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

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I must have missed it, did someone get hit?

Oh, you mean an imaginary hit, well then you want the Imaginary DOJ of the Imaginary USA where Sarah Palin is Imaginary President and Hillary Clinton in the Imaginary Queen of Imaginary England.

Tap Dancing right?

[thaiboxerken]

BeAChooser, are you ready to admit that you were wrong....... or, at the least, Fox News was wrong?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Well, it seems that J. Christian Adams is not letting his resignation from the DOJ stop his relentless pursuit of the New Black Panther Party. According to the most recent entry on his blog dedicated to voting law issues

Interesting. Looks like he's also reporting that the DoJ is filling a motion to lengthen the injunction against Ike Brown, instead of simply objecting to his latest election filing. For those who don't know, Brown is a black guy who was sued by the Bush DoJ under section 2 of the VRA (and 11b, but they lost on that one) for his brazen attempts to disenfranchise white voters. He and his cronies basically have no authority to run elections until 2012, so their latest filing was totally illegitimate. The DoJ basically refused to rule on it, and instead asked a judge to extend the injunction for another year.

Adams is claiming that this is proof that the Obama DoJ refuses to help white people who are discriminated against. I'd say it actually disproved his claim.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Tap Dancing right?

The guys in the video or SP and HC?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Interesting. Looks like he's also reporting that the DoJ is filling a motion to lengthen the injunction against Ike Brown, instead of simply objecting to his latest election filing. For those who don't know, Brown is a black guy who was sued by the Bush DoJ under section 2 of the VRA (and 11b, but they lost on that one) for his brazen attempts to disenfranchise white voters. He and his cronies basically have no authority to run elections until 2012, so their latest filing was totally illegitimate. The DoJ basically refused to rule on it, and instead asked a judge to extend the injunction for another year.

Adams is claiming that this is proof that the Obama DoJ refuses to help white people who are discriminated against. I'd say it actually disproved his claim.

Wow, I'll say it disproves his claim. That entire blog entry is full of crazy. A guy convicted of violating the Voting Rights Act files a motion with the Obama DoJ to be allowed to do essentially the same thing he was convicted of. The DoJ responds, essentially, "Hey, back in '07 the court rules that you were not allowed to manage Democratic Party elections in your county any more, and instead a court-appointed Referee-Administrator would handle all that. Since this wasn't filed by said court-appointed Referee-Administrator, it's an illegitimate filing and we can't rule on it."

Adams apparently decided that this meant the DoJ was secretly laying the groundwork for Brown to take back control without the racist DoJ having to come out and say so, since once the original 2007 injunction expired in November of 2011, Brown would be in charge once more and could then re-file the challenge, and thus be prepared to commit voter intimidation/discrimination for the important 2012 presidential election (and there's an amusing exaggeration where the linked Pajamas Media article in that blog entry, also written by Adams, says that he "was told by a news outlet" that the DoJ's reply was hidden for 24 hours, while the blog entry itself say it was 40 hours, with no explanation for the difference or where he learned about the new number).

Except unfortunately for Adams' little theory there, the same Obama DoJ that he claims is sweeping Brown's filing under the rug to secretly allow him to reclaim management of the Democratic Party elections in his county also filed a motion asking that the original 2007 injunction be extended to November 20, 2013...meaning that the court-appointed Referee-Administrator will remain in charge (and Brown can have no control over) elections there until more than a year after the 2012 elections! And then the Obama DoJ seeks an order to keep Brown from making any more filings asking to change how elections are held.

In other words, the Obama DoJ told this guy "not only do you not have standing to file what you did, but we're extending the penalty that was given to you under the Bush DoJ, and further ordering you to never bother us with this crap again for the entire duration of that extended penalty." And the actual DoJ documents that Adams links to in that very blog entry confirm that.

And, hysterically, the bits of his own Pajamas Media piece that Adams quotes in that blog entry (in addition to linking to it twice) essentially have Adams concluding from all the above that the only reason the Obama DoJ is acting against Brown (an African American who was already convicted of voter discrimination against whites) by preventing him from not only attempting to make voting procedure changes via Section 5 filings but also extending the punishment that the Bush DoJ gave him so that he won't be back in control in time for the 2012 presidential elections (like he would have been under the original Bush-era injunction)...is to cover up the fact that the Obama DoJ is totally letting cases of minority voter discrimination against whites slide.

