US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

DOJ To Be Investigated For Civil Rights Enforcement

This is a discussion on DOJ To Be Investigated For Civil Rights Enforcement within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; More now from FOIA request regarding what happened with New Black Panthers case and selective enforcement of law: Pajamas Media Proof: New Records Show DOJ ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2010, 10:46 AM
Annie's Avatar
chillin
Member #401
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 50,612
Thanks: 5,329
Thanked 2,553 Times in 1,821 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1776
Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute
Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute
More now from FOIA request regarding what happened with New Black Panthers case and selective enforcement of law:

Pajamas Media Proof: New Records Show DOJ Lied About New Black Panther Dismissal

Quote:
Proof: New Records Show DOJ Lied About New Black Panther Dismissal
Posted By J. Christian Adams On September 20, 2010 @ 5:42 am In Uncategorized | 17 Comments

Judicial Watch made an explosive announcement today about the Justice Department’s stonewalling in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal. Forced to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request (so much for transparency), Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.

It shows — in a rather dramatic way — that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.

In July, I complied with a subpoena and provided testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I did so in part because inaccurate statements had been made about the case by DOJ officials. Some of these statements falsely claimed that ethical rules mandated the dismissal of the charges against the New Black Panthers. This was nonsense.

But the real whopper? DOJ’s claim — repeated over and over again — that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.

Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.

The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.

Some of these statements were under oath.

For example: on May 10, 2009, the third highest-ranking official inside the DOJ — Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli — emailed Sam Hirsch, one of his deputies:
Where are we on the Black Panther case?
The description of the email contains a bombshell:
asking for update on the NBPP litigation between officials in the [Associate’s office] and noting the [deputy attorney general’s] current thoughts on the case.
The deputy attorney general is the second highest-ranking official in the Department. The use of the term “current thoughts” infers that there were prior thoughts and ongoing discussions with the second highest-ranking political official at DOJ about how to handle the case.

Further, the logs show dozens of communications between senior DOJ political officials in the two weeks prior to the dismissal of the case.

Congress and the public have been told — for over a year — that the dismissal of the New Black Panther case resulted from nothing more than a dispute between lowly career civil servants. Lapdog reporters have repeated this lie, if they even covered the case at all. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch expose the ruse...
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 10-02-2010, 04:49 AM
Registered User
Member #19614
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: People's Republic of NJ
Posts: 12,130
Thanks: 900
Thanked 2,889 Times in 2,002 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 968
chanel could run the Federal Reserve
chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve chanel could run the Federal Reserve
And it gets worse...

Quote:
The mess surrounding 2010 military voting rights enforcement is coming to a rotten conclusion. On Friday the DOJ announced settlements against states that were not in compliance with the MOVE Act. Friday was the day before ballots were required to go overseas to military voters. In some of the settlements, the ballots aren’t going to go on time.

These Friday news releases are becoming a pattern.

On Friday, the Justice Department reached agreements with Hawaii, Colorado, D.C. and the Virgin Islands in response to their failure to comply with the MOVE Act. MOVE requires ballots to go 45 days in advance of the election – there are no exceptions in the law, no ability for DOJ to rewrite the law. These jurisdictions have been out of compliance since their legislatures went out of session without fixing their laws. Justice took no action – except to wait.

Hawaii and the other states entered into a sweetheart settlement with Justice Friday that allowed them to ignore the MOVE Act while other states like Florida and Vermont took steps to come into compliance with the new law. Worst of all, Justice undermined the decision of the Pentagon to deny these states waivers – and rewrote the will of Congress and changed the law on their own, reducing the time period below 45 days that states must send out ballots.

Instead of mailing ballots 45 days before the election – Justice effectively rewrote the law and allowed ballots in D.C. to mail out 29 days in advance, 16 days fewer that Congress required. In the Virgin Islands, it is 30 days in advance. In Hawaii, Justice rewrote the law and allowed ballots to go out 39 days in advance.

This reminds us that earlier in the year, a Justice official spoke to state election officials. The DOJ official downplayed DOJ's interest in enforcing the law. “Bringing a lawsuit is the last resort” or “the MOVE Act is ambiguous” state officials were told by the DOJ official. Election officials who were there told the Washington Times they simply could not believe what they were hearing. It was an invitation to ignore the law, to them. This state official said that everyone got the message loud and clear - they didn't need to worry because DOJ wouldn't be aggressive. This mess rests at the foot of the bureaucrats in the Department of Justice and the political leadership at DOJ. Congressional oversight hearing next year will be very interesting.
Election Law Center: DOJ military voting enforcement: failed to give the full measure of their devotion

Quote:
An organization fighting to ensure that all overseas members of the U.S. military have the opportunity to vote has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder listing what it says are violations of the federal MOVE Act in two states and in multiple counties in five other states, FoxNews.com has learned.

On Monday, MVP Project sent a list of possible MOVE Act violations to Attorney General Eric Holder, claiming the act may have been violated in Connecticut, New Mexico, seven counties in Alabama, two counties in Arkansas, one county in California, one county in Indiana and two counties in Nevada.
FOXNews.com - EXCLUSIVE: Advocates Cite Purported MOVE Act Violations in Seven More States
__________________
“‘Sort of’ is such a harmless thing to say...it doesn’t really mean anything. But after certain things, sort of means everything. Like after ‘I love you’ or ‘You’re going to live’ or ‘It’s a boy.’

Demetri Martin
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:12 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.