Dan Rather Reports
Episode Number: 220
Episode Title: A Question of Rights
Description: Is the Justice Department's Civil Rights division no longer enforcing antidiscrimination laws? That's the allegation of some former career attorneys with the
agency, who also say they were moved out because they didn't follow the current
administration's conservative mantra.
TEASE:
DAN RATHER (VOICEOVER)
TONIGHT, A QUESTION OF JUSTICE. WOMEN ONCE BACKED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN A DISCRIMINATION SUIT, ARE UNDERMINED
BY A BUSH ADMINISTRATION WITH OTHER PRIORITIES.
MARIANNE MANOUSAKIS, CUSTODIAN IN NEW YORK CITY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
I felt totally betrayed. You know and I think all of us felt betrayed.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
PLAYING POLITICS WITH THE VOTE. MORE THAN 40 YEARS AFTER THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT EXTENDED PROTECTIONS TO MINORITIES KEY
PROVISIONS COME UNDER FIRE AND LACK IMPORTUNATE.
ROY BARNES, FORMER GEORGIA GOVERNOR
If you want to repeal the voting rights, you can take it to Congress. Don’t do it by
subterfuge, by changing the enforcement of it.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GOES POLITICAL. ONE OF THE FIRED
U.S. ATTORNEYS SPEAKS OUT.
DAVID IGLESIAS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY
The people of the United States should know that when a federal prosecutor charges
somebody with a crime, the only basis for the charge is evidence. Partisan politics plays
no part whatsoever.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AN HOUR DEVOTED TO NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW POLITICS HAS
INFECTED THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. TONIGHT ON
DAN RATHER REPORTS.
RATHER (ON CAMERA)
GOOD EVENING, FROM WASHINGTON. IT WAS FIFTY YEARS AGO THIS
SUMMER THAT CONGRESS PASSED THE FIRST IN WHAT WOULD BECOME A
SERIES OF LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. THE LEGISLATION, SIGNED BY
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, ESTABLISHED A COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER CITIZENS WERE BEING DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE,
AND CREATED A NEW DIVISION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DEVOTED
TO CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, TO BE OVERSEEN BY AN ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL. IN THE HALF CENTURY SINCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT OF 1957, THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION HAS DEVELOPED A
REPUTATION FOR ENFORCING THE LAWS PROTECTING THE CIVIL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS. BUT NOW, THERE ARE
THOSE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WHO INSIST
THAT WITH THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT BUSH IN 2001, THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT'S HISTORIC MISSION HAS CHANGED.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
JUST RECENTLY, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
DECIDED TO EXPAND HIS INVESTIGATION BEYOND THE FIRED REGIONAL
US ATTORNEYS INTO ALLEGATIONS OF HIRING BASED ON POLITICS AT
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION; THE GOVERNMENTS ARM THAT FIGHTS
DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING. AND LONG
BEFORE THIS POLITICAL DRAMA GRIPPED WASHINGTON, JANET CALDERO
AND MARIANNE MANOUSAKIS, TWO CUSTODIANS IN NEW YORK CITY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SAW A DRAMATIC CHANGE IN JUSTICE.
MARIANNE MANOUSAKIS, CUSTODIAN IN NEW YORK CITY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Any job that’s been typically involving mechanical equipment, heating, and ventilating,
has always been perceived as a masculine job.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
SCHOOL CUSTODIANS HAVE A HIGH- PAYING UNION JOB. THEY ARE
SUPERVISORS IN CHARGE OF MAINTAINING BUILDING OPERATIONS. IN
THE EARLY 90S NINETY-TWO PERCENT OF THEM WERE WHITE. AND OF
ALMOST 900 IN THE CITY, ONLY TWELVE WERE WOMEN. JANET CALDERO
WAS ONE OF THEM.
JANET CALDERO, FORMER SUPERVISOR OF MAINTAINING BUILDING
OPERATIONS, NEW YORK CITY SCHOOLS
We operate and maintain a public school building, from cleaning it to maintaining the
heating and ventilating systems, air conditioning. And it primarily is a male-dominated
position.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
MARIANNE MANOUSAKIS WAS WORKING HER WAY UP THROUGH THE
SYSTEM.
MANOUSAKIS
I originally started working as a part-time cleaner and moved into a handyman slot. I
became a full-time secretary and handyman.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
HER BOSSES - THE SCHOOL CUSTODIANS - WERE ALWAYS MEN. THEY
OFTEN HIRED OTHER MEN, WHO WERE THEIR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES.
CALDERO
First of all, the women are not necessarily accepted by the men in this field.
MANOUSAKIS
Did I think that I could have access to that job? Never in my wildest dreams.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATED THE SITUATION, AND IN 1996,
IT SUED THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, FOR RACE AND
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE RECRUITMENT OF CUSTODIANS IN
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND RACE DISCRIMINATION IN THE TESTING. AARON
SCHUHAM BECAME THE LEAD TRIAL ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
AARON SCHUHAM, TRIAL ATTORNEY FOR GOVERNMENT
Everyone in America deserves to be hired based on their merit and based on their
qualifications and not because of their sex or their race and we did find that the City of
New York was violating federal civil rights law in those practices and that’s why we
brought the case. We would not have done so if we were not sure that violations had
occurred.
RATHER
But why should the U.S. government get involved - the federal government?
SCHUHAM
In the case of the custodians in New York City, that was a major case, involving many
victims of discrimination. One of the reasons why the New York City case was so
important is it’s one of those cases where only the federal government who had the
resources and the manpower and the women power to actually be able to pursue this case,
without regard to the costs of the that case, over the years, for the sole purpose of
remedying that discrimination.
