DoJ trial attorney in Black Panthers case resigns in protest

Eric Holder has stonewalled Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and the American people regarding the inexplicable order that political appointees at Justice gave last year to drop the slam dunk winning case against the New Black Panther party.

Members of the group were caught on tape clearly intimidating white voters at a Philadelphia polling place. A summary judgment followed but before sentencing, Justice dropped the case. When some Republican senators asked why, Holder refused to comply with requests for an explanation. Even a US Civil Rights Commission subpoena couldn't get Holder to supply them with a reason why he dropped a case that Justice had already won.

Now it appears that someone is going to talk. And what he has to say will no doubt prove very interesting to Congress.

A trial attorney with the Department of Justice's Voting Rights Section has resigned, citing concerns about the government's refusal to prosecute a case involving voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. A letter of resignation obtained by The Washington Examiner from a former Justice Department employee makes clear DOJ has refused to allow attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to testify before the congressionally-chartered bipartisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite subpoenas that could result in their being held in contempt.

In his letter of resignation, the attorney, J. Christian Adams, expresses his concerns over his personal exposure to prosecution for contempt because Justice refuses to respond to the lawful requests from the US Civil Rights Commission:

Months ago, my attorney advised the Department that a motion to quash would be welcome, and that I would assert no objection to the motion. Further, my attorney has explicitly sought to ascertain whether Executive Privilege has been invoked regarding the decisions of individuals not in the Voting Section to order the dismissal of the case. If Executive Privilege has been asserted, or will be, obviously I would not comply with the subpoena. These options would provide some conclusive legal certainly about the extent of my obligation to comply with a subpoena issued pursuant to a federal statute. Instead, we have been ordered not to comply with the subpoena, citing a federal regulation.

Jennifer Rubin:

All this suggests that once he is free from the constraints of his superiors, Adams intends to tell his story. When he does, I expect we will hear that attorneys placed in political positions came up with fraudulent reasons for dismissing the case. I also think we'll hear more about the role of the NAACP. Stay tuned. Fireworks coming forthwith.

I expect executive privilege will play a role somewhere down the road. This can of worms is so toxic I doubt whether Obama wants it spilled all over the national media. The political interference in this case is so dramatic and so obvious that exposing it would probably mean curtains for Holder.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky