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

[BeAChooser]

Yeah, I bet you are just shedding tears of concern for the possible infringement of voting rights

Again, Lurker, did you ever mention the Warden case previously? At least I'm showing *some* concern about voter intimidation. You?

Anyway, Bush decided not to press criminal charges.

Perhaps he did. I really don't know. Do you have a credible source to prove this ... i.e., an article on this published by one of those mainstream left leaning news outlets you folks seem to believe credible? Otherwise, this is just an unsourced claim.

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.

So you don't think voter intimidation is all that important that it requires some *change* in the way we do things. I see. What was good for Bush is good for Obama. Right?

 

[Lurker]

Again, Lurker, did you ever mention the Warden case previously? At least I'm showing *some* concern about voter intimidation. You?

You caught me. I did not show concern for the Bush case nor did I show concern for this recent case. Consistent. How about you?

Perhaps he did. I really don't know. Do you have a credible source to prove this ... i.e., an article on this published by one of those mainstream left leaning news outlets you folks seem to believe credible? Otherwise, this is just an unsourced claim.

If you were really interested you could have looked it up yourself...My googling took all of 30 seconds.

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf#page=17

Page 17:

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 imidated 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.

So you don't think voter intimidation is all that important that it requires some *change* in the way we do things. I see. What was good for Bush is good for Obama. Right?

Injunctions were issued in the Obama case. That is good enough for me. If the problem were more widespread then I would consider harsher action.

 

[BeAChooser]

If we are going to play that game, why didn't you make a thread of it at that time?

I'm not here to advocate for your politics, joobz. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have supported concerns if they'd been broached by your side. I am against voter intimidation. Just as I'm against serious violations of campaign finance laws. Which by the way, I complained about Bush not enforcing when it was very clear they had been violated.

Is it a general truth that the evidentiary requirements too high to make anything stick?

What can be the problem with the evidence in this case? There is a sworn affidavit by a highly regarded democrat who observed what happened, is knowledgeable about what constitutes voter intimidation, and who says this was a very serious case of intimidation. And there is a video to prove that the men were there, were brandishing a night stick, were dressed in paramiltitary garb and were standing right in from of the polling place doors. We know that at least 5 lawyers familiar with the case felt the evidence was sufficient to file a complaint. A complaint that they won because the defendants didn't even contest the charges. Now why would they not contest the charges unless they felt they had another way of getting off? Which suggests we probe whether these defendants or anyone representing them had behind the scenes contacts with any members of the Obama administration.

If it is true, it settles the debate on racism

How can you settle the debate on whether DOJ officials made a racist decision per Adam's claims, if you aren't willing to even investigate the matter or take sworn statements from the parties involved? What I see going on is a whitewash by the Obama administration and his supporters at JREF. So much for hope and change.

 

[BeAChooser]

Injunctions were issued in the Obama case. That is good enough for me.

And injunction against something which is already against the law.

 

[Dancing David]

This bears repeating:
Abigail Thernstrom^WP
http://article.nationalreview.com/4...ebr-a-conservative-dissent/abigail-thernstrom

In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.
...
Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance. It may dream of a large-scale effort to suppress voting — like the Socialist Workers Party dreams of a national campaign to demonstrate its position as the vanguard of the proletariat. But the Panthers have not realized their dream even on a small scale. This case is a one-off.

There are plenty of grounds on which to sharply criticize the attorney general — his handling of terrorism questions, just for starters — but this particular overblown attack threatens to undermine the credibility of his conservative critics. Those who are concerned about Justice Department enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should turn their attention to quite another matter, where the attorney general has been up to much more important mischief: his interpretation of the act’s core provisions.

The department has just proposed new guidelines intended to assist the “covered” jurisdictions in their efforts to comply with the demands of section 5, which forces “covered” states to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) for all proposed changes in voting procedure. All southern states are “covered”; so are Texas, Arizona, Alaska, and numerous scattered counties in New York, California, and elsewhere. Redrawn districting maps are changes that must be precleared.

She then goes on to talk at length about the new administrative rules for redistricting, and shock, gasp, I agree with much of what she says

The revised guidelines increase the authority of largely invisible and unaccountable career attorneys in the voting section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. The Voting Rights Act robs states of one of their most important constitutional prerogatives: setting the rules that govern elections. Southern black disfranchisement once justified a drastic change in the balance of power between the federal government and the states, but blacks throughout the nation are now important political players. Decisions to overrule districting and other policies made by democratically elected officials should not rest with low-level attorneys whose work is barely scrutinized and rarely challenged.