RATHER
Do you remember Janet Caldero and Marianne Manousakis?
SCHUHAM
I do. We worked very closely with them as we developed the lawsuit and brought it.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
CALDERO AND MANOUSAKIS HAD BEEN HIRED AS PROVISIONAL
CUSTODIANS WITH NO JOB SECURITY, AND TOGETHER WITH DOZENS OF
OTHER MINORITY CUSTODIANS, THEY WERE INVITED BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S LAWYERS TO BE PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE.
CALDERO
They needed to know how our job operated, what it involved to bolster their case. And,
they got that information through most of the women on the job.
MANOUSAKIS
Oh, I felt that they were, you know, looking out for our civil rights trying to open up a job
market where previously there hadn’t been one. I mean, they had their own agenda. They
felt that the numbers were skewed vastly.
CALDERO
We had a very good rapport with them. They worked for us. You know, we felt confident
with them. We thought that they were behind us.
MANOUSAKIS
I felt kind of like they were our – our shepherds. You know, they were going to help us.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AND HELP CAME. IN 1999, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT REACHED AN AGREEMENT. THE WOMEN AND MINORITIES
WOULD BE COMPENSATED. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THEIR
ATTORNEYS, LIKE SCHUHAM, HAD GOTTEN EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE
LAW.
SCHUHAM
We believed very strongly that we had followed the law and done justice for many
women and minority people who had been serving in these positions.
MANOUSAKIS
We all thought that was the end, that this is the end. This is the way it is. You know,
we’re all settled. We’ve got this - however it is now, we want nothing more. We expect
nothing less, you know. And, we thought it was over—little did we know.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
LITTLE DID THEY KNOW THAT A GROUP OF WHITE MALE CUSTODIANS
HAD DECIDED TO ARGUE THAT THE SETTLEMENT WOULD DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST THEM, AND WITH THAT, THE COURT BATTLE CONTINUED. BUT
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK HAD PROMISED TO
DEFEND THE SETTLEMENT AGAINST ALL COMERS. THEN, IN 2002, THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, UNDER THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION,
SUDDENLY CHANGED ITS MIND. IN THEIR VIEW, THE WOMEN HAD NOT
BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NO LONGER
DEFEND THE WOMEN'S SETTLEMENT. INSTEAD, THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT SIDED WITH THE WHITE MEN, TO FIGHT THE WOMEN THE
DEPARTMENT HAD ONCE TRIED TO ADVANCE.
MANOUSAKIS
I felt totally betrayed, you know. And, I think all of us felt betrayed.
CALDERO
Well, they defended me. They went bat for me. They fought. They took this to court.
They won it. And then, they just dropped us with no explanation as to why they dropped
us.
MANOUSAKIS
They spend ten years of our time you know, trying to make the settlement agreement
work to bring in some women and minorities. And then, once they get them, they turn
around and now they’re backing the white males again because they say, “Well, their
rights are now being infringed upon.”
CALDERO
Whoever thought that the Justice Department would turn to the Injustice Department.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AFTER NEARLY A DECADE OF BATTLE AND MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS
SPENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TURNED ITS BACK ON ITS OWN
HARD- FOUGHT VICTORY.
RATHER
Were you surprised when the justice department under the new administration changed
directions on this case?
SCHUHAM
I certainly was. It was quite an unprecedented move to have the Justice Department go
and attack the very settlement that it had obtained. It’s the same Justice Department
regardless of the leadership.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
SCHUHAM AND HIS TEAM WERE ORDERED OFF THE CASE.
CALDERO
Who thought that the government would do something like that to us? I got the phone
number of the new attorneys. The old attorneys that had fought for us were taken off the
case. They had new attorneys on the case. We all called. Nobody was given any
information. They ran you around in a circle and nobody wanted to say anything.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
THEY NEVER SPOKE TO AARON SCHUHAM AGAIN.
SCHUHAM
One of the results of the ethics office opinion was that we were absolutely removed from
the case. We could not talk to anybody about the case at that time, at that point, and that
included the very people that we had been seeking relief for.
RATHER
So in effect, correct me if I’m wrong, you were forbidden to talk to them?
SCHUHAM
We were forbidden to talk to them.
RATHER
How did you feel when you couldn't communicate with the women who were losing so
much?
SCHUHAM
It was very difficult not to be able to talk to them. We had spent a tremendous amount of
time with them over the years. It was very hard to see the Justice Department make the
decision it did and to have such a minor role in that kind of decision. I can certainly say
that when you are a lawyer working for the Civil rights division, when you are any kind
of civil rights lawyer for that matter, you put everything that you have into these kinds of
cases, because you understand their importance and you understand the kind of impact
that they can have on people who should be helped, and whose rights were violated.
RATHER
Well the women have told us that they felt betrayed by the Justice Department. Were
they?
SCHUHAM
They were. What the Justice Department did was wrong. It should not have happened.
RATHER
Why are you speaking out about it now?
SCHUHAM
Well, I wanted- I’ve come to speak about this case first and foremost because I think an
injustice was done in this case. The other reason is I hope that the situation never repeats
itself. It should not happen.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AARON SCHUHAM'S CAREER AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WAS OVER.
SCHUHAM
The trial team, of which I as a part, was removed from the case. I think it’s fair to say that
we got signals from the political appointees in the division and from an entirely new
career leadership was brought in to run my office that they did not want us around. They
made our environment quite hostile. And I don’t think we were trusted by them and quite
frankly, I think they had the perception that we were standing in the way of the kinds of
goals that they had. And those goals were to dismantle the division and impede its work.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
FACTS SHOW THAT SINCE 2002, FOUR OF FIVE DIRECTORS HAVE LEFT THE
EMPLOYMENT SECTION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, AND 21 OUT OF
THE 32 CAREER ATTORNEYS HAVE LEFT. SOME HAD WORKED FOR
DECADES IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS FIELD.
