DoJ lied about political interference in the New Black Panther Party dismissal?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Trajan, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,050
    Thanks Received:
    4,748
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,748
    Now for some under the radar news this week.


    Apparently, the operative word being apparently, Perez, he of the 'disparate impact' fame, ala the settlement with Well Fargo etc. did in fact confer with the career lawyers and it was his 'view' that wound up as the final decision.

    Sounds like Perjury to me........You?

    ....*shrugs*

    as 2 accomplished presidents can attest- its not the crime in the end that gets you, its the cover up.


    snip--

    Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:

    The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.


    more at-

    Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution | WashingtonExaminer.com
     
  2. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    62,069
    Thanks Received:
    9,119
    Trophy Points:
    423
    Ratings:
    +9,122
    Just don't say Hussein.
     
  3. tjvh
    Offline

    tjvh Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6,893
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +915
    How about just Barry Soetoro? Will that suffice?
     
  4. Amelia
    Offline

    Amelia BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    21,830
    Thanks Received:
    5,100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Packerland!
    Ratings:
    +5,101
    So what is next? Does this go anywhere?
     
  5. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,480
    Thanks Received:
    1,245
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,269
    Perjury smergery...ain't no way Obama gonna let his pal Holder hang. No way.

    I know this sounds crazy, but I wouldn't put it past Obama to claim executive privilege to keep Holder from facing the truth. Crazy, I know...:eusa_whistle:
     
  6. Vidi
    Offline

    Vidi CDZ prohibited

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,870
    Thanks Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Ratings:
    +343
    I read the article.

    "confering" could mean anything. WE are "confering" that doesnt mean we influenced the decision.

    Is there something more substantial?
     
  7. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    63,082
    Thanks Received:
    8,698
    Trophy Points:
    477
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +9,526
    There was never any evidence of voter intimidation. Charges would have been a travesty of justice.
     
  8. JoeB131
    Online

    JoeB131 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    52,193
    Thanks Received:
    3,969
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +5,028
    I think the problem here is prosecutorial discretion.

    The argument is that the Bush DOJ, the one that fired people for not making political prosecutions, decided to go after this rather petty incident in its last days, even though the local and state officials didn't consider it that big of a deal.

    Police ran these guys off after about five minutes when someone complained about them. So obviously, they really weren't very good at the "voter intimidation" thing.

    You ever hear the expression, "Don't make a Federal Case out of it". It means, "Don't make a big deal about something because it isn't that big of a deal."

    Here's a case where someone tried to do that literally instead of figuratively.
     
  9. Jackson
    Online

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    9,061
    Thanks Received:
    2,547
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +3,059
    Of course there is a case for pejury. Judge Walton found as much and described it in his decision. This is another case for a special prosecutor in the DOJ and the scandals are adding up!
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  10. R.D.
    Offline

    R.D. Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,882
    Thanks Received:
    2,125
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,897
    Right, they were just poll workers with billy clubs.
     

Share This Page