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

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

I can also see them threatening and shouting slurs at innocent white people while "protecting black people".

Got any documentation of that? The only person to whom they adressed any kind of hostility, as far as I have seen, was a Republican activist of some sort. I have no reason to believe that he did not give them some sort of provocation. It's what they do.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Got any documentation of that? The only person to whom they adressed any kind of hostility, as far as I have seen, was a Republican activist of some sort. I have no reason to believe that he did not give them some sort of provocation. It's what they do.

Bartle Bull (who is the man who testified that he was yelled at by King at the USCCR[link here - beginning on page 53])) Claimed that, at the least, King yelled slurs at him. Bull is a bit of an activist, but that's not enough to invalidate his testimony. And I'll agree that there are problems with his testimony - among other problems, he states that the two NBPP members were blocking the entrance to the polling station, but the only video available clearly shows that they were standing a decent distance from the entrance, and neither he nor any other witness explains this discrepancy.

But here's the thing - as I've said before (maybe on this thread), the NBPP isn't a group of good, kind-hearted people. I'm familiar with them and their demonstrations, and they are loudmouthed black supremacists. I'm not kidding when I state that their spiritual mentor Khalid Muhammad was too extreme for the Nation of Islam, and I've personally witnessed members of the group shouting racist nonsense on the streets. I can easily see a guy like King Shabazz shouting racial slurs in a misguided attempt to protect black people, because that's the sort of thing he does. And since he didn't even bother answering the charges in court, well, he should lose.

Jackson is an iffy case. I'm glad the cases against Malik Shabazz and the NBPP were dropped, not because I'm in favor of their group (they remind me of the Black Israelites, frankly), but because I think it was the right decision, considering the lack of evidence against them.

[Mumbles]

Hmm...

So, having said what I've said above, I'm going to have to call out the other side as well.

I think that this is yet another case of white conservatives working themselves into a conniption over the imagined anger and need for vengeance felt by black people. There's, literally, no political or racial reason for the Obama administration to intervene to defend the NBPP. Even if Obama were a secret black supremacist whose wife was caught on tape ranting about "whitey", it would behoove him to let this prosecution go through. And the idea of Holder as some sort of black power type is laughable , since his entire career was built upon kissing up to whoever.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice that many of the people pushing this story (eg. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly) are the sort of white conservative that imagine that the average black person is angry, and out for revenge against "the white man". We aren't. Really, we're just trying to put food on the table, and to bank a little cash.

And what's more, I think that this sort of racism, which is often couched in terms like "racial resentment" or "angry white man" is far more common than the sort of angry racism that the NBPP pushes. Certainly, I've encountered the former far more often.

This is the sort of story that will appeal to you if you think that health care reform is "reparations", or that black Americans have been taught to "hate, hate, hate" America - but that you're the real force for equality.

[Stupid]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Got any documentation of that? The only person to whom they adressed any kind of hostility, as far as I have seen, was a Republican activist of some sort. I have no reason to believe that he did not give them some sort of provocation. It's what they do.

I have never seen such a blatant oversight of law interpretation, and lack of realistic interpretation as you have.....even when shown a video.....other than the 911 "no-plane" believers.
Can you at any point, lay down your political views, and demonstrate your understanding of reality, in a real and objective way. ?
I have seen your other comments in the 911 threads, LeftySeargent, that have made complete sense........but this.....just baffles me.

Are you really trying to justify the fact that two guys "in uniform", eyeballing voters, and slapping a nightstick in their hands, feet from a polling entrance, is "OK" ??
Because if it is......let all the crazies out there do the same damn thing at every voting place across the land during the next election.
Let the KKK or other neo-nazi racist group show up in uniform, let the Brown Pride groups show up, allow the NBPP to post positions outside polling places.....allow the militant RIGHT, and the militant LEFT to post "security positions" outside polling places.
AKA...people who do not belong there.
Is this what you would allow ?
How in the world, could you see, that would be "OK" ???

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Stupid

Are you really trying to justify the fact that two guys "in uniform", eyeballing voters, and slapping a nightstick in their hands, feet from a polling entrance, is "OK" ??

I saw the video. They were more like yards than feet away. I could not see that they imppeded anyone's entry, nor are there verifiable reports from competent witnesses that they did.

Bear in mind that there were groups showing up at polling places around the country with obvious intent to intimidate minority voters. I am not even surprised that someone might be looking for them to show up so that they would have a valid excuse to kick someone's ass.