RATHER (ON CAMERA)
WE FOUND, IN ALL, NINE FORMER CAREER ATTORNEYS FROM THE CIVIL
RIGHTS DIVISION WHO SPOKE OUT AGAINST WHAT THEY CALL AN
INCREASINGLY POLITICAL SLANT IN THE HIRING AT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT. THEY SAY THAT THE RIGHT POLITICAL OPINIONS HAVE
BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN EXPERIENCE AND GOOD LEGAL
MERITS.
RICHARD UGELOW, FORMER DEPUTY HEAD OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
SECTION FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
Those of us who worked in the department for any period of time think it’s the highest
calling.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
RICHARD UGELOW USED TO BE THE DEPUTY HEAD OF THE EMPLOYMENT
RIGHTS SECTION FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION. UGELOW BEGAN AS A
MILITARY JAG LAWYER AND CAME TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
DURING THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION. OVER THE YEARS, HE RECEIVED
AWARDS BOTH FROM REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS
FOR HIS AGGRESSIVE PURSUIT OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOR AMERICANS,
REGARDLESS OF RACE, SEX, RELIGION AND NATIONAL ORIGIN. THAT
MISSION WAS LONG DEEMED SO IMPORTANT THAT THE DIVISION, HERE IN
1981, ALWAYS HAD A CORE OF EXPERT CAREER ATTORNEYS WHO OFTEN
STAYED ON WHILE THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP CAME AND WENT.
BUT UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, UGELOW SAYS, HE WAS
FORCED OUT, TOGETHER WITH MANY OTHER CAREER GOVERNMENT
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYERS.
UGELOW
They were systematically shuffled out. I mean, you can look at the head of the
Employment Litigations Section, I was a Deputy Section Chief, I was removed. Special
Litigation Counsel was removed. Another Deputy Section Chief was forced out. The
Chief of the Housing Section was removed. The Chief of the Voting Section was forced
out. The Chief of the Criminal Section was forced out. Other Deputy Section Chiefs in
other sections were removed from office. This didn’t happen by chance.
RATHER
What an accusation. That a President of the United States and those working with him at
high levels did not want effective people in the Civil Rights Division.
UGELOW
Well, I think it’s how you define effective. They want a different type of effective person.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AND WITH DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS, SAYS AARON SCHUHAM.
SCHUHAM
Very few of them were Civil Rights attorneys. Very few of them had any real Civil
Rights experience, and some of them had no trial or lawyer-ing experience at all.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AND IN MAY THIS YEAR, BEFORE CONGRESS, MONICA GOODLING; A
FORMER POLITICALLY APPOINTED WHITE HOUSE LIAISON AT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT, BLUNTLY ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD MADE POLITICAL
HIRES FOR STAFF POSITIONS.
MONICA GOODLING, FORMER POLITICALLY APPOINTED WHITE HOUSE
LIASIAN AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants
for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into
account on some occasions. And I regret those mistakes.
UGELOW
They were identifying people that they wanted to replace and they-- they replaced them
for political reasons. And it can’t be-- it can’t be that all of us were non-performers.
MR. SCOTT, QUESTIONING GOODLING IN SENATE HEARINGS
Did you break the law? Is it against the law to take those political considerations into
account?
GOODLING
Sir, I’m not able to answer that question. I know I crossed the line. I believe I crossed the
lines but I didn’t mean to.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AND THOSE NEW RECRUITS FROM AMONG POLITICAL PARTY LOYALISTS,
UGELOW SAYS, HAVE BROUGHT SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION CASES IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. FOR INSTANCE, HE
SAYS, ONLY ONE CASE PER YEAR INVOLVING RACE HAS BEEN FILED
UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION. OF THOSE, ONE IS ABOUT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICANS.
RATHER
What about during the Reagan administration. Another republican administration. or in
the republican administration of George Bush I.
UGELOW
Enforcement was vigorous in both the Reagan Administration and Bush I. It was
unbelievably vigorous.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
WHEN THEY WERE DROPPED, THE FEMALE CUSTODIANS FOUGHT ON, NOW
WITH THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ON THEIR SIDE. AND LAST
YEAR, A DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT THEIR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
SHOULD BE UPHELD.
MANOUSAKIS
Has it been worth it? We didn’t have a choice but so, I’d have to say yeah, it’s been
worth it. It was you know, either carry on, or perhaps be jobless.
CALDERO
And, I’m very happy that I stuck it out. And, I didn’t let my peers push me back—or the
U.S. Government.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
FOR OTHER MINORITY PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE IT'S STILL NOT OVER AND
THE CASE IS NOW ON ITS 11TH YEAR.
UGELOW
How do you explain to them that we’re reversing position? We no longer advocating for
you. We’re advocating for your opponent. What kind of credibility do you have with
them. What does it say about the Department of Justice to do those things.
RATHER
What does it say about them?
UGELOW
This is a terrible thing. People lose faith in the government and the courts lose faith in the
in the attorney's for the Department of Justice.
RATHER
But looking at the overall picture based on your experience and your opinion what's
happening with civil rights law enforcement in this Justice Department at this time.
