A Daily Caller investigation last week uncovered allegations that de Jongh accepted cash bribes in exchange for facilitating the sale of a telecommunications company to a politically embattled U.S. telecommunications cooperative. And now a senator from the U.S. territory has announced plans to pursue an election to recall de Jongh.

According to a knowledgeable government official who served on a Department of Justice team put in place to arrest finance executives close to that telecommunications deal, de Jongh accepted a portion of at least $20 million in cash bribes that floated throughout the U.S. Virgin Islands government. The U.S. Department of Justice, the source said, never acted on sealed indictments related to a years-long criminal scheme involving bank fraud and other financial crimes.

The bribes, according to the source, were for de Jongh, his attorney general Vincent Frazer and assorted Virgin Islands legislators — all aimed at quashing local concerns about financial irregularities identified on the books of the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Cooperative (CFC).

“maybe this is the way you do things in Idaho, or wherever you’re from.”

Does Eric Holder have a problem with Raul Labrador because he was born in Puerto Rico? Sounds like it to me. Watch the following video:

That source said that until the summer of 2011, the two compromised prosecutors were part of a team of more than 25 federal prosecutors pursuing a financial crime ring, and at least five other prosecutors tasked to the case were also compromised by the criminal suspects they were investigating, without being bribed.

TheDC is withholding the name of the source, a knowledgeable government official who served on the Justice Department’s arrest team and was involved in the investigation, in order to prevent career retaliation from political figures in the Obama administration.

Melson’s step down from his role as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the position of senior adviser on forensic science in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Programs is effective by close of business Tuesday, administration officials announced. U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones will replace Melson.

The investigation began before Standard & Poor’s cut the United States’ AAA credit rating this month, but it’s likely to add to the political firestorm created by the downgrade, the newspaper said. Some government officials have since questioned the agency’s secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming to have found an error in its debt calculations.

The March 31, 2010 memorandum entitled “Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad from
Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler.
“Any and all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the Office of the Attorney General (AG), the Office of Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Office of the Associate Attorney General (Assoc. AG) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any CAIR groups concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad.”
“Any all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the Office of the AG, the Office of the DAG, or the Office of the Assoc. AG and the U.S. Congress concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad”
“Any and all communications, contacts, or correspondence between the office of the AG, the office of the DAG, or the office of the Assoc. AG and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas concerning, regarding, or relating to the prosecution or declination of prosecution of Omar Ahmad.”

The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. Both DOJ officials were involved in detailed discussions regarding the NBPP decision. For example, in one April 30, 2009, email from Hirsch to Perrelli, with the subject title “Fw: New Black Panther Party Update,”

The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them. But Walter Dellinger, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said an appeal could make clear that the president believes the law is unconstitutional, an approach President Bill Clinton took in 1996 concerning a law that would have required the discharge of HIV-positive service members from the military.

“I think this is the answer,” Dellinger said, noting that it would be politically untenable to allow a single district judge to set law for the country in a case that the Supreme Court has not heard. “Let the courts decide, but tell them what you think.”

The federal government is reviewing the ruling and has no immediate comment, said Tracy Schmaler, spokesman for the Department of Justice.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week nonjury trial in federal court in Riverside and said she would issue a nationwide injunction. But she asked first for input from Department of Justice attorneys and the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban’s enforcement.

The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office’s defiance “unprecedented,” and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and having English-only policies in his jails that “discriminates” against people with limited English skills.

Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents it first asked for 15 months ago.

Arpaio’s office had said it has fully cooperated in the jail inquiry but won’t hand over additional documents into the examination of the alleged unconstitutional searches because federal authorities haven’t said exactly what they were investigating.

It’s the latest action against Arizona by the federal government, which earlier sued to stop the state’s strict new immigration law that requires police officers to question people about their immigration status.

July 14, 2010

Mr. Glenn Fine
Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530

Dear Mr. Fine:

In light of the recent testimony of Mr. J. Christian Adams before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), I urge you again to investigate the dismissal of U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. Over the last year, I have asked you on multiple occasions to investigate this matter to no avail. Considering the mounting evidence of improper activities in the department’s Civil Rights Division (CRD), I urge you again to immediately initiate an investigation into this matter.