That's like saying "The police are only catching and jailing criminals to cover up their policy of refusing to catch and jail criminals"!

Why in the hell is this guy Adams is trusted by anyone as a reliable authority on the actions and motivations of the Obama/Holder justice department is completely beyond me.

[BeAChooser]

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

You believe Congressman Sherman, folks?

Is he really that clueless?

Or is acting uninformed the way democrats are going to deal with this issue?

[thaiboxerken]

So, BeAChooser, are Bush and his DOJ racist for dropping the case?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

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

You believe Congressman Sherman, folks?

Is he really that clueless?

Or is acting uninformed the way democrats are going to deal with this issue?

This is off topic as Congressman Sherman wasn't involved in the case and his knowledge of the case is rather unimportant.

What is important is that:
1.) The Bush DoJ did not seek criminal charges.
2.) The Obama DoJ dropped the indictments on 3 (where reliable evidence of wrong doing was nonexistent) and kept 1 indictment where wrong doing was clearly evidenced.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

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

You believe Congressman Sherman, folks?

Is he really that clueless?

Seems to me that he's the only one that has a clue. This is apparently because he pays no attention to Fox news and wingnut bloggers.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by joobz

This is off topic as Congressman Sherman wasn't involved in the case and his knowledge of the case is rather unimportant.

It's not off-topic at all as it has to do with whether democrats are going to do anything to investigate this matter.

Originally Posted by joobz

What is important is that:
1.) The Bush DoJ did not seek criminal charges.

Whereas that is off-topic as neither Bush or criminal charges were mentioned in the OP.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

It's not off-topic at all as it has to do with whether democrats are going to do anything to investigate this matter.

Nothing in the OP asks about congress will do about this.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Whereas that is off-topic as neither Bush or criminal charges were mentioned in the OP.

But this is simply a brazen attempt at ignoring facts to fulfill a partisan hackery.


ETA:
please note that I have no problem with discussing other's reaction to this issue. But what I cannot phathom is your inability to see the absurdity of you claiming one point is relevant and the other isn't?

[BeAChooser]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/affidav...von-spakovsky/

Quote:

Former FEC Commissioner Hans A. von Spakovsky (pictured at left): “I can confirm a number of facts stated by Mr. Adams in his testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the voter intimidation lawsuit filed against the New Black Panther Party and several individual defendants.”

Click here (BAC - visit link) to read the full affidavit. von Spakovsky discusses his affidavit here (BAC - visit link).

Civil Rights Division Attorney Karl Bowers: “In my experience, there was a pervasive culture in the Civil Rights Division and within the Voting Section of apathy, and in some cases outright hostillity, towards race-neutral enforcement of voting-rights laws among large segments of career attorneys.”

Click here (BAC - visit link) to read the full affidavit.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...alist-justice/

Quote:

By now, the default judgment about the Barack Obama-Eric H. Holder Jr. Justice Department is that it discriminates intentionally on the basis of race.

… snip ...

Recently resigned whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams has made credible charges, backed by at least five former colleagues, that the department's Civil Rights Division has adopted a policy of refusing to enforce civil rights laws on behalf of whites victimized by minority perpetrators. Mr. Adams cited an incident from November in which Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes openly stated it was departmental policy not to enforce parts of the federal motor-voter law that involve cleaning up dead and ineligible voters from poll registries. Another former department attorney, Nicole S. Marrone, has written that Ms. Fernandes previously discussed that law in explicitly racial terms.

To such a specific allegation of lawlessness, the Justice Department's response has been dead silence.

… snip …

The controversy originated from a case in which Noxubee County Democratic leader Ike Brown canceled ballots cast by white voters. "He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots supporting his preferred black candidates," Mr. Adams explained. "He deployed teams of notaries to roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He threatened 174 white voters."

… snip …

The Black Panther and Mississippi cases are hardly isolated instances. In North Carolina (voting), Texas (race-based admissions) and Connecticut (race-based promotions of firefighters), the Obama-Holder Justice Department advocated racial preferences or results predicated by race. Department officials reportedly have espoused biases in favor of minorities in open meetings.

This isn't going away folks.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...alist-justice/

The controversy originated from a case in which Noxubee County Democratic leader Ike Brown canceled ballots cast by white voters. "He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots supporting his preferred black candidates," Mr. Adams explained. "He deployed teams of notaries to roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He threatened 174 white voters."


This isn't going away folks.

