[Merged] Are Holder and Obama racists? / DOJ dismisses Black Panther case

BeAChooser · 6th July 2010, 06:01 PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-2010-midterms

Quote:

07/06/10

Earlier today I had the opportunity to attend the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice and the New Black Panther Party litigation. The testimony by the hearing's lone witness, former DoJ lawyer J. Christian Adams, was nothing short of extraordinary.

During the 2008 presidential election, members of the New Black Panther Party were caught on videotape brandishing a nightstick and hurling racial taunts at white and black voters as they sought entry to a polling station in Philadelphia.

Following the irrefutable evidence caught on film of voter intimidation, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against three individuals and the Black Panther Party itself for violating Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act — which prohibits intimidation, threats and coercion. When none of the named defendants nor the New Black Panther Party showed up for trial in April 2009, a default judgment was entered in favor of the government.

… snip … After the government had won its case in the absence of the defense to present itself, the Department of Justice abruptly changed course and sought to voluntarily dismiss the charges against three of the defendants while giving a slap on the hand to another by telling him that he was not able to go to Philadelphia polling stations through the 2012 elections.

… snip …

 In emotional testimony, J. Christian Adams, until last week a member of the DoJ's Voting Section — he resigned in protest over the department's handling of the case — told a stunned hearing room why he felt the case had been dropped. In no uncertain terms, Adams noted that senior officials within the Obama Justice Department had told employees that they were not to bring voting-rights cases where the alleged victim in the case was white.

UNBELIEVEABLE.

Holder is not only throwing out the rule of law, but this sounds like racism is rampant in Obama's DOJ.

Is this really the kind of change you Obama supporters wanted?

I'm serious.

Do any of you have the guts to honestly and forthrightly address the issue the above news raises?

applecorped · 6th July 2010, 06:02 PM

He earned it.

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 06:12 PM

I honestly and forthrightly call ******** on Adams.

Afterall, just because he's a Teabagger who happened to write this screed last year, comparing Obama to an appeaser, doesn't mean we shouldn't buy his every word on "The New Black Panthers", right? But wait, there's more!

He's part of the politicized DOJ, where they checked for Teabags at the door before hiring?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007020053

Quote:

Several attorneys in the Division also told us that Schlozman was open about his disdain for and lack of trust in the attorney staff of the Division. Appellate Section Chief Diana Flynn told us that in conversations with her, Schlozman alternately referred to the Appellate Section lawyers hired during prior administrations as "Democrats" and "liberals," and said they were "disloyal," could not be trusted, and were not "on the team." Flynn said Schlozman pledged to move as many of them out of the Division as he could to make room for the "real Americans" and "right-thinking Americans" he wanted to hire.

And Scholzman hired Adams. Yep, he's on the team alright.

Weren't you just on here claiming not to be a knee jerk right winger?

GreNME · 6th July 2010, 06:15 PM

Obama and Holder are Democratic Party members, therefore...

Obama and Holder are obviously racist.

Juniversal · 6th July 2010, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Is this really the kind of change you Obama supporters wanted?

I'm serious.

Do any of you have the guts to honestly and forthrightly address the issue the above news raises?

Yes indeed. That's exactly the change we wanted.

Thanks Obama and Holder for keeping the white man down.

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 06:24 PM

Oh, and the author of this piece on The Hill is Ron Christie.

Quote:

Ronald I. "Ron" Christie (born c.1969) is an American government relations expert and Republican political strategist, who has also worked as a member of former Vice President Dick Cheney's staff.

I mean, is there anything so ridiculous you won't believe it? Anything at all?

BeAChooser · 6th July 2010, 06:26 PM

Would you folks agree that this is a very serious charge and should be investigated ... by putting people under oath if necessary? I have no problem dealing with the consequences if it turns out that Adams is lying. Then he should be soundly punished ... even charged with perjury if he lies under oath during that investigation. But are you folks willing to do the same if it turns out he is telling the truth about this? Are you willing to call for Holder's dismissal if this is true? Yes or no? Or was all that talk about "hope" and "change" only empty rhetoric on your part?

Upchurch · 6th July 2010, 06:28 PM

A former Dick Cheney staffer writes an editorial that paints a negative picture of Obama? What's not to believe without any skepticism whatsoever?

eta: Unaboogie beat me to it.

BeAChooser · 6th July 2010, 06:29 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 06:30 PM

Wow, just read the comments on that article. Just over the top Stormfront stuff.

Quote:

None of this is a surprise. READ HIS STUPID BOOKS! Look where he went to CHURCH. Look at the guy he chose to be his MENTOR. Look at the guy he chose to MARRY him and his wife. Look at the guy he chose to BAPTISE his kids. A White Hating, Jew Hating, America hater.I said it when he first got elected. This is gonna be New york City under David Dinkins. the Blacks are gonna Run Riot, and they're gonna do it with impunity. Just ask AL SHARPTON, Ask the Jews in CROWN HEIGHTS.Obama is a RACIST, pure and simple.

Or...

Quote:

For those who thought electing a black man president would solve the division in the country, you can go buy a gun now or leave the room.

Teabaggers are despicable. Great job, BAC. You certainly chose something fragrant here.

BeAChooser · 6th July 2010, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

A former Dick Cheney staffer writes an editorial that paints a negative picture of Obama? What's not to believe without any skepticism whatsoever?

Never the less, Upchurch, this is a very serious charge coming from a lawyer who was in the DOJ at the time this happened. Regardless of his politics, don't you think this merits investigation? And if he's lying, and he gets caught at the lie, how does that hurt Holder or the Obama administration ... or those of your political persuasion? It doesn't. Seems to me that could only strengthen your side. So the only reason I can see for you not wanting to investigate this or answer the question I asked is that you actually fear this is true. Because that being proven would seriously hurt the administration and those of your political persuasion.

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 06:35 PM

More from the comments section

Quote:

Obama and his administration push anything for African-Americans and it is a clear transfer of wealth in progress from U.S. taxpayers and property owners to blacks.

Yep, totally dispassionate reporting you've linked to. Nothing racist about these folks. I suggest a special prosecutor.

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Never the less, Upchurch, this is a very serious charge coming from a lawyer who was in the DOJ at the time this happened. Regardless of his politics, don't you think this merits investigation? And if he's lying, and he gets caught at the lie, how does that hurt Holder or the Obama administration ... or those of your political persuasion? It doesn't. Seems to me that could only strengthen your side. So the only reason I can see for you not wanting to investigate this or answer the question I asked is that you actually fear this is true. Because that being proven would seriously hurt the administration and those of your political persuasion.

Yep. If Holder has nothing to hide, what would it hurt for accusations from GOP strategists to be taken seriously and given the imprimatur of official investigation, led by fellow Teabaggers in and election year? And so what if it's a racially charged accusation based on nothing more than the word of a known Teabagging freak?

I mean, how can this hurt the Democratic Party in any way? What. Could. Go. Wrong?

YoPopa · 6th July 2010, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

More from the comments section

Yep, totally dispassionate reporting you've linked to. Nothing racist about these folks. I suggest a special prosecutor.

COMMENTS section? Incredible what lengths you'll go to in trying to defend racism. Anyone can enter comments and it's not unheard of for trolls to post comments.

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

COMMENTS section? Incredible what lengths you'll go to in trying to defend racism. Anyone can enter comments and it's not unheard of for trolls to post comments.

Right, it's my fault Teabaggers are all a bunch of racists who keep saying and posting racist things, especially when commenting about a racially tinged charge that depends on the the word of a known partisan and former Cheney staffer.

My bad, fella.

YoPopa · 6th July 2010, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Right, it's my fault Teabaggers are all a bunch of racists who keep saying and posting racist things, especially when commenting about a racially tinged charge that depends on the the word of a known partisan and former Cheney staffer.

No

Quote:

My bad, fella.

Yes

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

Yes

Got it. I'll be sure to take this latest racist Teabagger outrage very seriously. I'm sure it's totally legit.

Upchurch · 6th July 2010, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Never the less, Upchurch, this is a very serious charge coming from a lawyer who was in the DOJ at the time this happened. Regardless of his politics, don't you think this merits investigation?

I question his honesty. His one-time boss broke a treaty the US had agreed to in order to torture people and he said and did nothing. Now he's a righteous, trustworthy guy?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And if he's lying, and he gets caught at the lie, how does that hurt Holder or the Obama administration ... or those of your political persuasion?

Other than sending an open invitation to every crazy with a bone to pick to waste the President's time with frivolous accusations? Not much ...except that thing I just said.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So the only reason I can see for you not wanting to investigate this or answer the question I asked is that you actually fear this is true.

Well, what can I say? You've always been short-sighted.

Puppycow · 6th July 2010, 07:21 PM

48-hour rule. Yeah, this guy sounds like a partisan hack.

But I'm also curious to hear the explanation as to why the government would dismiss this case. Perhaps there's a good reason that will be forthcoming.

Upchurch · 6th July 2010, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

But I'm also curious to hear the explanation as to why the government would dismiss this case. Perhaps there's a good reason that will be forthcoming.

If there is, 10-to-1 says BAC doesn't believe it, in proper Birther style.

mortimer · 6th July 2010, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

If there is, 10-to-1 says BAC doesn't believe it, in proper Birther style.