When you come up with proof that they were harrassing people to the extent that the Minutemen did, you will have something outrageous.

[Stupid]

Originally Posted by mumbles

I think that this is yet another case of white conservatives working themselves into a conniption over the imagined anger and need for vengeance felt by black people.

Think and assume all you want, but I am a minority liberal.....a mid-stream liberal with a conscience.

Quote:

On the other hand, I can't help but notice that many of the people pushing this story (eg. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly) are the sort of white conservative that imagine that the average black person is angry, and out for revenge against "the white man".

This is a political killer for some, and savior for others, in the upcoming elections. Think about it....what if it's true, and the DoJ is favoring cases based on race.......
If it's true (or a lie but not proven yet).....all right-wing press will report on it.
If it's a lie, right-wing press will report on it, but the left press will defend it, vehemently.
As a lefty, I'm surprised the left has not defended it at all, and has avoided it. I watched CNN TV cable all day, with no mention of it. (it is mentioned in their written press)

[Stupid]

Quote:

I saw the video. They were more like yards than feet away. I could not see that they imppeded anyone's entry, nor are there verifiable reports from competent witnesses that they did.

Bear in mind that there were groups showing up at polling places around the country with obvious intent to intimidate minority voters. I am not even surprised that someone might be looking for them to show up so that they would have a valid excuse to kick someone's ass.

The fact that you are minimizing this is absurd. They were about 5 yards from the polling-place entrance....that is 15 feet.
It should not become a part of any election, EVER. Where is the line drawn as to what defines "voter intimidation" ??
Oh yeah, it's already a law.....and for a reason.....for the very reasons I gave in my last post. It would be absurd to allow (my words), "all the extreme groups come and set-up security lines".
Are you ready to admit you may be wrong ?....or will you hold your blind stance, regardless of 20th century reason?

[Stupid]

I don't mean to seem like I am yelling, I am not.
I apologize if it seems that way.

[Stupid]

And I do not defend the "minutemen" in AZ who also intimidated voters.
However, I will say they escaped the law by the hair of their chinny-chin-chin.
I will not minimize their case. I have to look into it further, but quite possibly they were very wrong as well. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
What I hate, is when anyone who stands up for race-related rights....is told they are "cwazy" for thinking such a thing.
That is the same thing Blacks were told for years.
(I used the "hate" word)

[Stupid]

Quote:

Then take it up with the Bush era DoJ, and see where they dropped the ball....

When was the case dropped, and by whom ??
(answer that)

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by Stupid

When was the case dropped, and by whom ??
(answer that)

No case was dropped. The Bush DoJ declined to file criminal charges in this case, instead filing a civil suit.

The original civil case was filed against four defendants: Jerry Jackson, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the New Black Panther Party itself.

Of the four defendants, only two were actually directly involved in the events recorded that day, and only one of those was brandishing a weapon: Samir Shabazz. None of them responded to the civil suit being filed against them.

As a result, the district court issued a summary judgment in the case favoring the plaintiffs (the government). However, as Assistant AG Weich explained, that didn't mean that every penalty the government asked for in their filing would automatically be applied. Instead, the government then had to make their case before the court about the propriety of the penalties sought. The evidence the government had could only support a court-ordered injunction against one of the defendants, Samir Shabazz, who was the one actually wielding the intimidating weapon. As a result, he was the only person an injunction was issued for in that case.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Stupid

I have never seen such a blatant oversight of law interpretation, and lack of realistic interpretation as you have.....even when shown a video.....other than the 911 "no-plane" believers.

Actually, given how high the standard is for 11(b) cases, I'm surprised they managed to get anything against King Samir Shabazz.

In this sort of case, you don't need to merely prove that they were intimidating, or trying to intimidate, one race (and the white girl happily walking around talking on her cell phone and white guy standing around are good evidence that they weren't confronting white people), you also have to prove *intent*. In other words, there's the question of whether or not the four defendants purposely harassed white voters or poll workers in order to suppress white turnout.

For Malik Zulu Shabazz and the NBPP, this is clear cut - Malik stated that the NBPP sent people out in order to protect black voters from white intimidators, and publicly denounced King Samir Shabazz for bringing a nightstick, according to the government's own evidence. This does not run afoul of 11(b). That's all there is to it.

For Jerry Jackson, the evidence is very weak. He has no weapon, he isn't shown shouting slurs, and he's a poll watcher and area resident. We have testimony from some guys who drove up that some other guy said that the two were intimidating poll watchers, but we also have testimony from two poll watchers stating the opposite.

