Obama's Justice Dept: Subpoena? We Don't Need no Stinking Subpoena!

[concept]

Never said the story wasn't the truth. But it's clearly not the whole truth either - it's the truth that you want to hear. Biased sources rarely lie - but they almost never tell the whole truth.

I don't know (or care) enough about this story to comment on it - but if anything posted from HuffPo gets shot down, the same certainly can be said for the Washington Times.

You're welcome to whatever delusions you've convinced yourself of - but I'm no Obama apologist - I don't like the man, I think he's as status quo a politician as we've seen. But if you're going to attack the man, at least use the whole truth.

Stop defending the indefensible and you won't have to deal with this.

All I'm defending is the truth.

Actually. It seems as though you can't handle the truth.

That's why we're seeing you knee-jerkingly rip into the op.



But this is typical of libs these days.

Anything that is seen as a threat to the left and their insane policies is fair game. Nothing new from the "drain the swamp", "new kind of politics" moonbats and their empty-suit leader.

 

[uscitizen]

Washington Times as a source? Placing your faith in the bankrupt propaganda arm of Reverend Moon's crazy cult?

Might as well just use WND.

Which part is incorrect? Please tell us.

Oh nevermind, that is the furthest thing from your mind. First and foremost is being a good little apologist and you do that so well!

Never said the story wasn't the truth. But it's clearly not the whole truth either - it's the truth that you want to hear. Biased sources rarely lie - but they almost never tell the whole truth.

I don't know (or care) enough about this story to comment on it - but if anything posted from HuffPo gets shot down, the same certainly can be said for the Washington Times.

You're welcome to whatever delusions you've convinced yourself of - but I'm no Obama apologist - I don't like the man, I think he's as status quo a politician as we've seen. But if you're going to attack the man, at least use the whole truth.

It is an editorial is it not?
But people now-a-days can't tell the difference between news and editorials. Since most of what they see and hear are "editorials".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You don't see any problem with dropping the charges over voter intimidation.....seems like the Obama Administration is giving his bros a pass on this. It should come back to haunt him.

Do I think it's a matter of national concern that a Black Panther was standing outside one polling place in Philly with a gun? No.

Do I think that Obama is giving his "bros" a pass on this? Of course - everyone knows that all black people know each other and are each others "bros".

If you're looking for a conspiracy, you'll find one. But it makes you look like a racist asshole.

and there is the race card.

Hey when all else fails....

Explain to me how this isn't racist.

....seems like the Obama Administration is giving his bros a pass on this.

Or do you just respond with "RACE CARD" any time anyone mentions racism?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Stop defending the indefensible and you won't have to deal with this.

All I'm defending is the truth.

Actually. It seems as though you can't handle the truth.

That's why we're seeing you knee-jerkingly rip into the op.



But this is typical of libs these days.

Anything that is seen as a threat to the left and their insane policies is fair game. Nothing new from the "drain the swamp", "new kind of politics" moonbats and their empty-suit leader.

Please point me to where I'm defending Obama at all. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look like a fool.

 

[garyd]

So TDI to identify rascist actions on the part of a minority is according to you rascist?

 

[Gunny]

Washington Times - EDITORIAL: Justice thwarts Black Panther subpoenas

Could it be that President Obama's legal team is imploding due to a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party? So many new developments regarding the Black Panther case occurred in the latter half of last week that it is hard keeping up with them all. But none of them look good for the Obama administration or for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Justice Department.

The case involves paramilitary-garbed Panthers caught on videotape (which was backed by copious testimony) engaged in what observers say were intimidating and racially charged activities outside a Philadelphia polling booth on presidential Election Day in 2008. Even though a judge was ready to enter a default judgment against the Black Panthers, based on a case brought by career attorneys at the Justice Department, the Obama administration suddenly decided last spring to drop three of the four cases and punish the final one with an incredibly weak injunction.

Controversy, accompanied by continued administration stonewalling, has ensued ever since.

The new developments last week were as follows:

First, a Web site called "Main Justice" reported on Wednesday (and we have since confirmed) that the Justice Department has, for now, ordered two key career attorneys not to comply with a subpoena about the case issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The commission, by law, has explicit power to issue subpoenas, and the law mandates that "all federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the commission." The Justice Department, however, is citing internal regulations stemming from a 1951 case to support its order to ignore the subpoena.

Wow we are getting some change now!

