Mona Charen wrote: “By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You’ll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you’ll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)”
MIRANDA RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS
After Holder’s announcement that Islamic terror suspects would be tried in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals, many Americans began to wonder if U.S. military and law-enforcement personnel would be required to be read Miranda rights—which bar prosecutors from using, as evidence, statements which suspects make before they have been informed of their right to remain silent and to consult an attorney—to newly captured terror suspects. In a November 2009 Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) raised this issue in the following contentious exchange with Holder:
The very next month, Holder’s Justice Department elected to Mirandize the so-called “Christmas bomber,” al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian-born Islamist who had tried to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines jet with explosives hidden inside his underwear. Informed of his right to remain silent, Abdulmutallab promptly chose to exercise it. Soon thereafter, several FBI agents traveled to Nigeria to plead with the suspect’s family for assistance. Ultimately (and fortuitously), the family traveled to the U.S., where they persuaded Abdulmutallab to cooperate.
In May 2010, Holder and the Obama administration abruptly shifted their position regarding the highly controversial and politically radioactive matter of Miranda rights for terror suspects. Specifically, Holder and the administration said that they would thenceforth seek to pass a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their Miranda rights. As Holder put it, interrogators needed greater flexibility to question such suspects than was permitted by existing exceptions.
HOLDER REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE ISLAM’S TIES TO TERRORISM
On May 13, 2010, Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee. During that testimony, Rep. Lamar Smith tried to get the Attorney General to acknowledge that radical Islam might have played a role in motivating several recently attempted terrorist attacks against U.S. interests—most notably: (a) Major Nidal Malik Hasan‘s November 2009 shooting of 13 fellow U.S. soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas; (b) Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab’s attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Day 2009; and (c) Faisal Shahzad’s attempted car bombing in New York’s Times Square on May 1, 2010. Holder steadfastly refused to acknowledge Smith’s assertion. A video and transcript of Holder’s exchange with Smith can be viewed here.
Holder changes course and decides to try 9/11 mastermind in military tribunal
On April 4, 2011, Holder announced that the Justice Department, in an abrupt reversal of its November 2009 decision, would now proceed to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (and 4 co-conspirators) in a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.
HOLDER CALLS AMERICA “A NATION OF COWARDS” ON RACIAL MATTERS
In a February 18, 2009 speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder alleged that Americans on the whole were afraid to confront racial issues in an honest or meaningful way. Among his remarks were the following:

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards…. [W]e, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable…. [T]his nation has still not come to grips with its racial past … [A] black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular.”