 

[Dancing David]

And injunction against something which is already against the law.

What you don't like [url="http://www.wwl.com/Judge-Grants-Preliminary-Injunction-Blocking-the-D/7544542]injunctions?[/url] What are they chopped liver?


They lost the criminal case, movement to civil redress would be normal.

 

[Dancing David]

How can you settle the debate on whether DOJ officials made a racist decision per Adam's claims, if you aren't willing to even investigate the matter or take sworn statements from the parties involved? What I see going on is a whitewash by the Obama administration and his supporters at JREF. So much for hope and change.

Wow, a whitewash, that excedes even your unusually low standards!

 

[BeAChooser]

What you don't like injunctions?

Why "injunct" something that is already illegal? It seems like a waste of time. It's like giving someone an "injunction" against murder (after they murder someone).

 

[Lurker]

And injunction against something which is already against the law.

It works for me. My bet is if the guy tries it again the punishment would be more severe next time. I guess we will have to differ in opinion here.

 

[BeAChooser]

It works for me. My bet is if the guy tries it again the punishment would be more severe next time. I guess we will have to differ in opinion here.

It's human nature to think another party isn't serious when they set down a rule (law) that when you violate they only tell you not to break. Ever watch children and how they learn whether a parent is serious about a order? The children that are most out of control are the ones where the parent doesn't follow through but just repeats the warning. Usually the child tests the water again. After a while the child figures out the parent isn't going to exercise authority and he/she can get away with even more.

 

[joobz]

I'm not here to advocate for your politics, joobz.

This is quote worthy.

ETA:

What can be the problem with the evidence in this case? There is a sworn affidavit by a highly regarded democrat who observed what happened, is knowledgeable about what constitutes voter intimidation, and who says this was a very serious case of intimidation. And there is a video to prove that the men were there, were brandishing a night stick, were dressed in paramiltitary garb and were standing right in from of the polling place doors. We know that at least 5 lawyers familiar with the case felt the evidence was sufficient to file a complaint.

Please address ANTPogo's post and explain why her analysis is wrong.

A complaint that they won because the defendants didn't even contest the charges. Now why would they not contest the charges unless they felt they had another way of getting off? Which suggests we probe whether these defendants or anyone representing them had behind the scenes contacts with any members of the Obama administration.

Or they are simply nutbags who think the justice system is stacked against them.

 

[BeAChooser]

Or they are simply nutbags who think the justice system is stacked against them.

Maybe. But how are you going to find out which is the case if you won't investigate and take sworn statements from all those involved in the case? There are two sides, both consisting of professionals in the DOJ, that are saying completely different things about what happened. It doesn't do the country good to let doubt about what actually happened persist. I have no objection to investigating and if it turns out Adams lied, punishing him. Do you have objections to investigating and punishing Perez (or others) if it turns out Adams was correct? Only one of us seems to want to find out the real truth.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...071848/Holders-Justice-Is-Not-Colorblind.aspx

At an April 23 Commission hearing, witnesses testified to how the Black Panthers acted in concert, threatening black Republicans and whites who showed up. Two witnesses testified that they saw some would-be voters turn back and leave without voting after seeing the nightstick and being called "white devils."

Yet Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, testified before the commission in April that "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes." Say what?

 

[joobz]

Maybe. But how are you going to find out which is the case if you won't investigate and take sworn statements from all those involved in the case? There are two sides, both consisting of professionals in the DOJ, that are saying completely different things about what happened. It doesn't do the country good to let doubt about what actually happened persist. I have no objection to investigating and if it turns out Adams lied, punishing him. Do you have objections to investigating and punishing Perez (or others) if it turns out Adams was correct?

Of cousre if wrong doing was discovered, I would be happy to punish those responsible. However, you seem to be missing a rather important aspect of the story that ANTPogo Clearly stated.

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.

One must wonder why you have avoided addressing his/her point.

Only one of us seems to want to find out the real truth.

which one?

 

[BeAChooser]

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)

Then, joobz, what is the evidence requirement? If multiple witness statements (made under oath) (including statements by polling station officials) (including one even by a prominent democrat civil rights attorney and party member) and video documenting the presence, dress, attitude and location of the NBP members that day isn't adequate to justify a criminal complaint, much less enforce a civil finding against them, what evidence is required? Did Perez happen to detail that? Or is he simply expecting us to buy what the whitewash (errrr ... WhiteHouse) is selling?