And for that matter, the evidence isn't very good against King Samir Shabazz. He had a nightstick, and he supposedly yelled "You're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker" when he's shooed off by the police, according to Bartle Bull's testimony (page 58). Problem is, we also have video of King Samir Shabazz walking off, and the racial slur doesn't appear in it, which is another problem with his testimony (the fact that he claimed that they were blocking the entrance, when the video showed that they weren't, is another one). I suspect that he could have made a successful defense, as well.

[A'isha]

Can't believe I missed this the first time around.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/...-mr-president/

Quote:

In May 2009, the Obama/Holder Justice Department dropped charges in a voter intimidation case against Malik Shabazz, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, despite having already won a summary judgment against him, and his New Black Panther Party callegues King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson who were video-taped outside polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters as they arrived on election day, 2008. In July 2009, when Congress began looking into the matter, someone named Malik Shabazz visited the private residence at the White House.

What are the odds, folks?

Once again I see that you are apparently incapable of researching anything yourself, and just blindly swallow anything that a right-wing website feeds to you.

See, the idiotic Breitbart article you linked to wants to know more about the sinister "Malik Shabazz" that visited the White House on July 25th, 2009, right around the time the NBPP investigation started.

See, the White House Visitor Logs are easily available in an online database. And a quick search via the handy search box for "Shabazz" indeed reveals a Malik Shabazz who visited the White House on July 25th, 2009, at 9:30 AM, in fact. A Malik H. Shabazz, that is. The New Black Panther Party member at the heart of the DoJ case is Malik Zulu Shabazz. Ooops.

What's more, the records indicate that when Mr. Malik H. Shabazz visited, the "vistee" was not "POTUS" [the President of the US], as the visitor records of those who actually saw the President show, but the "Visitors Office". And what does the Description column say about Mr. Malik H. Shabazz's visit? "Group Tours". And there were 311 people in his visitor party.

In other words, BAC, Malik H. Shabazz, not Malik Zulu Shabazz, visited the White House on July 25th 2009 as part of one of the many tour groups that regularly go through the White House, along with a few hundred other people that same time and date.

Quote:

Seriously, how many Malik Shabazzes can there be in the US?

Well, whitepages.com lists at least 48, living everywhere from California to Louisiana to Georgia. Including a Malik H. Shabazz living practically next door to Washington DC, in Richmond VA.

Quote:

Seems a simple enough request, don't you think?

So simple, in fact, that it's already been answered with the information the White House has already released. If only you and/or Breitbart had actually bothered to look.

[BeAChooser]

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/...race-policies/

Quote:

Congratulations to the editors at the Washington Post. Seventeen months after the Eric Holder Justice Department dismissed a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, the Post gets around to printing a thorough vetting of the dismissal. The story is slated for Saturday’s print edition.

… snip …

But overall, the story is very bad news for Eric Holder. It debunks many of the myths spun by the administration. Inside DOJ sources describe deep hostility to protecting whites at Justice. DOJ sources say panther prosecutor Christian Adams never allowed his conservative views to influence his work, contradicting administration spin. And perhaps most damning of all to Holder, sources defending the administration defend the idea that whites aren’t protected by the Civil Rights laws. The latter is the blockbuster news in the Post piece.

The Post also shatters the false administration spin that only low level career lawyers had a fight among themselves: “After the Obama administration took over, high-level political appointees relayed their thoughts on the case in a stream of internal e-mails in the days leading to the dismissal.” The administration told Congress and the public a lie for over a year, and now the Washington Post even knows.

… snip …

The Post has a major revelation, the first on the record confirmation of the attitude inside the Civil Rights Division that whites should not necessarily be protected by the civil rights laws:

Quote:

“The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around,” said one Justice Department official not authorized to speak publicly, referring to the white Alabama police commissioner who cracked down on civil rights protesters such as Lewis, now a Democratic congressman from Georgia.”

This is a startling admission. It is part and parcel of a wide hostility to protecting whites who are victims of racial discrimination, as Christopher Coates and Adams alleged all along.

… snip …

There is this money quote:

Quote:

“There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section’s job to protect white voters,” the lawyer said. “The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized.”

So the Post does what nobody has been able to do – obtain deep sourcing inside the Department confirming what Adams and Coates have been saying for months.

[Unabogie]

I thought it was already shown that the Bush DOJ dropped the charges. So Breitbart is lying again? Does he ever dabble in truth, just for variety?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I thought it was already shown that the Bush DOJ dropped the charges. So Breitbart is lying again? Does he ever dabble in truth, just for variety?

