• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Are Holder and Obama racists? / DOJ dismisses Black Panther case

Wasn't there a similar case that happened under Bush where some Minutemen were accused of votr intimidation by bringing a gun and hanging outside a polling station? If I recall, those charges were dropped by the Bush administration. Could it be racism? Did bush protect his own race there?
 
If Adams was hired by Schlozman, we can assume that he is a corrupt partisan hack, since that is exactly the type of person Schlozman was looking for, being, himself, a corrupt partisan hack.
 
BeAChooser said:
I've posted nothing to suggest I'm a Birther. Yet another dishonest tactic to avoid addressing the real issue raised by Adam's testimony. This is saying as much about you, Upchurch, as it potential says about Holder. Why are you apparently so afraid of find out the truth in this matter? Let's just put everyone involved under oath and get them on the record, and clear this up.
Click to expand...

What does it say about me when I point out that I never suggested you were a Birther, only that you deny evidence in a Birther style, which is much the same as a Truther style or any other conspiracy nut.

Other than the partisan hack making the claim, is there any substantial evidence that wrong-doing has occurred? Or should is it upon the accused to disprove every wild claim made of them? Who has the burden of proof?
 
Lurker said:
Wasn't there a similar case that happened under Bush where some Minutemen were accused of votr intimidation by bringing a gun and hanging outside a polling station?
Click to expand...

Why yes, there was. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said in testimony before the Civil Rights Commission:

"In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election 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.

In that instance, the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties."

He also mentioned another instance, in 2005, where the Bush DOJ didn't pursue voter intimidation charges against "armed Mississippi State investigators" who were accused of intimidating elderly minority voters by visiting them in their homes and asking them who they voted for, "in spite of state law protections that explicitly forbid such inquiries."

Perez also stated that the standards of proof for voter intimidation were incredibly high, and that in only three cases were criminal charges ever filed under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (the voter intimidation clause) since the law was passed in 1965. Three, in almost fifty years.

But I'm sure there's a really good reason that Adams (and BeAChooser) are all bent out of shape about this one particular instance, and yet were as quiet as church mice regarding every single other instance (save for thrice in forty-five years) where the DOJ declined to pursue voter intimidation charges against someone so accused.

Right?
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
So what was the basis of the dropping of charges or dismissal?

ETA: It would appear that the person who was threatening voters King Samir Shabazz was the one who did not have charges dropped against him. What evidence is there that Jerry Jackson was intemidating voters?
Click to expand...
Can you show where you got this?
It seems that charges were dropped against him.
 
Um, I got it from Ap through Yahoo, the Frederal charges were dropped but there was a Philadelphia law that stayed.

here was the AP story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_voting_investigation_black_panthers_2
Before any penalties could be handed down — and after Obama appointed Eric Holder to run the Justice Department — charges were dropped against everyone but Samir Shabazz. The court prohibited him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any Philadelphia polling place through 2012
Click to expand...

ETA:
Here is a news story from the time period of May 2009, hard to find other ones:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/print/
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Um, I got it from Ap through Yahoo, the Frederal charges were dropped but there was a Philadelphia law that stayed.

here was the AP story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_voting_investigation_black_panthers_2
Click to expand...
Thank you.

The Justice Department has explained this decision by saying that Jackson was a certified poll watcher who did not carry any weapons, that the New Black Panther website denounced the actions in Philadelphia and that the group had no national plan to intimidate voters.
Click to expand...
Seems straight forward.

So, charges weren't dropped against King. BAC, how do you respond to this? What do you say about your information sources which claimed otherwise?
 
BeAChooser said:
Would you folks agree that this is a very serious charge and should be investigated ... by putting people under oath if necessary?
Click to expand...

Let me try this as an example:

BeAChooser is a serial killer. This is a very serious charge, right? So clearly it should be investigated, right? Sure, that investigation will itself be harmful to BaC as he is smeared all over the news, and sure I'm not a reliable source at all, but why would that change anything?

You want a big show, when in cases like this all that is needed is a quick internal review to see if the accusation has any merit. I'm sure they did that, and it probably took all of five minutes. Done. Dragging it into some huge proceeding needlessly gives people the appearance of guilt without any basis and in the end you would still never concede the point because even if zero evidence is uncovered to a true believer like yourself it would still be one guy's word against another.

Should it be investigated? Yeah, but not in the way you think. It should be investigated about as seriously as someone who doesn't know you in real life and has no evidence calling you a serial killer.
 
The Ad Hominem arguments against Adams have convinced me that he cannot possibly be telling the truth. The first hand accounts of what he said occurred can't possibly be considered correct because he appears to be a conservative.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The Ad Hominem arguments against Adams have convinced me that he cannot possibly be telling the truth. The first hand accounts of what he said occurred can't possibly be considered correct because he appears to be a conservative.
Click to expand...

Close. First hand account of what he said occurred can't be trusted because it is anecdotal.
 
Upchurch said:
Close. First hand account of what he said occurred can't be trusted because it is anecdotal.
Click to expand...

Got it. People can't be witnesses to something happening because it's only anecdotal. That makes more sense than the Ad Hominems.
 
Spindrift said:
Since when does being proved a liar get anyone drummed out of the Republican Party?
Click to expand...

It happens a lot more often in the Republican Party than in the democratic party. You folks still idolize the biggest liar of all ... well before Obama came along. :D
 
Newtons Bit said:
Got it. People can't be witnesses to something happening because it's only anecdotal.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Otherwise, we have to accept people's witnessing events of UFOs, angels, ghosts, Big Foot, and the Lock Ness Monster as evidence of those things.

Anecdotal evidence, by itself, is useless. People's biases and perspective color their perceptions, which make eye-witness reports, by themselves, useless. IF, however, they are corroborated with physical evidence, then you've got something.

It is not, as BAC suggests, the accused who bears the responsibility of providing that evidence. The burden lies on the person making the claim. In this case, the person making the claim is Adams. His claim is not enough by itself.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Got it. People can't be witnesses to something happening because it's only anecdotal. That makes more sense than the Ad Hominems.
Click to expand...

I would like corroborating evidence of Adams claim. As it seems charges weren't actually dropped on all involved. The only complaint Adams may have is that is seems the "punishment" King received was too light.
 
BeAChooser said:
It happens a lot more often in the Republican Party than in the democratic party.
Click to expand...
How cute. A tu quoque argument. I dislike lies from both parties and would like them to stop. Unfortunately, the US/THEM mentality allows for nonsense to continue.

If Adams is telling the truth, than it is a real problem. However, the evidence does not seem to support his statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom