There was a voter intimidation case against some Minutemen, one of whom carried a gun - intimidating hispanic voters - under the last administration. Case was dropped for the same reason as the NBP case. Must not have been in the news much.
Care to explain?
Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about, but I'll just take you at your word that it happened as you say. If they were intimidating voters, they need to be prosecuted. If they weren't, that was wrong.
No, two wrongs don't make a right but - that is an argument frequently brought up when someone attempts to show that a similar issue, was handled in a similar way - recently - but ignored! Part of the Commission's investigation includes examining whether the NBT case indicates a significant departure from standard practice/interpretation of law in the DoJ and, bringing up a similar case dismissed for similar reasons would seem to indicate it is not.
If the Minuteman case is representative of a case where the demands for evidence did not meet the law then it was correct to drop it - as with the Black Panther case. I'm not going to say there is a tit-for-a-tat here becuase there is no evidence to support that beyond circumstantial.
However, analysis of the court did not need to proceed to whether stare decisis applied because default judgment was entered as you note further on in your comments. So, I don't think attempting to impune the facts and assuming what the court would or would not have done is appropriate. The facts were sufficient for the court to find that the government made a prima facie case of voter intimidation, you can't get a default judgment with less.
IF that is the case, then yes he should be held accountable - but WHAT evidence is there beyond hearsay and circumstantial? Adams himself admitted that he has no first-hand knowledge of the events and conversations he claimes to support his accusations.
Again, a prima facie case was made by the government. (The facts, in the light most favorable to the government, showed the accused were guilty of voter intimidation).
In any case, it seems more than clear to me (and oh by the way, to the court) that there was voter intimidation by the two NBP members. There is no legitimate excuse for dropping the case in the sentencing phase.
What court? My understanding is that the judgegment that would have been obtained was by default of the guy not showing up not as a matter of evidence. In fact, judgement was obtained against the person that actually had a nightstick (which, by the way, is more than any judgement against the Minutemen).
The judgment was obtained, but the prosecution was dropped in the sentencing phase. An even more difficult to understand decision by the justice department. I could more easily see just not prosecuting.
Have any voters claimed to have been intimidated?
That's my understanding. I would say, since the government had to make out a prima facie case, then they must have had to show actual intimidation if that is an element of the crime.
Furthermore, this action is dangerous because of the signal it sends to the American public that this behavior is tolerated. I don't need members of either side lingering around polling places with weapons of any description. It will only lead to violence around polling places. Believe me, this election there will be armed people looking for polling places with "these kind of guards" to "confront" them and let the chips fall where they may.
That would be a disastrous result! The justice department needs to man up say they were wrong and finish the prosecution. They cannot allow people to think this is OK.
I actually agree with that - and, in this case - the fellow with the nightstick did have an injunction filed against him as a result.
Do you really believe, "don't show up at another polling place armed for a couple of years" is enough to send any kind of a message except, "We don't really mind if you do this -- wink, wink, nod, nod" If so, you and Ravi are on an island with TM and I don't envy you that.