Did you bother to read the Washington Post article? Obviously not.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Did you bother to read the Washington Post article? Obviously not.

Does that article mention that it was the Bush DOJ that did the deed?

[Dancing David]

Anonymous sources say this, anonymous sources say that. Not when they said it or during what administration, not who said it when, no transcripts, no dates no nothing.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...s=rss_politics

Quote:

October 29, 2010


A federal commission had to postpone a vote on a report that criticizes the Justice Department's handling of a voter-intimidation lawsuit Friday after a Democratic panelist walked out of the meeting in protest.

The draft of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report says that Justice tried to hide the extensive involvement of high-level political officials in the dismissal of the suit against members of the New Black Panther Party. The move, the report says, indicates that Justice's Civil Rights Division is failing to protect white voters and is "at war with its core mission of guaranteeing equal protection (under) the laws for all Americans.''

… snip …

But it could not reach a quorum because commissioner Michael Yaki, a Democratic appointee and a former senior adviser to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, refused to participate.

Wow! The Washington Post reported this. Maybe they are trying to pick up some conservative market share. Or they smell blood in the water.

[YoPopa]

Yaki was just going out to make sure that the correct people are now moving to the back of the bus. The order came down from the top on that one. "they gotta sit in back"

Anyone think it was just a reference to the auto industry when DOTUS (D for dude) made that comment as suggested by the apologists?

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...s=rss_politics

Quote:

The commission, which is controlled by a bloc of conservative and liberterian members, was scheduled to vote on the report Friday morning. But it could not reach a quorum because commissioner Michael Yaki, a Democratic appointee and a former senior adviser to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, refused to participate. The commission needs five members present to meet quorum.

"This has been a procedural and partisan farce from the beginning,'' Yaki said in an impromptu news conference. "It's not my responsibility to make a quorum for this kangaroo court ... they want to score political points against the Obama Justice Department.''

Members of the commission's majority, who drafted the report, denied they were motivated by politics and accused Justice Department officials of blocking their investigation, failing to turn over key documents and instructing witnessnes not to testify.

"The degree of stonewalling that the Justice Department has engaged in is unprecedented in the 53-year history of the commission,'' said commissioner Todd F. Gaziano, a senior fellow in legal studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. He said the commission would vote on the 131-page report at its meeting next week.

"Huh."

[BeAChooser]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/...black_panthers

Quote:

Associated Press

Dec 5

The conservative-dominated U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has published a report criticizing the Justice Department for its handling of voting rights accusations against the New Black Panther Party.

The report has been published on the commission's website. It says the department has failed to cooperate with the investigation and left open the question of whether political interference played a role in limiting action against the New Black Panther Party.

… snip …

The commission adopted the report by a 5-2 vote when it met on November 19, but did not immediately make it public. The Republican and independent appointees voted to adopt the report, while the two Democratic appointees voted against it.

In the interests of *transparency, here's a link to various materials from the Commission on the matter:

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/NBPH.htm

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/...black_panthers

From your link:

Quote:

The department investigated complaints that New Black Panther Party leaders King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson intimidated white voters at a Philadelphia polling place. A criminal investigation into the episode was dropped by the Bush administration, but the Justice Department under Obama obtained a narrower civil court order against the conduct than Bush officials sought.

Evidence obtained by the commission puts the department's "version of events into serious doubt," says the report. It relies heavily on the testimony of former Voting Rights lawyers Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams.

...

Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee who has been critical of the commission's inquiry, was absent.

Thernstrom has said accusations against the department are overblown, especially considering that there is no evidence that the presence of the New Black Panther leaders scared anyone away from voting.

I've highlighted some relevant portions of that article that you seem eager to gloss over, BAC.

EDIT: And you still haven't addressed my dismantling of the idiocy from Breitbart regarding that stupid "Malik Shabazz visits the White House" accusation that you so uncritically parroted.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lack-panthers/

Quote:

December 13, 2010

Judicial Watch is exposing the emptiness of open-government promises by President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. These Democrats have stiffed the legal public-interest group's Freedom of Information requests related to the Justice Department's dismissal of a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. Judicial Watch's Dec. 7 filings reveal the false basis for the administration's novel claims of "privilege" against disclosure.

Judicial Watch says Justice has withheld "approximately 80 documents in their entirety." The department claims many are protected by the "deliberative process privilege." That exemption from disclosure is intended to provide for what the administration calls "a more fulsome decision-making process" without fear of staffers being embarrassed by suggestions they made merely to examine all sides of an issue.

