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

[Dancing David]

Just because they didn't manage to record that on videotape doesn't mean it didn't happen. There were multiple witnesses to that including polling workers and Bartle Bull, a democrat, civil rights activist and former aide to Senator Robert Kennedy. Did you bother to listen to what he described them do in the way of intimidation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sDoYYQdGOA&feature=player_embedded

Burden of proof to you Smedly.

Why don't you list your evidence?

Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

By the way, joobz, in terms of the *punishment* that was given Shabazz, it's already illegal to display a weapon at a polling place. So what punishment was he actually given?

How naive, not all legal redress is punishment.

 

[Dancing David]

Bartle Bull said he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!" You don't call that a taunt?

So your evidence is that one NBP member yelled a taunt. That would be Samir Shabazz.

 

[Dancing David]

The government complaint stated that all three men were involved in that.

And the actual compaint and evidence?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/January/09-crt-014.html
"Lawsuit Seeks to Prohibit Voter Intimidation in Future Elections"

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/misc/philadelphia_bpp_comp.php
"1. The Attorney General files this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § § 1973, 1973i(b) (2000)."

Allegations
"9. During his deployment at the polls on November 4, 2008, at the entrance to the polling location at 1221 Fairmount Street, and in the presence of voters, Defendant Samir Shabazz brandished a deadly weapon. The weapon deployed was a nightstick, or baton. The baton included a contoured grip and wrist lanyard. Throughout the course of this deployment at the polling location, and while the polls were open for voting, Defendant Samir Shabazz pointed the weapon at individuals, menacingly tapped it his other hand, or menacingly tapped it elsewhere. This activity occurred approximately eight to fifteen feet from the entrance to the polling location. Defendant Samir Shabazz was accompanied by Defendant Jerry Jackson during this activity, and the two men stood side by side, in apparent formation, throughout most of this deployment.

10. Defendants Samir Shabazz and Jackson made statements containing racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals at 1221 Fairmount Street on November 4, 2008, while the polls were open for voting."

 

[Lurker]

By the way, joobz, in terms of the *punishment* that was given Shabazz, it's already illegal to display a weapon at a polling place. So what punishment was he actually given?

You must be really disappointed that Bush chose not to prosecute the Minuteman who carried a gun to a polling place.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007050005

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.

Why didn't Bush prosecute back in 2006? It has to be racism!


Personally, I think Obama should have prosecuted the Black Panther guy but it was the Bush DOJ that dropped the criminal charges. Hey, what can ya do?

 

[Dancing David]

5-19-2009
http://mainjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/notice-of-dismissal-doc-17-1.pdf

 

[YoPopa]

You must be really disappointed that Bush chose not to prosecute the Minuteman who carried a gun to a polling place.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007050005


Why didn't Bush prosecute back in 2006? It has to be racism!


Personally, I think Obama should have prosecuted the Black Panther guy but it was the Bush DOJ that dropped the criminal charges. Hey, what can ya do?

Bush did it. Uttered more than once in this thread by the same folks who a few years ago had the mantra "But we're better than that."

 

[joobz]

Bush did it. Uttered more than once in this thread by the same folks who a few years ago had the mantra "But we're better than that."

I agree that tu quoque is never an effective counterargument. It lowers standards rather than raising them.

In both instances, the question should become "Why weren't they prosecuted more aggressively?"

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am now becoming convinced by Tu Quoque arguments that nothing should be done. It obviously doesn't matter if Civil Rights were abused because previous administrations allowed Civil Rights to be abused.

 

[Lurker]

Bush did it. Uttered more than once in this thread by the same folks who a few years ago had the mantra "But we're better than that."

My point was the criminal charges against the Black Panther people was dropped by the Bush administration without complaint from the right.

My second point was against charges of racism. I pointed out that Bush did not prosecute the Minutemen back in 2006 who were intimidating Hispanic voters. Did Bush drop the charges due to racism? I would not make that claim, nor would I make the claim that Obama did not pursue the Black Panthers due to racism either.

We really are too quick to cry "racism".

 

[A'isha]

My point was the criminal charges against the Black Panther people was dropped by the Bush administration without complaint from the right.

My second point was against charges of racism. I pointed out that Bush did not prosecute the Minutemen back in 2006 who were intimidating Hispanic voters. Did Bush drop the charges due to racism? I would not make that claim, nor would I make the claim that Obama did not pursue the Black Panthers due to racism either.

We really are too quick to cry "racism".

