Bipartisan Commission Calls For Federal Probe Into Justice Department...

[Capitalist]

Snowball’s chance in hell…

(Fox Nation)- The commission probing allegations that the Justice Department wrongly abandoned a case against the New Black Panther Party has formally called for a federal investigation into claims that the department’s Civil Rights Division will not pursue black defendants.
In a letter sent Wednesday to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the chairman of the bipartisan commission said testimony last week from an ex-Justice official raised “grave questions” about whether the division is “color blind” in its enforcement of the law.
“This testimony raised serious concerns as to whether the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement policies are being pursued in a race-neutral fashion and further calls into question the department’s decision to change course in the New Black Panther Party litigation,” Chairman Gerald Reynolds wrote.
Former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams testified last week before the commission that his former employer not only abandoned the Black Panther voter intimidation case for racial reasons, but had instructed attorneys in the division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.
Perez told the panel in May to bring any such claims “to our attention” if there’s evidence — Reynolds wrote Wednesday that in light of the testimony, the Justice Department should follow up.
Reynolds also voiced concern about the Justice Department’s “intransigence” in providing witnesses to testify and urged the department to allow former voting section chief Christopher Coates to appear before the panel. Adams repeatedly said last week that Coates’ testimony would be critical to the investigation.
​

 

[Truthmatters]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


how can they drop a case that they actually won?

 

[Capitalist]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


how can they drop a case that they actually won?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha..................
They reduced the punishment...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...................
So they won nothing...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......................

 

[Annie]

Hope it helps:

washingtonpost.com

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?
By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010; A13

Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

But The Post has been virtually silent...

The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors' decision to reduce its scope was "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." Some in the department believe "the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation," he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.

The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.

That's prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, "Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months."

To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission's board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's coverage because "her revelations leave Left steaming."

The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.

But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore.

Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at [email protected]. For daily updates, read the Omblog.

 

[EriktheRed]

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?


Because there's no story and it's an obvious ploy by Cons to smear the President.


P.S. Bipartisan shmipartisan.

 

[daveman]

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?


Because there's no story and it's an obvious ploy by Cons to smear the President.


P.S. Bipartisan shmipartisan.

*sigh* Obama's ever so dreamy!

 

[Foxfyre]

The point is that sometimes the system does work and manages to get past the worst of the smoke screens and burial details and deflectors and diversion tactics that are thrown out there to derail stories that are embarrassing to the powerful in high places.

If Holder and the Justice Dept. are found innocent of favoritism in application of justice, so be it. At least that should put the whole business to rest.

If they are found guilty, however, that should be of concern to all Americans who should want their government to be honest, fair, and impartial in carrying out its duties whatever those might be.

The OP linked to the FoxNation blog though it did link to the original story.

Here's the link to the original story at Fox:
FOXNews.com - Panel Urges Federal Probe Following 'Grave' Testimony in Black Panther Case

 

[Immanuel]

This will go no where and it should not.

Are we going to start charging prosecutors for making decisions not to press charges? As much as I think Holder and the DOJ scummy for dropping the charges, I don't believe that this would send a good message to those who are charged with prosecuting crimes.

Immie

 

[Avorysuds]

This will go no where and it should not.

Are we going to start charging prosecutors for making decisions not to press charges? As much as I think Holder and the DOJ scummy for dropping the charges, I don't believe that this would send a good message to those who are charged with prosecuting crimes.

Immie

I think the point is they droped charges, or the already won case... because of race.

 

[Annie]

This will go no where and it should not.

Are we going to start charging prosecutors for making decisions not to press charges? As much as I think Holder and the DOJ scummy for dropping the charges, I don't believe that this would send a good message to those who are charged with prosecuting crimes.

Immie

The issue is not telling them who or what, that is exactly the point. It's about fair application of all laws. Not one standard for one race, different for others. It was wrong in the past, it's still wrong.

 

[Immanuel]

This will go no where and it should not.

Are we going to start charging prosecutors for making decisions not to press charges? As much as I think Holder and the DOJ scummy for dropping the charges, I don't believe that this would send a good message to those who are charged with prosecuting crimes.

