Fox News contributor David Rivkin, a former official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, today falsely accused Attorney General Eric Holder of giving African-American leaders and preachers what was essentially a campaign speech when he attended a summit of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Conference of National Black Churches. Rivkin slammed Holder for "going to a number of black pastors and giving them speeches that, in fact, amount to electioneering -- telling them, supposedly, well, this is what you can say to your parishioners. There is an effort to disenfranchise you."
Rivkin added that Holder's speech was "100 percent identical to the campaign message of his boss."
This is at least the second time this week that host Megyn Kelly has allowed a guest on her show to launch a false attack against Holder over his remarks. And, once again, she made no attempt to correct the smear.
In fact, contrary to what Rivkin claimed, Holder actually spoke about "recent fears and frustrations about some of the state-level voting law changes we've seen this legislative season." He added: "For today's Department of Justice, our commitment to strengthening -- and to fulfilling -- our nation's promise of equal opportunity and equal justice has never been stronger." Holder went on to say:
HOLDER: As you know -- and have worked to draw attention to -- the past two years have brought nearly two dozen new state laws and executive orders, from more than a dozen states, that could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012. In response to some of these changes -- in areas covered by Section 5 [of the 1965 Voting Rights Act] -- the Justice Department has initiated careful, thorough, and independent reviews. We're now examining a number of redistricting plans in covered jurisdictions, as well as other types of changes to our election systems and processes -- including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, to early voting procedures, and to photo identification requirements -- to ensure that there is no discriminatory purpose or effect.
If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change. And, as we have demonstrated repeatedly, when a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory effect - we will object, as we have in 15 separate cases since last September.