If the charges were indeed dropped in both cases due to racism (the Bush administration against Hispanic voters and black, and the Obama administration against white voters), then yes that's unjustifiable no matter WHO does it and should be investigated and rectified immediately.

If, however, the charges were dropped in both cases due to entirely different reasons totally unrelated to racism (for instance, Assistant Attorney General Perez' explanation that any prosecution under the voter intimidation clause is as rare as hen's teeth and always has been, due to the high evidentiary requirements for such prosecutions), though, then that's a vastly different matter.

Either way, getting outraged (OUTRAGED!) when the DoJ of an administration you (at the very least) strongly disagree with declines to pursue voter intimidation charges, when you were remarkably silent when the DoJ of an administration that you strongly support (and in Adams' case, actually worked for) declines to pursue voter intimidation charges is disingenuous at best and massively hypocritical at worst.

 

[NoScotsman]

Watching that video I had two thoughts: 1. The Black Panthers still exist???, and 2. I had better re-apply for my absentee ballot.

 

[Upchurch]

Incidentally, it's all been done before.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If, however, the charges were dropped in both cases due to entirely different reasons totally unrelated to racism (for instance, Assistant Attorney General Perez' explanation that any prosecution under the voter intimidation clause is as rare as hen's teeth and always has been, due to the high evidentiary requirements for such prosecutions), though, then that's a vastly different matter.

The case went to trial, the defendants didn't show up, the prosecution won a default judgement. Having a super high evidence requirement doesn't matter: the government already won.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well ProjectVote is up in arms because people were "heckled" as they walked to a polling station. An even lower bar for intimidation.

What did the heckling involve? I have not an opinion and you are off topic, unless you want to discuss similar cases where other charges were dismissed as well.

I'm not off topic at all. I'm demonstrating the hypocrisy of the left in this matter … when the left promised hope and change. It's your side of the political aisle that has made voter intimidation a big issue and called for change. And rightly so. Fine. Then stop it. Get tough about it. Don't condone it just because this case just seems to *even the score*.

Project Vote has made the case for more severe punishment of the crime than even a year in jail. And they clearly want to broaden the definition of it. And Project Vote is intimately connected with democrats, Obama and the Obama administration. Well now it's time to show you democrats really mean it. Even if the intimidation is by one of your own this time. Otherwise it's just another example of partisan hypocrisy.

Nice appeal to emotion, what witness and evidemce taht it was more than one member of the NBP that was engaging in taunts?

That's not an appeal to emotion, David … but to fact. And I notice you don't seem to want to answer the question. Call it a test of reasonableness.

As for there being more than one member engaged in taunts, go read the complaint that the FIVE attorneys filed against the men, David. It's against both men. It states

The Defendants intimidated and threatened those urging or aiding persons to vote at 1221 Fairmount Street on November 4, 2008 and thereby violated § 1973i. These efforts included, but were not limited to, doing the following to protected individuals: brandishing a deadly weapon toward them, directing racial slurs and insults at them, and attempting to prevent their authorized ingress and egress at the polling location through blockage of the entrance and the threat of force.

The bottom line, David, is if illegally showing a weapon, making threatening gestures, wearing military-like uniforms, and according to some witness telling people not to vote, hurling racial insults and other taunts, directly in front of a polling station does not constitute voter intimidation, then what does?

And keep in mind that Shabazz is no babe in the woods. He is a lawyer who knew that not showing up when the complaint was heard in court was an admission of guilt in the eyes of the law.

On top of that, effectively dismissing the already won case, when the NBP is a hate group, sends the wrong message. It also sends the wrong message when you and the others on this thread let the likes of leftysergeant smear a witness like Bartel Bull (who was a lifelong democrat, a long time civil rights attorney, RFK's NY campaign manager, Jimmy Carter's NY campaign manager, and who in 2003 received a civil rights medal from Ted Kennedy for his voting rights work in Mississippi). It says a lot about you.

BTW, here is the sworn statement of Bartel Bull in the matter:

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/...oads/2009/05/bull-declaration_04-07-20092.pdf

In it he states, among other things, that:

The shorter of the two men possessed a weapon in the form of a billy-club or nightstick. I watched the shorter man with the weapon point it at individuals and slap it in his hand.

I watched the men confront voters, and attempt to intimidate voters.

I watched the two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whome the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.

In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to the poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960's to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location. Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.

How sad, if the democrat party is no longer going to heed the words of men like that, who accomplished so much in the pursuit of voter's rights in years past. How can democrats turn their backs on that and expect people to believe their calls for hope and change are sincere?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007050005

Quote:
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.