I was disappointed in your previous responses to my letters. The primary responsibility of the inspector general is to ensure “integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Department of Justice operations,” according to your office’s statute. The new information provided by Mr. Adams to the commission last week clearly underscores the need for an investigation into whether the department’s “integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness” have been compromised. I recall that you, rightly, had no qualms about investigating allegations of impropriety during the previous administration and I would hope that same ethic would remain during this administration.

There is something rotten happening at the department. Your continued refusal to investigate has been — and remains — inexcusable. As inspector general, you have a legal and moral obligation to go wherever truth takes you. Although it is understandable that you would be hesitant to upset the department’s senior political leadership, some of whom could be directly tied to the dismissal of this case, you nonetheless have a responsibility to investigate the mounting allegations of political impropriety.

As you are aware from our previous correspondence, which I have enclosed for your review, this case was inexplicably dismissed last year — over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the department continues to stonewall efforts to obtain all information regarding the case’s abrupt dismissal. Recent events and information has compounded this troubling situation.

Mr. Adams was a career attorney with CRD before resigning last month in response to the department’s illegitimate instruction that he not comply with a USCCR subpoena. I am deeply concerned that the department, which is statutorily obliged to execute USCCR subpoenas, is in fact obstructing individuals from complying in this matter. I believe that this obstruction — aside from the many troubling actions surrounding the dismissal of the case — merit an investigation into the department’s enforcement of the commission’s statutory authority.

Additionally, I am concerned about revelations from Mr. Adams’ testimony that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political appointee, reportedly forbid CRD attorneys from bringing forward additional voting intimidation cases in which the defendant was a national minority. I believe that this allegation merits immediate investigation. There is no excuse for the selective application of federal law based on the whims of political appointees.

You should also be aware that I have asked the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to review your failure to investigate this matter. It is my understanding that the CIGIE’s Integrity Committee will be discussing your actions at its July meeting.

I urge you again to investigate the myriad of troubling issues surrounding the dismissal of this case. With the commission obstructed from fully conducting its investigation, the inspector general must be willing to ensure the integrity of the department. I appeal to you to fulfill the duties of your office.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf Member of Congress

P.S. The American people are counting on you to ensure the integrity of the department. With the commission impeded from conducting its investigation and the Congress unwilling to act, you alone have the authority to be an independent watchdog for the American people. Please don’t let us down.

“It doesn’t mean that if the law, for whatever reason, happened to go into effect that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had in whether or not to see to whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact,” Holder said. “And if that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.”

But he said that federal law preemption stood the best chance of overturning Arizona’s new law set to take effect on July 29, which requires police to check the immigration status of individuals stopped.

“We have an immigration policy that takes into account a whole variety of things, international relations, national security concerns,” Holder said. “And it is the responsibility of the federal government, as opposed to states doing it on a patchwork basis, to decide exactly what it is our policy should be with regard to immigration. And it was on that basis that we filed the lawsuit.”

But supporters of the state law argue that the federal government isn’t enforcing current immigration laws, which leaves states with no other recourse besides codifying and enforcing those laws on a local basis.

Arizona Rep. Trent Franks (R) told CNN host Candy Crowley on Sunday his state acted because the federal government wasn’t enforcing laws already on the books.

“Essentially Arizona has just codified that in state law. And it’s ironic that, you know, with all of the arguments that this is somehow about racial profiling, I think the president of the United States has spoken knowing falsehoods about this bill, because the bill itself, in numerous cases, numerous places, outlaws racial profiling. And it’s just astonishing,” Franks said.

Crowley noted on her show that at least 17 states have similar laws in the works.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters, in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.

When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.

Arizona voters support the state’s new immigration law more than ever, with 71% in favor of it.

“The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government’s immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy,” the suit says. “A policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance.”

The court action comes just days after President Obama delivered a speech calling on Congress to tackle a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s immigration system. In the speech, he criticized Arizona’s law and warned that national legislation is needed to prevent other states from following suit.

The president did not mention the lawsuit, but one had been widely expected for weeks. After the administration initially said it would take the law under review, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed last month in an interview with a foreign television network that the administration intended to challenge the Arizona policy.