SCHUHAM
It’s dramatically declined and in some cases, as in the New York City case, it’s not just a
decline of civil rights investigations in cases, it’s actually a wholesale attack on civil
rights cases and investigations. The Civil Rights Division was created to be the Federal
Government’s beacon to ensure that American civil rights are not violated and to know
that the federal government can step in and protect them when civil rights violations have
happened. It’s- it’s power and its work has been greatly undermined and I think it will
talk many people digging in and doing a tremendous amount of work at some point in the
future to rebuild it.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS FOR COMMENT, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY
RESPONSE FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. BUT EARLIER THIS YEAR,
THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS -WAN KIM DEFENDED THE DIVISIONS WORK IN A LETTER TO A HOUSE
SUBCOMMITTEE. HE WROTE THAT THE DIVISION HAS MANY
ACCOMPLISHMENTS, THANKS TO QUOTE "A HIGH LEVEL OF TEAMWORK
BETWEEN CAREER ATTORNEYS AND POLITICAL APPOINTEES" AND THAT
"THERE IS NO POLITICAL LITMUS TEST IN MAKING HIRING DECISIONS"
RATHER (ON CAMERA)
BEFORE THE MID 1960'S, MANY AMERICANS OF COLOR WERE PREVENTED
FROM VOTING. A WEB OF STATE AND LOCAL LAWS’ DECEIT AND
CONSPIRACIES AMONG POWERFUL WHITE INTERESTS AND INTIMIDATION
BACKED UP BY BEATINGS AND MURDERS MADE THAT THE REALITY.
THEN A GROWING CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT FINALLY DEMONSTRATED
THAT IT WAS GAINING MOMENTUM IN THE CONSCIOUS OF AMERICA. IN
1965, PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON URGED CONGRESS TO PASS A
VOTING RIGHTS ACT. ADDRESSING POTENT RESISTANCE FROM THE
SOUTH, ESPECIALLY FROM ENTRENCHED SOUTHERN POLITICIANS FROM
HIS OWN PARTY JOHNSON STATED "EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN MUST
HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO VOTE." TODAY, MORE THAN FORTY YEARS
AFTER THAT ACT WAS PASSED, LAWYERS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAY POWERFUL INTERESTS ARE ONCE AGAIN
PLAYING PARTISAN POLITICS WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
ROSALIND LAKE REMEMBERS VIVIDLY THE DAYS WHEN HER MOTHER
WOULD GO TO VOTE.
ROSALIND LAKE, VOTER
My mother, she’d make a big deal, She’d get all dressed up, put on her hat and go to vote
so when it was my turn to go vote, I was so happy. I was just grinning from ear to ear.
I’m voting, I’m voting, I’, voting and I floated all the way home, I was so happy.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AND IT IS A RIGHT THAT SHE HAS ENJOYED EXERCISING OVER THE YEARS.
LAKE
Oh my goodness, I voted for Nixon, and after I voted for Nixon, I vowed I would never
vote again ‘cause I voted him in. I voted for Kennedy, I didn’t vote for Reagan. I voted
for Carter. I loved Bill Clinton—you not supposed to vote because of this but I saw him
and I just fell in love with him.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
TODAY, ROSALIND LAKE IS AT THE CENTER OF A LEGAL BATTLE
INVOLVING THAT ONE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE SHE ENJOYS
SO MUCH - THE RIGHT TO VOTE. IT'S SOMETHING SHE MAY NOT BE ABLE
TO DO IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH SHE IS
REGISTERED TO VOTE SHE DOESN'T HOLD RIGHT NEWLY REQUIRED
PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.
LAKE
They wouldn’t take these, and they wouldn’t take this either—you have to have a state
ID.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
IF LAKE LIVED IN ALMOST ANY OTHER STATE IN THE COUNTRY THE
IDENTIFICATION SHE HAS WOULD BE ENOUGH. TODAY, ONLY THREE
STATES HAVE A LAW REQUIRING GOVERNMENT ISSUED PHOTO I.D.S FOR
THOSE WHO SHOW UP IN PERSON TO VOTE AND LAKE LIVES IN ONE OF
THEM: GEORGIA. JENNIFER AUER JORDAN IS A MARIETTA ATTORNEY
REPRESENTING LAKE AGAINST THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
JENNIFER AUER JORDAN, LAKE’S ATTORNEY
In 1997, Georgia passed one of the few laws that required some form of identification,
and you could bring one of 17 forms of identification to the polls with you which could
be a utility bill, or-- or any kind of college identification card whether it be a private or
public university. What helped the 1997 law pass clearance was the fact you could sign
an affidavit saying I am who I am and I’m registered to vote and I want to cast a ballot
and I don’t have identification.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
THAT AFFIDAVIT PROVISION WAS A "FAIL SAFE" METHOD PUT IN PLACE
BY THE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, TO
GUARANTEE STATE RESIDENTS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE.
BUT IN 2005, GEORGIA'S REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR
CHANGED THE LAW - AFFIDAVIT'S WERE NO LONGER ACCEPTED AND THE
NUMBER OF ID'S THAT COULD BE USED WAS DECREASED FROM 17 TO SIX.
ATTORNEY JOSEPH RICH, SPENT THE LAST SIX OF HIS 37 YEARS AT THE
U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AS CHIEF OF THE VOTING RIGHTS SECTION IN
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION.
RATHER
What was the case in Georgia vis a vis allegations of continuing discrimination?
JOSEPH RICH, CHIEF OF VOTING RIGHTS SECTION
AT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Georgia had passed a voter identification law which required everybody in the state, if
they were going to vote, to have photo ID. There’s a lot of people that are poor, elderly,
disabled that have problems having ID. This law falls most heavily on them because they
have trouble getting IDs.
DAN RATHER (VOICEOVER)
UNDER VOTING RIGHTS LAW, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAD TO SIGN
OFF ON THOSE CHANGES BECAUSE GEORGIA IS WHAT'S KNOWN AS A
SECTION FIVE STATE.
RICH
Section Five of the Voting Rights Act covers just nine states from the old confederacy
and parts of about seven other states. It was designed to catch those states that had a long
history of discrimination.