Immie

The issue is not telling them who or what, that is exactly the point. It's about fair application of all laws. Not one standard for one race, different for others. It was wrong in the past, it's still wrong.

I agree with you and Avorysuds, but what will be the effective outcome of this if they were successful?

This is what is going to happen: the prosecutor will look at a case and says, "we simply don't have enough evidence to convict Joe, but if I don't try him, then someone will second guess me and file a complaint against me, so I will bring this case to court to cover my ass, I don't give a shit how much it cost the state in the long run."

Immie

 

[Annie]

This will go no where and it should not.

Are we going to start charging prosecutors for making decisions not to press charges? As much as I think Holder and the DOJ scummy for dropping the charges, I don't believe that this would send a good message to those who are charged with prosecuting crimes.

Immie

The issue is not telling them who or what, that is exactly the point. It's about fair application of all laws. Not one standard for one race, different for others. It was wrong in the past, it's still wrong.

I agree with you and Avorysuds, but what will be the effective outcome of this if they were successful?

This is what is going to happen: the prosecutor will look at a case and says, "we simply don't have enough evidence to convict Joe, but if I don't try him, then someone will second guess me and file a complaint against me, so I will bring this case to court to cover my ass, I don't give a shit how much it cost the state in the long run."

Immie

We'll see, but I don't think so. Seems both the NBPP and DOJ, (under Bush term) knew they had a lock, enough so that the defendants didn't both to show. Then the strange thing happened under Holder, DOJ dropped the charges, brought one injunction against the baton carrier, and that was that. Since then, investigations have been called for, ratcheted up with Adams resignation.

Something is very wrong and pressure does need to be applied so that laws about voting rights and attempts at corruption are curtailed.

 

[Charles_Main]

Glad to see this commission. If no wrong doing was done, then the Admin has nothing to hide. Nothing wrong with trying to get to the truth.

The accusations leveled by the DOJ guy who quit are far to far reaching, and important to dismiss out of hand and ignore. If there is even a remote possibility that the DOJ actually has a policy of never prosecuting a voter intimidation case if the defendant is black and plaintiff white we should know about it. If they do not, then lets prove that and move on.

 

[Annie]

Glad to see this commission. If no wrong doing was done, then the Admin has nothing to hide. Nothing wrong with trying to get to the truth.

Which is exactly what the WaPo ombudsman advocated for the Post from this point on. Not that anyone there will listen...

 

[Immanuel]

The issue is not telling them who or what, that is exactly the point. It's about fair application of all laws. Not one standard for one race, different for others. It was wrong in the past, it's still wrong.

I agree with you and Avorysuds, but what will be the effective outcome of this if they were successful?

This is what is going to happen: the prosecutor will look at a case and says, "we simply don't have enough evidence to convict Joe, but if I don't try him, then someone will second guess me and file a complaint against me, so I will bring this case to court to cover my ass, I don't give a shit how much it cost the state in the long run."

Immie

We'll see, but I don't think so. Seems both the NBPP and DOJ, (under Bush term) knew they had a lock, enough so that the defendants didn't both to show. Then the strange thing happened under Holder, DOJ dropped the charges, brought one injunction against the baton carrier, and that was that. Since then, investigations have been called for, ratcheted up with Adams resignation.

Something is very wrong and pressure does need to be applied so that laws about voting rights and attempts at corruption are curtailed.

No doubt about it, but what I am saying is that if this were successful, then every prosecutor in every county in the U.S. will be afraid not to prosecute any accused simply because they will be charged with failure to perform their duty.

It seems that Holder and the DOJ let a defendant off scott free for racial reasons, but the ramifications of charging them with not doing their duty will be that other prosecutors will literally fill the court system with cases that cannot possibly be won or cases that should not be brought to court and how many more innocent people will be found guilty when they should never have been tried in the first place... who knows, it could be you... or worse yet... ME!

Immie

 

[Charles_Main]

I agree with you and Avorysuds, but what will be the effective outcome of this if they were successful?

