Image 01 Image 03

What are Feds hiding in Shirley Sherrod case against Breitbart?

What are Feds hiding in Shirley Sherrod case against Breitbart?

Did White House order Sherrod fired? “This is horrible. Video just posted on”

We have written many times about the Shirley Sherrod case against Andrew Breitbart (now his wife is substituted as defendant) and Larry O’Connor over an “edited” video which Sherrod alleges unfairly depicted her as racist leading to her firing by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sherrod’s claim, repeated mindlessly by the media, is that the full video showed that Sherrod was not racist, but merely relating a story about how her initial ill-will towards a white farmer decades ago was overcome by the realization that race should not be a factor.

I have analyzed the video frame by frame, and in fact Sherrod’s alleged revelation that she overcame those racial feelings was in the “edited” video, as this screen capture shows:

Sherrod was fired precipitously by the USDA, despite her telling USDA that she felt the “edited” video was misleading.

In emails produced in the case, USDA pretty much took the position that it didn’t care, the political blowback was too strong not to fire her.  (These emails were obtained from the public court docket via PACER.)

Shirley Sherrod Email July 15 2010 1143 am re full video

Sherrod Case - Email Chris Mather July 19 2010 re video at Hot Air

Sherrod Case - Talking Points email Chris Mather July 20 2010

Sherrod Case - Email Charles Fromstein July 20 re White House

But there is a treasure trove of emails that have not been produced so far, including emails involving the White House.

USDA has been stalling, to the extent that the Judge recently lambasted the government in open court about its failure to cooperate.  Both Sherrod and the defendants agree that the goverment should produce all the emails — as it is essential to an understanding of the politicial involvement in the firing.

From the defendants point of view, presumably, if Sherrod was fired for political expediency and not because she was unfairly portrayed as racist, then Sherrod cannot make the connection between the “edited” video and the firing.  The emails already released strongly suggest political motivation and a lack of concern for the full context (which was of course in the “edited” video anyway).

Sherrod has filed a motion for a discovery order requiring the feds to produce all the emails, and O’Connor has filed a similar motion to enforce a subpoena for emails.

Will the White House claim executive privilege or in some other way try to bury its involvement in Sherrod’s firing?

We’ll find out soon enough, when the government responds to the pending motions.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


DINORightMarie | March 10, 2014 at 11:52 am

Do you really think they will respond? They (like the DoJ and the IRS) haven’t in so many other areas, or delayed for several months beyond deadlines, even years, in some cases.

Claiming Exec. Privilege is what I’d expect, or simply silence.

I see no possible well-grounded application for “executive privilege” here.

Not that that has ever been an issue (c.f., Fast and Furious)

any bets on her not wanting them too look too deeply into her and pigford settlements???

They must have run out of other people’s money to buy silence with.

While the video offered a full record of Sherrod’s epiphany, it also served as evidence of systemic corruption in the incorporated (e.g. NAACP) and public (i.e. government) civil rights movements. This is likely why the administration, with the NAACP’s consent, terminated her employment.

Speaking realistically, a pattern has been established over the past half decade. That pattern is that the White House claims anything it wants to, and gets away with it.

Issa will eventually hold some hearings about it, but nothing real will happen.

    Rational in reply to tom swift. | March 10, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    “Issa will eventually hold some hearings about it” Eventually? What has been doing in his hearing to date? Wasting time and money on a partisan witch hunt. So eventually Issa will get to the truth? When?

    Maybe the truth is just not what you would like it to be.

      Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | March 10, 2014 at 2:39 pm

      Or maybe it is objectively exactly what we think it is…

      and you’re full of crappy Collectivist talking points and a desire to support this outlaw gang.

      Do you really believe anything that our poor, lying, sick Pres. ScamWOW says?

      Do you? Simple yes or no, please.

        Rational in reply to Ragspierre. | March 10, 2014 at 3:01 pm

        Hey buddy, I am no collectivist. I am very much a capitalist. I own a business, stocks, bonds, units in limited partnerships and rental properties.

        I am actually a libertarian. But I think there is more to liberty than guns and taxes. Your version of liberty seems to be limited to your liberty. Everyone elses liberty is immaterial to you. A woman’s right to control her reproduction isn’t liberty to you. A million people in prison for drug offenses doesn’t seem to bother you. Organized discrimination and unequal opportunity are dismissed by you as non-existent.

        Sherrod’s family was denied access to loans that white farmers routinely got. Her family was denied simply because they were black. Somehow that doesn’t bother you. So you need to come up with some rationale that negates her. Go ahead. Who cares? You can live in you own bizarro universe and claim that the rest of us actually live there. On this site you can be king of the trolls. Congratulations.

          Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | March 10, 2014 at 3:06 pm

          We all see you can’t answer the question.

          Plus, you are full of crap (politely) and your own rich, creamy goodness.

          We should all be thanking you for trolling…er…commenting here to your inferiors.

          Typical Collectivist.

          Dimsdale in reply to Rational. | March 10, 2014 at 9:49 pm

          I have no problem with women controlling their own reproductive goals. I just object when they have to kill a baby to “clean up” after they fail to do so. A “million people in jail for drug offenses”? Was the penalty a secret? Did someone hold a gun to their heads? I think not. As for “Organized discrimination and unequal opportunity are dismissed by you as non-existent”, I, too, intensely disagree with “affirmative action”, the manifestation of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

          Wouldn’t it be ironic if Sherrod’s family was denied loans by white Democrats? Has anyone looked into that?

          Just askin’…..

All of this was well known at the time. The real scandal was never Sherrod saying at first she wouldn’t help the white farmer, it was the overwhelming approval that got from the NAACP.