RATHER
Section five being?
RICH
The Section Five is the part that requires the Department of Justice to review any voting
change.
RATHER
How does it work?
RICH
Whether at the state level, the county level, city level, school board level, water district
level, every voting change passed by a jurisdiction has to be either submitted to the
Department of Justice to have it looked at, to be reviewed to see if it puts minority voters
in a worse position than they had been under the previous law.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
IN THE CASE OF THE GEORGIA VOTER I.D. ACT, THAT PRE-APPROVAL
PROCESS LED TO CONTENTIOUS DEBATE WITHIN THE US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. THIS INTERNAL MEMO, FIRST LEAKED TO THE WASHINGTON
POST, SHOWS THAT THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION ATTORNEYS, IN A FOUR
TO ONE DECISION, OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED GEORGIA ACT. THEIR
RECOMMENDATION WAS THEN OVER-RULED BY THE POLITICAL
APPOINTEES IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
ROY BARNES, FORMER GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA
I was shocked that’s when I knew that the Justice Department had become a political
animal when it was pre-approved.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
FORMER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR ROY BARNES IS A GEORGIA NATIVE
WHO HAS DEALT WITH ATTORNEY'S FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
FOR DECADES.
BARNES
I knew form the folks I had dealt with before and dealt with the Department of Justice,
this was not going to get pre-approved and then it did. I dealt over the years with the
Department of Justice, the Voting Rights Section and I found them to be very
professional. What’s happened in the last few years is they’re being overruled by the
political appointees and I think those are tragic circumstances.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
BARNES HAS WITNESSED THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT FIRST HAND.
BARNES
The Voting Rights Act has been more effective than any other act I know passed by
Congress because it completely opened the doors for those of color who had been
excluded- and remember race is the third rail in southern politics.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
AFTER APPROVAL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE BILL WENT
BACK TO THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE WHERE IT WAS COUCHED AS A
WAY TO QUOTE “COMBAT VOTER FRAUD.”
BARNES
They posed it and spun it this way: either for this bill or you’re for voter fraud.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
THE BILL PASSED EASILY IN THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE. BUT FOR SOME
OBSERVERS, IN BOTH PARTIES IT WAS LESS ABOUT FIGHTING FRAUD
THAN IT WAS ABOUT SUPPRESSING MINORITY VOTING.
BARNES
I was just outraged that politics would have been taken so far and it looks to me, we are
returning to the south of old. We know who these people are that generally don’t have
drivers licenses.
JORDAN
Amazingly, as it always does, these things just kind of- are serendipitous, it happened
before a big election year in the state. And really a lot of the folks, and a lot of different
organization, Common Cause Georgia and then the League of Women Voters they really
felt that it was like playing politics with the right to vote.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
CIVIL RIGHTS SUPPORTERS, AND MANY OTHERS, SAW IT AS A DIRECT
STRIKE AT VOTERS WHO WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING THOSE
NEWLY REQUIRED TYPES OF CREDENTIALS.
BARNES
We know exactly who they were targeting and they were folks of low income and color
and that’s despicable, it’s absolutely despicable. It’s not what I got into politics for, it was
not the- the ideals that I thought, that drove me to public service and I’ve never seen
anything like it.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
BARNES INITIATED THE LAWSUIT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UP BEFORE THE
GEORGIA SUPREME COURT. HIS KEY PLAINTIFF IS ROSALIND LAKE, WHO
HAD ATTEMPTED MANY TIMES TO GET AN OFFICIAL GEORGIA I.D. HER
CASE ILLUSTRATES HOW DIFFICULT IT CAN BE.
LAKE
I had to take a bus, a train and another bus when I got off the train.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
LAKE, WHO IS DISABLED AND HAS A HARD TIME SEEING, WAITED IN LINE
FOR HOURS.
LAKE
Long, long line going all the way out the door.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
WHEN SHE FINALLY GOT TO THE FRONT, SHE GIVEN A LIST OF
DOCUMENTS SHE HAD TO PROVIDE TO VERIFY HER IDENTITY.
LAKE
I wrote to Delaware, for where my marriage license is, then I had to send to Harrisburg
Pennsylvania to get my divorce papers. I had to write to Florida for my old ID. So I had
to go through all of this and plus I paid for-- to get my marriage license from Delaware so
I just said I’m through.
JORDAN
At the end of the day, we know that the ID requirement does disenfranchise or will tend
to disenfranchise more persons that we should be encouraging to vote and that we have
been historically encouraging to vote.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
DEFENDERS OF THE NEW LAW SAY THEY ARE NOT PREVENTING PEOPLE
FROM VOTING BUT ARE PROTECTING AGAINST VOTING FRAUD. THE
GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATES OFFICE, TOLD US THEY CANNOT
COMMENT ON PENDING LITIGATION. THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE SAYS THEY
HAVE INITIATED PROGRAMS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO OBTAIN PHOTO ID'S
AND THEY NOTE THAT REGISTERED VOTERS DON'T NEED AN ID IF THEY
CHOOSE TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT.
JORDAN
So many of the electorate in Georgia are functionally illiterate and when you’re talking
about the poorest among us, in those that are elderly and those that are disabled that may
have side issues the idea that someone is going to fill out, first procure an absentee ballot
application is just ridiculous. The persons that tend to vote absentee, tend to be of a
higher socioeconomic level and tend to be Caucasian; and so, the inverse of that being
that if you’re poor and you’re a minority then you’re less likely to vote an absentee
ballot.
