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 HolderÂ’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.
Â…
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 yearÂ’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