100,000,000,000 to 1 there's no explanation from the administration.

Puppycow · 6th July 2010, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by mortimer

100,000,000,000 to 1 there's no explanation from the administration.

Actually, apparently there already has been an explanation, but nobody cared much about this at the time because media attention was not focused on this case.

Quote:

During a May 14, 2010 hearing before the Commission, the head of the Civil Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez said, “The Department concluded that the allegations in the complaint against Jerry Jackson, the other defendant present at the polling place, as well as the allegations against the national New Black Panther Party and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, did not have sufficient evidentiary support. The Department reviewed the totality of the evidence in the applicable law in reaching these decisions.”

So that's the official explanation offered so far.

GrouchoMarxist · 6th July 2010, 07:54 PM

What's a cracker?

mortimer · 6th July 2010, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Actually, apparently there already has been an explanation, but nobody cared much about this at the time because media attention was not focused on this case.

So that's the official explanation offered so far.

Agreed. They beat my odds.

Obviously the video evidence was insufficient to prove what the video evidence proved. I wonder if it was faked.

GrouchoMarxist · 6th July 2010, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by mortimer

Agreed. They beat my odds.

Obviously the video evidence was insufficient to prove what the video evidence proved. I wonder if it was faked.

They can't view the video. It contains controversial opinions, which have been deemed inappropriate for government access.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...-10391695.html

Puppycow · 6th July 2010, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by mortimer

Agreed. They beat my odds.

Obviously the video evidence was insufficient to prove what the video evidence proved. I wonder if it was faked.

And what exactly does it "prove"? That a crime was committed? Can you cite the relevant law?

BeAChooser · 6th July 2010, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I question his honesty.

Of course you question his honesty. Nothing wrong with that. And we need to know if he's lying. If he is he needs to be drummed out of the republican party, politics and the law. But if he's not ...

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Well, what can I say? You've always been short-sighted.

Ah, so now your approach to avoiding seeking a clear resolution to this charge is to make personal attacks on me. I see.

BeAChooser · 6th July 2010, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

If there is, 10-to-1 says BAC doesn't believe it, in proper Birther style.

I've posted nothing to suggest I'm a Birther. Yet another dishonest tactic to avoid addressing the real issue raised by Adam's testimony. This is saying as much about you, Upchurch, as it potential says about Holder. Why are you apparently so afraid of find out the truth in this matter? Let's just put everyone involved under oath and get them on the record, and clear this up.

Spindrift · 6th July 2010, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Of course you question his honesty. Nothing wrong with that. And we need to know if he's lying. If he is he needs to be drummed out of the republican party, politics and the law. But if he's not ...

Ah, so now your approach to avoiding seeking a clear resolution to this charge is to make personal attacks on me. I see.

Since when does being proved a liar get anyone drummed out of the Republican Party?

Puppycow · 6th July 2010, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Of course you question his honesty. Nothing wrong with that. And we need to know if he's lying. If he is he needs to be drummed out of the republican party, politics and the law. But if he's not ...

If he is lying, it would be impossible to prove it, unless he changes his story later. It's just one of those he-said-she-said situations. We can never know what was said unless there was a recording device present or they actually admit it.

So the people who want to believe Adams will believe him, and those those who don't won't. The only people who will ever really know are those who were there in the room.

As it stands now, it's an accusation without any direct substantiating evidence.

bit_pattern · 6th July 2010, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by GrouchoMarxist

What's a cracker?

A base for delicious cheese and pickles.

BeAChooser · 6th July 2010, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

So that's the official explanation offered so far.

The problem with that explanation is that it's not the DOJ's job to do that. They already had brought the case before the court and the Black Panthers chose to not even show up. The judge had already ruled on the case as a result.

It was only when there was a change in DOJ management, when Holder came on board, when suddenly the DOJ lost all interest in the case and began looking for ways to effectively dismiss it. That fact fits with the explanation given by Adams.

His charge is so serious that this needs to be resolved one way or the other. Not just ignored. Afterall, on election day a video clearly shows that armed men, members of the New Black Panthers, were intimidating voters. The law against voter intimidation came out of the civil rights era. It would be sad if now democrats and blacks are going to ignore that law when whites are intimidated, just because doing so might benefit them. In the end that will only backfire.

If upper DOJ management did indeed issue an order for it's staff to ignore voting rights complaints by whites, this is outright racism and it can not be tolerated. Not if you want any of us to respect that law, democrats, blacks or the DOJ. Surely democrats would agree since racism has been one of their top concerns for decades. Surely those concerns were at heart color blind.

