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

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Yeah, I bet you are just shedding tears of concern for the possible infringement of voting rights

Again, Lurker, did you ever mention the Warden case previously? At least I'm showing *some* concern about voter intimidation. You?

Originally Posted by Lurker

Anyway, Bush decided not to press criminal charges.

Perhaps he did. I really don't know. Do you have a credible source to prove this ... i.e., an article on this published by one of those mainstream left leaning news outlets you folks seem to believe credible? Otherwise, this is just an unsourced claim.

Originally Posted by Lurker

Look, I already said that Obama could press charges and it would be fine with me but I am not going to have a stroke over it.

So you don't think voter intimidation is all that important that it requires some *change* in the way we do things. I see. What was good for Bush is good for Obama. Right?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Again, Lurker, did you ever mention the Warden case previously? At least I'm showing *some* concern about voter intimidation. You?

You caught me. I did not show concern for the Bush case nor did I show concern for this recent case. Consistent. How about you?

Quote:

Perhaps he did. I really don't know. Do you have a credible source to prove this ... i.e., an article on this published by one of those mainstream left leaning news outlets you folks seem to believe credible? Otherwise, this is just an unsourced claim.

If you were really interested you could have looked it up yourself...My googling took all of 30 seconds.

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010...ng.pdf#page=17

Page 17:

Quote:

In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly imidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish. In that instance, the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.

Quote:

So you don't think voter intimidation is all that important that it requires some *change* in the way we do things. I see. What was good for Bush is good for Obama. Right?

Injunctions were issued in the Obama case. That is good enough for me. If the problem were more widespread then I would consider harsher action.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by joobz

If we are going to play that game, why didn't you make a thread of it at that time?

I'm not here to advocate for your politics, joobz. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have supported concerns if they'd been broached by your side. I am against voter intimidation. Just as I'm against serious violations of campaign finance laws. Which by the way, I complained about Bush not enforcing when it was very clear they had been violated.

Originally Posted by joobz

Is it a general truth that the evidentiary requirements too high to make anything stick?

What can be the problem with the evidence in this case? There is a sworn affidavit by a highly regarded democrat who observed what happened, is knowledgeable about what constitutes voter intimidation, and who says this was a very serious case of intimidation. And there is a video to prove that the men were there, were brandishing a night stick, were dressed in paramiltitary garb and were standing right in from of the polling place doors. We know that at least 5 lawyers familiar with the case felt the evidence was sufficient to file a complaint. A complaint that they won because the defendants didn't even contest the charges. Now why would they not contest the charges unless they felt they had another way of getting off? Which suggests we probe whether these defendants or anyone representing them had behind the scenes contacts with any members of the Obama administration.

Originally Posted by joobz

If it is true, it settles the debate on racism

How can you settle the debate on whether DOJ officials made a racist decision per Adam's claims, if you aren't willing to even investigate the matter or take sworn statements from the parties involved? What I see going on is a whitewash by the Obama administration and his supporters at JREF. So much for hope and change.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Injunctions were issued in the Obama case. That is good enough for me.

And injunction against something which is already against the law.

[Dancing David]

This bears repeating:
Abigail Thernstrom^WP
http://article.nationalreview.com/43...ail-thernstrom

Quote:

In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.
...
Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance. It may dream of a large-scale effort to suppress voting — like the Socialist Workers Party dreams of a national campaign to demonstrate its position as the vanguard of the proletariat. But the Panthers have not realized their dream even on a small scale. This case is a one-off.

There are plenty of grounds on which to sharply criticize the attorney general — his handling of terrorism questions, just for starters — but this particular overblown attack threatens to undermine the credibility of his conservative critics. Those who are concerned about Justice Department enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should turn their attention to quite another matter, where the attorney general has been up to much more important mischief: his interpretation of the act’s core provisions.

The department has just proposed new guidelines intended to assist the “covered” jurisdictions in their efforts to comply with the demands of section 5, which forces “covered” states to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) for all proposed changes in voting procedure. All southern states are “covered”; so are Texas, Arizona, Alaska, and numerous scattered counties in New York, California, and elsewhere. Redrawn districting maps are changes that must be precleared.