HOLDER AND STATE IMMIGRATION LAWS

On April 23, 2010, Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of any individuals whom they had stopped for some legitimate reason, if the behavior of those individuals—or the circumstances of the stop—led the officers to suspect that they might be in the United States illegally. In the ensuing days and weeks, Holder spoke out forcefully against the bill and indicated that the federal government might challenge it. During the weekend of May 8-9, he participated in a number of television interviews in which he warned that the law could lead to racial profiling and might cause Latinos to stop cooperating with police. But in a May 13 House hearing, Holder admitted that he had not read the statute: “I have not had a chance to. I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.”
Eventually, Holder’s Justice Department filed suit against Arizona in an effort to prevent the immigration law from taking effect. The suit resulted in court rulings that blocked key portions of the law. By November 2011, the Justice Department would file similar suits against three additional states (Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah) that likewise had passed laws designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration.
THE NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY SCANDAL
On Election Day, 2008, two members of the New Black Panther Party—Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz—intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence at a Philadelphia polling place. Bartle Bull, a former civil rights attorney and campaign aide to the late Robert F. Kennedy, witnessed the Panthers’ actions and characterized them as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” he had ever seen. Because Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation, coercion and threats to voters or those aiding voters, the Bush Justice Department filed a civil-rights lawsuit not only against the aforementioned Jackson and Shabazz, but also against the New Black Panther Party and its national chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz.
In 2009, the Obama administration inherited that lawsuit from the outgoing Bush administration. When the defendants failed to answer the suit, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a default judgment against them. But the Holder Justice Department responded by suddenly dropping the charges against the Panthers and two of the defendants; the third defendant was merely barred from displaying a weapon near a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years.
In June 2010, J. Christian Adams, a five-year Department of Justice (DOJ) veteran, resigned to protest the “corrupt nature” of DOJ’s dismissal of the case against the Panthers. “I mean we were told, ‘Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,’” he told Fox News. In July 2010, Adams gave damning public testimony about how the DOJ believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”
Christopher Coates—Voting Section Chief for the DOJ—testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and corroborated Adams’ assertion that the Department had routinely ignored civil rights cases involving white victims. For more than a year previously, Holder’s DOJ had denied the Commission’s requests to hear Coates’ testimony and had instructed Coates not to testify. But in September 2010, Coates finally went public with his story and asked for protection under whistleblower laws. For the full text of Coates’ testimony, click here.
In testimony he gave on March 1, 2011, Holder assured the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that politics had played no role whatsoever in DOJ’s handling of the New Black Panther Party case: “The decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department,” said the Attorney General. But documents obtained in 2012 by Judicial Watch, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, revealed that top political appointees at DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to drop the voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. DOJ had initially refused to turn over the documents, contending that they didn’t show “any political interference whatsoever.” But Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington, DC District Court disagreed. Allowing the release of the documents on July 23, 2012, he declared that they “reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case[.]”
RELEASING A MARXIST TERRORIST FROM PRISON
In July 2010, Holder’s Justice Department released the former Marxist terrorist Marilyn Buck from prison, where she was serving an 80-year sentence that began in the 1980s. Buck had helped the Black Liberation Army (BLA) member and convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur escape from prison in 1979; helped the BLA acquire weapons and ammunition; participated in the deadly 1981 Brink’s armored-car robbery; and played a role in a number of bombings—directed against the U.S. Senate, three military installations in the Washington D.C. area, and four sites in New York City. Explaining the rationale for Buck’s release, Justice Department officials said that Buck had learned her lesson and had “expressed a dramatic change from her previous political philosophy.” After discovering in early summer 2010 that Buck had contracted uterine cancer and was not expected to live much longer, Holder’s officials released her even earlier than scheduled, on July 15, 2010. She died less than a month later.
“ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE”
In a January 2011 address to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Civil Rights, Holder cited a 2005 report based on EPA data which showed that African Americans were almost 80 percent more likely than whites to live near hazardous industrial pollution sites.

HOLDER’S OPPOSITION TO REMOVING INELIGIBLE NAMES FROM VOTER ROLLS

In 2011, Holder’s Justice Department pushed to maximize Democratic voter turnout for the 2012 elections by filing “motor voter” suits across the country, complaining that state agencies were not circulating voter-registration forms in social service agencies. By contrast, the Justice Department made no effort to enforce another section of the law requiring states purge voter rolls of dead persons and ineligible felons.
In late May 2012, Holder’s DOJ ordered the state of Florida to halt its efforts to identify and purge its voter rolls of non-citizens. The DOJ’s lead civil-rights lawyer said that his Department had not yet determined whether Florida’s efforts “neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of discriminating on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”
Florida did not back down. “We have an obligation to make sure the voter rolls are accurate and we are going to continue forward and do everything that we can legally do to make sure than ineligible voters cannot vote,” said Chris Cate, a spokesman for Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner. “We are firmly committed to doing the right thing and preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot. We are not going to give up our efforts to make sure the voter rolls are accurate.”
Earlier in 2012 Secretary Detzner had worked with Florida’s Department of Motor Vehicles to identify more than 2,600 people who were registered to vote despite being non-citizens at the time they applied for a driver’s license. Further, Detzner said that earlier efforts by his agency had identified 182,000 voters who were non-citizens by comparing voter rolls and driver’s-license databases. Detzner also revealed that he and his staff had been refused access by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the federal database containing more up-to-date immigration and citizenship information. In other words, the DHS would not assist Florida in its effort to be as non-discriminatory as possible, even as Holder’s DOJ insisted that Florida was engaging in discrimination.
Also in Florida, some 53,000 dead registered voters had been discovered when the state compared voter rolls to federal Social Security files for the first time—as a result of the passage of an election law by the GOP-controlled legislature.
When Florida failed to comply with Holder’s demand that it stop purging the voter rolls of dead people and non-citizens, the DOJ on June 12, 2012 filed a lawsuit against Florida.
Also as of June 2012, DOJ had already filed suit against both Texas and South Carolina for enacting voter photo ID statutes; yet a 6-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 2008 had already upheld the right of a state (in that case, Indiana) to require such identification for voting. Thus the DOJ suit implied that Holder and company believe each state must file individual suits to achieve the same right.

