More coverage from Pajamas:
Coates made another incident public for the first time. He testified that when he became chief of the Voting Section in 2008, he began asking job applicants a new question after seeing experienced employees refuse to work on the Ike Brown case. He would ask applicants “whether they would be willing to work on cases that involved claims of racial discrimination against white voters, as well as cases that involved claims of discrimination against minority voters,” Coates testified.
Coates added that he “did not want to hire people who were politically or ideologically opposed to the equal enforcement of the voting statues the Voting Section is charged with enforcing.”
When Loretta King was named acting assistant attorney general for Civil Rights after President Obama’s inauguration, Coates testified, she called him to her office. King had heard about the question Coates was asking. She “specifically instructed” Coates that he “was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be wiling to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA.”
King took offense that Coates was asking that question, he testified, “because she [did] not support equal enforcement of the provision of the VRA and had been highly critical of the filing and civil prosecution of the Ike Brown case.”
Coates testified yesterday.
Pajamas Media published an article about the testimony…. This portion of the article jumped out at me.
“..the Obama administration was not interested in enforcing the provision of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act that requires states to maintain voter registration lists by regularly removing ineligible voters — for instance, the names of voters who have died or moved away.”
If there is no continual removal of such former voter names, there must be a “usable” list that is continually being compiled, else, why be concerned… just let the names “reside” un-used (i.e. without votes of these former voters being cast.)
What then, would be the “purpose” of allowing them to remain… as a useful factor in some politically expedient statistical analysis?
Or more insidiously, is there a possibility that some “trusted individuals” or political entities in every American locality “maintain” such lists “for a purpose”?
If that purpose is to systematically “salt” elections polls results with election-changing votes cast “on behalf” of dead or absent, formerly registered voters, there is a much greater voting fraud conspiracy afoot… one that “poisons the electoral well” of every voting district in our republic. Such lists must of necessity be maintained by one or more individuals with the ongoing “blessings” of others who condone the practice. Each and every one of these fellow conspirators are “guilty” of voter fraud.
If this conspiratorial practice is allowed to remain “un-discovered” by those who are commissioned to “police the process,” or un-reported by honest and objective (not partisan) investigative reporters, or “tabled” by government-funded, duly-directed, constitutionally-mandated, non-corrupted civil servants, our republic is already “lost.” Our “Grand Experiment” can be written off as a failure.
If there are such database lists…. those in every voter precinct who are compiling them and “using them” should be found, prosecuted, and jailed. There should be no “mistakes were made” defenses. The jail cells in every jurisdiction should be established in such a way as to provide an un-fettered public viewing of the culprits (in the same way as miscreants were once displayed in public stocks.)
My suspicions are that there are multiple national databases maintained at all electoral levels, at local city and county levels, state levels, and at the federal level. If they exist, they can be found, publicized… and the database “administrators” (and their “enablers”) located and appropriately charged and prosecuted.
Raise funds to offer rewards and/or bounties to obtain and publicize the facts and expose the culprits….. Don’t time (and money) pressing for further mandates (that will be un-enforced or ignored) to tell the “foxes” to “clean up the chicken houses.”
Dead bodies stink…. They aren’t difficult to discover! Follow the stench!
It is only typical that political appointees will try to sway the organization they head. Happens all the time. It is unfortunate that more lawyers at DOJ weren’t inflamed by this attempt to ignore the actual law they were trained to enforce. All of them should go, but won’t, and aren’t even embarrassed by it. God help us!