Zimmerman has maintained since day one that Trayvon Martin instigated their fatal confrontation. Zimmerman’s various injuries coupled with autopsy results revealing Martin’s injured knuckles tend to support his story. That evidence might be the reason why he wasn’t charged immediately after the shooting. Yet he remains guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of many, including the federal government and national media.

Could there be an orchestrated campaign between government and media entities to see this man imprisoned, or even executed? Despite the physical evidence of which we’re aware, an apparent lack of credible witnesses on either side of the case, and expert legal opinion belittling Florida’s case against Zimmerman, the FBI has launched a hate crime investigation against him. And it could stick.

We might logically believe that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy would compel the Justice Department to abandon the case if Zimmerman is acquitted. Not necessarily. According to Cleveland State Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich, Supreme Court precedent has established a narrow threshold for claiming double jeopardy. “The double jeopardy clause would not prohibit a federal prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman, even if he were acquitted in Florida state court,” Prof. Rich states, although he believes that the likelihood of federal prosecution following a state acquittal is small.

However, FBI involvement means Department of Justice involvement, which in turn means Eric Holder involvement. Mr. Holder’s idea of judicial impartiality is, shall we say, conflicted.

Under Holder’s management, the Justice Department engaged in a gun-running operation that if done privately would’ve sent all involved parties to the darkest of prisons. Imagine you or me being caught smuggling weapons to Mexican drug lords and coercing legitimate domestic firearms dealers to participate. And Holder’s disregard for justice doesn’t end there, nor does the media’s capitulation.

Not content to simply ignore the New Black Panthers’ voter intimidation efforts, Holder closed the ongoing investigation. Neither he nor his predecessor investigated a hate crime when five blacks kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and mutilated Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome. There was no national outrage and no political speechifying. Christian’s and Newsome’s brutal deaths barely registered with the national media.

For example, a search for “Channon Christian” on the New York Times website returned only 53 results, just three of which addressed the murdered woman. Two of those stories were duplicates, and the third a synopsis of a television show that reviewed the crime. In other words, the New York Times all but ignored Channon Christian’s death. Conversely, a “Trayvon Martin” search yields more than 4,000 results.

A black mob attacked two white reporters in Norfolk, Virginia. Again, neither Holder nor the media showed interest. Not even the newspaper where the reporters worked reported the story. Four “minorities” beat a soldier in Tampa, Florida, and the result is deafening silence. The Justice Department hasn’t launched a hate crimes investigation, and no civil rights leader has scheduled a march.

What benefit exists in practicing selective justice and biased reporting? Why is black-on-white crime, like the Christian-Newsome murders, largely ignored, while white-on-black crime is overhyped? It’s no mere oversight. Since the “progressive” solution to every problem is more government, we can expect bureaucrats and leftist politicians to demagogue racial issues. The sympathetic press corps is content with being their cheerleaders.

The odds of Zimmerman’s exoneration are fading even as the evidence suggests his innocence. The Florida prosecutor may have intended to lose this case from the start. But the hate crime investigation and selective reporting from the national media serve to steer public opinion toward Zimmerman’s guilt. If you dare question the prosecution or media reports, well, you’re just a racist.

Whether or not Florida has overstated its case against George Zimmerman is still undetermined. He may be guilty as sin. But the federal government and its media lapdogs have engaged an agenda that transcends guilt or innocence. They’ve become co-conspirators in a quasi-lynching, which affects not only the lynched party, but anyone who questions the lynching or its motive. This trial is no longer about George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, or even justice. The goal is to create distrust and animosity along racial, philosophical, and ideological lines.

No matter how Zimmerman’s trial plays out, whether he’s convicted or acquitted, the left have achieved tactical victories. They’ve sown doubt regarding the right of an individual to protect life and limb. Each state’s authority to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes occurring within its borders is compromised, which concentrates power in the central government. Racial tension and division increase, too, which invariably leads to less liberty.

The purpose of a lynching isn’t to punish the accused ne’er-do-well. It’s to intimidate anyone who shares characteristics or attitudes with the victim. George Zimmerman has been lynched, no matter how his case is adjudicated. But the message behind the lynching isn’t for him; it’s for the rest of us.

Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 400 articles for various websites, newspapers, and periodicals. Contact him via his website, www.therightslant.com.