This is what is going to happen: the prosecutor will look at a case and says, "we simply don't have enough evidence to convict Joe, but if I don't try him, then someone will second guess me and file a complaint against me, so I will bring this case to court to cover my ass, I don't give a shit how much it cost the state in the long run."

Immie

We'll see, but I don't think so. Seems both the NBPP and DOJ, (under Bush term) knew they had a lock, enough so that the defendants didn't both to show. Then the strange thing happened under Holder, DOJ dropped the charges, brought one injunction against the baton carrier, and that was that. Since then, investigations have been called for, ratcheted up with Adams resignation.

Something is very wrong and pressure does need to be applied so that laws about voting rights and attempts at corruption are curtailed.

No doubt about it, but what I am saying is that if this were successful, then every prosecutor in every county in the U.S. will be afraid not to prosecute any accused simply because they will be charged with failure to perform their duty.

It seems that Holder and the DOJ let a defendant off scott free for racial reasons, but the ramifications of charging them with not doing their duty will be that other prosecutors will literally fill the court system with cases that cannot possibly be won or cases that should not be brought to court and how many more innocent people will be found guilty when they should never have been tried in the first place... who knows, it could be you... or worse yet... ME!

Immie

Maybe charges would not be what came of it, Maybe just enough heat for Holder to be replaced.

The real question that needs to be answered here is this. Is their a policy not to prosecute Blacks in these cases if the plaintiff is white. This reaches far beyond this one case IMO.

 

[Annie]

I agree with you and Avorysuds, but what will be the effective outcome of this if they were successful?

This is what is going to happen: the prosecutor will look at a case and says, "we simply don't have enough evidence to convict Joe, but if I don't try him, then someone will second guess me and file a complaint against me, so I will bring this case to court to cover my ass, I don't give a shit how much it cost the state in the long run."

Immie

We'll see, but I don't think so. Seems both the NBPP and DOJ, (under Bush term) knew they had a lock, enough so that the defendants didn't both to show. Then the strange thing happened under Holder, DOJ dropped the charges, brought one injunction against the baton carrier, and that was that. Since then, investigations have been called for, ratcheted up with Adams resignation.

Something is very wrong and pressure does need to be applied so that laws about voting rights and attempts at corruption are curtailed.

No doubt about it, but what I am saying is that if this were successful, then every prosecutor in every county in the U.S. will be afraid not to prosecute any accused simply because they will be charged with failure to perform their duty.

It seems that Holder and the DOJ let a defendant off scott free for racial reasons, but the ramifications of charging them with not doing their duty will be that other prosecutors will literally fill the court system with cases that cannot possibly be won or cases that should not be brought to court and how many more innocent people will be found guilty when they should never have been tried in the first place... who knows, it could be you... or worse yet... ME!

Immie

Discretion is part and parcel of executive departments, (police powers). With that said, we need to know as part of the citizenry that laws are applied fairly, along with discretionary dismissals. It should not be because of race or agenda on part of the administration in charge.

 

[Immanuel]

We'll see, but I don't think so. Seems both the NBPP and DOJ, (under Bush term) knew they had a lock, enough so that the defendants didn't both to show. Then the strange thing happened under Holder, DOJ dropped the charges, brought one injunction against the baton carrier, and that was that. Since then, investigations have been called for, ratcheted up with Adams resignation.

Something is very wrong and pressure does need to be applied so that laws about voting rights and attempts at corruption are curtailed.

No doubt about it, but what I am saying is that if this were successful, then every prosecutor in every county in the U.S. will be afraid not to prosecute any accused simply because they will be charged with failure to perform their duty.

It seems that Holder and the DOJ let a defendant off scott free for racial reasons, but the ramifications of charging them with not doing their duty will be that other prosecutors will literally fill the court system with cases that cannot possibly be won or cases that should not be brought to court and how many more innocent people will be found guilty when they should never have been tried in the first place... who knows, it could be you... or worse yet... ME!

Immie

Maybe charges would not be what came of it, Maybe just enough heat for Holder to be replaced.

The real question that needs to be answered here is this. Is their a policy not to prosecute Blacks in these cases if the plaintiff is white. This reaches far beyond this one case IMO.

As much as I agree with you, I do not see this happening.

