Thanks to Eric Holder, we Know Officer Wilson was Innocent.

A day after Jonathan Capehart wrote about facing the truth about Darren Wilson’s innocence, his article in the Washington Post has over 5000 comments, much of them accusing President Obama and Eric Holder of racism for wanting to take a closer look at Brown’s death.

Bullshit, all of them.

Michael Brown killed himself with Officer Wilson’s gun despite having no apparent reason to want to die that day. Darren Wilson was a member of a department which had recently arrested an innocent man, beat him up, locked him up, and charged him with bleeding on their uniforms. Several witnesses, including at least one who didn’t seem to have any reason to lie, said Brown had his hands up. Wilson was cleared of wrongdoing after a rigged hearing in which jurors were given false information.

It’s not racist to think that the whole incident required a real investigation from someone outside of Ferguson.

Thanks to Eric Holder, we know Officer Wilson was innocent. Someone who accepted Office Wilson’s story without any confirmation is someone who feels that police should never be investigated for killing Black people.

Still lying about voter fraud

John Fund, over at the National Review, wrote about voter fraud, and like so many conservatives, he just couldn’t resist another stab at the shriveled, murdered corpse of ACORN.

To review: The ACORN voter scandal was not a hoax played by ACORN but one played on ACORN by temporary workers who turned in fraudulent applications instead of doing what they were hired to do, which was to register real voters. More importantly, even if undiscovered, the fraudulent registrations would never have resulted in a fraudulent vote. That’s because Micky Mouse, Superman, and even more realistic made-up names cannot take physical form and show up at the polls. Still, Mr. Fund taps into the still believed lies about ACORN and refers to “an ACORN-style group registering thousands of illegal or nonexistent voters” as justification for tighter voter ID laws.

Moving on to the next lie, Fund tells us that James O’keefe’s latest in a series of misleading videos “demonstrated just last month how easy — and almost impossible to detect — voter impersonation can be”. In the video, a young, White, O’keefe operative presented himself as someone named “Eric Holder”, in the Attorney General’s polling station and without any challenge was offered Mr. Holder’s ballot. But true to form, O’keefe’s video doesn’t show what right wing alarmists say it shows. The operative left without taking the ballot. Had he taken it, the real Eric Holder would have had to use a special ballot, an investigation would have been triggered, the fraudulent vote discarded, and the operative would have faced serious election fraud charges. In order to pull off voter impersonation fraud, the impostor must use the name of someone who is registered to vote but will not show up, and has to risk five years of prison and a heavy fine just to cast one single vote.

Fund discusses statistics about people who are worried about voter fraud. But he doesn’t talk about how many of these worried people are worried about ID fraud rather than about rigged or faulty voter machines, lost ballots, doctored counts, and voter suppression. It was a miscount in Iowa, not voter ID fraud, which gave Romney early momentum during the Republican primaries to the relief of Republican strategists who feared Santorum might win the primaries but loose the general election. Lost ballots and insecure voting machines have been serious issues in recent elections, and are more legitimate concerns for voters worried about the integrity of the elections system than hundreds of impostors trying to sway an election one vote at a time.

Voter ID fraud may exist, but if so, it exists in tiny numbers because of the high penalty of getting caught and small payoff of success. Still, if there weren’t actual people, such as those with accessibility issues who live far from government offices, who will be turned away from the polls due to more stringent voter ID laws, then the laws would be fine. But such people do exist, and voter ID laws have a greater effect of blocking these legitimate voters than of preventing fraud. If we want elections that closely reflect the will of the people, we should not deny these votes in order to fight a problem that is already under control with existing laws.

I would take the concerns of those claiming to want truer elections more seriously if they were to concentrate more on proven elections issues, rather than focusing like lasers on a less worrisome potential problem and promoting a solution that will sway elections away from the interests of the poor and poorly connected.