Hmm, this happened in 2005. It went to court in 2007. I note you did not bother to include any dates in your snippet which would lead us to believe that it is more recent and under Obama's administration.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/affidav...von-spakovsky/

Ah, von Spakovsky. I was wondering why it was taking you so long to bring him up. Von Spakovsky claims that the Bush DoJ's refusal to file civil charges instead of criminal charges in the NBPP case is not unusual, because it was common practice to file a civil case first because they were quicker to come to trial and easier to prosecute, and then follow it up with criminal charges later (and so the Obama DoJ's refusal to file those followup charges is so unusual as to be suspicious).

Unfortunately for von Spakovsky, he's basically flat-out wrong. It's not common practice to file civil charges in voter intimidation cases - it's only been done a total of four times over the last fifty years. Civil voter intimidation cases are not easier to prosecute - until the Obama DoJ's success, a civil voter intimidation case had never been successfully prosecuted. And it's not standard procedure to file a civil voter intimidation case first and then follow it up later with criminal voter intimidation charges - in fact, it's never been done by any Department of Justice ever. In other words, far from acting suspiciously and in a way that's consistent with Adams' allegations, as von Spakovsky claims, the Obama DoJ is in fact treating the NBPP case exactly the same way every other administration, including the Bush administration, has treated voter intimidation cases.

So, either von Spakovsky is so utterly ignorant of the history of DoJ voter intimidation prosecutions that you can't rely on him for accurate information, or he's flat-out lying about the history of DoJ voter intimidation prosecutions, so you can't rely on him for accurate information.

A clue as to which it might be can, perhaps, be found in the fact that he's all over "conservative" publications with this accusation that the failure of the Obama DoJ to follow up on the Bush-era civil charges in the NBPP case with criminal charges is so suspiciously unusual as to be indicative of an anti-white prosecutorial policy. And yet, he was quiet as a church mouse when the Bush DoJ also failed to follow up on the civil charges against Ike Brown with any kind of criminal voter intimidation charges whatsoever.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...alist-justice/

This isn't going away folks.

Because an editorial repeats Adams' Bizzaro-logic claims about the Brown case uncritically (and you accept them uncritically)? Funny how the editorial mentions the DoJ "no determination" letter in response to Brown's "request for a voting-practice change to approve the same practices - under cover of law - that he previously had done illegally", but somehow conveniently leaves out the fact that the DoJ also filed a motion to prevent Brown from making such a request again and asked that the penalty the Bush DoJ gave him be extended, which kind of torpedoes Adams' entire argument.

[BeAChooser]

Well then ANTPogo, let's just focus on the first part of that article:

Quote:

Recently resigned whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams has made credible charges, backed by at least five former colleagues, that the department's Civil Rights Division has adopted a policy of refusing to enforce civil rights laws on behalf of whites victimized by minority perpetrators.

and the other source I cited. Looks like it's not just Adams but several members of the DOJ Civil Rights Division that have submitted sworn affidavits (something not to be taken lightly) regarding what appears to be a uneven (racist?) policy in the handling of civil rights cases. So why shouldn't there be an investigation of this now, regardless of what happened or didn't happen during the Bush administration? You folks are for changing things for the better, aren't you? Or was that all just empty rhetoric?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Well then ANTPogo, let's just focus on the first part of that article:



and the other source I cited. Looks like it's not just Adams but several members of the DOJ Civil Rights Division that have submitted sworn affidavits (something not to be taken lightly) regarding what appears to be a uneven (racist?) policy in the handling of civil rights cases. So why shouldn't there be an investigation of this now, regardless of what happened or didn't happen during the Bush administration? You folks are for changing things for the better, aren't you? Or was that all just empty rhetoric?

Adams, not surprisingly, has no backers so far that address his claims against the Obama administration. He has one collegue that claims, without citing anything, that there was a "pervasive hostility" back in the Bush administration.

Of course, since the Bush admin is notorious for having politicizing hiring in the DOJ, and for driving out career attorneys in the civil rights division, I'm not sure that this means much. And Adams' loony take on the Brown case basically kills his credibility.

[BeAChooser]

So I guess it was all just empty rhetoric.

But then we already knew that, having watched the rest of Obama's and the democrat's agenda unfold this past year and a half.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Well then ANTPogo, let's just focus on the first part of that article:



and the other source I cited. Looks like it's not just Adams but several members of the DOJ Civil Rights Division that have submitted sworn affidavits (something not to be taken lightly) regarding what appears to be a uneven (racist?) policy in the handling of civil rights cases. So why shouldn't there be an investigation of this now, regardless of what happened or didn't happen during the Bush administration? You folks are for changing things for the better, aren't you? Or was that all just empty rhetoric?