She then goes on to talk at length about the new administrative rules for redistricting, and shock, gasp, I agree with much of what she says

Quote:

The revised guidelines increase the authority of largely invisible and unaccountable career attorneys in the voting section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. The Voting Rights Act robs states of one of their most important constitutional prerogatives: setting the rules that govern elections. Southern black disfranchisement once justified a drastic change in the balance of power between the federal government and the states, but blacks throughout the nation are now important political players. Decisions to overrule districting and other policies made by democratically elected officials should not rest with low-level attorneys whose work is barely scrutinized and rarely challenged.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And injunction against something which is already against the law.

What you don't like injunctions? What are they chopped liver?


They lost the criminal case, movement to civil redress would be normal.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

How can you settle the debate on whether DOJ officials made a racist decision per Adam's claims, if you aren't willing to even investigate the matter or take sworn statements from the parties involved? What I see going on is a whitewash by the Obama administration and his supporters at JREF. So much for hope and change.

Wow, a whitewash, that excedes even your unusually low standards!

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

What you don't like injunctions?

Why "injunct" something that is already illegal? It seems like a waste of time. It's like giving someone an "injunction" against murder (after they murder someone).

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And injunction against something which is already against the law.

It works for me. My bet is if the guy tries it again the punishment would be more severe next time. I guess we will have to differ in opinion here.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Lurker

It works for me. My bet is if the guy tries it again the punishment would be more severe next time. I guess we will have to differ in opinion here.

It's human nature to think another party isn't serious when they set down a rule (law) that when you violate they only tell you not to break. Ever watch children and how they learn whether a parent is serious about a order? The children that are most out of control are the ones where the parent doesn't follow through but just repeats the warning. Usually the child tests the water again. After a while the child figures out the parent isn't going to exercise authority and he/she can get away with even more.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I'm not here to advocate for your politics, joobz.

This is quote worthy.

ETA:

Quote:

What can be the problem with the evidence in this case? There is a sworn affidavit by a highly regarded democrat who observed what happened, is knowledgeable about what constitutes voter intimidation, and who says this was a very serious case of intimidation. And there is a video to prove that the men were there, were brandishing a night stick, were dressed in paramiltitary garb and were standing right in from of the polling place doors. We know that at least 5 lawyers familiar with the case felt the evidence was sufficient to file a complaint.

Please address ANTPogo's post and explain why her analysis is wrong.

Quote:

A complaint that they won because the defendants didn't even contest the charges. Now why would they not contest the charges unless they felt they had another way of getting off? Which suggests we probe whether these defendants or anyone representing them had behind the scenes contacts with any members of the Obama administration.

Or they are simply nutbags who think the justice system is stacked against them.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by joobz

Or they are simply nutbags who think the justice system is stacked against them.

Maybe. But how are you going to find out which is the case if you won't investigate and take sworn statements from all those involved in the case? There are two sides, both consisting of professionals in the DOJ, that are saying completely different things about what happened. It doesn't do the country good to let doubt about what actually happened persist. I have no objection to investigating and if it turns out Adams lied, punishing him. Do you have objections to investigating and punishing Perez (or others) if it turns out Adams was correct? Only one of us seems to want to find out the real truth.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...olorblind.aspx

Quote:

At an April 23 Commission hearing, witnesses testified to how the Black Panthers acted in concert, threatening black Republicans and whites who showed up. Two witnesses testified that they saw some would-be voters turn back and leave without voting after seeing the nightstick and being called "white devils."

Yet Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, testified before the commission in April that "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes." Say what?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Maybe. But how are you going to find out which is the case if you won't investigate and take sworn statements from all those involved in the case? There are two sides, both consisting of professionals in the DOJ, that are saying completely different things about what happened. It doesn't do the country good to let doubt about what actually happened persist. I have no objection to investigating and if it turns out Adams lied, punishing him. Do you have objections to investigating and punishing Perez (or others) if it turns out Adams was correct?

Of cousre if wrong doing was discovered, I would be happy to punish those responsible. However, you seem to be missing a rather important aspect of the story that ANTPogo Clearly stated.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

There was no criminal trial (according to Perez, "the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes", which is what has that high evidence requirement) - the government filed a civil suit against them, seeking an injunction, on January 7, 2009. President Obama wasn't even inaugurated, you'll note, until just over two weeks after this.

Once the Obama administration's DoJ took over the civil case filed by the Bush administration's DoJ, according to Perez there was a second review of the evidence, which found that King Samir Shabazz did, indeed, stand around a polling place brandishing a weapon in an intimidating manner, and continued to pursue the civil injunction against him. The review, however, found that the evidence did not support the pursuit of an injunction against the other two defendants, so they were dropped from the civil case.

In other words, they weren't criminally prosecuted for voter intimidation because the department didn't find any evidence for them doing that...and it did so during the Bush Administration. And in the civil suit, the guy that the Obama DoJ did determine was the one standing around the polling place in Philadelphia brandishing a weapon received the injunction that the DoJ sought, which will prevent him from doing that same thing again.

Which, you will also note, is more of a penalty than any of the Minutemen in Arizona or state investigators in Mississippi accused of the same offense received from the Bush DoJ.

One must wonder why you have avoided addressing his/her point.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Only one of us seems to want to find out the real truth.

which one?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by joobz

There was no criminal trial (according to Perez, "the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes", which is what has that high evidence requirement)

Then, joobz, what is the evidence requirement? If multiple witness statements (made under oath) (including statements by polling station officials) (including one even by a prominent democrat civil rights attorney and party member) and video documenting the presence, dress, attitude and location of the NBP members that day isn't adequate to justify a criminal complaint, much less enforce a civil finding against them, what evidence is required? Did Perez happen to detail that? Or is he simply expecting us to buy what the whitewash (errrr ... WhiteHouse) is selling?

Originally Posted by joobz

One must wonder why you have avoided addressing his/her point.

What point? That the Bush adminstration may not have enforced voter intimidation laws? So what if that's true? We all thought Obama was bringing hope and change.

And one must wonder why you and ANTPogo are avoiding facts like these:

Quote:

Two witnesses testified that they saw some would-be voters turn back and leave without voting after seeing the nightstick and being called "white devils."

If that doesn't qualify as criminal voter intimidation, what possibly can? You only seem to want "pay back" for Bush not enforcing the law (assuming Perez is being honest).

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...olorblind.aspx

"Yet Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, testified before the commission in April that "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes." Say what?"

Yes, Perez did testify that the civil rights commission didn't think that the facts of the case were enough to justify criminal prosecution, and so a civil case was filed instead of a criminal case. Except that this determination was made and the civil case filed during the Bush Administration's tenure.

I wonder why the author of that little opinion piece rather dishonestly omitted that little tidbit from the essay...especially since if the author really read the parts of Perez' testimony that he quoted, there's no way he could have missed the dates discussed by Perez in that testimony which make it pretty obvious that the "no criminal violation" determination and the filing of a civil suit only happened while Bush was still President.

Or do you, BAC, really think that Obama somehow managed to exert his pernicious, racist influence over the Department of Justice before he was even inaugurated?

[BeAChooser]

Well ANTPogo, if Perez is right, then I'd think you'd be eager to have he and others testify under oath as to the facts in this case.

After, he has been specifically accused by Adams of lying under oath in this matter.

Surely he and you want to make sure there is no doubt as to who the real liar is. ... right?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Then, joobz, what is the evidence requirement? If multiple witness statements (made under oath) (including statements by polling station officials) (including one even by a prominent democrat civil rights attorney and party member) and video documenting the presence, dress, attitude and location of the NBP members that day isn't adequate to justify a criminal complaint, much less enforce a civil finding against them, what evidence is required? Did Perez happen to detail that? Or is he simply expecting us to buy what the whitewash (errrr ... WhiteHouse) is selling?

If you'd actually bothered to read Perez' testimony, you'd find that he was asked that very question, BAC (by the same Abigail Thernstrom whose thoughts on this matter were published in that well-known liberal rag The National Review, as quoted above by Dancing David), and answered it.

It essentially boils down to "In all the history of the Voting Rights Act, only three cases were ever brought, and in two of those cases the courts rejected the prosecution's evidence and arguments, while the third ended in a settlement. Therefore, if the level of evidence of any given case does not even match the level of evidence in those prosecuted but failed cases (to say nothing of matching the level of evidence in the cases that all the previous DOJs since 1965 didn't even prosecute at all), then we don't bother with criminal charges, because the precedent in the court system is that those prosecutions will be ultimately unsuccessful."

Quote:

And one must wonder why you and ANTPogo are avoiding facts like these:

"Two witnesses testified that they saw some would-be voters turn back and leave without voting after seeing the nightstick and being called "white devils." "

If that doesn't qualify as criminal voter intimidation, what possibly can? You only seem to want "pay back" for Bush not enforcing the law (assuming Perez is being honest).

Because the determination that while the above happened, it wasn't enough to support criminal prosecution and instead prompted the government to seek a civil injunction was made by the Bush Administration, weeks before Obama was even sworn into office.

If you're mad about the Department of Justice failing to prosecute Shabazz and his cohorts criminally for voter intimidation, your ire should be directed at President George W. Bush and Michael Mukasey, the Attorney General that Bush himself appointed.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Well ANTPogo, if Perez is right, then I'd think you'd be eager to have he and others testify under oath as to the facts in this case.

After, he has been specifically accused by Adams of lying under oath in this matter.

Surely he and you want to make sure there is no doubt as to who the real liar is. ... right?

If you already think he lied under oath, BAC, what exactly will having him testify under oath again prove to you?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Why "injunct" something that is already illegal? It seems like a waste of time. It's like giving someone an "injunction" against murder (after they murder someone).

Apparently someone, I do not know who, but it involved the Bush DoJ to some extent decided to pursue a civil process. Perhaps it was not judged worthy of a criminal proceeding?

()²

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Then, joobz, what is the evidence requirement?

Ask the Bush DoJ why they did not bring a criminal complaint?

You know like MICHAEL B. MUKASEY whose name is at the top of the signatures to the complaint?

Why didn't he file a criminal complaint?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Apparently someone, I do not know who, but it involved the Bush DoJ to some extent decided to pursue a civil process. Perhaps it was not judged worthy of a criminal proceeding?

()²

That's a good question.

Can you tell us, BAC, why those anti-white racists in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice refused to pursue criminal charges against these New Black Panther Party members, and instead sought simply a civil injunction?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

If that doesn't qualify as criminal voter intimidation, what possibly can? You only seem to want "pay back" for Bush not enforcing the law (assuming Perez is being honest).

not at all. I only want the justice system to dolled out evenly. If this is the standard of justice, isn't it strange that you would demand a lower bar for this case as opposed to past cases? where is the justice in that?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

"In all the history of the Voting Rights Act, only three cases were ever brought, and in two of those cases the courts rejected the prosecution's evidence and arguments, while the third ended in a settlement. Therefore, if the level of evidence of any given case does not even match the level of evidence in those prosecuted but failed cases (to say nothing of matching the level of evidence in the cases that all the previous DOJs since 1965 didn't even prosecute at all), then we don't bother with criminal charges, because the precedent in the court system is that those prosecutions will be ultimately unsuccessful."

Well, first of all, just so we are clear, Perez was referring to CIVIL cases when he said only 3 cases had been filed since 1965 (http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/1...party-hearing/ ). Second, what was the specific level of evidence in those two cases the courts rejected? You really haven't answered the question, just repeated Perez's argument. Did they have sworn testimony by multiple credible witnesses? Where the defendants armed? Were they standing directly in front of a polling station. Did people testify they were intimidated? Was there something more than that in any of those cases?

Well here is what Perez said about them:

Quote:

1) United States v. Harvey, 250 F. Supp. 219 (E.D. La. 1966) (Threats of eviction and
other economic penalties against black sharecroppers who had recently registered to vote found not to be form of intimidation, threat or coercion prohibited by Section 11(b));

2) United States v. North Carolina Republican Party, Civil Action No. 91-161-CIV-5-F (E.D.N.C.) (Section 11(b) claim regarding pre-election mailing resolved by consent decree dated Feb. 27, 1992);

3) United States v. Brown, 494 F. Supp. 2d 440, 477 n. 56 (S.D. Miss. 2007) (Publication by county political party chairman of list of voters to be challenged if they attempted to vote in party primary election found not to be form of intimidation, threat or coercion prohibited by Section 11(b)).

From the looks of it, none of those cases actually involved someone standing in front of a polling station in a threatening manner, holding a weapon, voicing racial slurs, and intimidating people into not voting. So I'm not really sure how Perez could make the argument that this case doesn't meet the "evidence" standard set by those cases. Can you explain that more clearly?

And also, I find Perez's reasoning somewhat specious since by that logic we'd only file murder charges if evidence was at the level of all past murder cases which were won. Which is clearly not the case.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

If you're mad about the Department of Justice failing to prosecute Shabazz and his cohorts criminally for voter intimidation

You have it wrong. I'm upset because according to Adams (as indicated in the OP), an indication was made by senior officials within the Obama DOJ that no voting-rights cases where the alleged victim was white would be filed. I'm upset because that might be the reason the DOJ dropped efforts to hand out more severe penalties in this case, even though the DOJ had already won the suit against the men, and even though the evidence appears more than adequate to justify more serious punishment.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

If you already think he lied under oath, BAC, what exactly will having him testify under oath again prove to you?

You really don't think it matters? Especially if others are put under oath as well? Often time when that is done, inconsistencies with other statements or with physical evidence are found? And then it matters a great deal ... as President Clinton found out. There's a reason they put people under oath, ANTPogo.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by joobz

I only want the justice system to dolled out evenly.

So you do want payback.

[ProBonoShill]

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.

My bad, fella.

Yes we know, in your left wing delusional world racism doesn't exist.

Too bad someone forgot to tell ACORN, the Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Mary Berry, Bill McKinney and Rev. Wright.

Tea Party protestors shouting at a meeting = BAAAAAAAD!

Black Panthers threatening voters with violence = RIGHT ON!

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Well, first of all, just so we are clear, Perez was referring to CIVIL cases when he said only 3 cases had been filed since 1965 (http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/1...party-hearing/ ).

This is true. I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, it was the Bush Administration which determined that there was nothing to support criminal prosecution and decided to file a civil suit under 11(b), not the Obama Administration.

So, again, if you have a problem with that, you should ask the mods to edit the title of this thread to "Are Mukasey and Bush racists?"

Quote:

Second, what was the specific level of evidence in those two cases the courts rejected? You really haven't answered the question, just repeated Perez's argument. Did they have sworn testimony by multiple credible witnesses? Where the defendants armed? Were they standing directly in front of a polling station. Did people testify they were intimidated? Was there something more than that in any of those cases?

You asked whether Perez addressed the level of evidence issue. I showed you where he did, and that you would have known that had you bothered to look at the actual testimony and evidence in the case, rather than just an Op-Ed filled with uncorroborated hearsay written by someone with an obvious axe to grind against Obama. But let's take a closer look at this:

Quote:

Well here is what Perez said about them:

From the looks of it, none of those cases actually involved someone standing in front of a polling station in a threatening manner, holding a weapon, voicing racial slurs, and intimidating people into not voting. So I'm not really sure how Perez could make the argument that this case doesn't meet the "evidence" standard set by those cases. Can you explain that more clearly?

And yet, a civil suit was brought and resulted in an injunction, and not settled or thrown out like the other three cases. So, by those standards, if Perez was referring to the difficulty of filing a civil case, it seems that the evidence against Shabazz was strong enough to be the first ever fully successful civil prosecution of voter intimidation under 11(b) in 45 years.

So, really, you should be congratulating and cheering Perez and the Obama DOJ for doing something about voter intimidation cases that no other administration had been able to do since the law was passed in 1965!