In a July 2010 column for PJ Media, former DOJ Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams had written: “In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes…to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions. The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity: ‘We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.’”
HOLDER’S OPPOSITION TO VOTER-IDENTIFICATION LAWS

As U.S. Attorney General, Holder, who contends that nearly one in four black people lack photo identification, has consistently opposed efforts to pass voter-ID laws designed to combat voter fraud. According to Holder, such laws—which either took effect or became pending in 11 states between 2008 and 2012—have the effect of disenfranchising nonwhite minorities. “It is time to ask: What kind of nation and what kind of people do we want to be?” Holder said in a December 2011 speech condemning voter ID. “Are we willing to allow this era—our era—to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended?”
In a May 2012 meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus and black church leaders, Holder said that during the preceding two years, the Justice Department had challenged “two dozen state laws and executive orders from more than a dozen states that could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.″ Further, Holder asserted that conservatives in a number of states were enacting photo-identification requirements at polling places as a pretext for blocking “access” to the voting booth for blacks and other nonwhite minorities. According to the Attorney General, voter fraud was much too rare to warrant such measures.
THE “FAST AND FURIOUS” SCANDAL:

In the fall of 2011, controversy arose over Holder’s role in endorsing “Fast and Furious,” a program which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (ATF)—an agency of the Justice Department—had administered during 2009-10. In that initiative, the ATF sold some 2,500 guns—including 34 sniper rifles with an effective lethal range of approximately 2,000 meters—to “straw purchasers” in the U.S. who agreed to subsequently smuggle the guns into Mexico and put them in the hands of cartel leaders, who supposedly were to be arrested at some subsequent point.
The entire “Fast and Furious” operation ended with only 20 indictments of straw purchasers—all of whom were already familiar to U.S. authorities from the outset. Moreover, the program was linked directly to two weapons found on the scene where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona in December 2010. By the fall of 2011, the weapons that had been transferred as part of “Fast and Furious” had been used in at least 200 murders in Mexico. They also had been identified at 11 additional crime scenes in the United States.
While being questioned under oath during a Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2011, Holder indicated that he had known nothing about “Fast and Furious” until about April 2011. But soon thereafter, a newly discovered memo (dated July 2010) showed that Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, had already told Holder that straw buyers in the “Fast and Furious” operation “are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.” Other documents also indicated that Holder had begun receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center no later than July 5, 2010. Moreover, former ATF special agent William Newell testified under oath that “the DHS, IRS, DEA, ATF, ICE and the Obama Justice Department were all involved” in the operation.
In 2011 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena instructing Holder to turn over all internal Justice Department documents related to the “Fast and Furious” program. As of late June, 2012, DOJ had supplied fewer than 8 percent of the 80,000 documents the congressional investigators sought. (Further, DOJ had blocked 48 of the 70 Justice Department officials who were  involved in Fast and Furious, from testifying.) House Republicans continued to pressure the Attorney General to turn over the remaining documents, but Holder refused.
On June 20, 2012, President Obama granted a request by Holder to exert executive privilege over the documents in question. That same day, the House Committee—having exhausted all other means of obtaining the documents from the Justice Department—voted 23 to 17 (in a vote that was split along party lines) to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for failing to produce the missing documents.
On June 28, 2012, the full House of Representatives voted 255-67 to uphold the criminal contempt charge against Holder. Most Democrats walked out of the vote in a gesture of protest led by the Congressional Black Caucus, but 17 Democrats sided with the majority Republicans. The vote represented the first time a U.S. Attorney General had ever been held in contempt by a chamber of Congress.
Minutes after the criminal contempt vote, the House voted 258-95 (with 21 Democrats joining the Republican majority) to pursue a civil contempt case against Holder in court.
In response to the contempt charges against him, Holder suggested that Republicans were retaliating against him because he had blocked voter-identification laws in a number of states. “Today’s vote may make for good political theater in the minds of some, but it is, at base, both a crass effort and a grave disservice to the American people,” he said. “They expect—and deserve—far better.”