And those affidavits are?

What do they say?

ETA:
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/0...-Spakovsky.pdf

Allegation 18 is interesting

http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/0...5172641612.pdf

This one is sort of short on details...

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So I guess it was all just empty rhetoric.
...

Sort of like your posts!

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

And those affidavits are?

What do they say?

Go to the link in post #292, and then follow the links in it, as noted.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

and the other source I cited. Looks like it's not just Adams but several members of the DOJ Civil Rights Division that have submitted sworn affidavits (something not to be taken lightly) regarding what appears to be a uneven (racist?) policy in the handling of civil rights cases. So why shouldn't there be an investigation of this now, regardless of what happened or didn't happen during the Bush administration? You folks are for changing things for the better, aren't you? Or was that all just empty rhetoric?

Sure, let's look at what Adams' supporters actually said.

Von Spakovsky, as noted above, either lied or is so incompetent as to be untrustworthy (unless you'd like to explain why we should trust him on anything after getting the apparent "standard operating procedures" at the DoJ for handing voter intimidation cases so egregiously wrong). In addition, in his affidavit he says he he was only employed by the Civil Rights Division from December 2001 to December 2005, which means that all the "racialist" actions he testifies that he has firsthand knowledge about happened during the Bush Administration, not the Obama Administration. And since he left the division three years before Obama took office, he has no idea (and therefore can't testify to, as it's hearsay) as to what happened under Holder's and Obama's tenure.

Karl "Butch" Bowers, in his affidavit, did say "In my experience, there was a pervasive culture in the Civil Rights Division and within the Voting Section of apathy, and in some cases outright hostillity, towards race-neutral enforcement of voting-rights laws among large segments of career attorneys." That would be rather damning...except that, as he notes in that affidavit, he only worked for the Division from 2007 to 2008. Which is, once again, during the Bush Administration. Meaning that even if he's telling the unvarnished truth about the existence of a racialist policy within the Division, it was going on under the Bush/Mukasey DoJ, and therefore is patently not any kind of new anti-white policy instituted by Obama and Holder. And, naturally, as with von Spakovsky, since Bowers left the Division before Obama took office, he can't testify as to what happened during the Obama Administration.

Then there's Nicole Marrone, who wrote an entry on Adams' own blog, where she quotes Division attorney Julie Fernandes (the one Adams claims spilled the beans on Obama and Holder's racialist policy) saying things that would appear to be consistent with what Adams was saying (assuming they're not being taken out of context or anything). However, these quotes were from 2007...once again, that was during Bush and Mukasey's time in office. I couldn't find any information on when she left the Divison (Adams himself only describes her as "another former Voting Section Attorney at the Justice Department"), but if she had insight into alleged shenanigans going on at the Division under Obama and Holder, it's most curious that she's only talking about alleged shenanigans under Bush and Mukasey.

So, in summary, the only evidence provided by these "supporters" of Adams is not that there was an anti-white racialist policy instituted at the Division once Obama and Holder came in, but that there was an anti-white racialist policy apparently instituted at the Division by Bush and Mukasey!

So, when are you asking the mods to change the topic of this thread to "Are Mukasey and Bush racists?" again? Because, really, if you're that upset about the terrible anti-white voting rights enforcement actions undertaken by the Department of Justice in the NBPP case and others, you really ought to be mad at them.

Why aren't you mad at them BAC?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

So, in summary, the only evidence provided by these "supporters" of Adams is not that there was an anti-white racialist policy instituted at the Division once Obama and Holder came in, but that there was an anti-white racialist policy apparently instituted at the Division by Bush and Mukasey!

Does it matter when Obama has the power to bring *change* to that Division? He promised us *change*. Why isn't he delivering?

Given his and Holder's background, you'd think they'd be twice as sensitive to racism. Apparently not. At least not as long as it is directed at whites.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Does it matter when Obama has the power to bring *change* to that Division? He promised us *change*. Why isn't he delivering?

So, you're upset that Obama isn't investigating Bush and Mukasey's racism? Hmm...you have a point. I'm all for Holder subpoenaing the former president and attorney general who apparently foisted this vile anti-white policy on the DoJ, and grilling them about why they did this!