The Arizona law, passed in April, makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires local law enforcement to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant on their residency status.

Obama and other top officials have criticized the law as misguided, while Brewer has slammed the administration for pursuing a lawsuit. She claims the administration has not done enough to secure the border — a charge the administration denies.

Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law.

“We’ll meet them in court … and we will win,” she said, calling the administration’s actions a “disappointment.”

The Arizona law touched off an intense national debate over immigration. The results of any court challenge would have wide-ranging implications, as a number of other states and jurisdictions have taken up tough immigration policies similar to Arizona’s.

The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as “unenforceable” and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a “national standard” is needed and that he won’t “kick the can down the road” any longer.

You can read the lawsuit here. (PDF format)

These former DOJ employees have expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance, and outstanding record of enforcing the law without racial bias.

Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ.

And perhaps — pay attention, DOJ press liaisons — offer their own accounts regarding the DOJ’s hostility to race-neutral law enforcement.

Watch this space today, and over the next few days, for additional statements from former DOJ employees.

First, here is Asheesh Agarwal. From 2006-2008, Asheesh Agarwal served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division. In that position, Agarwal supervised the Division’s Voting Section, which included Adams, and worked directly with Adams on several matters. Agarwal is currently an attorney in private practice.

During his tenure with the Department of Justice’s Voting Section, J. Christian Adams was a model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting rights laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology. Mr. Adams was also one of the most productive and successful voting attorneys in recent memory.

His victories include two cases on behalf of African-American voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, two cases on behalf of white voters under Section 2, and six cases on behalf of Hispanic voters under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. He also brought and won three cases on behalf of military voters. Having worked closely with Mr. Adams for several years, I can attest to the unsurpassed quality of his character, judgment, and commitment to the cause of civil rights on behalf of all Americans.

– Asheesh Agarwal

J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.

“I mean we were told, ‘Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,’” Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.

The fact that he is a conservative blogger will undoubtedly mean he will become the target of smears by the progressive liberal left Democrats, and his accusations will be dismissed by the lame stream media.

Asked about the Justice Department’s claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said “obviously, that’s false.”

“Under the vacancy reform act, they were serving in a political capacity,” he said. “This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case. It’s one of the other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process.”

Adams claimed an unnamed political appointee said if somebody wants to bring these kinds of cases, “that’ not going to de done out of the civil rights division.”

Adams also accused Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath to Congress about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe.

The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others “based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law.”

But Adams told Fox News that politics and race was at play in the dismissal.

“There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases,” Adams told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly.

Adams says the dismissal is a symptom of the Obama administration’s reverse racism and that the Justice Department will not pursue voting rights cases against white victims.

“In voting, that will be the case over the next few years, there’s no doubt about it,” he said.

In an opinion article published in the Washington Times last week, Adams said the dismissal “raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler dismissed Adams’ accusations as a “good faith disagreement” with ulterior motives.

“It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda,” she said in a written statement.

In the final days of the Bush administration, three Black Panthers — Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson — were charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act in November 2008 by using coercion, threats and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station — with Shabazz brandishing what prosecutors called a deadly weapon.

On the other hand, the events surrounding the dismissal of United States v. New Black Panther Party, et al., after the trial team sought and obtained an entry of default, has subjected me, Mr. Christopher Coates, and potentially at some point, all members of the team, to a subpoena from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The subpoena is based on an explicit federal statute and seeks answers about why the case was dismissed.

I have incurred significant personal expense in retaining a number of separate attorneys and firms regarding this subpoena in order to protect my interests and advise me about my personal legal obligation to comply with the subpoena. Over the last few months, one of my attorneys has had multiple communications with Federal Programs regarding the subpoena. My attorney suggested to them that the Department should file a motion in district court to quash the subpoena and thereby resolve conclusively any question about my obligation to comply.

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 (emphasis mine).

Most Americans would call something this egregious absolutely outrageous. But Obama’s minions are busily making whatever this evil man wants seem perfectly rational. When will enough NORMAL AMERICANS wake up and do something? Our country and our best traditions are being stolen.