One must wonder why you have avoided addressing his/her point.

What point? That the Bush adminstration may not have enforced voter intimidation laws? So what if that's true? We all thought Obama was bringing hope and change.

And one must wonder why you and ANTPogo are avoiding facts like these:

Two witnesses testified that they saw some would-be voters turn back and leave without voting after seeing the nightstick and being called "white devils."

If that doesn't qualify as criminal voter intimidation, what possibly can? You only seem to want "pay back" for Bush not enforcing the law (assuming Perez is being honest).

 

[A'isha]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...071848/Holders-Justice-Is-Not-Colorblind.aspx

"Yet Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, testified before the commission in April that "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes." Say what?"

Yes, Perez did testify that the civil rights commission didn't think that the facts of the case were enough to justify criminal prosecution, and so a civil case was filed instead of a criminal case. Except that this determination was made and the civil case filed during the Bush Administration's tenure.

I wonder why the author of that little opinion piece rather dishonestly omitted that little tidbit from the essay...especially since if the author really read the parts of Perez' testimony that he quoted, there's no way he could have missed the dates discussed by Perez in that testimony which make it pretty obvious that the "no criminal violation" determination and the filing of a civil suit only happened while Bush was still President.

Or do you, BAC, really think that Obama somehow managed to exert his pernicious, racist influence over the Department of Justice before he was even inaugurated?

 

[BeAChooser]

Well ANTPogo, if Perez is right, then I'd think you'd be eager to have he and others testify under oath as to the facts in this case.

After, he has been specifically accused by Adams of lying under oath in this matter.

Surely he and you want to make sure there is no doubt as to who the real liar is. ... right?

 

[A'isha]

Then, joobz, what is the evidence requirement? If multiple witness statements (made under oath) (including statements by polling station officials) (including one even by a prominent democrat civil rights attorney and party member) and video documenting the presence, dress, attitude and location of the NBP members that day isn't adequate to justify a criminal complaint, much less enforce a civil finding against them, what evidence is required? Did Perez happen to detail that? Or is he simply expecting us to buy what the whitewash (errrr ... WhiteHouse) is selling?

If you'd actually bothered to read Perez' testimony, you'd find that he was asked that very question, BAC (by the same Abigail Thernstrom whose thoughts on this matter were published in that well-known liberal rag The National Review, as quoted above by Dancing David), and answered it.

It essentially boils down to "In all the history of the Voting Rights Act, only three cases were ever brought, and in two of those cases the courts rejected the prosecution's evidence and arguments, while the third ended in a settlement. Therefore, if the level of evidence of any given case does not even match the level of evidence in those prosecuted but failed cases (to say nothing of matching the level of evidence in the cases that all the previous DOJs since 1965 didn't even prosecute at all), then we don't bother with criminal charges, because the precedent in the court system is that those prosecutions will be ultimately unsuccessful."

And one must wonder why you and ANTPogo are avoiding facts like these:

"Two witnesses testified that they saw some would-be voters turn back and leave without voting after seeing the nightstick and being called "white devils." "

If that doesn't qualify as criminal voter intimidation, what possibly can? You only seem to want "pay back" for Bush not enforcing the law (assuming Perez is being honest).

Because the determination that while the above happened, it wasn't enough to support criminal prosecution and instead prompted the government to seek a civil injunction was made by the Bush Administration, weeks before Obama was even sworn into office.

If you're mad about the Department of Justice failing to prosecute Shabazz and his cohorts criminally for voter intimidation, your ire should be directed at President George W. Bush and Michael Mukasey, the Attorney General that Bush himself appointed.

 

[A'isha]

Well ANTPogo, if Perez is right, then I'd think you'd be eager to have he and others testify under oath as to the facts in this case.

After, he has been specifically accused by Adams of lying under oath in this matter.

Surely he and you want to make sure there is no doubt as to who the real liar is. ... right?

If you already think he lied under oath, BAC, what exactly will having him testify under oath again prove to you?

 

[Dancing David]

Why "injunct" something that is already illegal? It seems like a waste of time. It's like giving someone an "injunction" against murder (after they murder someone).

Apparently someone, I do not know who, but it involved the Bush DoJ to some extent decided to pursue a civil process. Perhaps it was not judged worthy of a criminal proceeding?

rolleyes²