22nd Congressional Candidate Allen West Statement on New Black Panther Party:

[The T]

Thursday, July 08, 2010

(Deerfield Beach, FL) “The recent decision by the Obama Justice Department to drop all charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party during the 2008 Election represents a sad day for all Americans. For an Administration that promised a new era in race relations, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have demonstrated that race will continually be exploited for political gain. It is outright hypocrisy that the Justice Department under Attorney General Holder is suing a sovereign American State, yet dismissing this heinous violation of our Constitution – the right to vote.

Throughout history, the Democrat party has been the standard bearer of voter intimidation in America – only this time the once victim is now the perpetrator.
The recent comments and actions of the New Black Panther Party are despicable, disgusting, and completely reprehensible. It is with no reservation that I make a formal condemnation of this racist and extremist group, which is anathema to the principles and values that make America a great Nation. For those who would define our country as a “nation of cowards,” or who feel the United States is neither great nor exceptional, and to any other racist and extremist groups, feel free to show yourselves the door...


...The dye has been cast in this election cycle – Democrats and their liberal progressive socialist allies will continue to play the race card when it is politically expedient. I demand an investigation of the New Black Panther Partyand the placement of it, along with any extremist group, be placed on the Terrorist Watch List if warranted. If that it not done prior to my taking the oath of office as a United States Congressman, it will happen soon thereafter.”

Read More of the statement.

___________________________

I Concur.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Thursday, July 08, 2010

(Deerfield Beach, FL) “The recent decision by the Obama Justice Department to drop all charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party during the 2008 Election represents a sad day for all Americans. For an Administration that promised a new era in race relations, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have demonstrated that race will continually be exploited for political gain. It is outright hypocrisy that the Justice Department under Attorney General Holder is suing a sovereign American State, yet dismissing this heinous violation of our Constitution – the right to vote.

Throughout history, the Democrat party has been the standard bearer of voter intimidation in America – only this time the once victim is now the perpetrator.
The recent comments and actions of the New Black Panther Party are despicable, disgusting, and completely reprehensible. It is with no reservation that I make a formal condemnation of this racist and extremist group, which is anathema to the principles and values that make America a great Nation. For those who would define our country as a “nation of cowards,” or who feel the United States is neither great nor exceptional, and to any other racist and extremist groups, feel free to show yourselves the door...


...The dye has been cast in this election cycle – Democrats and their liberal progressive socialist allies will continue to play the race card when it is politically expedient. I demand an investigation of the New Black Panther Partyand the placement of it, along with any extremist group, be placed on the Terrorist Watch List if warranted. If that it not done prior to my taking the oath of office as a United States Congressman, it will happen soon thereafter.”

Read More of the statement.

___________________________

I concur, and why is this administration 'protecting' them? I think an investigation of the "New Black Panther Party" should be started immediately. But don't hold your breath, this administration has an agenda of change and it isn't for our own good. And while we're at it maybe another investigation of the president, and ALL his so called advisers, but by whom? Seems that too many are 'on the payroll'.

Well, the voters will have their, OUR, 'agenda of change', the VOTE, and hopefully toss out ALL of these race baiting progressives that seem determined to shove this country into the toilet, rewrite the constitution and allow the world to feed on our bones.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ah, the fascist is also a paranoid pea brain...

Abigail M. Thernstrom is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, and a highly partisan Republican commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights.


July 6, 2010 4:00 A.M.

Abigail Thernstrom

The New Black Panther Case:
A Conservative Dissent

Never mind this one-off stunt by fringe radicals; the DOJ is engaged in much more important voting-rights mischief.

Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high.

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.

A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.

The two Panthers have been described as “armed” — which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing “jackboots,” but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.

A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: “We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.” “Indications”? Again, evidence has yet to be offered.

The New Black Panther Case: A Conservative Dissent - Abigail Thernstrom - National Review Online

 

[Jeremy]

Thursday, July 08, 2010

(Deerfield Beach, FL) “The recent decision by the Obama Justice Department to drop all charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party during the 2008 Election represents a sad day for all Americans. For an Administration that promised a new era in race relations, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have demonstrated that race will continually be exploited for political gain. It is outright hypocrisy that the Justice Department under Attorney General Holder is suing a sovereign American State, yet dismissing this heinous violation of our Constitution – the right to vote.

Throughout history, the Democrat party has been the standard bearer of voter intimidation in America – only this time the once victim is now the perpetrator.
The recent comments and actions of the New Black Panther Party are despicable, disgusting, and completely reprehensible. It is with no reservation that I make a formal condemnation of this racist and extremist group, which is anathema to the principles and values that make America a great Nation. For those who would define our country as a “nation of cowards,” or who feel the United States is neither great nor exceptional, and to any other racist and extremist groups, feel free to show yourselves the door...


...The dye has been cast in this election cycle – Democrats and their liberal progressive socialist allies will continue to play the race card when it is politically expedient. I demand an investigation of the New Black Panther Partyand the placement of it, along with any extremist group, be placed on the Terrorist Watch List if warranted. If that it not done prior to my taking the oath of office as a United States Congressman, it will happen soon thereafter.”

Read More of the statement.

___________________________

I Concur.

 

[The T]

It's refreshing to see someone take a stand that is running for office. It's past time to highlight this administration for what it is and the LIES the Candidate Obama told to get elected...