Courts long have established that this privilege applies only to memorandums that are "pre-decisional." Once a decision has been made and enacted, the deliberative process has ended. Many of the unreleased documents were created after Justice ended the Black Panther case and thus clearly were not part of the deliberative process. Judicial Watch bolsters its common-sense argument by citing the Supreme Court precedent in NLRB v. Sears (1975): "Communications made after the decision and designed to explain it are not privileged." Case closed.

… snip …

On matters large and small - from the dismissal of inspectors general to the identities of Justice Department lawyers who represented suspected terrorist detainees and to the myriad issues stemming from the Black Panther investigation - this administration has turned Nixonian stonewalling into a political fortress of obfuscation.

Ah, that good ol' Obama *transparency* and *fairness*.

[BeAChooser]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...-voting-rights

Quote:

Onething worse than a hypocrite is a hypocrite in government office. The Obama Department of Justice has plenty of hypocrites. Nowhere are they more apparent than when they attack the voting rights record of the Bush Justice Department.

Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez has become the Department's lead bamboozler. "During the prior administration, civil rights was closed for business," he told a Pittsburgh crowd last week. The Obama presidential campaign elevated the purported inactivity of the Bush DOJ voting section to a priority campaign issue, promising to "reinvigorate the enforcement activities" of the section.

Attorney General Eric Holder now travels the country trumpeting a phony "reopening" of civil rights enforcement. Perez speaks dreamily of "restoration and transformation" of the Civil Rights Division. Compliant news reporters publish this spin without a whiff of skepticism.

But after two years in power, the Obama administration has been pitifully inactive enforcing voting rights. Numbers don't lie.

[Dancing David]

More OP/ED on the hypocrisy of the Bush admin.

[BeAChooser]

http://bigjournalism.com/jburns/2011...ffered-enough/

Quote:

As reported and applauded by Politico, Holder announced Tuesday that he was fed up with listening to whining whites who claim the justice department deliberately blocks investigations of black on white racism. Predictably, the Establishment media sides with Holder.

Quote:

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate .. .to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” said Holder, who is black.

… snip …

So the obvious takeaway from this is that some racism is worse than others. Some racist injustice is worthy of prosecution, other racism is not. Apparently, whites simply haven’t suffered enough. They don’t deserve legal protection. So, any injustices committed against white people should be swept under the rug. It’s not worth Eric Holder’s time.

… snip …

The larger issue, of course, is that “whites as racists” constitutes the fundamental lens through which Holder views issues in America. During the healthcare debate, Holder likened opposition of Obamacare to opposition to civil rights. Not civil rights in the sense that, “all Americans share civil rights,” mind you, but “Civil Rights” as in the struggle for black legal equality in America during the 40’s-60’s. Translation: those who oppose Obamacare are racists. Such language is naked race-baiting and scapegoating. But Holder doesn’t care. Whites are the bad guy bogeymen, trotted out when it gets tough to pass legislation. And his recent comments reveal his paradigm: white Americans are generally racist and any time they oppose any Obama policy or “injustice” at the hands of a racist group, they’re either being racists or they’re simply not entitled to equal protection because they haven’t suffered as much as other groups.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...TzB_story.html

Quote:

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has concluded an investigation finding that politics played no role in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case, which sparked a racially charged political fight.

LOL! So let me get this straight. The Justice Department cleared itself of wrong doing. Sure.

Or perhaps democrats are just parsing words like they often do. Politics didn't play a role. How about racism? Hmmmmm?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...TzB_story.html



LOL! So let me get this straight. The Justice Department cleared itself of wrong doing. Sure.

Or perhaps democrats are just parsing words like they often do. Politics didn't play a role. How about racism? Hmmmmm?

Or, perhaps, there was no evidence of professional misconduct or poor judgement.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/doc...ase.php?page=2

[BeAChooser]

Here, maybe this will help you understand where TPMMuckraker is coming from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF3hb...layer_embedded "How Liberal Journalists Think"

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Here, maybe this will help you understand where TPMMuckraker is coming from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF3hb...layer_embedded "How Liberal Journalists Think"

Or perhaps, there was no evidence of professional misconduct or poor judgement.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...TzB_story.html



LOL! So let me get this straight. The Justice Department cleared itself of wrong doing. Sure.

Or perhaps democrats are just parsing words like they often do. Politics didn't play a role. How about racism? Hmmmmm?

You mean the Bush DOJ?