Dear Representative Ryan:
I thought you might like to learn more about the fellow who boasted he started that wave of boos at your inaugural appearance: Department of Justice Voting Section lawyer Daniel Freeman. Here at PJ Media we’ve been covering Freeman’s partisan enforcement of federal election laws for years.
We understand, however, that your duties setting spending levels for federal agencies like the Department of Justice often leave you too busy to keep up with the partisan rot deep inside the civil service at DOJ. If your duties as chair of the House Committee on the Budget permit just a few minutes, PJ Media thought you’d like to learn a bit more about the man who started the wave of boos against you, as well as how his office is corrupting the enforcement of federal election laws.
Come budget time, maybe your committee can boo back.
Mr. Freeman was hired as part of an unprecedented ideological hiring blitz inside the Department of Justice Voting Section soon after the 2009 inauguration. Freeman had all the right credentials for a job as a career civil servant inside Eric Holder’s Justice Department – membership in the Yale Law Democrats and experience with the ACLU attacking Bush administration national security policy. For good measure, he sought out representation of al-Qaeda terrorists at Gitmo.
You’ll note that he didn’t have any experience in federal election law. No matter. Experience in the activist trenches as a radical leftist is the top qualification at Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division. You can read the biographies of the hundreds of radical leftists hired from 2009-2010 in the Civil Rights Division here.
Stay tuned, because PJ Media hasn’t even reported on the ones hired from 2011-2012 yet.
Once Daniel Freeman was hired, he became a trusted soldier to Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. He was assigned to politically important voting cases even though he had no experience in election law. One such politically important case was Eric Holder’s battle against South Carolina voter ID.
That case was politically important for two reasons. First, in 2011, President Obama’s base was asleep and unenthused. Blocking South Carolina’s voter ID under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act became part of a political strategy to reawaken his base – a base the president used against you in the fall.
Second, and most importantly, Freeman was assigned to the South Carolina case because of a pesky political problem – other more sensible career lawyers inside the DOJ Voting Section actually recommended in a detailed memo that DOJ approve South Carolina’s voter ID administratively.
You won’t hear much about that memo because reporters in the tank for the administration like McClatchy’s James Rosen have never informed readers that the memo exists. If the memo from the career lawyers had been followed, South Carolina and the federal government would have saved millions of dollars by avoiding a lengthy federal court trial.
But what does taxpayer money matter when a president is up for reelection?
Since you chair the Budget Committee, perhaps you can help out Rep. Trey Gowdy and Senator Lindsey Graham. See, both of them have demanded that Eric Holder provide them the approval memo, but naturally Holder has refused, twice. Perhaps your office can help get the information since they have ignored Gowdy and Graham’s request.
Freeman also led DOJ’s Section 5 attack against Texas voter ID.
Obviously, Freeman’s employer has enormous power over the conduct of elections. And Freeman’s inaugural outburst is not the exception for Voting Section lawyers. You can order up my book Injustice from the Library of Congress and see the photographs of Obama campaign posters adorning lawyer offices at the DOJ Voting Section.
That’s just the partisan tip of the Democrat iceberg.
Don’t be fooled by members of the House Judiciary Committee who sing the praises of DOJ’s enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 has become a partisan weapon used by the DOJ civil service against Republicans and election integrity. The boos manifest themselves as DOJ Voting Section policy over and over again against conservatives, Republicans, and election integrity.
And don’t assume Freeman’s rude behavior towards you will hurt his career. The opposite is true. Even though some managers in the Voting Section recognize Freeman is arrogant and difficult to deal with, they think he is good with data. Most of all, the political appointees treasure a fellow traveler in the career ranks.
I expect Freeman will get a cash award next October at the DOJ Civil Rights Division awards ceremony, unless of course your committee passes a proviso clamping down on cash awards.
Holder even gives cash awards to liberal Civil Rights Division lawyers who lose cases! (Gotta read Injustice for that one, sorry).
More than likely, Freeman will get promoted as soon as some of the more sensible managers in the Voting Section leave or are forced out (like the ones who recommended approval of South Carolina’s law).
Freeman’s career at DOJ will not suffer. His outburst is the symptom of a deeper problem – a career civil service at the powerful Civil Rights Division ideologically militant against conservatives and the rule of law. His bosses will feel pride at his outburst, not shame.
Don’t make the mistake that some of your GOP colleagues in the House have made: when you deal with Holder’s Civil Rights Division, you are not dealing with fair, impartial law enforcement officials.
If you’d prefer to ask Freeman directly why he was so rude to you, he can be reached at 202-305-4355 or email@example.com. But forget about Twitter. Freeman’s account was deleted after his incivility became national news yesterday.
Good luck, and sorry about the boos from the civil service. I promise, in time, they are really great fun.
J. Christian Adams