You're with me on this, aren't you, BAC?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Does it matter when Obama has the power to bring *change* to that Division? He promised us *change*. Why isn't he delivering?

BAC, you keep using "change" as an albatross around Obama's neck. Surely you do not expect perfection the day Obama takes office (or the day he leaves for that matter).

I find it quite revealing that even after AntPogo has shown you conclusive evidence that the problem was under Bush that you refuse to respond to said evidence and instead continue your tirade against Obama. I humbly await your condemnation of Bush anywhere near equiavalent to your inappropriate condemnation of Obama on this thread.

Again, it looks like you ignore evidence against that contradicts your viewpoint in order to continue your vacuous attacks against Obama. Why am I not surprised?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

So, you're upset that Obama isn't investigating Bush and Mukasey's racism? Hmm...you have a point. I'm all for Holder subpoenaing the former president and attorney general who apparently foisted this vile anti-white policy on the DoJ, and grilling them about why they did this!

You're with me on this, aren't you, BAC?

BAC? Now where did you go?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Lurker

BAC? Now where did you go?

I'm sure he's just gone off to write an angry letter to Attorney General Holder, demanding that he investigate Bush and Mukasey. I mean, it's the only thing he can do that would be consistent with his avowed position on this matter, in light of the above evidence revealing who the true perpetrators of this injustice are.

Right, BAC?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Surely you do not expect perfection the day Obama takes office (or the day he leaves for that matter).

I don't expect perfection, but I certainly expected some *change*. Afterall, Obama didn't promise perfection (at least not explicitly) but he most certainly did promise *change* and to clean up the things that are wrong in our government. Didn't he? Was that just empty rhetoric?

By the way, didn't most Obamaites vote for him because of those promises of *change*?

Originally Posted by Lurker

I find it quite revealing that even after AntPogo has shown you conclusive evidence that the problem was under Bush that you refuse to respond to said evidence and instead continue your tirade against Obama.

I can't imagine why you find that revealing when this thread isn't about Bush's actions/inactions. It's about Obama's. He's in the driver seat now. He can do something about DOJ policy if he wants. But apparently he doesn't want to, which suggest to me he is racist (regardless of whether Bush was racist or not). I do so wish you folks could stay on topic.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You're with me on this, aren't you, BAC?

Yes, as long as they also subpoena Holder and those mentioned by Adams and others in the current administration. You're with me on this, aren't you?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Yes, as long as they also subpoena Holder and those mentioned by Adams and others in the current administration. You're with me on this, aren't you?

Why should we listen to Adams? After all, he thinks that the Obama DoJ worsening the punishment (including a ban on trying to make a legal end-run around said punishment) for an African-American previously convicted of violating the Voting Rights Act is somehow evidence that the Obama DoJ is being soft on minority violations of white voting rights. Therefore, we can't trust his perceptions and assertions at all, and should lend his allegations no more weight than we to do those of, say, Orly Taitz.

That leaves just the testimony of all those other former Division attorneys...testimony which, for some strange reason, points solidly and solely at malfeasance under Bush and Mukasey.

Do you want me to ask the mods to change this thread's topic for you, BAC? You seem remarkably reluctant to do that, even after learning that the problem you're so alarmed about appears to be solely the responsibility of the Bush Administration...

[Lurker]

BAC:

I agree with you 100% that Bush and Mukasey need to be brought up on charges for inserting an anti-white program into the DOJ. I doubt Obama knew about it as these things lurk under the surface for years until exposed. If it can be shown that Obama knew, then he should face the investigation as well. I am glad Adams and others filled out affadavits attesting to the deplorable acts that occurred under the Bush Administration.

Yes, I am hoping Obama can clean up the DOJ, much like the great work he has started on finance reform, health care reform and so on. I understand he cannot do it all at once so am willing to be patient before he cleans up the anti-white cronies left over from the Bush Administration. Change is great but one can only do so much at once. Hopefully Adams will name names on who exactly was promulgating this anti-white agenda under Bush. Not only who in the DOJ but who in the Bush Administration was pushing that detestable attitude down on them.

So you and I agree, BAC, that Bush is the man responsible for this virulent racism because he started it and Obama to a much lesser extent because it may have continued under his watch although we have yet to determine if Obama knew about it at all.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Again, it looks like you ignore evidence against that contradicts your viewpoint in order to continue your vacuous attacks against Obama. Why am I not surprised?

