Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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 - 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.
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.
Washington Times - EDITORIAL: Justice thwarts Black Panther subpoenas
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.
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!
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.
Washington Times - EDITORIAL: Justice thwarts Black Panther subpoenas
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 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.
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.
So basically you got nothing except your own little conspiracy theory?
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!
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.
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.
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 departments internal work products from disclosure. But Adams has argued he is obligated to comply with the commissions 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.
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.
Stop defending the indefensible and you won't have to deal with this.
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.
Yessssss....must be because they were black.
Stop defending the indefensible and you won't have to deal with this.
All I'm defending is the truth.
Thugs holding nightsticks to keep whites out of a polling places?....and you feel you're defending a worthy cause?
Those fuckers have nothing to do with Obama....unless you consider his ethnicity.
What skin off of your nuts are they?
All I'm defending is the truth.
Thugs holding nightsticks to keep whites out of a polling places?....and you feel you're defending a worthy cause?
Those fuckers have nothing to do with Obama....unless you consider his ethnicity.
What skin off of your nuts are they?
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.
Thugs holding nightsticks to keep whites out of a polling places?....and you feel you're defending a worthy cause?
Those fuckers have nothing to do with Obama....unless you consider his ethnicity.
What skin off of your nuts are they?
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.
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.
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.
So basically you got nothing except your own little conspiracy theory?
I have no opinion on it all. No conspiracy theory. Nothing at all. I simply don't care about the NBPP guys. I have a problem with dishonesty, and the Washington Times is dishonest.
