Equal justice under law | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Fortunately for Attorney General Eric Holder, his confirmation hearings happened at a time when the Dems were in firm control of both houses of Congress, otherwise the results might have been different. Well, maybe not. After all the main thing with which people could find fault at that point in time was the "neutral, leaning favorable" Marc Rich pardon recommendation he provided President Clinton. Amid allegations that Rich's ex-wife "purchased" the pardon with significant contributions to the Clinton Library, most Reps and quite a few Dems were not overjoyed with the pardon. But then, pardons are the prerogative of the Pres, not the Congress. And that's the way it is. It is good to let bygones be bygones, but it's unfortunate that we didn't seem to learn anything about Holder from the experience.

    According to Wikipedia, "The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), ... is the United States federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice,..." As it turns out, the Attorney General (AG) certainly seems to be trying to create the impression (among those who aren't paying very close attention) that he is really coming down on those who would violate our laws. Almost any careful observer would probably call what the AG is doing is trying to steer the conversation away from "Gun Walking" by creating a number of diversions.

    Take Sheriff Joe Arpaio down in Arizona for instance. He runs what is reputed to be a pretty tough jail. A lot of folks don't like how he treats prisoners, to which he replies something to the effect that if the inmates don't like being in his jail, they shouldn't do anything that will cause them to be sent back. That sounds like real motivation. Poor 'ol Joe has been accused of "bad mouthing" some of his prisoners, clearly a serious violation of their civil rights. So here comes the posse led by the AG to prosecute (or is it persecute??) the Sheriff.

    How about the protection the AG is providing us by raiding the Gibson guitar company and confiscating some of the exotic woods they import for use in manufacturing their guitars?? Reportedly his troops have had the wood for over a year and there does not seem to be much going on to get the case to court and settled. Surely the "set to" doesn't have anything to do with Gibson's support of Rep. candidates.

    And then there is the matter of the state of Arizona enacting legislation designed to facilitate the apprehension of "illegals". That apparently sounds to the AG like it would make it fairly easy to "racially profile" Hispanics down in Arizona so here he comes with a court challenge to the Arizona law, the ninth and tenth Amendments apparently be damned.

    The AG seems to believe that the way to keep elections in Texas on the up and up is to take the state to court over their law requiring prospective voters to show a photo ID before they will be allowed to vote. Do you suppose the nation's top law enforcer didn't hear about the results of the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board case which was decided 6 to 3 by the Supreme Court in 2008 (which, to be fair, was before AG Holder assumed his position; for what that's worth.. hmmm...). That case addressed and upheld an Indiana law that required prospective voters to show a photo ID before they would be allowed to vote. Or do you suppose he is simply following the lead of his boss who only seems to accept the court's decisions when he agrees with those decisions?? After all he (the boss) was a lecturer (not a "professor" but a "lecturer" even though he refers to himself as a "Law Professor") at the University of Chicago Law School, teaching (??), of all things, Constitutional Law.

    As an aside, every time I hear someone being referred to as "Professor" I am reminded of Sidney Sufrin who was a fairly well known and respected Economist who taught at the Syracuse University Maxwell School (among other places). He asked not to be called "Professor" because, as he told those of us in the seminar I was attending, "Professor is the title reserved for the piano player in a bawdy house." To each his own...

    We are also in the midst of the retrial or Roger Clemens who was not convicted in his first trial for lying to congress. That may turn out to be setting a rather unfortunate precedent. What if Congress finds out that Holder has been less than truthful (that's a euphemism for "telling lies")?? Do you suppose he will get the Clemens treatment (i.e. keep trying him until you get a conviction)?? Surely the time and money the DOJ has spent, and is spending, on this case will certainly help protect us and make America a better place.

    And now here comes the AG with an investigation of JP Morgan Chase after they lost $2B in the market. Apparently no one bothered to tell him that the $2B loss will reportedly reduce the JP Morgan quarterly profit down to about $4B and the annual profit down to about $16B. Additionally, apparently no one told him that the money they lost was their own money, not clients' money. We are left to wonder when it became a violation of law to lose your own money in the market. Of course, wouldn't it be nice if we could get the government to implement some new regulations that would ensure that no one ever suffered a loss in the market?? As things currently stand, there is no such guarantee (perhaps unless you are "too big to fail" or are a big Obama contributor or bundler). They do allow us to deduct our stock market losses up to $3K per year regardless how large the loss. And, in their unending generosity, they allow any remaining balance to be "carried forward" to be deducted in subsequent years.

    The DOJ is also investigating the loss of $1.2B by M F Global (which just happened to be run by one of their favorite "bundlers" at the time of the loss); but the investigation doesn't seem to be very aggressive; surely nothing to do with who the CEO was when all this happened. For the record, there are a couple of differences between the JP Morgan and the MF Global losses. The money that JP Morgan lost was their own money. The money MF Global lost was their clients' money. The JP Morgan money was lost in the market. MF Global doesn't seem to know where they lost their clients' money; they simply cannot (or will not) account for it.. Say Whaaaat?? $1.2B??

    Under AG Holder, the functions of the Dept of Justice would seem to have been brought into a much clearer focus. Unfortunately, the focus seems to be "political", which according to a lot of folks, is to it's detriment. It is enforcing laws and administering justice, but only the laws it seems to like; as opposed to enforcing all laws equally. At the same time, the Department would seem to have become more adept than ever at obfuscating issues and shifting focus away from "unpleasantness" even that which they may have brought upon themselves. (Or is it especially that which they may have brought upon themselves.)

    Start with the decision to overlook the alleged voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. Nothing racial involved in not prosecuting that issue. Do you suppose that inaction suggests anything about the mind set extant in the DOJ management relative to their own "transgressions" while pursuing with great vigor the so called "transgressions" of others.?? Or could the high profile (yeah, right) cases mentioned above which the AG seems to be pursuing with vigor, simply be a not very well disguised effort to shift the conversation away from other, more significant things (like the so called Fast & Furious gunwalking scandal)??

    That would be the gunwalking program that the AG didn't know anything about until a Border Patrol Agent (Brian Terry) was killed with one of the weapons that had been allowed to cross the border. Who knew what; and when did they know it; and did anyone in the Justice Department mislead Congress?? Congress apparently takes a pretty dim view of being misled; If you don't believe me, just ask Roger Clemens. (Or do you suppose that after failing to convict him in the earlier trial, the second trial is simply more of a DOJ charade intended to make us believe that they really are looking out for the public??) The questions about "Fast & Furious" sound a whole like the questions that were being asked when the "Watergate" scandal first surfaced. In the "gunwalking" situation, Daryl Issa and his Committee seem to be the only folks interested in finding answers to those questions. The Washington Post, which was at the heart of the Watergate expose', certainly doesn't seem too interested. The DOJ response to the Issa Committee's questions certainly evokes memories of the sandbagging (or was it "stonewalling"??) that we saw in the Watergate days. Maybe the recalcitrance is driven by the fact that some folks in the DOJ know the truth which instead of setting us free, may well result in incarceration.

    D'ya think??