On September 19, 2012, the Justice Department’s inspector general issued a report saying there was no evidence that Holder had known about Fast & Furious. Instead, the report blamed a total of 18 DOJ officials, most notably the high-ranking Jason Weinstein (number two in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division) and Kenneth Melson (former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) for “a series of misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgement and management failures.”


HOLDER REJECTS REFERENCES TO “RADICAL ISLAM”

In February 2012 it was reported that radical Muslim groups in the United States had repeatedly met with high-ranking Obama administration officials to complain that the usage of the term “radical Islam” in FBI curricula was both “offensive” and “racist.” In response, Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller issued directives requiring all such language to be purged from FBI training materials. Among the more than 1,000 items destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were PowerPoints and articles that defined jihad as “holy war,” and presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization which seeks to establish Islam’s dominion over all the world — a goal the Brotherhood has candidly and publicly declared for decades.

SUPPORT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
During a February 2012 forum at Columbia University, Holder voiced his support for affirmative action, saying that he “can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease.” Added Holder: “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices. The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin; when do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”
CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACK SCHOOLCHILDREN
In a February 25, 2012 speech to the organization 100 Black Men of Atlanta, Holder lamented the findings of a 2011 study of discipline patterns in Texas schools. Holder said the study showed that “83 percent of African American male students and 74 percent of Hispanic male students ended up in trouble and suspended for some period of time” — as compared to 59% of white male students. “We’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled,” Holder stated. “This is, quite simply, unacceptable.… These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed.” After citing the Texas study, Holder added that “tellingly, 97 percent of all suspensions were discretionary and reflected the administrator’s discipline philosophy as much as the student’s behavior.” In his speech, Holder ignored data indicating that the different discipline rates were consistent with differences in actual schoolyard behavior.
HOLDER PRAISES AL SHARPTON
On April 11, 2012, Holder delivered a speech at the 14th annual convention of Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network. RACE-BASED “DISPARATE IMPACT” LAWSUIT
On April 23, 2012, Holder’s Justice Department sued Jacksonville, Florida, claiming that the city’s use of written tests to determine promotions in its fire department had “resulted in a disparate impact upon black candidates,” who registered passing grades at significantly lower rates than their white counterparts.
COLLABORATING WITH MEDIA MATTERS
On September 18, 2012, The Daily Caller reported that internal DOJ emails (obtained via the Freedom of Information Act) showed that Holder’s communications staff had secretly collaborated with Media Matters For America in an effort to discredit and suppress further news stories about scandals that were plaguing Holder and his agency. For further details about these and other collaborations between Media Matters and DOJ, click here.

HOLDER ORDERS THAT MIRANDA RIGHTS BE READ TO ISLAMIC TERRORIST WHO DETONATED BOMB AT BOSTON MARATHON

In the wake of the deadly Boston Marathon bombing by two Islamic terrorists on April 15, 2013, the surviving bomber, Dzhokar Tsarnaev — who had been wounded by law-enforcement officers pursuing him — was interrogated by FBI agents in a Boston hospital. He was not read his Miranda rights prior to the questioning, due to a 48-hour “public safety exemption” that can be invoked in cases where there is reason to believe that a suspect may be able to provide information that could help authorities prevent additional, imminent acts of terror or destruction. During the first 16 hours of questioning, Tsarnaev revealed a significant amount of highly useful intelligence. But then, on orders from the Justice Department, federal judge Marianne Bowler entered Tsarnaev’s hospital room and, in a move that stunned the FBI investigators who were present, read him his Miranda rights. From that point onward, Tsarnaev refused to talk.

HOLDER WARNS AGAINST ANTI-MUSLIM RETALIATION

Fourteen days after the Boston Marathon bomb attack, Holder declared that the Justice Department would be on the lookout for any acts of violence or discrimination indicative of a backlash against Muslim Americans. Without mentioning the fact that the two perpetrators were Muslims, the Attorney General said:

“[J]ust as we will pursue relentlessly anyone who would target our people or attempt to terrorize our cities — the Justice Department is firmly committed to protecting innocent people against misguided acts of retaliation. In the dozen years since 9/11, this commitment has led the Department to investigate more than 800 incidents involving threats, assaults, and acts of vandalism and violence targeting Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, South Asians, and others who are perceived to be members of these groups. As Americans, we must not allow any group to be stigmatized or alienated. We must not tolerate acts of hatred.”

