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

[Trajan]

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

 

[WillowTree]

Just don't say Hussein.

 

[tjvh]

Just don't say Hussein.

How about just Barry Soetoro? Will that suffice?

 

[Amelia]

So what is next? Does this go anywhere?

 

[eflatminor]

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...

 

[Vidi]

I read the article.

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

Is there something more substantial?

 

[Ravi]

There was never any evidence of voter intimidation. Charges would have been a travesty of justice.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[Jackson]

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

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!

 

[R.D.]

There was never any evidence of voter intimidation. Charges would have been a travesty of justice.

Right, they were just poll workers with billy clubs.

 

[Trajan]

I read the article.

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

Is there something more substantial?

quote-

At a hearing before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14, 2010, Perez was asked by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow whether “any political leadership [was] involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.” Perez’s answer, on page 79 of the transcript of that hearing, is an uncategorical “No.” When the statements of Perez are compared to the documents that Judicial Watch forced DOJ to release in the FOIA lawsuit, it is clear Judge Walton was polite when he said they are contradictory and “cast doubt on the accuracy” of Perez’s account.

According to the court, the DOJ documents, including emails from former Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli (who was the number-two official at DOJ) and former Democratic election lawyer and Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch, “revealed 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.”

The PJ Tatler » Federal Court: DOJ Official May Have Lied About the New Black Panther Case


is that more clear and substantial? and just aside from that, what the heck would they be conferring ON or over? the color of the Nationals new uniforms?

 

[Trajan]

There was never any evidence of voter intimidation. Charges would have been a travesty of justice.

Right, they were just poll workers with billy clubs.

and of course theres the 'test'.....

would people dressed up in Neo-nazi militia garb in front of a polling places, billy clubs in hand skate in the same fashion?

somehow, I just don't think so.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I read the article.

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

Is there something more substantial?

Do you really need it?
You have heard the expressions - "where this is smoke - there is fire"? or how about "you don't need someone to tell you this stinks...when something smells fishy...you just know it".

Could interference be proved in court? Doubt it.
Do you need the same level of proof to get past common sense? No...you don't.
There were so many laws, SERIOUS laws broke by the black panthers when this happened - that you would have to be a fool or a partisan bat to not see political influence all over this thing.
Had this been the south, had this been white supremacist wearing military-style clothing - shiiit...Obamas camp would have been all over it and the Aryan boys would have been hung by their balls.

 

[Moonglow]

I saw the evidence presented and did not see how what they did was politically motivated.
I did some intimidation, but i also wondered why the people did not stand up to the men and drive them out, I know they were poll watchers, but still, if it happened in my polling place iIwould never stand for their actions, and I would take immediate action to stop any aggressive behaivor by anyone.
The DOJ under Bush did not prosecute and neither did Obama, but still the video does not show proof of voter intemidation to vote democrat only.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I saw the evidence presented and did not see how what they did was politically motivated.
I did some intimidation, but i also wondered why the people did not stand up to the men and drive them out, I know they were poll watchers, but still, if it happened in my polling place iIwould never stand for their actions, and I would take immediate action to stop any aggressive behaivor by anyone.
The DOJ under Bush did not prosecute and neither did Obama, but still the video does not show proof of voter intemidation to vote democrat only.

Yeah...large guys walking around in black military-style clothing, combat boots - carrying clubs...naahhh - your right...nothing intimidating about that...hell now.

 

[eflatminor]

There was never any evidence of voter intimidation. Charges would have been a travesty of justice.

Cool. So if a couple of redneck Klansmen show up to a predominately Black polling place this November in combat boots with billy clubs, we'll not hear a peep from you. Got it...