If Adam's accusation is proven true, all those involved in such an order should be immediately terminated from the DOJ and the government in general, and democrats should sever all connections with them. They've certainly demanded that of any conservatives who've been shown to harbor the least bit of racism. Surely democrats would agree with that, given that one of the first things Holder did when he took office was scold the American people for being cowards about discussing matters of race. Are you folks now afraid to discuss it?

Furthermore, are you people aware that Adams has charged that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez lied under oath to Congress about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe. This is very serious. For a cloud like this to be hanging over Perez and Holder, without a clear resolution can only further damage the DOJ. And this is not going away until it is resolved.

Here, listen to what Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and an aide to Senator Robert Kennedy in the 68 election had to say about what happened and what this means. He was serving in November 2008 as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he witnessed the three armed and uniformed Black Panthers confront would be voters. He also made a sworn statement about what he saw and the DOJ did not consider or contact him about it. That is how biased the Holder DOJ has become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sDoY...layer_embedded

How far the democrat party has fallen from what it was back in 1968. It's sad. And Obama and all of you Obama supporters are now on trial over this, whether you realize it or not.

Juniversal · 6th July 2010, 09:40 PM

I call hyperbole on Adam's statement.

More then likely the statement, "senior officials within the Obama Justice Department had told employees that they were not to bring voting-rights cases where the alleged victim in the case was white" translates to "senior officials within the Obama Justice Department dismissed controversial voting-rights case where the alleged victim in the case was white and i'm not happy about it".

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 10:10 PM

How insane do you have to be to believe a "senior official" told this Teafreak that it was forbidden to charge black people who victimized white people? Really? Knowing that this guy is a Teatard, a senior official told him and only him about the conspiracy? And people buy this? It's beyond silly, and it's amazing that anyone would be such a partisan hack as to actually believe this.

But hey, Teabaggers aren't known for their intelligence or willingness to think critically, hence they're birthers, goldbugs, etc.

So, explain to me again why anyone should spend time doing anything other than mocking this stupidity?

lionking · 6th July 2010, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

How insane do you have to be to believe a "senior official" told this Teafreak that it was forbidden to charge black people who victimized white people? Really? Knowing that this guy is a Teatard, a senior official told him and only him about the conspiracy? And people buy this? It's beyond silly, and it's amazing that anyone would be such a partisan hack as to actually believe this.

But hey, Teabaggers aren't known for their intelligence or willingness to think critically, hence they're birthers, goldbugs, etc.

So, explain to me again why anyone should spend time doing anything other than mocking this stupidity?

I don't know if you realise this, but you are sounding a lot like lefty seargent here. Insults thrown around with carefree abandon does not a convincing argument make. FWIW.

Unabogie · 6th July 2010, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

I don't know if you realise this, but you are sounding a lot like lefty seargent here. Insults thrown around with carefree abandon does not a convincing argument make. FWIW.

You know, you're right, but I don't really care. There's no argument to make when these people throw around absurd and racist charges like this. Perhaps taking the high road would make me look better, but you can't be contending it would in any way change the way these people are acting.

Puppycow · 6th July 2010, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

How insane do you have to be to believe a "senior official" told this Teafreak that it was forbidden to charge black people who victimized white people? Really? Knowing that this guy is a Teatard, a senior official told him and only him about the conspiracy? And people buy this? It's beyond silly, and it's amazing that anyone would be such a partisan hack as to actually believe this.

But hey, Teabaggers aren't known for their intelligence or willingness to think critically, hence they're birthers, goldbugs, etc.

So, explain to me again why anyone should spend time doing anything other than mocking this stupidity?

Because mocking and calling names doesn't really help.

Better to be "the adults in the room" and simply point out all the known facts, Mr. Adams' political connections and the lack of substantiating evidence.

Here is a NY Times article about this

Quote:

The case became a cause célèbre in the conservative media world, and the Civil Rights Commission opened an investigation. The eight-member panel, which has the power to issue subpoenas and issue reports, is controlled by a six-member conservative bloc appointed during the Bush administration.

In testimony before the panel in May, Tom Perez, who became the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division in October 2009, said that “reasonable minds can differ” about the case, but that the acting supervisors had concluded that the case had been over-charged.

Mr. Perez said there was insufficient evidence that the party was responsible for the incident. He also noted that the voter intimidation provision is rarely used, and pointed to similar incidents during the Bush years in which minorities were the alleged victims but the division did not file such a lawsuit.

Travis · 7th July 2010, 12:54 AM

I see that the idea that the defendants might actually be innocent is not up for debate. Better to just assume them and the Obama admin are guilty, I guess.

Dancing David · 7th July 2010, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-2010-midterms

UNBELIEVEABLE.

Holder is not only throwing out the rule of law, but this sounds like racism is rampant in Obama's DOJ.

Is this really the kind of change you Obama supporters wanted?

I'm serious.