J. Christian Adams will simply be portrayed as a disgruntled employee of the justice department and in a few days his fifteen minutes of fame will be over and Holder and the DOJ will go back to ignoring the law. No harm, no foul will be the attitude of the Administration.

We'll see, but I don't think so. Seems both the NBPP and DOJ, (under Bush term) knew they had a lock, enough so that the defendants didn't both to show. Then the strange thing happened under Holder, DOJ dropped the charges, brought one injunction against the baton carrier, and that was that. Since then, investigations have been called for, ratcheted up with Adams resignation.

Something is very wrong and pressure does need to be applied so that laws about voting rights and attempts at corruption are curtailed.

No doubt about it, but what I am saying is that if this were successful, then every prosecutor in every county in the U.S. will be afraid not to prosecute any accused simply because they will be charged with failure to perform their duty.

It seems that Holder and the DOJ let a defendant off scott free for racial reasons, but the ramifications of charging them with not doing their duty will be that other prosecutors will literally fill the court system with cases that cannot possibly be won or cases that should not be brought to court and how many more innocent people will be found guilty when they should never have been tried in the first place... who knows, it could be you... or worse yet... ME!

Immie

Discretion is part and parcel of executive departments, (police powers). With that said, we need to know as part of the citizenry that laws are applied fairly, along with discretionary dismissals. It should not be because of race or agenda on part of the administration in charge.

Laws are not applied fairly and never have been. How many people sit on death row today? How many of those are black?

I'm not going to spend much time trying to match the years of these next two sites, but check out the census population of death row and compare it to the current US Population then tell me our laws are applied fairly.

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976 | Death Penalty Information Center

BLACK
1,361 41.6%
LATINO
377 11.6%
WHITE
1,447 44.4%
OTHER
77 2.4%

Population of the United States by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin, Census 2000 and July 1, 2005 — Infoplease.com

Race and Hispanic/Latino origin July 1, 2005,
population1 Percent of
population Census 2000,
population Percent of
population
Total Population 296,410,404 100.0% 281,421,906 100.0%
Single race
White 237,854,954 80.2 211,460,626 75.1
Black or African American 37,909,341 12.8 34,658,190 12.3
American Indian and Alaska Native 2,863,001 1.0 2,475,956 0.9
Asian 12,687,472 4.3 10,242,998 3.6
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 516,612 0.2 398,835 0.1
Two or more races 4,579,024 1.5 6,826,228 2.4
Some other race n.a.2 n.a. 15,359,073 5.5
Hispanic or Latino 42,687,224 14.4 35,305,818 12.5

I don't think I will buy the "fairness" argument.

Immie

 

[Annie]

No doubt about it, but what I am saying is that if this were successful, then every prosecutor in every county in the U.S. will be afraid not to prosecute any accused simply because they will be charged with failure to perform their duty.

It seems that Holder and the DOJ let a defendant off scott free for racial reasons, but the ramifications of charging them with not doing their duty will be that other prosecutors will literally fill the court system with cases that cannot possibly be won or cases that should not be brought to court and how many more innocent people will be found guilty when they should never have been tried in the first place... who knows, it could be you... or worse yet... ME!

Immie

Maybe charges would not be what came of it, Maybe just enough heat for Holder to be replaced.

The real question that needs to be answered here is this. Is their a policy not to prosecute Blacks in these cases if the plaintiff is white. This reaches far beyond this one case IMO.

As much as I agree with you, I do not see this happening.

J. Christian Adams will simply be portrayed as a disgruntled employee of the justice department and in a few days his fifteen minutes of fame will be over and Holder and the DOJ will go back to ignoring the law. No harm, no foul will be the attitude of the Administration.



Laws are not applied fairly and never have been. How many people sit on death row today? How many of those are black?

I'm not going to spend much time trying to match the years of these next two sites, but check out the census population of death row and compare it to the current US Population then tell me our laws are applied fairly.

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976 | Death Penalty Information Center

BLACK
1,361 41.6%
LATINO
377 11.6%
WHITE
1,447 44.4%
OTHER
77 2.4%

Population of the United States by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin, Census 2000 and July 1, 2005 — Infoplease.com

Race and Hispanic/Latino origin July 1, 2005,
population1 Percent of
population Census 2000,
population Percent of
population
Total Population 296,410,404 100.0% 281,421,906 100.0%
Single race
White 237,854,954 80.2 211,460,626 75.1
Black or African American 37,909,341 12.8 34,658,190 12.3
American Indian and Alaska Native 2,863,001 1.0 2,475,956 0.9
Asian 12,687,472 4.3 10,242,998 3.6
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 516,612 0.2 398,835 0.1
Two or more races 4,579,024 1.5 6,826,228 2.4
Some other race n.a.2 n.a. 15,359,073 5.5
Hispanic or Latino 42,687,224 14.4 35,305,818 12.5

I don't think I will buy the "fairness" argument.

Immie

Immie, I recognize why you are saying what you are, it's fair to a point. Yes, more blacks commit crimes and more get harsher punishments than white convicted of same type of offenses, especially regarding the death penalty.

Race may well be a factor, I'd not rule it out. OTOH I'd argue that it's much more a socioeconomic factor-both crime and punishment, than race. Crime is tied to both poverty and chaotic homelife, the later being a function of the former in many cases.

High income, violent offenders tend to be white and have access to top attorneys, yet chaotic homelife is still a signpost, if not so obvious one. Anomie may be a factor in sociopathy, whether caused by non-binding with greater society or a result of narcissism from parenting or the lack thereof. Whether from poverty or neglect of parenting anomie may well come into play with concurring sociopathy.

 

[Immanuel]

Maybe charges would not be what came of it, Maybe just enough heat for Holder to be replaced.

The real question that needs to be answered here is this. Is their a policy not to prosecute Blacks in these cases if the plaintiff is white. This reaches far beyond this one case IMO.

As much as I agree with you, I do not see this happening.

J. Christian Adams will simply be portrayed as a disgruntled employee of the justice department and in a few days his fifteen minutes of fame will be over and Holder and the DOJ will go back to ignoring the law. No harm, no foul will be the attitude of the Administration.



Laws are not applied fairly and never have been. How many people sit on death row today? How many of those are black?

I'm not going to spend much time trying to match the years of these next two sites, but check out the census population of death row and compare it to the current US Population then tell me our laws are applied fairly.

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976 | Death Penalty Information Center



Population of the United States by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin, Census 2000 and July 1, 2005 — Infoplease.com

Race and Hispanic/Latino origin July 1, 2005,
population1 Percent of
population Census 2000,
population Percent of
population
Total Population 296,410,404 100.0% 281,421,906 100.0%
Single race
White 237,854,954 80.2 211,460,626 75.1
Black or African American 37,909,341 12.8 34,658,190 12.3
American Indian and Alaska Native 2,863,001 1.0 2,475,956 0.9
Asian 12,687,472 4.3 10,242,998 3.6
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 516,612 0.2 398,835 0.1
Two or more races 4,579,024 1.5 6,826,228 2.4
Some other race n.a.2 n.a. 15,359,073 5.5
Hispanic or Latino 42,687,224 14.4 35,305,818 12.5

I don't think I will buy the "fairness" argument.

Immie

Immie, I recognize why you are saying what you are, it's fair to a point. Yes, more blacks commit crimes and more get harsher punishments than white convicted of same type of offenses, especially regarding the death penalty.

Race may well be a factor, I'd not rule it out. OTOH I'd argue that it's much more a socioeconomic factor-both crime and punishment, than race. Crime is tied to both poverty and chaotic homelife, the later being a function of the former in many cases.

High income, violent offenders tend to be white and have access to top attorneys, yet chaotic homelife is still a signpost, if not so obvious one. Anomie may be a factor in sociopathy, whether caused by non-binding with greater society or a result of narcissism from parenting or the lack thereof. Whether from poverty or neglect of parenting anomie may well come into play with concurring sociopathy.

However, my point was... oh hell, let me just put it this way, justice is not blind and it is most definitely not colorblind.

I really do not like the idea of the DOJ doing what it is apparent that they have done, but there are ramifications for pushing this case forward.

Immie