The OTHER scandal no one talks about is the Pigford billions fraud. Sherrod and others made their own fortunes teaching “minorities” how to apply for relief they did not deserve at all.

But there was never any talking to the Left about this. Even though the “edited” version gave Sherrod’s own defense, once the Left could use the word “edited,” they no longer cared one whit about the facts. They used that to smear Breitbart, defend Sherrod (who needed no defending from the video), and divert attention from the massive fraud being willingly perpetrated upon taxpayers by USDA.

But it sure would be nice to have around to tell me how I’m supposed to think about all this.

    Observer in reply to Estragon. | March 10, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, it’s probably the Pigford rip-off that this administration is most worried about. Sherrod was in it up to her neck, and Obama’s fingerprints are all over it too. It was a multi-billion-dollar theft from taxpayers, all in the name of “reparations.” The administration doesn’t want any light shined on this massive theft, for fear that the public might start asking questions that can’t be answered without re-visiting Obama’s sketchy past as a devoted acolyte of Rev. “White Man’s Greed Runs a World in Need” Wright.

The point of the Breitbart video featuring Ms Sherrod wasn’t to impune her, but rather to show the giggling approving response by the NAACP audience over Sherrod ‘s racial mistreatment of a white farmer. This happened when theNAACP was claiming the Tea Party is racist and Breitbart was showing their hypocrisy. The video was edited as such and was never intended to harm Sherrod. Seems her beef is with her employer for firing her w/o having all relevant facts.

Isn’t Sherrod the only person this administration has fired? Do any of you know of any others?

This video was not of a crime caught by a surveillance camera. It would only make sense to analyze a crime video frame by frame. The Breitbart video was a stunt designed to defame. So it hardly matters what the edited version shows when ‘analyzed’. All you prove is that Breitbart can be very artful in his deceptions.

The whole point was to present it in a way that it would not be closely analyzed. It was carefully packaged with an introductory story and an implied scenario. It was meant to be sensational; not truthful.

The legal hurdles to a trial are slowly being swept aside. So unless you will be called as an ‘expert’ witness, your defense of a con artist is futile; no matter how many articles you write to this credulous and partisan audience.

    Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | March 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm


    The delusional is strong in this one…

    What the video shows does not matter, because….Breitbart.

    Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | March 10, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Oh, say, since we have you here trolling again…

    you were going to elaborate on your BS assertion that Breitbart = Sharpton.

    Now would be a good time, huh?

      Rational in reply to Ragspierre. | March 10, 2014 at 3:07 pm

      They both rose to notoriety by hyping patently false frauds. They both inserted themselves into any controversy in order to promote themselves.

      I could go on but I see little point in casting pearls before swine.

        Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | March 10, 2014 at 3:11 pm

        Sorry, I’m lost. Were you talking about Dan Rather and Sharpton?

        Because as relates to Breitbart, you’re just lying.

          Rational in reply to Ragspierre. | March 10, 2014 at 3:17 pm

          That’s the best you’ve got? LOL

          You should know that most liberals quickly realized that Sharpton was a loud mouth and Tawana Brawley was lying. It is pathetic that you guys didn’t realize what Breitbart was. Maybe that is because you don’t have any honest spokesman?

      Rational in reply to Ragspierre. | March 10, 2014 at 3:12 pm

      How’s your prediction on Holder doing. You have no idea how many laughs I have had on your claim that you are right even if Holder doesn’t do as you predicted. That sums you up perfectly.

      Does that work with a jury? No wonder you don’t want engineers on a jury. They like facts and logic. They are trained to be rational. How could you possibly win an argument based on those things? You can’t argue that the facts don’t matter because my ideology is pure.

        Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | March 10, 2014 at 3:16 pm

        “You have no idea how many laughs I have had on your claim that you are right even if Holder doesn’t do as you predicted.”

        Except you know that is not what I said, yet you persist in lying about it. And I can readily picture you laughing hysterically.

        “That sums you up perfectly”.

    At the risk of presuming logical argument, clearly the video analyzed was the edited video, to compare it to the unedited video, to see if claims the edited video was horribly slanted was true or not true. Those who have bothered, per the original poster, say it is not true, and that the original video, from the NAACP itself no less, had her saying the exact same core things.

    Of course, in the original video, we get the impression that what she did was good and honorable and was properly cheered on by members of the NAACP, and in the Breitbart video, the preamble shows it is from someone outside the NAACP bubble who goes, OMG, what the hell, don’t they realize what this looks like…?

    That’s not deceptive editing. That’s an independent perspective and freedom of speech.

I can’t find any video or even a mention of this at HotAir.

What is the headline of the story on Hotair?

One quick note to provide context here. Sherrod making her statements the meeting was not a legitimate point of angst and outrage. Even her abrupt firing was not a legitimate point of contention, as she was a presidential appointee, and as such can be fired by the President for any or no reason at all.

Where the actual legitimate outrage should be is over the sudden bursts of lying that came out from all levels of the administration after the firing. First A said that they fired her, then she ‘resigned’ or ‘quit’, before B said, no, they were the ones who fired her. Then she tried to sue, which any judge would have laughed her out of court for, but then she got rehired at a higher salary in a different position for several years. No responsibility was taken at any level for the chaos and never will be.

“The Buck Stops… Over there! No, over there! Wait!”

Attkisson had “grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsized influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting​,” reports Politico.

She began discussing her early departure with CBS New president David Rhodes last April.

David Rhodes’s brother, Ben, is President Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, and he was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.

Yeah. Nothing to see here. Just another witch hunt by you dishonest wing-nuts, trying to smear our heroic and honest pres-e-dent.


Guess after we brush all the mumbo jumbo aside the question is will the Judge enforce the subpoena and grant the discovery order? If not will Breitbart move to have the case tossed out?