Do any of you have the guts to honestly and forthrightly address the issue the above news raises?

So what was the basis of the dropping of charges or dismissal?

ETA: It would appear that the person who was threatening voters King Samir Shabazz was the one who did not have charges dropped against him. What evidence is there that Jerry Jackson was intemidating voters?

Dancing David · 7th July 2010, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

His charge is so serious that this needs to be resolved one way or the other. Not just ignored. Afterall, on election day a video clearly shows that armed men, members of the New Black Panthers, were intimidating voters.

And that is armed amn? Is his name not King Samir Shabazz?
Was he not charged with carrying a weapon near a polling place?

What evidence is there (and there may be) Jerry Jackson was intimidating voters?

Who were charges dropped against?

6th July 2010, 06:01 PM	#1
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Are Holder and Obama racists? / DOJ dismisses Black Panther case http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-2010-midterms Quote: 07/06/10 Earlier today I had the opportunity to attend the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice and the New Black Panther Party litigation. The testimony by the hearing's lone witness, former DoJ lawyer J. Christian Adams, was nothing short of extraordinary. During the 2008 presidential election, members of the New Black Panther Party were caught on videotape brandishing a nightstick and hurling racial taunts at white and black voters as they sought entry to a polling station in Philadelphia. Following the irrefutable evidence caught on film of voter intimidation, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against three individuals and the Black Panther Party itself for violating Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act — which prohibits intimidation, threats and coercion. When none of the named defendants nor the New Black Panther Party showed up for trial in April 2009, a default judgment was entered in favor of the government. … snip … After the government had won its case in the absence of the defense to present itself, the Department of Justice abruptly changed course and sought to voluntarily dismiss the charges against three of the defendants while giving a slap on the hand to another by telling him that he was not able to go to Philadelphia polling stations through the 2012 elections. … snip …  In emotional testimony, J. Christian Adams, until last week a member of the DoJ's Voting Section — he resigned in protest over the department's handling of the case — told a stunned hearing room why he felt the case had been dropped. In no uncertain terms, Adams noted that senior officials within the Obama Justice Department had told employees that they were not to bring voting-rights cases where the alleged victim in the case was white. UNBELIEVEABLE. Holder is not only throwing out the rule of law, but this sounds like racism is rampant in Obama's DOJ. Is this really the kind of change you Obama supporters wanted? I'm serious. Do any of you have the guts to honestly and forthrightly address the issue the above news raises?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

6th July 2010, 06:02 PM	#2
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145	He earned it.
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145

6th July 2010, 06:15 PM	#4
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,276	Obama and Holder are Democratic Party members, therefore... Obama and Holder are obviously racist.
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,276	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

6th July 2010, 06:16 PM	#5
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,145	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Is this really the kind of change you Obama supporters wanted? I'm serious. Do any of you have the guts to honestly and forthrightly address the issue the above news raises? Yes indeed. That's exactly the change we wanted. Thanks Obama and Holder for keeping the white man down.
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

6th July 2010, 06:26 PM	#7
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Would you folks agree that this is a very serious charge and should be investigated ... by putting people under oath if necessary? I have no problem dealing with the consequences if it turns out that Adams is lying. Then he should be soundly punished ... even charged with perjury if he lies under oath during that investigation. But are you folks willing to do the same if it turns out he is telling the truth about this? Are you willing to call for Holder's dismissal if this is true? Yes or no? Or was all that talk about "hope" and "change" only empty rhetoric on your part?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

6th July 2010, 06:12 PM	#3
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	I honestly and forthrightly call ******** on Adams. Afterall, just because he's a Teabagger who happened to write this screed last year, comparing Obama to an appeaser, doesn't mean we shouldn't buy his every word on "The New Black Panthers", right? But wait, there's more! He's part of the politicized DOJ, where they checked for Teabags at the door before hiring? http://mediamatters.org/research/201007020053 Quote: Several attorneys in the Division also told us that Schlozman was open about his disdain for and lack of trust in the attorney staff of the Division. Appellate Section Chief Diana Flynn told us that in conversations with her, Schlozman alternately referred to the Appellate Section lawyers hired during prior administrations as "Democrats" and "liberals," and said they were "disloyal," could not be trusted, and were not "on the team." Flynn said Schlozman pledged to move as many of them out of the Division as he could to make room for the "real Americans" and "right-thinking Americans" he wanted to hire. And Scholzman hired Adams. Yep, he's on the team alright. Weren't you just on here claiming not to be a knee jerk right winger?

6th July 2010, 06:24 PM	#6
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	Oh, and the author of this piece on The Hill is Ron Christie. Quote: Ronald I. "Ron" Christie (born c.1969) is an American government relations expert and Republican political strategist, who has also worked as a member of former Vice President Dick Cheney's staff. I mean, is there anything so ridiculous you won't believe it? Anything at all?