Quote:

And also, I find Perez's reasoning somewhat specious since by that logic we'd only file murder charges if evidence was at the level of all past murder cases which were won. Which is clearly not the case.

That's not really an applicable analogy, mainly because there have been a lot more murder prosecutions.

But I can guarantee you that if a prosecutor has evidence in a murder case that is only equal to evidence in other murder cases where the accused was found not guilty or the case thrown out of court, then they usually decline to pursue prosecution because they know they likely won't win.

Quote:

You have it wrong. I'm upset because according to Adams (as indicated in the OP), an indication was made by senior officials within the Obama DOJ that no voting-rights cases where the alleged victim was white would be filed.

To him and him alone, with no corroborating evidence. And despite the plain fact that apparently the Obama DOJ so far has the only fully-successful 11(b) prosecution in the voter intimidation law's 45 year history, and it was against a black defendant with white victims.

If the Obama DOJ is under orders ignore voting-rights cases where the alleged victim was white, they're not off to a very good start.

Quote:

I'm upset because that might be the reason the DOJ dropped efforts to hand out more severe penalties in this case, even though the DOJ had already won the suit against the men, and even though the evidence appears more than adequate to justify more serious punishment.

So explain why the Bush Administration, back when this all started, did not pursue more serious punishment?

And note that the penalties sought by the Bush Administration was an injunction against three defendants, only one of whom had a weapon, enjoining them from carrying weapons into any polling place in the US. The "lessened" injunction asked for by the Obama Administration (and the one handed down) dropped the two defendants not carrying weapons, and changed "no carrying weapons into any polling place in the US" to "no carrying weapons into any polling place in Philadelphia, where the defendant lives."

Considering your disdain for the civil injunction thing in voter administration cases in general, I'm curious as to why that rather small change to what the original civil suit sought is such a huge deal that you want to agree with Adams' claims that there's an orchestrated anti-white campaign going on in the DOJ, and yet the fact that it was the Bush Administration which set up all this civil-injunction-with-no-criminal-prosecution thing in the first place gets a complete and utter pass from you.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You really don't think it matters? Especially if others are put under oath as well? Often time when that is done, inconsistencies with other statements or with physical evidence are found? And then it matters a great deal ... as President Clinton found out. There's a reason they put people under oath, ANTPogo.

No, I'm wondering why it matters to you. Again, if you already think he lied under oath, why do you think putting him under oath again will change things? Do you think there's, like, a limit to the number of times an official can lie under oath, and if you only ask them to testify under oath enough times, they'll eventually tell you the truth (or at least what you so desperately want to believe is the truth, despite the evidence stacked against that)?

[applecorped]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-b...-developments/

"As the Black Panther Department of Justice whistleblower story continues, the latest developments are drawing more attention by sources outside Fox News and conservative blogs. Yesterday our White House correspondent Tommy Christopher asked Robert Gibbs about the case – and tomorrow Megyn Kelly will have a must-see interview with the head of the New Black Panther party.
While Kelly, who conducted the initial interview with J. Christian Adams which broke the story wide open, will interview Malik Zulu Shabazz, Tommy Christopher talked to Shabazz yesterday (and discussed the DOJ case as well). Gibbs, however, said he hasn’t “paid any attention to it.”






Does it merit further investigation?

[Cain]

Except the quotes in the OP, I did not read any comments in this thread (what can I possibly learn from you people?). I just wanna say this: Those black guys are racist (but I repeat myself).

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know that it's a big deal. Seems rather moot to me.

[Unabogie]

Why make a new thread?

[applecorped]

My bad.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

Yes we know, in your left wing delusional world racism doesn't exist.

Too bad someone forgot to tell ACORN, the Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Mary Berry, Bill McKinney and Rev. Wright.

Tea Party protestors shouting at a meeting = BAAAAAAAD!

Black Panthers threatening voters with violence = RIGHT ON!

Wow, that is pretty weak even by the low standards of the Politics forum.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Nevertheless, it was the Bush Administration which determined that there was nothing to support criminal prosecution and decided to file a civil suit under 11(b), not the Obama Administration.