Also there are three high-ranking Obama legal officials that are resigning in the last month.

What is going on here?

Washington Times as a source? Placing your faith in the bankrupt propaganda arm of Reverend Moon's crazy cult?

Might as well just use WND.

*yawn* Can't handle the argument so attack the source.

 

[The T]

Go back and read what I wrote. I don't give two shits about the NBPP guys. Not in the slightest little bit. Don't care if they go to jail for the rest of their lives.

But I do care about keeping the debate rational.

Now, hopefully I've made myself clear. I'm not defending the NBPP guys. I'm not defending Obama. I am attacking the credibility of the source, no more.

Obama is cutting the bros some slack. He's abusing his authority in favor of *his people*.

He's supposed to uphold the law not decide which ones he wants to obey.

Way to play the RACE CARD. (Or should I call it the "Racist" card?)

WHAT was rascist of it? NOTHING. Brothers can be of ANY stripe. Obama's happen to be of the Marxist/Communist/Statist variety.

And YOU see a problem with MW's post?

*I* wonder what pair of glasses YOU have on there?

 

[The T]

Washington Times - EDITORIAL: Justice thwarts Black Panther subpoenas

Could it be that President Obama's legal team is imploding due to a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party? So many new developments regarding the Black Panther case occurred in the latter half of last week that it is hard keeping up with them all. But none of them look good for the Obama administration or for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Justice Department.

The case involves paramilitary-garbed Panthers caught on videotape (which was backed by copious testimony) engaged in what observers say were intimidating and racially charged activities outside a Philadelphia polling booth on presidential Election Day in 2008. Even though a judge was ready to enter a default judgment against the Black Panthers, based on a case brought by career attorneys at the Justice Department, the Obama administration suddenly decided last spring to drop three of the four cases and punish the final one with an incredibly weak injunction.

Controversy, accompanied by continued administration stonewalling, has ensued ever since.

The new developments last week were as follows:

First, a Web site called "Main Justice" reported on Wednesday (and we have since confirmed) that the Justice Department has, for now, ordered two key career attorneys not to comply with a subpoena about the case issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The commission, by law, has explicit power to issue subpoenas, and the law mandates that "all federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the commission." The Justice Department, however, is citing internal regulations stemming from a 1951 case to support its order to ignore the subpoena.

Wow we are getting some change now!

Also there are three high-ranking Obama legal officials that are resigning in the last month.

What is going on here?

Washington Times as a source? Placing your faith in the bankrupt propaganda arm of Reverend Moon's crazy cult?

Might as well just use WND.

YOU didn't DIG too deep did you? Does this source really bother you as much to make you froth at the crotch as you have throughout this thread?

And WHAT OF that 1951 case? WHAT does it really DEAL with?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which part is incorrect? Please tell us.

Oh nevermind, that is the furthest thing from your mind. First and foremost is being a good little apologist and you do that so well!

no way to know because of the garbage source you linked.

there's also nothing wrong with moving to quash a subpoena if it seeks inappropriate information.

now let's look at the source of rev moon's article... Main Justice had an exactly opposite view of the case:

Now the matter lies in a standoff between the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has subpoenaed the DOJ for internal communications about the New Black Panther Party case.

The DOJ has resisted complying with the subpoenas, citing a Supreme Court precedent that protects the department’s internal work products from disclosure. But Adams has argued he is obligated to comply with the commission’s inquiry.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ general counsel, David Blackwood – who like Adams and other staff members on the commission is a Republican National Lawyers Association member – wrote the DOJ on Dec. 18 to say the commission had agreed for now to postpone depositions of DOJ officials.

The commission will set new deposition dates for the department employees in the next few weeks, and may consider subpoenaing other department personnel during the same time.

The Black Panther Case: A Legacy of Politicized Hiring – Main Justice

wow...that's almost a story.

the real story is that the two cases, both filed by baby bush's DOJ were the first times that the 1965 Voter Rights' Act to target blacks.

cause, you know, that's just what that law was for.

The law was to ensure justice and civil rights were upheld, NOT to protect a certain race or class based on what may or may not have originally happened to create the commission. As a lawyer you know that. You are , as usual , making excuses for Obama and his goon squad. In your opinion Obama can do as he pleases with any law break any legal precedent or violate anyone's civil rights, just so long as it is OBAMA doing it. If Bush had covered this up you would be screaming bloody murder along with all the other lefties that see NOTHING WRONG with this.

