Why Quin Hillyer may need a legal defense fund after penning a devastating indictment of Obama/Holder DOJ 

Yes, it's election day and we are all focused on what voters are telling Washington today as they cast millions of ballots, most of which are expected to be for fresh faces and new blood in Congress.

Yes, it's election day and we are all focused on what voters are telling Washington today as they cast millions of ballots, most of which are expected to be for fresh faces and new blood in Congress.

But take a few minutes anyway and read Quin Hillyer's masterful indictment of the Justice Department under President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder. Given the mendacity, incompetence, arrogance and statuatory abuse detailed by Hillyer, it might not be a bad idea for somebody to start organizing a legal defense fund for him.

The bad guys can't let this piece go unnoticed, so I won't be surprised if Holder's partners-in-crime at DOJ aren't at this very moment inventing some entirely fictional legal pretext for silencing Hillyer's pen somehow.

Not that the former Washington Examiner associate editorial page editor (and present senior editorial writer at The Washington Times) is likely to be intimidated. He is strangely reticent about discussing it, but Hillyer is no stranger to fighting bigots, having played a lead role in the journalistic unmasking of David Duke's lies about his relationship to the Klan in Louisiana back in the early 1990s.

Why is Hillyer's Spectator piece so damning? Consider just this passage concerning the Obama/Holder DOJ's evasion of its solemn duty under the law to make certain that U.S. military personnel serving their country overseas have the opportunity to cast a vote in today's election, a vote that will be counted equally with those of every other American citizen.

Hillyer discusses DOJ's active efforts to assist felon voting, then notes the contrast with the Holder-led department's effort on military voters:

"It also coincides with other indications that DOJ is bizarrely eager to help felons, a notoriously Democratic constituency, vote, while showing an extreme lack of enthusiasm for assuring the votes of military personnel, who, polls show, more often vote for Republicans.

"As the Washington Times editorialized on July 28 and several times thereafter, the department failed in numerous ways to ensure full implementation of a 2009 law mandating that states mail overseas military ballots at least 45 days before Election Day -- in order to ensure time for delivery both ways, to and from often extremely remote locales."

Hillyer points to previous warning signs of such problems at DOJ:

"Eric Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project and a former DOJ Voting Section attorney, warned of the problem in September, telling me: 'Some of the attorneys in the section are openly hostile to the military and, at the very least, are unsympathetic to the sacrifices of our service members.'"

And Hillyer points to the congressional Republican who ought to be first at bat come January 2011 with subpoenas for Holder, et. al. on this and a variety of other abuses:

"So angry about all this is Republican Sen. John Cornyn of ?Texas, the military voting law's co-author, that he called for congressional hearings on the matter, placed a lasting 'hold' on the nomination of close Holder friend James Cole to be deputy attorney general, and wrote Holder a scathing September 16 letter that accused Holder and company of 'a shameful failure to honor the heroic service of those who defend America.'

"Indeed, the department failed for more than a year to update its website to reflect the new law protecting military voters -- but it spent what must have been an immense amount of taxpayer-supported staff time building a 2,314-word web page telling felons how to recover their voting privileges. Yet the department enjoys no statutory authority to deal with felon voting at all. Who needs the law when you can bolster the numbers of a key Democratic constituency?"

The foregoing is but a taste of Hillyer's incisive analysis, which you can read in its entirety here. Consider it a program guide for a coming congressional oversight hearing that could make the Founders proud. 

About The Author

Mark Tapscott

Pin It
Favorite

Speaking of...

Latest in Nation

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Videos

Related to Nation

© 2014 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation