With racialist political motives, President Obama and Attorney General Holder attempted to railroad George Zimmerman.  When President Obama said that if he had a son, the child would look like Trayvon Martin, the President was really saying that  Zimmerman has murdered my son, and African Americans must avenge this evil deed.  (Not to mention that the President was intentionally poisoning the jury pool.)  Attorney General Holder did his part by, among other things, dispatching Justice Department employees to Sanford, Florida to stoke the fires of revenge.  The two men corrupted the judicial process and increased the likelihood that George Zimmerman would be assaulted or even murdered.  

Now George Zimmerman has been found not guilty.  Are the President and the Attorney General through with their victim?  When someone is found not guilty of murder in state court, charges may still be brought in federal court.  Federal law (18 USC 249) establishes a hate crime felony for anyone who willfully uses a firearm to cause bodily injury to a person "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin" of the victim.  African-American leaders such as Roslyn M. Brock, Chair of the NAACP, have begun to urge the prosecution of Zimmerman under the statute.

But Obama and Holder are caught on the horns of a dilemma.  If they prosecute Zimmerman, the trial will make crystal clear that he is a racially tolerant man while Trayvon Martin was a bigot.  This is not a good outcome for their racialist politics.  On the other hand, if they decline to prosecute, then many members of the African-American community will feel betrayed by the two men who led them to believe that George Zimmerman is the Devil who should burn in the Hell of prison for the rest of his life.

Obama and Holder may have to pay for their racialist politics.

Scott Varland is an American lawyer residing in London, England.