Not only that, he is willing to include facts that are completely secondary to the discussion to win political points.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

It's not off-topic at all as it has to do with whether democrats are going to do anything to investigate this matter.


Whereas that is off-topic as neither Bush or criminal charges were mentioned in the OP.

It is only "off-topic" when BAC says it's off topic.
Reality is off topic in BAC's world.

[Lurker]

I like how BAC brought up the affidavits only to be schooled that the authors of said affidavits worked during the Bush years. That was priceless.

So according to BAC, the affidavits are relevent but the offenses in those affidavits occuring while Bush was in office is not relevent somehow.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Does it matter when Obama has the power to bring *change* to that Division? He promised us *change*. Why isn't he delivering?

Given his and Holder's background, you'd think they'd be twice as sensitive to racism. Apparently not. At least not as long as it is directed at whites.

Well at least you aknowledge that the allegations are against the Bush admin, but I suppose that Obamaco is too busy playing basketball, golf, dealing with the ecomomy, the wars and others things, so they should just drop everything to meet your rhetorical standard.

Where did Obamaco make that promise to change voter intimidation and the Bushco policies of discriminating against whites?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

By the way, didn't most Obamaites vote for him because of those promises of *change*?

he sure isn't GWB!

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Yes, as long as they also subpoena Holder and those mentioned by Adams and others in the current administration. You're with me on this, aren't you?

Why should we listen to Adams?

Thanks for proving my point.

And how about you, Lurker? Are you with me on this? Or are you going to duck like ANTPogo just did?

Afterall, if Adams lied in a sworn statement about something this serious and potentially divisive, don't you want him punished to the full extent of the law? I do. But of course that will only happen if there is an investigation where all parties concerned are put under oath. Right?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Afterall, if Adams lied in a sworn statement about something this serious and potentially divisive, don't you want him punished to the full extent of the law? I do. But of course that will only happen if there is an investigation where all parties concerned are put under oath. Right?

I'm glad you support the investigation of Adams too, since if he's willing to twist the facts of the Brown case that badly, who knows what else he screwed up during his time at the DoJ!

Need any help drafting that letter to Holder where you call for the subpoenaing of Adams, Bush, and Mukasey?

[BeAChooser]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/rubin/329346

Quote:

Did Thomas Perez Testify Truthfully?

… snip …

Before the Commission, Adams testified: “But Mr. Chris*Coates and I and [Robert] Popper went and met with him [Perez] the day before he testified here for about an hour, and we laid out all of our arguments and begged him not to testify inaccurately about the case.” He nevertheless testified that the case was unsupported by the law and the facts, and suggested the lawyers may have violated Rule 11, which provides for sanctions in the event of a frivolous legal action.

But that’s not all. A knowledgeable source tells me that at that same meeting, trial team head Chris Coates, who participated in the meeting by phone, explicitly warned him that there was a deep hostility to race-neutral enforcement of the law and he provided details to Perez. Sitting in the room with Perez were Adams and Popper. Perez had aides who were taking notes in the room. Nevertheless, under oath and before Congress and the Commission, Perez testified that he was unaware of such sentiments. If, indeed, he was briefed and then delivered this testimony, then he misled Congress and the Commission.

Now, perhaps, you begin to see why Lurker, ANTPogo and democrats in general are afraid to put everyone involved in this under oath and get to the bottom of it. Because they suspect where this will lead.

[BeAChooser]

And you know what is really sad, folks? ABC, NBC and CBS continue their boycott of this story ... not a mention of it. Much like they hid noteworthy storys durin the Bill Clinton era. Can you imagine them doing this if it were a republican DOJ against which such charges were being made? Or course not.

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/rubin/329346

Now, perhaps, you begin to see why Lurker, ANTPogo and democrats in general are afraid to put everyone involved in this under oath and get to the bottom of it. Because they suspect where this will lead.

Wow, a completely unnamed source that's totally unverifiable and uncorroborated tells the "chief blogger and contributing editor" of a conservative publication that Perez may have lied under oath!

Especially since said blogger combines it with the totally-trustworthy claims made by a guy who has already proven himself willing to tell blatant lies about how the Obama DoJ is handling other voter intimidation cases!

How can I possibly respond to such ironclad and clearcut evidence of wrongdoing?

You know, BAC, after the affidavit thing, I would have thought you'd learned your lesson about quoting uncritically from partisan opinion pieces regarding this matter.