I also think Eric Holder needs to go. This on top of giving terrorists rights to civil trial...? This bunch has been exposed for the rubes they are for turning the DOJ into a clearing house for criminals...that is to say clearing
the criminals for thier wrongdoing when it was readily apparent what their intent was.

 

[Bfgrn]

Accusations don't stand up to the facts

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation "very small potatoes" full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges," and said it has not "served the interests of the commission"; she further said that DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

 

[Jeremy]

Accusations don't stand up to the facts

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation "very small potatoes" full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges," and said it has not "served the interests of the commission"; she further said that DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Any 5 year old can tell you that. All cases of voter intimidation should be prosecuted.

 

[Jeremy]

I'm so tired of this bullshit "Bush did it so why can't Obama" excuse. Bush doubled the deficit so it's ok for obama to quadruple it. Bush DOJ dropped charges so Obama can do it.
etc. etc. etc. Are you guys actually happy that he is following in Bush's shoes on these issues? What ever happened to this lie of "change" he belched out of his vagina during the election?

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm so tired of this bullshit "Bush did it so why can't Obama" excuse. Bush doubled the deficit so it's ok for obama to quadruple it. Bush DOJ dropped charges so Obama can do it.
etc. etc. etc. Are you guys actually happy that he is following in Bush's shoes on these issues? What ever happened to this lie of "change" he belched out of his vagina during the election?

I'm tired of obtuse right wing pea brains.

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party.

 

[The T]

Accusations don't stand up to the facts

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation "very small potatoes" full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges," and said it has not "served the interests of the commission"; she further said that DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Wrong Answer. The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election. The action was filed in January before President George W. Bush left office.

...The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.



“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker at the time. “The Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.”

None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. Instead of immediately filing for a default judgment as is the normal procedure, sources told The Bulletin the DOJ asked for and received an order from the court providing an extension of time to file. Specifically, they asked the court to give them until May 15."

But on May 15, DOJ changed its mind again. Rather than a default judgment, the DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants. This included Mr. Jackson, who identified himself to police as a member of the Democratic Committee in the 14th Ward. He also produced credentials to that effect.

DOJ only asked for a default judgment against one defendant, Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. But sources say the proposed order for the default judgment asks for none of the usual conditions the Justice Department would want, such as keeping Mr. Shabazz away from any polling locations for a set number of years into the future.

Hans von Spakovsky is a former career Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He thinks the inaction by the Justice Department is unprecedented. He told The Bulletin that the dismissal by Justice, with no notice on the Justice Department press site, particularly against an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. He said DOJ has failed in its duty to enforce voting laws. He is outraged by the action.

“It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default," he said. "

__________________

SOURCE <READ MORE

_______________

DOJ Slimes Whistleblower Adams in Panthergate Case


Call it Panthergate, call it what you will. The Department of Justice (or its minions) is already attempting to slime its whistleblower J. Christian Adams — the attorney who recently resigned from the Department over its abandonment of the New Black Panther case.
Now Adams has struck back, telling Pajamas Media that the DOJ’s smears were a “blatant lie.”
Adams appeared on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show to tell his story Tuesday, following which a “source familiar with the case” came forward, trying to tarnish the lawyer’s reputation. Pajamas Media was informed by a Fox producer:

The person said that any story should include the fact that Adams only left DOJ after being put into a job he disliked, and that he has long been an advocate of conservative views. Source also says Adams’ claims are “willfully inaccurate.”
​

This battle had been brewing for several days since Adams — using the Panther case as an example — asserted in the Washington Times, and then in more detail in Pajamas Media, that institutionalized bias had infiltrated Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Civil rights complaints would only be pursued when initiated by people of color against white people.
When it was the other way around, the complaints, even when well-substantiated as with the New Black Panthers, would disappear in a bureaucratic morass.
The attacks on Adams — whether from the “anonymous source” or from DOJ spokesperson Tracy Schmaler — were of surprising ferocity, indicating nervousness on the part of the Department.
Adams told Pajamas Media:

I was appalled and disappointed by the DOJ yesterday. They included a blatant lie in their response to my interview. They told Fox News I had been “unhappy with my position.” Not only would this be a personnel matter they aren’t supposed to discuss, it’s a fairy tale. In fact on April 28 I got a promotion, so maybe they can let me know what position I was unhappy with.
…
The problem with smearing me is that there are many others who know the truth inside the Department. Documents which they refuse to turn over pursuant to subpoenas from the Civil Rights Commission prove it. Testimony from other DOJ employees, which they refuse to allow, would also prove it.
​

____________________

It happened under Obama's watch. They were told to drop the case...

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

What the HELL does this have to do with anything? Nice try at the deflection Bufu...

Any other LIES Bufu?

Bush didn't drop the case.

 

[The T]

I'm so tired of this bullshit "Bush did it so why can't Obama" excuse. Bush doubled the deficit so it's ok for obama to quadruple it. Bush DOJ dropped charges so Obama can do it.
etc. etc. etc. Are you guys actually happy that he is following in Bush's shoes on these issues? What ever happened to this lie of "change" he belched out of his vagina during the election?

I'm tired of obtuse right wing pea brains.

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party.

In may '09...Bush was Gone...peabrain

 

[The T]

Accusations don't stand up to the facts

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation "very small potatoes" full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges," and said it has not "served the interests of the commission"; she further said that DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Any 5 year old can tell you that. All cases of voter intimidation should be prosecuted.

Regardless of whom is there...Read the srticle I posted regarding J. Christian Adams whom resigned over the decision. I heard him interviewed today...and he's animate about where it stemmed...

 

[Jeremy]

I'm so tired of this bullshit "Bush did it so why can't Obama" excuse. Bush doubled the deficit so it's ok for obama to quadruple it. Bush DOJ dropped charges so Obama can do it.
etc. etc. etc. Are you guys actually happy that he is following in Bush's shoes on these issues? What ever happened to this lie of "change" he belched out of his vagina during the election?

I'm tired of obtuse right wing pea brains.

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party.

Hey dip shit. I know you concider media matters hyper partisan bullshit to be gospal but the charges were dropped on May 15th of LAST YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case - Washington Times - Washington Times

FOXNews.com - Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept. -- EVIL FAUX NEWS

Report: DOJ Drops Case Against Ted Stevens - Political Hotsheet - CBS News -- CBS

Justice Dept. Seeks To Void Stevens' Conviction : NPR -- NPR

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Justice Department drops charges in voter intimidation case - Blogs from CNN.com --CNN

Want more you fucking IDIOT?!?!?!?

 

[Trajan]

I'm so tired of this bullshit "Bush did it so why can't Obama" excuse. Bush doubled the deficit so it's ok for obama to quadruple it. Bush DOJ dropped charges so Obama can do it.
etc. etc. etc. Are you guys actually happy that he is following in Bush's shoes on these issues? What ever happened to this lie of "change" he belched out of his vagina during the election?

I'm tired of obtuse right wing pea brains.

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party.

uhm no, not quite, it appears that in; " May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed......"

Friends in High Places | The Weekly Standard

 

[Bfgrn]

Accusations don't stand up to the facts

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation &quot;very small potatoes&quot; full of &quot;overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges,&quot; and said it has not &quot;served the interests of the commission&quot;; she further said that DOJ has given a &quot;plausible argument&quot; for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Wrong Answer. The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election. The action was filed in January before President George W. Bush left office.

...The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.



“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker at the time. “The Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.”

None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. Instead of immediately filing for a default judgment as is the normal procedure, sources told The Bulletin the DOJ asked for and received an order from the court providing an extension of time to file. Specifically, they asked the court to give them until May 15.&quot;

But on May 15, DOJ changed its mind again. Rather than a default judgment, the DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants. This included Mr. Jackson, who identified himself to police as a member of the Democratic Committee in the 14th Ward. He also produced credentials to that effect.

DOJ only asked for a default judgment against one defendant, Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. But sources say the proposed order for the default judgment asks for none of the usual conditions the Justice Department would want, such as keeping Mr. Shabazz away from any polling locations for a set number of years into the future.

Hans von Spakovsky is a former career Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He thinks the inaction by the Justice Department is unprecedented. He told The Bulletin that the dismissal by Justice, with no notice on the Justice Department press site, particularly against an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. He said DOJ has failed in its duty to enforce voting laws. He is outraged by the action.

“It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default,&quot; he said. &quot;

__________________

SOURCE <READ MORE

_______________

DOJ Slimes Whistleblower Adams in Panthergate Case


Call it Panthergate, call it what you will. The Department of Justice (or its minions) is already attempting to slime its whistleblower J. Christian Adams — the attorney who recently resigned from the Department over its abandonment of the New Black Panther case.
Now Adams has struck back, telling Pajamas Media that the DOJ’s smears were a “blatant lie.”
Adams appeared on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show to tell his story Tuesday, following which a “source familiar with the case” came forward, trying to tarnish the lawyer’s reputation. Pajamas Media was informed by a Fox producer:

The person said that any story should include the fact that Adams only left DOJ after being put into a job he disliked, and that he has long been an advocate of conservative views. Source also says Adams’ claims are “willfully inaccurate.”
​

This battle had been brewing for several days since Adams — using the Panther case as an example — asserted in the Washington Times, and then in more detail in Pajamas Media, that institutionalized bias had infiltrated Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Civil rights complaints would only be pursued when initiated by people of color against white people.
When it was the other way around, the complaints, even when well-substantiated as with the New Black Panthers, would disappear in a bureaucratic morass.
The attacks on Adams — whether from the “anonymous source” or from DOJ spokesperson Tracy Schmaler — were of surprising ferocity, indicating nervousness on the part of the Department.
Adams told Pajamas Media:

I was appalled and disappointed by the DOJ yesterday. They included a blatant lie in their response to my interview. They told Fox News I had been “unhappy with my position.” Not only would this be a personnel matter they aren’t supposed to discuss, it’s a fairy tale. In fact on April 28 I got a promotion, so maybe they can let me know what position I was unhappy with.
…
The problem with smearing me is that there are many others who know the truth inside the Department. Documents which they refuse to turn over pursuant to subpoenas from the Civil Rights Commission prove it. Testimony from other DOJ employees, which they refuse to allow, would also prove it.
​

____________________

It happened under Obama's watch. They were told to drop the case...

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

What the HELL does this have to do with anything? Nice try at the deflection Bufu...

Any other LIES Bufu?

Bush didn't drop the case.

Hey pea brain...you spent ALL those hours listening to your fascist man crush, all the hand wringing and anger dusted up...for NOTHING...a strawman. HOW MANY times do the disingenuous sources you fill your paranoid pea brain with have to LIE to you before you realize they are fucking fascist HACKS...UN American SCUM.