I don't know if you noticed, ANTPogo, but criminal prosecution wasn't even mentioned in the OP. In fact the first mention of criminal charges in this thread was by you in post #45. So you were off-topic, should you decide to ask mods anything. And besides, I'm not defending the Bush administration's actions here. They should have filed a criminal complaint in my view.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

So, again, if you have a problem with that, you should ask the mods to edit the title of this thread to "Are Bush and Mukasey racists?"

I would think that had they filed criminal charges, your side of the political aisle would have been jumping up and down calling Bush and Mukasey racists because they didn't file criminal charges in the Warden case.

The issue here (as indicated in the OP) is why the Obama administration decided to effectively put aside a judgment by a court against the men in the civil case that was filed. I doubt that the Bush adminstration would have done that.

So charges of racism, especially when one of the attorneys on the case says that senior officials in the Obama administration indicated there would be no Voting-Rights complaints filed where the victims were white, are appropriate, presuming Adams is telling the truth.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You asked whether Perez addressed the level of evidence issue.

No, I asked if Perez "detailed" the evidence requirement, after specifically identifying that the case included multiple credible witness statements and video documenting the presence, dress, attitude and location of the NBP members that day. You did not answer that. You just repeated Perez's broader claim that the evidence didn't meet the requirement.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

riginally Posted by BeAChooser
From the looks of it, none of those cases actually involved someone standing in front of a polling station in a threatening manner, holding a weapon, voicing racial slurs, and intimidating people into not voting. So I'm not really sure how Perez could make the argument that this case doesn't meet the "evidence" standard set by those cases. Can you explain that more clearly?

And yet, a civil suit was brought and resulted in an injunction, and not settled or thrown out like the other three cases. So, by those standards, if Perez was referring to the difficulty of filing a civil case, it seems that the evidence against Shabazz was strong enough to be the first ever fully successful prosecution in 45 years.

I see you aren't going to even make an attempt to explain how the evidence or situations in those three cases are AT ALL comparable to this one or applicable to this one. And now you seem to be backtracking by suggesting that the evidence here was stronger than those cases and resulted in the first successful prosecution … which is completely counter to Perez's logic for dismissing and reducing (to essentially nothing) the punishment against the men. You need to make up your mind.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

So, really, you should be congratulating and cheering Perez and the Obama DOJ for doing something about voter intimidation cases that no other administration had been able to do since the law was passed in 1965!

Perez and the Obama adminstration had nothing to do with that. As you said, the complaint was filed while Bush was in office and the judge found for the prosecution because the defendants never showed up. The involvement of Perez and and Obama's administration only came in to the issue of what punishment to give the men. And the attorneys in the case seem to think they got less than they deserved.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
And also, I find Perez's reasoning somewhat specious since by that logic we'd only file murder charges if evidence was at the level of all past murder cases which were won. Which is clearly not the case.

That's not really an applicable analogy, mainly because there have been a lot more murder prosecutions.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with it. In fact, there being more murder prosecutions would likely make it easier to set such a guideline for deciding whether to prosecute. In this case Perez seems to be applying past cases that bear no resemblance whatsoever to this case.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

But I can guarantee you that if a prosecutor has evidence in a murder case that is only equal to evidence in other murder cases where the accused was found not guilty or the case thrown out of court, then they usually decline to pursue prosecution because they know they likely won't win.

You can guarantee it, huh?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
You have it wrong. I'm upset because according to Adams (as indicated in the OP), an indication was made by senior officials within the Obama DOJ that no voting-rights cases where the alleged victim was white would be filed.

To him and him alone, with no corroborating evidence.

First there is circumstantial evidence it happened. The facts of the situation might be explained by that occuring. We also know that the Obama adminstration has some pretty radical people in it who have notions that now it is payback time for a variety of injustices.

Second, how do you know there is no corroborating evidence if you haven't bothered to depose all those involved? Perhaps those that are still at the DOJ just fear for their jobs and won't come forward unless forced to by an oath to tell the truth.

Furthermore, (as I posted above) multiple past DOJ employees are coming forward to say Adams is a very credible source, an upstanding guy, and that what he alleges is not out of character with what they observed about the Obama DOJ.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

it was against a black defendant with white victims.

I'm glad you agree that this was a case of white victims so it would be explained by what Adams alleges senior DOJ officials (Obama political appointees, by the way) said regarding such victims.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

So explain why the Bush Administration, back when this all started, did not pursue more serious punishment?

Again, that's neither here nor there as far as the OP is concerned. But in any case, perhaps they decided they could get an effective penalty against these men without making it a criminal case? Civil penalties can be quite high, too. Furthermore, perhaps they reasoned that in these times of extreme political division , they stood less of a chance of getting a jury conviction in a criminal case than in a civil case, where the requirements for jury agreement aren't has high. Go look at the Simpson case for an example of that.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

And note that the penalties sought by the Bush Administration was an injunction against three defendants, only one of whom had a weapon, enjoining them from carrying weapons into any polling place in the US.

This is clearly not true. Perez said that that the "maximum penalty" was "sought and obtained." Well obviously, if the maximum civil penalty is not carrying weapons into any polling place in the US, they didn't obtain it. They ended up only telling one of the guilty men not to have one near Philadelphia voting places for 4 years. So they go to Pittsburgh in 2010.

Furthermore, what evidence do you have that the Bush Administration only asked for an injunction against carrying weapons or that an injunction was the maximum penalty? That's a rather odd claim given that it already was illegal to display a weapon within a certain distance (and this case clearly qualifies) of a polling location. Can you cite the actual complaint against the men or are you just making this up? Because the US criminal code provides for fines and imprisonment of up to one year. Where in the civil code is the maximum penalty defined? Let's see you back up what you claim.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Considering your disdain for the civil injunction thing in voter administration cases in general

Your dishonesty continues. Where have I expressed distain over that? YOU were the one to first to mention criminal charges in this thread, ANTPogo. And as far as I know, I've never suggested there was anything wrong with filing a civil case. Just in the penalty that was given after it was won.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

you want to agree with Adams' claims that there's an orchestrated anti-white campaign going on in the DOJ

That's another lie. I've only asked that there be an investigation to see if Adams is telling the truth. I've not agreed he is. In fact, I specifically stated that if he isn't telling the truth, he should be punished. Why are you so afraid of finding out the truth, ANTPogo? Do you have some inside information about this case?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You really don't think it matters? Especially if others are put under oath as well? Often time when that is done, inconsistencies with other statements or with physical evidence are found? And then it matters a great deal ... as President Clinton found out. There's a reason they put people under oath, ANTPogo.

No, I'm wondering why it matters to you.

Doesn't the truth matter to you, ANTPogo? I thought it mattered to all of us. Although I've known for some time (since Clinton) that it doesn't matter to many democrats. That's when they showed that they didn't really care about lies under oath.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Again, if you already think he lied under oath, why do you think putting him under oath again will change things?

I would think it obvious that the questions to him would be different from what he previously was asked, and he might not know what the questioner knows to be fact … in which case, he'd have to be very careful about how he answers. Especially if other witnesses are also now being asked questions under oath whose answers might show the veracity of the answers he gives. Especially if documents were located (that he might not even know about) that might show he was lying. Why do you think the Blue Dress could have been so important in the Clinton under oath testimony? Because until Starr told Clinton about it, he didn't know about it, and it could have tripped him up under oath.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Do you think there's, like, a limit to the number of times an official can lie under oath

No, I have no illusions about that since Clinton.

[Travis]

I don't believe they did drop the case. Isn't one guy still being charged?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Wow, that is pretty weak even by the low standards of the Politics forum.

Not if you see it as performance art. In that case it's just awesome.

[quixotecoyote]

Oh come on, Travis. That's just the guy they have evidence enough to charge! It's reverse discrimination not charging the rest anyway.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Why make a new thread?

Because the other one was DOA because of the way it was presented. This is an excellent topic for discussion, but this thread is likely futile because it will get merged into the hopeless one and vanish in the rabid partisanship.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So you do want payback.

Why is equivalent treatment under the law considered "payback". And note, charges weren't dropped against King.