BARNES
This represses the vote about five to six percent with strict voted ID. That’s the numbers
that have been-- been pushed around and those are five to six percent of folks that
generally vote Democratic.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
ANOTHER CAVEAT OF THE VOTER ID LAW IS THAT IT POTENTIALLY
EXCLUDES STUDENTS WHO ATTEND THE HISTORICALLY BLACK
COLLEGES FOR WHICH GEORGIA IS SO WELL KNOWN.
JORDAN
So you can use an identification card from the University of Georgia but you can’t use it
from Morehouse, and so the idea that one is okay because it comes from public university
and one isn’t because it comes from a private university, we also think is a little
irrational.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
TO BARNES, ITS DIRTY POLITICS HAVING LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH
VOTE FRAUD AND GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING FOR WHICH THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT WAS CREATED. HE SAYS, WHAT HE CALLS THE
UNDERHANDED, BEHIND-YOUR-BACK TACTICS NEED TO STOP AND STOP
NOW.
BARNES
If you want to repeal the Voting Rights Act, if an administration wants to repeal, take it
to Congress, don’t do it by subterfuge by changing the enforcement of it.
JORDAN
The Department of Justice use to really be considered kind of this stalwart. You could
always go to them to not be political and that at the end of the day, they were going to
make the right decision based on the law and based on the Constitution. But now, we
can’t even depend on them to actually do what they need to do under the Constitution of
the United States to make sure that everyone participates in this democracy.
BARNES
You are tinkering with something that is like nitro-glycerin and there are some things, as
I found out, there are some things more important than re-election, and I will tell you,
there are some things more important than staying in power and this is one of them.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
THE RESULT, HE SAYS, IS THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS MAY HAVE TO RELIVE THE GUILT AND SHAME THAT THOSE FROM HIS TIME HAVE.
BARNES
When they integrated Central High School in Little Rock, there is a famous photograph
of a young white girl screaming at the young African-American girls going in. They went
back and found that young white girl and at first she denied that it was her, and then she
said she was ashamed. All of us in the south that came through the Civil Rights era, we
have a day like that, and we look back and say why did we ever do that, I saw how wrong
it was. I’m not sure the current generation either white or black fully appreciates how far
we’ve come and how fragile it is.
LAKE
With my background, growing up the way I did, during that era there were so many
people that fought and died just for the right to vote. We take for granted that we have
the, you know we have these rights, and so the generation now some of them they could
care less, whether they vote or not but my generation and I believe just to have the right
to vote, that’s privilege and an honor.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
THE GEORGIA VOTER I.D. LAW IS CURRENTLY ON HOLD WHILE A
CONSERVATIVE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT DECIDES ITS FATE. A
DECISION IS EXPECTED BY THE END OF THE MONTH. LAKE SAYS SHE
HOPES THE DECISION IS IN HER FAVOR BECAUSE SHE'S GOT THE 2008
ELECTION TO FOCUS ON.
LAKE
This is a biggie, this is a real biggie. I would, you would have to come and get me from
somewhere. They’d have to put me in a straight jacket if I could not vote this time.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
ONLY TIME AND JUSTICE, WILL TELL.
LAKE
When I’m gone on, they’ll say, well Miss Rosalind stood for so and so and so.. When, as
Martin Luther King said, when they talk about me, I want them to talk about me and
remember me as a humble person, and a person that stood for something and didn’t back
down.
RATHER (ON CAMERA)
FORMER CAREER GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY JOSEPH RICH NOTES THAT IN
THE LAST SIX YEARS ALTHOUGH VOTING RIGHTS CASES FILED ON
BEHALF OF HISPANICS HAVE NOT DECLINED, ONLY ONE VOTER
DISCRIMINATION CASE ON BEHALF OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND NONE
FOR NATIVE AMERICAN VOTERS HAS BEEN FILED UNDER THIS
ADMINISTRATION.
DAVID IGLESIAS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY
None of us knew because none of us were given any , initially, for our firings.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
I TALKED TO DAVID IGLESIAS FROM NEW MEXICO, ONE OF THE FORMER
U.S. ATTORNEYS AT THE HEART OF THE GROWING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
SCANDAL.
RATHER
First let me ask you, have you ever done anything professionally that would've been
grounds for dismissal as a U.S. attorney?
IGLESIAS
No. Nothing like that. And absolutely no warning by the Justice Department or anyone in
Washington, D.C. relative to that question.
RATHER
How did you find out that you'd been fired?
IGLESIAS
Well, I got a phone call out of the blue on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7th of 2006
informing me that the administration wanted to go a different way and that I was
expected to turn in my resignation effective the end of January of ’07.
RATHER
Surprised?
IGLESIAS
Surprised doesn’t really get there. I was thunderstruck. I was stunned. I was
flabbergasted. I’d never received any call like that in my entire life.
RATHER
Now when you heard that the firings of the U.S. attorneys were due to quote,
"performance issues," what was your reaction?
IGLESIAS
I went through the roof. I was perfectly content to leave my job quietly, which I’d been
advised to by friends who are still part of this administration, until Paul McNulty, the first
week in February of this year testified that we had performance related reasons. And I
knew that to be absolutely false. And I had been in contact with some of my other—fired
colleagues. And we had loosely agreed that if performance was a reason that came up,
that we would start pushing back.
RATHER (VOICE OVER)
HE AND SEVEN OTHER FIRED U.S. ATTORNEYS BEGAN TO DO JUST THAT.
DAVID IGLESIAS TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS ABOUT WHY HE BELIEVED
HE WAS FIRED.
IGLESIAS
I was nominated in August of 2001. I was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in October of
2001, I was sworn in. And then I began my duties as a United States Attorney, enforcing
federal law—typically criminal law, immigration cases, narcotics cases, things of that
nature. I had no difficulty in terms of there being any warning that I was in trouble or I
violated any policy, that I was teeing anybody off in the White House. But I did hear
some grumbling from local Republicans in New Mexico, that I wasn’t doing anything
regarding voter fraud. They were convinced there was massive voter fraud going on at
this battleground state of New Mexico.