6th July 2010, 06:28 PM	#8
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,923	A former Dick Cheney staffer writes an editorial that paints a negative picture of Obama? What's not to believe without any skepticism whatsoever? eta: Unaboogie beat me to it.
	Last edited by Upchurch; 6th July 2010 at 06:30 PM.

6th July 2010, 06:29 PM	#9
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

6th July 2010, 06:30 PM	#10
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	Wow, just read the comments on that article. Just over the top Stormfront stuff. Quote: None of this is a surprise. READ HIS STUPID BOOKS! Look where he went to CHURCH. Look at the guy he chose to be his MENTOR. Look at the guy he chose to MARRY him and his wife. Look at the guy he chose to BAPTISE his kids. A White Hating, Jew Hating, America hater.I said it when he first got elected. This is gonna be New york City under David Dinkins. the Blacks are gonna Run Riot, and they're gonna do it with impunity. Just ask AL SHARPTON, Ask the Jews in CROWN HEIGHTS.Obama is a RACIST, pure and simple. Or... Quote: For those who thought electing a black man president would solve the division in the country, you can go buy a gun now or leave the room. Teabaggers are despicable. Great job, BAC. You certainly chose something fragrant here.

6th July 2010, 06:34 PM	#11
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Upchurch A former Dick Cheney staffer writes an editorial that paints a negative picture of Obama? What's not to believe without any skepticism whatsoever? Never the less, Upchurch, this is a very serious charge coming from a lawyer who was in the DOJ at the time this happened. Regardless of his politics, don't you think this merits investigation? And if he's lying, and he gets caught at the lie, how does that hurt Holder or the Obama administration ... or those of your political persuasion? It doesn't. Seems to me that could only strengthen your side. So the only reason I can see for you not wanting to investigate this or answer the question I asked is that you actually fear this is true. Because that being proven would seriously hurt the administration and those of your political persuasion.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

6th July 2010, 06:35 PM	#12
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	More from the comments section Quote: Obama and his administration push anything for African-Americans and it is a clear transfer of wealth in progress from U.S. taxpayers and property owners to blacks. Yep, totally dispassionate reporting you've linked to. Nothing racist about these folks. I suggest a special prosecutor.

6th July 2010, 06:40 PM	#13
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Never the less, Upchurch, this is a very serious charge coming from a lawyer who was in the DOJ at the time this happened. Regardless of his politics, don't you think this merits investigation? And if he's lying, and he gets caught at the lie, how does that hurt Holder or the Obama administration ... or those of your political persuasion? It doesn't. Seems to me that could only strengthen your side. So the only reason I can see for you not wanting to investigate this or answer the question I asked is that you actually fear this is true. Because that being proven would seriously hurt the administration and those of your political persuasion. Yep. If Holder has nothing to hide, what would it hurt for accusations from GOP strategists to be taken seriously and given the imprimatur of official investigation, led by fellow Teabaggers in and election year? And so what if it's a racially charged accusation based on nothing more than the word of a known Teabagging freak? I mean, how can this hurt the Democratic Party in any way? What. Could. Go. Wrong?

6th July 2010, 06:42 PM	#14
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,484	Originally Posted by Unabogie More from the comments section Yep, totally dispassionate reporting you've linked to. Nothing racist about these folks. I suggest a special prosecutor. COMMENTS section? Incredible what lengths you'll go to in trying to defend racism. Anyone can enter comments and it's not unheard of for trolls to post comments.
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,484

6th July 2010, 06:45 PM	#15
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	Originally Posted by YoPopa COMMENTS section? Incredible what lengths you'll go to in trying to defend racism. Anyone can enter comments and it's not unheard of for trolls to post comments. Right, it's my fault Teabaggers are all a bunch of racists who keep saying and posting racist things, especially when commenting about a racially tinged charge that depends on the the word of a known partisan and former Cheney staffer. My bad, fella.

6th July 2010, 06:59 PM	#16
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,484	Originally Posted by Unabogie Right, it's my fault Teabaggers are all a bunch of racists who keep saying and posting racist things, especially when commenting about a racially tinged charge that depends on the the word of a known partisan and former Cheney staffer. No Quote: My bad, fella. Yes
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,484

6th July 2010, 07:17 PM	#17
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	Originally Posted by YoPopa Yes Got it. I'll be sure to take this latest racist Teabagger outrage very seriously. I'm sure it's totally legit.