How INTERESTING you use their disingenuous tactics. In your first source, you left OFF the first paragraph...WHY???

Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last year’s presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD).

WHAT sources pea brain???

Decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by Bush DOJ, not Obama

Bush DOJ, not Obama, made decision not to pursue criminal charges. Before President Bush left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. In his May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but did "file a civil action on January 7th, 2009." From Perez's testimony:

PEREZ: Moving to the matter at hand, the events occurred on November 4th, 2008. The Department became aware of these events on Election Day and decided to conduct further inquiry.

After reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.

Obama DOJ actually obtained judgment against individual carrying weapon at polling place

May 2009: DOJ obtained default judgment against Shabazz for carrying weapon outside polling station. On May 18, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against Samir Shabazz. In his May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Perez stated that the Justice Department had obtained "sufficient evidence to sustain the charge" of voter intimidation against Shabazz, identified by Perez as "the defendant who had the nightstick," and that "the default judgment was sought and obtained as it related to him." Perez testified:

PEREZ: Based on the careful review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence collected supported the allegations in the complaint against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Department, therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from otherwise violating Section 11(b).

The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the constitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms.

No voter has alleged intimidation stemming from incident

Civil Rights commissioner: "[N]o citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting." In an April 23 hearing on the DOJ's decision in the case, Civil Rights Commissioner Arlan Melendez stated that "no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting," which "was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did." From the April 23 Civil Rights Commission hearing:

MELENDEZ: My remarks are going to be brief because I think far too much of our time has been consumed on this seemingly unnecessary investigation. Citizens should be able to vote without intimidation, and it is our Commission's duty to investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights have been infringed.

In this case, however, no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting at the Fairmount Avenue Polling Station in 2008. This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did.

This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the members of this Commission as well, or at least it should've been. Our investigation has been going on now for the better part of a year. We have wasted a good deal of our staff's time, and the taxpayers' money.

Main Justice: "[N]o voters at all in the Philadelphia precinct have come forward to allege intimidation." A July 2 Main Justice article reported that "no voters at all in the Philadelphia precinct have come forward to allege intimidation," adding, "The complaints have come from white Republican poll watchers, who have given no evidence they were registered to vote in the majority black precinct."
Bush-era DOJ chose not to pursue similar allegations against Minutemen -- one of whom carried a gun

DOJ did not pursue allegations that Minutemen intimidated Hispanic voters with a gun in 2006. Perez testified that in 2006, the Justice Department "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" "when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish." [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 5/14/10]

Anti-immigrant activist in 2006 case reportedly had "9mm Glock strapped to his side" at polling place. A November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article reported (from the Nexis database): "In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English." The article continued:

Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons.

Arizona Daily Star: "[A]nti-immigrant activist" "stood by with a firearm in a holster." A November 8, 2006, Arizona Daily Star article reported (from Nexis):

A crew of anti-immigrant activists, meanwhile, visited several South Side polling places in what one poll-watch group called a blatant attempt to intimidate Hispanic voters.

Anti-immigrant crusader Russ Dove circulated an English-only petition, while a cameraman filmed the voters he approached and Roy Warden stood by with a firearm in a holster.

Diego Bernal, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), said the trio was trying to intimidate Hispanic voters. "A gun, a camera, a clipboard before you even get to the polls -- if that's not voter intimidation, what is?" he asked.

Bernal said his group encountered the men at the Precinct 49 polling place at South 12th Avenue and West Michigan Street and began documenting the scene with their cameras. "There was an interesting period where they were taking pictures of us taking pictures of them."

Tucson Citizen: Incident "reported to the FBI." A November 8, 2006, Tucson Citizen article (from Nexis) reported that Bernal "said he reported the incident to the FBI." The article also reported that Pima County elections director Brad Nelson said: "If intimidation or coercion was going on out there, even though it might have been outside the 75-foot limit, it's something we take very seriously, and we'll be looking into it."
Conservative Civil Rights Commission vice chairwoman ridicules investigation

Thernstrom: "Forget about the New Black Panther Party case." Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican who serves as co-chairwoman of the Civil Rights Commission and who is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a July 6 National Review Online blog post criticizing the "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges" surrounding the case. Thernstrom wrote, "Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes."

Thernstrom: Perez "makes a perfectly plausible argument" for DOJ's decision not to pursue additional charges. Thernstrom also wrote: "Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation."

Thernstrom: "I do not think that this inquiry has served the interests of the Commission." During an April 23 hearing into the DOJ's decision, Thernstrom also said, "I do not think that this inquiry has served the interests of the Commission as being a bipartisan watchdog for important civil rights violations, and I do not believe it has served well the party to which I belong."

Reality: Adams' accusations don't stand up to the facts

Adams is a long-time right-wing activist, who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed, served as a Bush poll watcher in Florida 2004, and reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight "racially tinged battles over voting rights";

Adams was hired to the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Department of Justice Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys -- the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman";

Adams has admitted that he does not have first-hand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations;

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation "very small potatoes" full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges," and said it has not "served the interests of the commission"; she further said that DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Adams is a long-time GOP activist

Kelly: A source "close to the case" said "Christian Adams is a conservative who has made willful misstatements in this interview." After airing a portion of her interview with Adams on the June 30 edition of America Live, Kelly reported the Justice Department's reaction to Adams' allegations and then noted, "Another source close to the case telling one of our producers that Christian Adams is a conservative who has made willful misstatements in this interview."