RATHER
Was there?
IGLESIAS
Well. I thought there was. And I wanted to prosecute voter fraud cases. But upon
investigation by the FBI and by main justice and our state and local partners, after a year
of looking at over one hundred complaints, I didn’t find one prosecutable federal case. So
I didn’t prosecute any cases.
RATHER
Now when you came in as a new U.S. Attorney, were there expectations then that you
would pursue voter fraud?
IGLESIAS
I didn’t hear anything about voter fraud until 2002. And then I got some e-mails and there
were some memos sent out to every United States Attorney saying, “Please reach out to
the Secretary of State, work with your local campaign officials, offer your assistance,
liaison with the FBI,” ‘cause the FBI isn’t always interested in voter fraud cases ‘cause
they’re not big ticket items, so to speak. And then again in 2004, we got a second wave of
e-mails and memoranda saying, “You need to look, help out with voter fraud.”
RATHER
It was made clear to you that voter fraud was a priority. Why?
IGLESIAS
Well, I can only speak as to New Mexico. Because the—in 2000, that was the closest
margin of loss for President Bush. The President—or Vice President Gore—won by less
than four hundred votes. And there were reports, there was a belief that there was
massive fraud going on. And the only reason that Vice President Gore won was because
of fraud. I believe that the part, both nationally and locally, wanted to prevent that type of
action from occurring again. So they—at the national level, wanted U.S. Attorneys to at
least look into voter fraud and to investigate cases like that.
RATHER
Any possibility or not it's also, as some democrats charge, a form of vote suppression,
particularly in areas where republicans traditionally don't do well in a state such as New
Mexico? In your opinion, anything to that?
IGLESIAS
There may be. Or it could be—two sides of the same coin. I do know that—there’s been a
lot of criticism—of voter fraud prosecutions as being a political tool to suppress minority
voters. On the other hand I’m also aware that some republicans believe that voter ID laws
are—are very, very important. So I just wanted to do my job. I believe there to be voter
fraud cases that were prosecutable. But after examining the evidence, I disagreed and
didn’t authorize any prosecutions. It turns out later that was one of the two things that
undid me, so evidently the local republicans complained to Senator Pete Domenici, who
complained to Karl Rove, complained to the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales,
complained to President Bush. I didn’t know any of this.
Nobody had told me from Washington, D.C. this was a problem, ‘cause again, I thought
my job was, “Stay out of politics, prosecute cases based on evidence and merit alone.”
So the second thing was in the fall of 2006. So this is five and a half years into my term. I
get a phone call from Congresswoman Heather Wilson, mid October. She wants to know
about alleged sealed indictments. Evidently she’d been reading in the local press my
office was engaging in investigations regarding public corruption of typically democrat
officials at the state level. I told her essentially well, well, I didn’t answer her question,
because there are confidential matters. These are sealed matters that I can’t discuss with
anyone outside the office, even a member of Congress. She didn’t get what she wanted in
the short conversation; she was locked in a very tight race at that time. In fact I think she
may have been behind in the polls or at a dead heat. So her last comment was, “I guess
I’ll have to take your word for it,” which told me she did not take my word for it.
Approximately two weeks later, 27th, 28th, thereabouts of October, I get a second phone
call from Senator Pete Domenici, our Senior Senator. He’s been in the office for 35 years.
And he was my sponsor. He was the one who helped get me my appointment. He called
me at home, and—he wanted to know—about these corruption cases or corruption
matters. And again, same sorts of cases that Congresswoman Heather Wilson wanted me
to talk about, and specifically, he wanted to know, “Are these going to get filed before
November?” Well, what happens in November? That’s when the election is. And I tried
to dodge the question by just saying well, I didn’t think so. His only comment was this:
“Well, I’m very sorry to hear that.” And then the line went dead. In other words, he hung
up on me. And then that was—that was that—that second call. And I felt physically sick
after receiving that second phone call.
RATHER
You felt physically sick, what else did you think?
IGLESIAS
Well, I felt like he was pressuring me. He was leaning on me to put these cases on the
fast burner, on the front burner, to get these filed before the election. That’s the message
that I took.
RATHER
But did you feel that your job was in jeopardy?
IGLESIAS
Possibly. I had a bad feeling. I’ll just say in a general sense, I had a bad feeling. I had a
bad feeling something bad was going to happen to me. But after Congresswoman Heather
Wilson won by 800 and some odd votes, I figured it would go away. Well, it didn’t go
away. And I later found out my name was put on the list to be forced out on Election
Day. I was the last U.S. Attorney to be added to that list. I had never been on any prior
list to be asked to resign.
RATHER
What do you think happened?
IGLESIAS
Here’s what I think happened. And I think right now there’s great circumstantial
evidence. There’s no direct evidence yet. I think the direct evidence in the form of an email, it is on an RNC serve somewhere, it’s in Karl Rove’s safe somewhere. But I think
what happened is, when Domenici and Wilson didn’t get what they wanted from me,
which was a promise that I would get these indictments done before the election, that
they called up Rove again and said, “Iglesias is not playing ball. This U.S. Attorney
needs you—to be replaced because he’s not playing politics with us.”
RATHER
If one believes that, that's pretty raw.
IGLESIAS
That’s ugly.
RATHER
You believe it?
IGLESIAS
I do. And I think the direct evidence will eventually corroborate what I’m saying, what I
think happened.
RATHER
What are the consequences of this? Why should anyone care? And first of all, what are
the consequences for the Justice Department?
IGLESIAS
Well the Justice Department not only has a dark cloud, but it’s in the middle of a
maelstrom. Because historically in prior administrations, republican and democrat, the
Justice Department’s mission, its’ core mission has remained apolitical. And this was an
attempt to inject partisan politics at field level, that is, throughout the country in a way
that’s inconsistent with history and with our Constitution. The people of the United States
should know that when a federal prosecutor charges somebody with a crime, the only
basis for the charge is evidence, that partisan politics plays no part whatsoever.
RATHER
Heard anything about the civil rights division?
IGLESIAS
Yes. In terms of there being a pressure put on by appointees against career people trying
to hire republicans only in Civil Rights, that’s wrong also. That violates federal civil law.
And that’s unacceptable.
RATHER
Well where does this stand now?
IGLESIAS
Well, as I understand it—I doubt if the Attorney General will be called back to testify. I
think both the House and the Senate will be calling more witnesses to figure out the true
reason why we were fired. And after hours of testimony, and literally thousands of pages
of documents produced, we still don’t know who put our names on the list.
HEARING FOR ALBERTO GONZALEZ
“Mr. Attorney General I, am frankly disappointed that you are unable to answer the first
and most basic question of who put these U.S. Attorneys on the firing list and why.”
IGLESIAS
Not one Justice Department official has owned up to, “Why were these names put on the
list specifically, and who put them on the list?” If nobody at the Justice Department put
our names on the list, the only possible place is the White House. And I believe that’s
why they’re circling the wagon so tightly around Karl Rove.
RATHER
Well fair to say that by any reasonable analysis, that you were someone that the
republican party looked on as a future star. Ran for Attorney General. Ran a close race.
Did you see yourself that way?
IGLESIAS
Sure. I had political aspirations, as lots of United States attorneys do.
RATHER
Where’s that stand now?
IGLESIAS
Oh, I have no political aspirations. I want to do something else very different now.
RATHER
What about the question which must have been put to you, why not be loyal to the
President?
IGLESIAS
My loyalty stops where the Constitution begins. So, you know one of the things that I
learned early on, I don’t remember Watergate very well, Mr. Rather, ‘cause I was young.
But one of the things that I do remember is lots of the President’s men went to federal
prison. And I didn’t want to add my name to a list of people that are willing to cut corners
in the name of loyalty, misplaced loyalty, and break criminal laws. You know, there’s a
word for a prosecuted files, a malicious prosecution.
RATHER
And that word is?
IGLESIAS
Corrupt. Corrupt prosecutor.
RATHER
What about the argument, "listen, every President does this. Administrations have been
doing this as far back as at least Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, so what's the big
deal?"
IGLESIAS
Oh, I don’t buy that. And I’ve based that on Justice Department employees that I’ve
talked to that have served 30 years and longer, served in administrations going back to
the 1970s. And they can’t think of any situation similar to this. This was a major fiasco
that was foisted on the United States Attorneys that were asked to leave.
RATHER
And if one of your republican friends comes up to you-- I’m not suggesting they have-and says, "you know, I can understand why you were thunderstruck. I can understand
why you're hurt. But you know, by talking the way you do you help the Democratic Party
at a critical time for our own republican party." you say what?
IGLESIAS
I say, “Maybe they should have thought of that when they made those phone calls.”
Maybe the Justice Department should have thought of that when they did the wrong thing
by asking people that—that were doing a good job to leave, and then lying about them
under oath. Now we’re not responsible for this mess. The Justice Department is.
RATHER
Well, if it is true you've laid out the case for the U.S. Attorneys, others have laid out the
case of what's happening in other divisions at the Justice Department why should your
regular American care about what's happening internally at the Justice Department? Why
shouldn't we, the people, take the view, "you know in the end it's all politics. Justice is-just like Treasury, just like State. They're gonna honeycomb it with political appointees,
whether they're democrats, republicans, or mugwams."
IGLESIAS
Well at the top level, sure there are political appointees that come and go. But in terms of
affecting the core mission, every American regardless of their political affiliation, should
have full faith and confidence that the only reason they’re being charged or their friend or
family member or employer is being charged with a federal crime, is because there is
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this person broke the law, that politics can never
enter into that calculus. We’re not some poor third world country that has a history of
corrupt prosecutions. We’ve always maintained that separation. So I think the average
American gets it, Mr. Rather.
DAN RATHER (ON CAMERA)
OVER THE PAST HALF CENTURY, CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION, AT TIMES
CONTROVERSIAL AND OFTEN HARD-WON, HAS REDEFINED THE
AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, TO THE POINT WHERE ASPECTS OF LIFE BEFORE
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA ARE ALL BUT UNRECOGNIZABLE TO US TODAY.
WITHOUT A NATIONAL DEBATE, WITHOUT LAYING A CASE BEFORE
CONGRESS, AND THE PEOPLE, IS OR IS NOT THE CURRENT
ADMINISTRATION, SEEKING TO REMAKE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LANDSCAPE?
TONIGHT, YOU'VE HEARD HOW SOME BELIEVE PRESIDENT BUSH'S JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT HAS MADE A BREAK FROM THE PRACTICES OF
ADMINISTRATIONS PAST. SOME AMERICANS MAY AGREE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIONS APPROACH. OTHERS DISAGREE. BUT WHAT SEEMS
VITAL, WHEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE AT STAKE, IS THAT CITIZENS
UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR OUR COUNTY'S LEGAL
FOUNDATIONS TO BE SHIFTED WITHOUT HEADLINES, WITHOUT FANFARE,
AND WITH VERY LITTLE PROTEST OR EVEN REACTION, FROM AN
UNAWARE PUBLIC. FOR HDNET, DAN RATHER REPORTING. GOOD NIGHT.