Why didn't Bush prosecute back in 2006? It has to be racism!

Did you mention that case here at JREF so we could discuss it at the time? Like I've done here? In not, how do you know how I might have responded?

Yes, Roy Warden sounds like a nut and if he did what is alleged, he should have been prosecuted. But you folks are now in charge. No one is preventing you from upholding the law and instituting all that "hope and change" you promised Obama would bring. So where is it … or was it all empty rhetoric?

And by the way, the statute of limitations on voter intimidation at the federal level is FIVE years from the date of the incident. So if Warden was intimidating voters in November of 2006, nothing is stopping Obama's DOJ from arresting and charging Roy Warden with it today.

Let's see some action rather than a bunch of hypocrisy.

 

[Lurker]

Did you mention that case here at JREF so we could discuss it at the time? Like I've done here? In not, how do you know how I might have responded?

Yes, Roy Warden sounds like a nut and if he did what is alleged, he should have been prosecuted. But you folks are now in charge. No one is preventing you from upholding the law and instituting all that "hope and change" you promised Obama would bring. So where is it … or was it all empty rhetoric?

And by the way, the statute of limitations on voter intimidation at the federal level is FIVE years from the date of the incident. So if Warden was intimidating voters in November of 2006, nothing is stopping Obama's DOJ from arresting and charging Roy Warden with it today.

Let's see some action rather than a bunch of hypocrisy.

Yeah, I bet you are just shedding tears of concern for the possible infringement of voting rights but it is hard to see them through the manic grin on your face brought on by being able to attack Obama once again.

Anyway, Bush decided not to press criminal charges. Must be a reason why he didn't unless you think Bush was racist too. Damn racists everywhere. Look, I already said that Obama could press charges and it would be fine with me but I am not going to have a stroke over it.

 

[joobz]

Did you mention that case here at JREF so we could discuss it at the time? Like I've done here? In not, how do you know how I might have responded?

If we are going to play that game, why didn't you make a thread of it at that time?
this is why Tu Quoque fails at being constructive.

Now, I think ANTPogo has made the most lucid argument on the subject:

If, however, the charges were dropped in both cases due to entirely different reasons totally unrelated to racism (for instance, Assistant Attorney General Perez' explanation that any prosecution under the voter intimidation clause is as rare as hen's teeth and always has been, due to the high evidentiary requirements for such prosecutions), though, then that's a vastly different matter.

Either way, getting outraged (OUTRAGED!) when the DoJ of an administration you (at the very least) strongly disagree with declines to pursue voter intimidation charges, when you were remarkably silent when the DoJ of an administration that you strongly support (and in Adams' case, actually worked for) declines to pursue voter intimidation charges is disingenuous at best and massively hypocritical at worst.

To my mind the next steps in the discussion should be:

1.) Is it a general truth that the evidentiary requirements too high to make anything stick? This should be an easy answer for someone skilled legally. If it is true, it settles the debate on racism, but raises a debate on "are the evidentiary requirements too high"?
2.) What is Adam's opinion on the evidentiary requirements for voter harassment? Was he outraged at the dropping of the minutemen charges?

 

[A'isha]

The case went to trial, the defendants didn't show up, the prosecution won a default judgement. Having a super high evidence requirement doesn't matter: the government already won.

There was no criminal trial (according to Perez, "the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes", which is what has that high evidence requirement) - the government filed a civil suit against them, seeking an injunction, on January 7, 2009. President Obama wasn't even inaugurated, you'll note, until just over two weeks after this.

Once the Obama administration's DoJ took over the civil case filed by the Bush administration's DoJ, according to Perez there was a second review of the evidence, which found that King Samir Shabazz did, indeed, stand around a polling place brandishing a weapon in an intimidating manner, and continued to pursue the civil injunction against him. The review, however, found that the evidence did not support the pursuit of an injunction against the other two defendants, so they were dropped from the civil case.

In other words, they weren't criminally prosecuted for voter intimidation because the department didn't find any evidence for them doing that...and it did so during the Bush Administration. And in the civil suit, the guy that the Obama DoJ did determine was the one standing around the polling place in Philadelphia brandishing a weapon received the injunction that the DoJ sought, which will prevent him from doing that same thing again.

Which, you will also note, is more of a penalty than any of the Minutemen in Arizona or state investigators in Mississippi accused of the same offense received from the Bush DoJ.