Adams reportedly filed ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was dismissed. In a February 26, 2001, Washington Times column (accessed via Nexis) John McCaslin cited a formal ethics complaint filed by Adams against Hugh Rodham, brother of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. On February 24, 2001, The Washington Times had reported (accessed via Nexis) that "Adams said Mr. Rodham put his Florida law license 'in jeopardy' with an admission that he accepted a contingency fee in obtaining the commutation for Carlos Vignali, the convicted drug dealer released from prison after serving six years of a 15-year sentence." A July 22, 2001, New York Times article (accessed via Nexis) reported, "The Florida bar has cleared Hugh Rodham of violating legal ethics."

Adams reportedly volunteered with GOP group that "trains lawyers to fight on the front lines of often racially tinged battles over voting rights." A December 2, 2009, article on the legal news website Main Justice reported:

Before coming to the Justice Department, Adams volunteered with the National Republican Lawyers Association, an offshoot of the Republican National Committee that trains lawyers to fight on the front lines of often racially tinged battles over voting rights.

Adams reportedly was a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida. The December 2, 2009, Main Justice article further reported: "In 2004, Adams served as a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida, where he was critical of a black couple for not accepting a provisional ballot in early voting after officials said they had no record of the couple's change of address forms, according to Bloomberg News. Democratic poll watchers had advised voters not to accept provisional ballots because of the risk they could be discounted under Florida law, Bloomberg reported."

Adams likened Obama to appeasers who caused "carnage" of WWII. In an October 30, 2009, American Spectator piece, Adams wrote: "President Obama's received his Peace Prize, according to the Nobel Committee, for his 'efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between nations.' Norman Angell's Nobel was awarded for similar reasons." Adams went on to blame Angell's ideas for World War II:

The 1933 Peace Prize winner profoundly influenced British policy in ways that led directly to German tanks rolling into Poland in September 1939. War did not break out because nations ignored Angell's advice; instead, the ensuing carnage in Europe happened because European democracies made Angell's ideas government policy.

Adams concluded: "Churchill, responding directly to Angell, asked 'who is the man vain enough to suppose that the long antagonisms of history and of time can in all circumstances be adjusted by the smooth and superficial conventions of politicians and ambassadors?' The Nobel Committee may have answered Sir Winston's query for the 21st century."

Adams is deeply tied to Bush-era politicization of DOJ

Former Voting Rights section chief: Adams is "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman." A July 6 article on Main Justice reported that Joseph Rich, former head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division Voting Section, said that Adams "was hired in the Civil Rights Division Voting Section under a process the DOJ Inspector General later determined was improperly influenced by politics," by Schlozman. Main Justice further reported:

Rich said Schlozman asked him to attend an interview with J. Christian Adams, a solo practitioner from Alexandria, Va., who had worked for the Secretary of State in South Carolina. Adams had also volunteered for the Republican National Lawyers Association, a GOP-funded group that sought to draw attention to voting fraud.

Adams did not have an extensive background in civil rights, Rich said, but may have had limited voting rights experience from his time in South Carolina. "He is exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman," Rich said.

Rich said he sat in on the interview, but Schlozman asked most of the questions. There was no discussion of Adams' political background at the meeting, according to Rich. Adams was offered the position shortly thereafter, and Rich said he doesn't believe anyone else was interviewed for the job.

"I was invited to the interview but was never asked for a recommendation," Rich said. "This was an example of the way things were being done. There's no evidence that this was a normal hiring process." As a supervisor, Rich said, he normally would have been involved in hiring decisions.

Manufactured scandal: Right wing's phony allegations against the Justice Department

 

[The T]

Accusations don't stand up to the facts

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation &quot;very small potatoes&quot; full of &quot;overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges,&quot; and said it has not &quot;served the interests of the commission&quot;; she further said that DOJ has given a &quot;plausible argument&quot; for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Wrong Answer. The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election. The action was filed in January before President George W. Bush left office.

...The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.



“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker at the time. “The Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.”

None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. Instead of immediately filing for a default judgment as is the normal procedure, sources told The Bulletin the DOJ asked for and received an order from the court providing an extension of time to file. Specifically, they asked the court to give them until May 15.&quot;

But on May 15, DOJ changed its mind again. Rather than a default judgment, the DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants. This included Mr. Jackson, who identified himself to police as a member of the Democratic Committee in the 14th Ward. He also produced credentials to that effect.

DOJ only asked for a default judgment against one defendant, Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. But sources say the proposed order for the default judgment asks for none of the usual conditions the Justice Department would want, such as keeping Mr. Shabazz away from any polling locations for a set number of years into the future.

Hans von Spakovsky is a former career Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He thinks the inaction by the Justice Department is unprecedented. He told The Bulletin that the dismissal by Justice, with no notice on the Justice Department press site, particularly against an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. He said DOJ has failed in its duty to enforce voting laws. He is outraged by the action.

“It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default,&quot; he said. &quot;

__________________

SOURCE <READ MORE

_______________

DOJ Slimes Whistleblower Adams in Panthergate Case


Call it Panthergate, call it what you will. The Department of Justice (or its minions) is already attempting to slime its whistleblower J. Christian Adams — the attorney who recently resigned from the Department over its abandonment of the New Black Panther case.
Now Adams has struck back, telling Pajamas Media that the DOJ’s smears were a “blatant lie.”
Adams appeared on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show to tell his story Tuesday, following which a “source familiar with the case” came forward, trying to tarnish the lawyer’s reputation. Pajamas Media was informed by a Fox producer:

The person said that any story should include the fact that Adams only left DOJ after being put into a job he disliked, and that he has long been an advocate of conservative views. Source also says Adams’ claims are “willfully inaccurate.”
​

This battle had been brewing for several days since Adams — using the Panther case as an example — asserted in the Washington Times, and then in more detail in Pajamas Media, that institutionalized bias had infiltrated Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Civil rights complaints would only be pursued when initiated by people of color against white people.
When it was the other way around, the complaints, even when well-substantiated as with the New Black Panthers, would disappear in a bureaucratic morass.
The attacks on Adams — whether from the “anonymous source” or from DOJ spokesperson Tracy Schmaler — were of surprising ferocity, indicating nervousness on the part of the Department.
Adams told Pajamas Media:

I was appalled and disappointed by the DOJ yesterday. They included a blatant lie in their response to my interview. They told Fox News I had been “unhappy with my position.” Not only would this be a personnel matter they aren’t supposed to discuss, it’s a fairy tale. In fact on April 28 I got a promotion, so maybe they can let me know what position I was unhappy with.
…
The problem with smearing me is that there are many others who know the truth inside the Department. Documents which they refuse to turn over pursuant to subpoenas from the Civil Rights Commission prove it. Testimony from other DOJ employees, which they refuse to allow, would also prove it.
​

____________________

It happened under Obama's watch. They were told to drop the case...

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

What the HELL does this have to do with anything? Nice try at the deflection Bufu...

Any other LIES Bufu?

Bush didn't drop the case.

Hey pea brain...you spent ALL those hours listening to your fascist man crush, all the hand wringing and anger dusted up...for NOTHING...a strawman. HOW MANY times do the disingenuous sources you fill your paranoid pea brain with have to LIE to you before you realize they are fucking fascist HACKS...UN American SCUM.

How INTERESTING you use their disingenuous tactics. In your first source, you left OFF the first paragraph...WHY???

Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last year’s presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD).

WHAT sources pea brain???

Decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by Bush DOJ, not Obama

Bush DOJ, not Obama, made decision not to pursue criminal charges. Before President Bush left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. In his May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but did "file a civil action on January 7th, 2009." From Perez's testimony:

PEREZ: Moving to the matter at hand, the events occurred on November 4th, 2008. The Department became aware of these events on Election Day and decided to conduct further inquiry.

After reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.

Obama DOJ actually obtained judgment against individual carrying weapon at polling place

May 2009: DOJ obtained default judgment against Shabazz for carrying weapon outside polling station. On May 18, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against Samir Shabazz. In his May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Perez stated that the Justice Department had obtained "sufficient evidence to sustain the charge" of voter intimidation against Shabazz, identified by Perez as "the defendant who had the nightstick," and that "the default judgment was sought and obtained as it related to him." Perez testified:

PEREZ: Based on the careful review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence collected supported the allegations in the complaint against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Department, therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from otherwise violating Section 11(b).

The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the constitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms.

No voter has alleged intimidation stemming from incident

Civil Rights commissioner: "[N]o citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting." In an April 23 hearing on the DOJ's decision in the case, Civil Rights Commissioner Arlan Melendez stated that "no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting," which "was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did." From the April 23 Civil Rights Commission hearing:

MELENDEZ: My remarks are going to be brief because I think far too much of our time has been consumed on this seemingly unnecessary investigation. Citizens should be able to vote without intimidation, and it is our Commission's duty to investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights have been infringed.

In this case, however, no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting at the Fairmount Avenue Polling Station in 2008. This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did.

This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the members of this Commission as well, or at least it should've been. Our investigation has been going on now for the better part of a year. We have wasted a good deal of our staff's time, and the taxpayers' money.

Main Justice: "[N]o voters at all in the Philadelphia precinct have come forward to allege intimidation." A July 2 Main Justice article reported that "no voters at all in the Philadelphia precinct have come forward to allege intimidation," adding, "The complaints have come from white Republican poll watchers, who have given no evidence they were registered to vote in the majority black precinct."
Bush-era DOJ chose not to pursue similar allegations against Minutemen -- one of whom carried a gun

DOJ did not pursue allegations that Minutemen intimidated Hispanic voters with a gun in 2006. Perez testified that in 2006, the Justice Department "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" "when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish." [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 5/14/10]

Anti-immigrant activist in 2006 case reportedly had "9mm Glock strapped to his side" at polling place. A November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article reported (from the Nexis database): "In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English." The article continued:

Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons.

Arizona Daily Star: "[A]nti-immigrant activist" "stood by with a firearm in a holster." A November 8, 2006, Arizona Daily Star article reported (from Nexis):

A crew of anti-immigrant activists, meanwhile, visited several South Side polling places in what one poll-watch group called a blatant attempt to intimidate Hispanic voters.

Anti-immigrant crusader Russ Dove circulated an English-only petition, while a cameraman filmed the voters he approached and Roy Warden stood by with a firearm in a holster.

Diego Bernal, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), said the trio was trying to intimidate Hispanic voters. "A gun, a camera, a clipboard before you even get to the polls -- if that's not voter intimidation, what is?" he asked.