 

[mudwhistle]

Go back and read what I wrote. I don't give two shits about the NBPP guys. Not in the slightest little bit. Don't care if they go to jail for the rest of their lives.

But I do care about keeping the debate rational.

Now, hopefully I've made myself clear. I'm not defending the NBPP guys. I'm not defending Obama. I am attacking the credibility of the source, no more.

Obama is cutting the bros some slack. He's abusing his authority in favor of *his people*.

He's supposed to uphold the law not decide which ones he wants to obey.

Way to play the RACE CARD. (Or should I call it the "Racist" card?)

Playing the race card is when you bring up race when it isn't really an issue or shouldn't be an issue.

In this case Obama played the race card.

I think Bush would get the same response if he tried squashing charges against Enron or Halliburton officials.

 

[Si modo]

Washington Times as a source? Placing your faith in the bankrupt propaganda arm of Reverend Moon's crazy cult?

Might as well just use WND.

You don't see any problem with dropping the charges over voter intimidation.....seems like the Obama Administration is giving his bros a pass on this. It should come back to haunt him.

Do I think it's a matter of national concern that a Black Panther was standing outside one polling place in Philly with a gun? No.

Do I think that Obama is giving his "bros" a pass on this? Of course - everyone knows that all black people know each other and are each others "bros".

If you're looking for a conspiracy, you'll find one. But it makes you look like a racist asshole.

Voter intimidation is not a national concern to you?

 

[mudwhistle]

All I'm defending is the truth.

Actually. It seems as though you can't handle the truth.

That's why we're seeing you knee-jerkingly rip into the op.



But this is typical of libs these days.

Anything that is seen as a threat to the left and their insane policies is fair game. Nothing new from the "drain the swamp", "new kind of politics" moonbats and their empty-suit leader.

Please point me to where I'm defending Obama at all. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look like a fool.

Obama's AG is dropping the charges. You defended this move...thus you defended Obama.

 

[Claudette]

Actually. It seems as though you can't handle the truth.

That's why we're seeing you knee-jerkingly rip into the op.



But this is typical of libs these days.

Anything that is seen as a threat to the left and their insane policies is fair game. Nothing new from the "drain the swamp", "new kind of politics" moonbats and their empty-suit leader.

Please point me to where I'm defending Obama at all. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look like a fool.

Obama's AG is dropping the charges. You defended this move...thus you defended Obama.

Found the story in the Wall Street Journal also. Seems that an Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli was the one who decided to drop the charges. He is a political appointee.

When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.

There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.

Justice spokesman Alejandro Miyar says the dismissal was "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." But Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.), has been asking for more information. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch, for example, claims in a July 13 letter to Mr. Wolf that charges against the New Black Panther Party itself were dropped because there wasn't "evidentiary support" to prove they "directed" the intimidation. But Mr. Wolf notes in a letter sent to Justice that one defendant, Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, said on Fox News just after the election that his activities at the polling station were part of a nationwide effort. Mr. Shabazz added that the Black Panther activities in Philadelphia were justified due to "an emergency situation."

Mr. Wolf's demands that Justice make the career attorneys on the case available for questions have been rebuffed. He also wants the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings. A spokesman for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers was noncommittal as to whether any hearing would be held.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted on Aug. 7 to send a letter to Justice expanding its own investigation and demanding more complete answers. "We believe the Department's defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law," its letter stated. It noted "the peculiar logic" of one Justice argument, that defendants' failure to show up in court was a reason for dismissing the case: "Such an argument sends a perverse message to wrongdoers—that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated so long as the persons who engage in them are careful not to appear in court to answer the government's complaint."

President Obama needs to clear the air. As a former law professor who specialized in voting rights, he is aware of how important even-handed application of the law is to election integrity. In 2007, then-Sen. Obama introduced a bill to protect Americans from tactics that intimidate voters. It also increased the criminal penalty for voter intimidation to five years in prison from one year.

"There is no place for politics in this debate," he testified before Mr. Conyers's committee in March, 2007. "Both parties at different periods in our history have been guilty in different regions of preventing people from voting for a tactical advantage. We should be beyond that."

One way to get there is for Mr. Obama to insist his Justice Department reinstate the Black Panther case or provide a full explanation for why it was dropped.

The story was written by John Fund. Interesting.