HOLDER CALLS IMMIGRATION AMNESTY A MATTER OF “CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS”

In an April 24 speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund Awards Gala, Holder said: “The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights.”

HOLDER’S DOJ SECRETLY MONITORS PHONE CALLS IN ASSOCIATED PRESSOFFICES
On May 13, 2013, it was learnedthat the Justice Department had secretly obtained the records oftelephone calls that, in April and May of 2012, had been routedthrough more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AssociatedPress (AP); those lines had been used by over 100 AP reporters andeditors.
DOJ claimedthat its actions were part of an investigation into AP’s May 7, 2012publication of a story (based on leaked, classified materials)disclosing the CIA’s infiltration of an alQaeda plot to detonate a bombaboard an airplane. Notably,the five reporters and an editor who had been assigned to thatparticular AP story were among those who had their phone recordsseized by DOJ.
Accordingto strict DOJ rules, phone records from news organizations can beobtained only with a subpoena that is issued after “allreasonable attempts” have been made to get the same informationfrom other sources (which DOJ electednot to do). Moreover, DOJ rules stipulate that the subpoena must beapproved personally by the Attorney General. But at a May 14, 2013press conference, Eric Holder saidthat he had recused himself from the DOJ investigation of AP, andthat Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole had signed off on the subpoena. Thus,when reporters began asking Holder specific questions about theseizure of AP’s phone records, the Attorney General pleadedignorance. “I frankly don’t have knowledge of those facts,” hecontended. When Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsinasked Holder why he had recused himself, the Attorney Generalreplied:”I was interviewed as one of the people who had access to theinfo”—in other words, he was a potential suspect in the leak.
In a subsequent letter sent to Holder, AP president and CEOGary Pruitt stated:”There can be no possible justification for such an overbroadcollection of the telephone communications of The Associated Pressand its reporters. These records potentially reveal communicationswith confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activitiesundertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map toAP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’sactivities and operations that the government has no conceivableright to know.”
AP reporters were equally upset. Saidone AP reporter: “We all know that confidential sourcing is thelifeblood of what we do, and people can’t come to us if they thinkthey’re going to be compromised. It’s hard enough gettingsources, now we’re afraid this is going to have a chillingeffect.”
On May16, 2013, the Washington Post broke a major storyexplaining the real motives behind the Justice Department’s actions.Specifically, said the Post, AP was prepared to publish itsscoop about the CIA’s infiltration of the al Qaeda plot on May 2,2012. But the CIA—particularly its deputy director, Michael J.Morell—told the news service that publishing the story at thatpoint would compromise a “sensitive intelligence operation” withserious national-security implications. Morell said that the agencywould need several more days to protect whatever it had in the works,and that AP could publish its story as soon as that had beenaccomplished.
Then, on May 7, 2012, CIA officials told AP thatnational-security concerns were “no longer an issue,” butnonetheless requested that the news agency delay publication for onemore day. This was because the Obama administration was planning toannounce the CIA’s successful counterterrorism operation thefollowing morning—May 8, 2012, when the president’s topcounterterrorism adviser, JohnBrennan, was slated to appear on Good Morning America.Given the fact that national security was no longer an issue,however, AP disregarded the CIA’s request and published the story onMay 7. That is what prompted Eric Holder’s Justice Department toillegally procure AP’s telephone records.
HOLDER’S DOJ SECRETLY TARGETS FOX NEWS REPORTERS
On May 20, 2013, it was revealed that DOJ’s efforts to intimidate the media went beyond targeting reporters and editors at the Associated Press. The Washington Post reported that DOJ had not only seized the phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, but had used his security badge to access records tracking his movements at the State Department, traced the timing of his calls with a Department security advisor suspected of giving him classified information, and obtained a search warrant to access his personal emails.
That same day (May 20), it was reported that two more Fox News staffers — reporter William L