Bernal said his group encountered the men at the Precinct 49 polling place at South 12th Avenue and West Michigan Street and began documenting the scene with their cameras. "There was an interesting period where they were taking pictures of us taking pictures of them."

Tucson Citizen: Incident "reported to the FBI." A November 8, 2006, Tucson Citizen article (from Nexis) reported that Bernal "said he reported the incident to the FBI." The article also reported that Pima County elections director Brad Nelson said: "If intimidation or coercion was going on out there, even though it might have been outside the 75-foot limit, it's something we take very seriously, and we'll be looking into it."
Conservative Civil Rights Commission vice chairwoman ridicules investigation

Thernstrom: "Forget about the New Black Panther Party case." Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican who serves as co-chairwoman of the Civil Rights Commission and who is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a July 6 National Review Online blog post criticizing the "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges" surrounding the case. Thernstrom wrote, "Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes."

Thernstrom: Perez "makes a perfectly plausible argument" for DOJ's decision not to pursue additional charges. Thernstrom also wrote: "Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation."

Thernstrom: "I do not think that this inquiry has served the interests of the Commission." During an April 23 hearing into the DOJ's decision, Thernstrom also said, "I do not think that this inquiry has served the interests of the Commission as being a bipartisan watchdog for important civil rights violations, and I do not believe it has served well the party to which I belong."

Reality: Adams' accusations don't stand up to the facts

Adams is a long-time right-wing activist, who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed, served as a Bush poll watcher in Florida 2004, and reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight "racially tinged battles over voting rights";

Adams was hired to the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Department of Justice Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys -- the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman";

Adams has admitted that he does not have first-hand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations;

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation "very small potatoes" full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges," and said it has not "served the interests of the commission"; she further said that DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Adams is a long-time GOP activist

Kelly: A source "close to the case" said "Christian Adams is a conservative who has made willful misstatements in this interview." After airing a portion of her interview with Adams on the June 30 edition of America Live, Kelly reported the Justice Department's reaction to Adams' allegations and then noted, "Another source close to the case telling one of our producers that Christian Adams is a conservative who has made willful misstatements in this interview."

Adams reportedly filed ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was dismissed. In a February 26, 2001, Washington Times column (accessed via Nexis) John McCaslin cited a formal ethics complaint filed by Adams against Hugh Rodham, brother of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. On February 24, 2001, The Washington Times had reported (accessed via Nexis) that "Adams said Mr. Rodham put his Florida law license 'in jeopardy' with an admission that he accepted a contingency fee in obtaining the commutation for Carlos Vignali, the convicted drug dealer released from prison after serving six years of a 15-year sentence." A July 22, 2001, New York Times article (accessed via Nexis) reported, "The Florida bar has cleared Hugh Rodham of violating legal ethics."

Adams reportedly volunteered with GOP group that "trains lawyers to fight on the front lines of often racially tinged battles over voting rights." A December 2, 2009, article on the legal news website Main Justice reported:

Before coming to the Justice Department, Adams volunteered with the National Republican Lawyers Association, an offshoot of the Republican National Committee that trains lawyers to fight on the front lines of often racially tinged battles over voting rights.

Adams reportedly was a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida. The December 2, 2009, Main Justice article further reported: "In 2004, Adams served as a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida, where he was critical of a black couple for not accepting a provisional ballot in early voting after officials said they had no record of the couple's change of address forms, according to Bloomberg News. Democratic poll watchers had advised voters not to accept provisional ballots because of the risk they could be discounted under Florida law, Bloomberg reported."

Adams likened Obama to appeasers who caused "carnage" of WWII. In an October 30, 2009, American Spectator piece, Adams wrote: "President Obama's received his Peace Prize, according to the Nobel Committee, for his 'efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between nations.' Norman Angell's Nobel was awarded for similar reasons." Adams went on to blame Angell's ideas for World War II:

The 1933 Peace Prize winner profoundly influenced British policy in ways that led directly to German tanks rolling into Poland in September 1939. War did not break out because nations ignored Angell's advice; instead, the ensuing carnage in Europe happened because European democracies made Angell's ideas government policy.

Adams concluded: "Churchill, responding directly to Angell, asked 'who is the man vain enough to suppose that the long antagonisms of history and of time can in all circumstances be adjusted by the smooth and superficial conventions of politicians and ambassadors?' The Nobel Committee may have answered Sir Winston's query for the 21st century."

Adams is deeply tied to Bush-era politicization of DOJ

Former Voting Rights section chief: Adams is "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman." A July 6 article on Main Justice reported that Joseph Rich, former head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division Voting Section, said that Adams "was hired in the Civil Rights Division Voting Section under a process the DOJ Inspector General later determined was improperly influenced by politics," by Schlozman. Main Justice further reported:

Rich said Schlozman asked him to attend an interview with J. Christian Adams, a solo practitioner from Alexandria, Va., who had worked for the Secretary of State in South Carolina. Adams had also volunteered for the Republican National Lawyers Association, a GOP-funded group that sought to draw attention to voting fraud.

Adams did not have an extensive background in civil rights, Rich said, but may have had limited voting rights experience from his time in South Carolina. "He is exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman," Rich said.

Rich said he sat in on the interview, but Schlozman asked most of the questions. There was no discussion of Adams' political background at the meeting, according to Rich. Adams was offered the position shortly thereafter, and Rich said he doesn't believe anyone else was interviewed for the job.

"I was invited to the interview but was never asked for a recommendation," Rich said. "This was an example of the way things were being done. There's no evidence that this was a normal hiring process." As a supervisor, Rich said, he normally would have been involved in hiring decisions.

Manufactured scandal: Right wing's phony allegations against the Justice Department

Wrong. Period.

 

[Foxfyre]

Accusations don't stand up to the facts

The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation "very small potatoes" full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges," and said it has not "served the interests of the commission"; she further said that DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Any 5 year old can tell you that. All cases of voter intimidation should be prosecuted.

Not only that, but the George Soros funded MediaMatters has become the propaganda machine of choice for the Left. Dealing in highly selective sound bites and specifically chosen excerpts for attack and criticism, it is right up there as one of the most partisan, ideologically dishonest, often manufactured, and intentionally manipulative organizations on the internet. And it provides a lot of those sound bites that all sound surprisingly alike in the mainstream media. Mediamatters provides the code word whether that be 'gravitas' or 'explosive' or whatever the mantra of the day is, and you'll find all the talking heads on the alphabet channels and networks using the same identical phrase all on the same day. When somebody puts them together in a montage, it is quite obvious and entirely funny to watch.

But at least Bfgrn using a site that partisan gives me license to use this:

Why haven't national media outlets reported on the vile and violent rants of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) thugs whose 2008 voter intimidation tactics got a pass from the Obama administration? Simple: Radical black racism doesn't fit the Hope and Change narrative. There's no way to shoehorn Bush-bashing into the story. And, let's face it, exposing the inflammatory rhetoric of the left does nothing to help liberal editors and reporters fulfill their true calling -- embarrassing the right.

This week, Justice Department whistleblower J. Christian Adams came forward with damning public testimony about how Obama officials believe "civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities." In the wake of Adams' expose on how the Obama DOJ abandoned default judgments against the NBPP bullies for the sake of politically correct racial politics, a shocking video clip of one of the lead defendants in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case resurfaced on the Internet. It shows bloodthirsty King Samir Shabazz during a 2009 National Geographic documentary interview spewing:

"You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!". . . .




. . . .If a Tea Party activist threatened to kill the babies of his political opponents, it wouldn't just be front-page news. It would be the subject of Democrat-led congressional investigations, a series of terrified New York Times columns about the perilous "climate of hate," a Justice Department probe by Attorney General Eric Holder, a domestic terror alert from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and another Important Teachable Moment Speech/Summit from Healer-in-Chief Barack Obama.

But with the racism shoe on the other foot, Team Obama and its media water-carriers are exhibiting the very racial cowardice Holder once purported to condemn. Thanks to Obama's feckless Department of Injustice, these black supremacist brutes are free to show up on the next national Election Day at polling places in full paramilitary regalia with nightsticks, hurling racist, anti-American epithets at those exercising their right to vote and at those protecting the integrity of the electoral process.
Whitewashing Black Racism - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ah, the fascist is also a paranoid pea brain...

Abigail M. Thernstrom is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, and a highly partisan Republican commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights.


July 6, 2010 4:00 A.M.

Abigail Thernstrom

The New Black Panther Case:
A Conservative Dissent

Never mind this one-off stunt by fringe radicals; the DOJ is engaged in much more important voting-rights mischief.

Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high.

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.

A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.

The two Panthers have been described as “armed” — which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing “jackboots,” but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.

A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: “We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.” “Indications”? Again, evidence has yet to be offered.

The New Black Panther Case: A Conservative Dissent - Abigail Thernstrom - National Review Online

 

[Foxfyre]

Abigail obviously didn't see the videotaped interview with the 'non threatening' guy with the billy club.

 

[The T]

"It’s still festering. The political corruption of the Obama Justice Department, that is. When last we visited the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, AG Eric Holder had dismissed default judgments against the Philly NBPP thugs who menaced voters and poll workers on Election Day.

Who intervened? What parties inside and outside DOJ got involved? And why?

Thank goodness someone in Congress cares enough to ask the questions. GOP Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia has been pressing the DOJ. You will be quite interested in the exchanges between Holder’s office and Wolf’s.

Click here for PDFs of Wolf’s initial inquiry and DOJ’s initial response.
And here for Rep. Wolf’s most recent set of questions for AG Holder regarding its obstruction.

DOJ is preventing Rep. Wolf from meeting with the trial team. Why?
Rep. Wolf wants to know what communications Acting AAG for Civil Rights Loretta King had with Holder and his deputy attorney(s) prior to the case dismissal.

Rep. Wolf has asked DOJ which third-party interest groups communicated with the government about the case. Those communications are NOT privileged. He has also asked whether any Department lawyers or political employees besides the trial team engaged in any discussions with the NBPP thugs and their lawyers. Who did? Have they recused themselves?

MORE

_______________

In any event? I am on the same page with Mr. West...

The dye has been cast in this election cycle – Democrats and their liberal progressive socialist allies will continue to play the race card when it is politically expedient. I demand an investigation of the New Black Panther Partyand the placement of it, along with any extremist group, be placed on the Terrorist Watch List if warranted. If that it not done prior to my taking the oath of office as a United States Congressman, it will happen soon thereafter.”

And that means any groups that use intimidation as dispalyed in this case. no matter what colour race, creed they are. They ARE what they are. Domestic Terrorists.

The case should have never been dropped.