6th July 2010, 07:19 PM	#18
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,923	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Never the less, Upchurch, this is a very serious charge coming from a lawyer who was in the DOJ at the time this happened. Regardless of his politics, don't you think this merits investigation? I question his honesty. His one-time boss broke a treaty the US had agreed to in order to torture people and he said and did nothing. Now he's a righteous, trustworthy guy? Originally Posted by BeAChooser And if he's lying, and he gets caught at the lie, how does that hurt Holder or the Obama administration ... or those of your political persuasion? Other than sending an open invitation to every crazy with a bone to pick to waste the President's time with frivolous accusations? Not much ...except that thing I just said. Originally Posted by BeAChooser So the only reason I can see for you not wanting to investigate this or answer the question I asked is that you actually fear this is true. Well, what can I say? You've always been short-sighted.

6th July 2010, 07:21 PM	#19
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,086	48-hour rule. Yeah, this guy sounds like a partisan hack. But I'm also curious to hear the explanation as to why the government would dismiss this case. Perhaps there's a good reason that will be forthcoming.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

6th July 2010, 07:25 PM	#20
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,923	Originally Posted by Puppycow But I'm also curious to hear the explanation as to why the government would dismiss this case. Perhaps there's a good reason that will be forthcoming. If there is, 10-to-1 says BAC doesn't believe it, in proper Birther style.

6th July 2010, 07:32 PM	#21
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,517	Originally Posted by Upchurch If there is, 10-to-1 says BAC doesn't believe it, in proper Birther style. 100,000,000,000 to 1 there's no explanation from the administration.
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,517	__________________ "why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims "I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid

6th July 2010, 07:45 PM	#22
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,086	Originally Posted by mortimer 100,000,000,000 to 1 there's no explanation from the administration. Actually, apparently there already has been an explanation, but nobody cared much about this at the time because media attention was not focused on this case. Quote: During a May 14, 2010 hearing before the Commission, the head of the Civil Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez said, “The Department concluded that the allegations in the complaint against Jerry Jackson, the other defendant present at the polling place, as well as the allegations against the national New Black Panther Party and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, did not have sufficient evidentiary support. The Department reviewed the totality of the evidence in the applicable law in reaching these decisions.” So that's the official explanation offered so far.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

6th July 2010, 07:54 PM	#23
GrouchoMarxist Cowardly insulter of Buddhism Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,146	What's a cracker?
	__________________ I can't believe that having said what I said was interpreted as having been what I said when I said it, because I said it where I said it, when I said it, and who I said it to. Only in America!

6th July 2010, 08:15 PM	#24
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,517	Originally Posted by Puppycow Actually, apparently there already has been an explanation, but nobody cared much about this at the time because media attention was not focused on this case. So that's the official explanation offered so far. Agreed. They beat my odds. Obviously the video evidence was insufficient to prove what the video evidence proved. I wonder if it was faked.
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,517	__________________ "why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims "I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid

6th July 2010, 08:36 PM	#25
GrouchoMarxist Cowardly insulter of Buddhism Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,146	Originally Posted by mortimer Agreed. They beat my odds. Obviously the video evidence was insufficient to prove what the video evidence proved. I wonder if it was faked. They can't view the video. It contains controversial opinions, which have been deemed inappropriate for government access. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...-10391695.html
	__________________ I can't believe that having said what I said was interpreted as having been what I said when I said it, because I said it where I said it, when I said it, and who I said it to. Only in America!

6th July 2010, 08:44 PM	#26
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,086	Originally Posted by mortimer Agreed. They beat my odds. Obviously the video evidence was insufficient to prove what the video evidence proved. I wonder if it was faked. And what exactly does it "prove"? That a crime was committed? Can you cite the relevant law?
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

6th July 2010, 08:45 PM	#27
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Upchurch I question his honesty. Of course you question his honesty. Nothing wrong with that. And we need to know if he's lying. If he is he needs to be drummed out of the republican party, politics and the law. But if he's not ... Originally Posted by Upchurch Well, what can I say? You've always been short-sighted. Ah, so now your approach to avoiding seeking a clear resolution to this charge is to make personal attacks on me. I see.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

6th July 2010, 08:48 PM	#28
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Upchurch If there is, 10-to-1 says BAC doesn't believe it, in proper Birther style. I've posted nothing to suggest I'm a Birther. Yet another dishonest tactic to avoid addressing the real issue raised by Adam's testimony. This is saying as much about you, Upchurch, as it potential says about Holder. Why are you apparently so afraid of find out the truth in this matter? Let's just put everyone involved under oath and get them on the record, and clear this up.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

6th July 2010, 08:50 PM	#29
Spindrift Time Person of the Year, 2006 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 19,246	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Of course you question his honesty. Nothing wrong with that. And we need to know if he's lying. If he is he needs to be drummed out of the republican party, politics and the law. But if he's not ... Ah, so now your approach to avoiding seeking a clear resolution to this charge is to make personal attacks on me. I see. Since when does being proved a liar get anyone drummed out of the Republican Party?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon

6th July 2010, 08:56 PM	#30
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,086	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Of course you question his honesty. Nothing wrong with that. And we need to know if he's lying. If he is he needs to be drummed out of the republican party, politics and the law. But if he's not ... If he is lying, it would be impossible to prove it, unless he changes his story later. It's just one of those he-said-she-said situations. We can never know what was said unless there was a recording device present or they actually admit it. So the people who want to believe Adams will believe him, and those those who don't won't. The only people who will ever really know are those who were there in the room. As it stands now, it's an accusation without any direct substantiating evidence.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

6th July 2010, 09:07 PM	#31
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406	Originally Posted by GrouchoMarxist What's a cracker? A base for delicious cheese and pickles.
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406

6th July 2010, 09:33 PM	#32
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Puppycow So that's the official explanation offered so far. The problem with that explanation is that it's not the DOJ's job to do that. They already had brought the case before the court and the Black Panthers chose to not even show up. The judge had already ruled on the case as a result. It was only when there was a change in DOJ management, when Holder came on board, when suddenly the DOJ lost all interest in the case and began looking for ways to effectively dismiss it. That fact fits with the explanation given by Adams. His charge is so serious that this needs to be resolved one way or the other. Not just ignored. Afterall, on election day a video clearly shows that armed men, members of the New Black Panthers, were intimidating voters. The law against voter intimidation came out of the civil rights era. It would be sad if now democrats and blacks are going to ignore that law when whites are intimidated, just because doing so might benefit them. In the end that will only backfire. If upper DOJ management did indeed issue an order for it's staff to ignore voting rights complaints by whites, this is outright racism and it can not be tolerated. Not if you want any of us to respect that law, democrats, blacks or the DOJ. Surely democrats would agree since racism has been one of their top concerns for decades. Surely those concerns were at heart color blind. If Adam's accusation is proven true, all those involved in such an order should be immediately terminated from the DOJ and the government in general, and democrats should sever all connections with them. They've certainly demanded that of any conservatives who've been shown to harbor the least bit of racism. Surely democrats would agree with that, given that one of the first things Holder did when he took office was scold the American people for being cowards about discussing matters of race. Are you folks now afraid to discuss it? Furthermore, are you people aware that Adams has charged that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez lied under oath to Congress about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe. This is very serious. For a cloud like this to be hanging over Perez and Holder, without a clear resolution can only further damage the DOJ. And this is not going away until it is resolved. Here, listen to what Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and an aide to Senator Robert Kennedy in the 68 election had to say about what happened and what this means. He was serving in November 2008 as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he witnessed the three armed and uniformed Black Panthers confront would be voters. He also made a sworn statement about what he saw and the DOJ did not consider or contact him about it. That is how biased the Holder DOJ has become. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sDoY...layer_embedded How far the democrat party has fallen from what it was back in 1968. It's sad. And Obama and all of you Obama supporters are now on trial over this, whether you realize it or not.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

6th July 2010, 09:40 PM	#33
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,145	I call hyperbole on Adam's statement. More then likely the statement, "senior officials within the Obama Justice Department had told employees that they were not to bring voting-rights cases where the alleged victim in the case was white" translates to "senior officials within the Obama Justice Department dismissed controversial voting-rights case where the alleged victim in the case was white and i'm not happy about it".
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

6th July 2010, 10:10 PM	#34
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	How insane do you have to be to believe a "senior official" told this Teafreak that it was forbidden to charge black people who victimized white people? Really? Knowing that this guy is a Teatard, a senior official told him and only him about the conspiracy? And people buy this? It's beyond silly, and it's amazing that anyone would be such a partisan hack as to actually believe this. But hey, Teabaggers aren't known for their intelligence or willingness to think critically, hence they're birthers, goldbugs, etc. So, explain to me again why anyone should spend time doing anything other than mocking this stupidity?

6th July 2010, 10:22 PM	#35
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 49,893	Originally Posted by Unabogie How insane do you have to be to believe a "senior official" told this Teafreak that it was forbidden to charge black people who victimized white people? Really? Knowing that this guy is a Teatard, a senior official told him and only him about the conspiracy? And people buy this? It's beyond silly, and it's amazing that anyone would be such a partisan hack as to actually believe this. But hey, Teabaggers aren't known for their intelligence or willingness to think critically, hence they're birthers, goldbugs, etc. So, explain to me again why anyone should spend time doing anything other than mocking this stupidity? I don't know if you realise this, but you are sounding a lot like lefty seargent here. Insults thrown around with carefree abandon does not a convincing argument make. FWIW.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill