Having failed to prosecute the Ferguson cop who shot and killed Michael Brown, having been forced to admit the racist yahoos who faulted the cop were lying, Atty. Gen. Eric H. (for Hubris) Holder, hoping to snap a long losing streak, is pondering breaking up the Ferguson Police Dept.
Faultlessly logical, isn’t it?
The appropriate conclusion for an awesomely powerful government official who has bitterly complained for months that the federal threshold for proving racism is too darned high.
When hardly anyone was looking, the brusquely arrogant attorney general reached up to the top shelf. Grabbing and clutching the pesky threshold law in his sweaty fist, he angrily flung it to the floor, turned his shiny Florsheim to a proper angle and crushed the darned law to death.
Evidence?
None needed if you holler “racism” volubly enough, frequently enough, and convince the No. 1 whorehouse in American journalism, The New York Times, that you don’t need no stinking evidence to prosecute if you have lured the media and fellow racists in your choir.
Have Americans Nodded Off?
Isn’t anyone outraged by this chest-pounding popinjay’s latest dictatorial effrontery?
The first rule of courtroom lawyering is, when your bag is empty, accuse loudly, generally, broadly, acerbically, and most of all, repeatedly.
The racist Mr. Holder rode into Ferguson last August as if he had been planted in the velveteen saddle of a white steed, promising the fictional victims of Ferguson that his white fedora and dark skin meant he was going to get even with the cops who had serially wronged them.
Last seen, Mr. Holder was lying face down on a soaked bar room floor, nose pointing west while he was facing north.
As he saw it last Friday, the pompous attorney general’s only surviving option was to destroy the lack of evidence and ride a rhetorical pony into the courtroom trailed by a glassy-eyed mob that last worked during the Bush administration.
Give Me a Number. Any Number
Mr. Holder reached for the new last-chance strategy of a scoundrel prosecutor – the circus-like concept of disparate impact. It holds you can prove intent and bias sheerly by deploying numbers and proportions. No human element, no facts required or accepted.
Circumstances? Phooey.
Context? Phooey.
Evidence? An even larger phooey.
Finally, here is a tasty dollop of phony Holder bologna from Investor’s Business Daily, which argues that a stop is not merely a stop. There are degrees of seriousness:
“African Americans are overrepresented in Ferguson Police Dept.’s vehicular stops” and victims of ‘racial bias,’ Mr. Holder concludes in his report.
“He notes that blacks accounted for 85% of vehicle stops, ‘despite comprising only 67% of Ferguson’s population,’ while whites made up 15% of stops, despite representing 29% of the population.
“So there you have it, a slam-dunk case of racism, right? Hardly.
“Outrageously, the nation’s top prosecutor failed to control for factors that explain the racial ‘disparity’ in traffic stops, such as speeding, DUI, expired license plates, headlight, seat-belt and child-restraint violations and other reasons for being pulled over.”
From the same source on a different day:
“The Justice Dept.’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, explains that differences in traffic stops can simply be attributed to ‘differences in offending.’
“Duh. For another example, ‘Seat-belt usage is chronically lower among blacks,’ the NIJ says in a 2013 study. ‘If a law enforcement agency aggressively enforces violations, police will stop more black drivers.’
“It adds that three out of every four black drivers say ‘police had a legitimate reason for stopping them.’”
