BREAKING: A Third Former DOJ Official Steps Forward to Support J. Christian Adams
July 6, 2010

Quote :

"Several former DOJ employees have been in contact with Pajamas Media, interested in publicly supporting J. Christian Adams as he comes forward about the DOJ's failure to enforce the country's laws from a race-neutral perspective. These former DOJ employees have expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams' professionalism, excellent performance, and outstanding record of enforcing the law without racial bias. Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams' statements about the DOJ."

http://tinyurl.com/2uc2x59

Looks like it's getting harder to attack this whistleblower on his character. And it now appears that there may also be NAACP and ACORN connections in this mess.

http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/07/NBPP-Hearing-Transcript-7-6-10.pdf

7/8/2010 2:18:25 PM

Quote :

"Several former DOJ employees have been in contact with Pajamas Media,"

yea I stopped reading right there...

7/8/2010 2:21:04 PM

Thanks for your input.

7/8/2010 2:39:18 PM

like i have mentioned in the other thread, i am astounded that Obama nor Holder have commented to defend the decision. i think Holder loses his job. no way for Obama to save face otherwise.

7/8/2010 3:37:35 PM

You're not alone, DaBird, in wanting an explanation:

Quote :

"Robert Driscoll was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General from 2001-03.... The video of the defendants in the Black Panther matter was seen by millions. While most have not studied civil rights law or the Voting Rights Act in detail, viewers of the video assume that the kind of conduct shown in the video is inappropriate at a polling place. A lawsuit was filed by experienced voting rights lawyers at DOJ to remedy the situation and prevent such future conduct. And yet the case was dismissed voluntarily by the DOJ (after a shift in administration), a result that seems — at a visceral level — strange to anyone who has seen the video. The detailed testimony of the decision-makers (not the subsequent appointee who was not around at the time of the decision) would be enlightening and educational. If the dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers was a result of political influence (as Mr. Adams alleges — an allegation that does not seem far-fetched, based on my experience), that is important to know. "

7/9/2010 12:32:49 AM

The New Black Panther Party? AHA, that's adorable.

So do they just hate the whites? Or are Jews, Asians, and Latinos targeted too?

Lock 'em up with the skinheads until they all make nice...

7/9/2010 1:24:16 AM

King Samir Shabazz, pillar of the community

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPH0a3oYspg

7/9/2010 1:48:38 AM

I didn't realize it was against the law to be a scary looking black man and say mean things

[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 8:13 AM. Reason : seriously though, what law was broken?]

7/9/2010 8:11:00 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

read the section about Intimidation.

7/9/2010 8:27:01 AM

I am very aware of voter intimidation

find me one person who was there that day and filed a complaint

7/9/2010 8:33:18 AM

Isn't the whole purpose of voter intimidation to force someone to vote a certain way without the authorities finding out?

7/9/2010 8:50:22 AM

that's a good point.

clearly anyone who gets caught robbing a bank wasn't really committing a crime because the whole point of burglary is to get away with it.

7/9/2010 10:18:26 AM

Quote :

"find me one person who was there that day and filed a complaint"

found one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

7/9/2010 10:33:53 AM

Quote :

"I didn't realize it was against the law to be a scary looking black man and say mean things [Edited on July 9, 2010 at 8:13 AM. Reason : seriously though, what law was broken?]"

voter intimidation, communicating threats, hate crimes, etc...


weak dude.

7/9/2010 12:11:28 PM

FYI:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities

Quote :

"1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as: a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;"

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section245

Quote :

"RULE OF LAW"

7/10/2010 3:31:43 AM

pssshh. white people don't have civil rights. didn't you know that?

7/11/2010 10:44:19 PM

The New Black Panthers and the White House
What did the White House know and when did it know it?

Quote :

"The more the Obama administration fights the subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and denies congressmen's requests for answers concerning the inexplicable dismissal of the voter-intimidation case in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), the more reasonable people wonder what the administration has to hide. And so it is appropriate now to ask: What did the White House know and when did it know it? Perhaps the single most important question that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House are refusing to answer in the growing scandal (for the stonewalling and subpoena violations make it a scandal) is which political appointees were involved in the obviously wrongful decision to dismiss the lawsuit — a civil suit filed under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Newly released White House visitor records present strong circumstantial evidence of White House involvement in what should have been an independent and impartial law-enforcement decision."

http://tinyurl.com/2eqlyek

7/12/2010 5:54:26 PM

What exactly is the issue here? None of the links posted in this thread or the other says anything except "obama hates whitey."

7/12/2010 6:21:35 PM

Quote :

"Well, no, that headline is a joke. Adam Serwer, who's worked like the devil to debunk theories about why the Department of Justice isn't gunning for the New Black Panther Party, makes an important find: [T]he case was downgraded to a civil case 11 days before Obama was inaugurated, 26 days before Eric Holder became attorney general, and about nine months before Thomas Perez was confirmed as head of the Civil Rights Division. Conservative activist and former Voting Section Attorney J. Christian Adams identified United States Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli as the person who ordered the case dismissed, but he wasn't confirmed until March, three months after the case was downgraded. Adams also said that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes declared, “Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.” But according to the Raben Group, a progressive PR firm Fernades worked for prior to the Justice Department, she didn't leave her job with them until June 22, 2009, more than six months after the criminal case against the NBPP members was dropped. Even if she did say that -- and none of my sources in the Voting Section ever heard her say anything of the sort -- it wouldn't have had any bearing on the NBPP case, because she wasn't there when it was dismissed. The conservative narrative goes like this: Eric Holder's DOJ got into office and skunked a successful case against the racist fringe New Black Panther Party because it doesn't want to defend white voting rights. (If anyone has a bunch of examples of white voters being repressed in the Obama era, please, send 'em my way.) In several segments about the case, Glenn Beck has tied the Panthers to Bill Ayers, Charles Ogletree, and Van Jones as the latest "militant group" pulling the strings on Obama policies. A simple issue -- whether the Panthers should be prosecuted further for briefly showing off their nightsticks and glowering at voters outside of a mostly-black Philadelphia polling place -- has been conflated into a catch-all storyline that really makes no sense."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/michael-mukasey-and-the-new-black-panthers.html

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 6:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2010 6:38:52 PM

We'll just have to see how it all shakes out in the end

7/12/2010 6:47:04 PM

nice

that seems like you admit the right-wing media is furiously trying to spin this into something it's not.

7/12/2010 7:09:27 PM

^ Incorrect.

7/12/2010 7:12:54 PM

So, by moron and sarijoul's logic, klansmen should be able to dress up in their bedsheets and hang out outside of a mostly white polling place brandishing baseball bats and that should be A-OK, right?

7/12/2010 7:18:02 PM

^ That seems to be the case.

7/12/2010 7:27:32 PM

Quote :

"A simple issue -- whether the Panthers should be prosecuted further for briefly showing off their nightsticks and glowering at voters outside of a mostly-black Philadelphia polling place -- has been conflated into a catch-all storyline that really makes no sense."

This sums up a reaction I had last night after watching the video posted in this thread.

They seemed to be making a point about the legacy of voter intimidation by whites against blacks. It looks like they were there to protect the voters at that particular precinct, not intimidate them. It's a foolish move on their part, but I don't think it was intimidation or even an attempt at intimidation. If the case was downgraded, that's why...not because some higher-up shadowy figures are trying to protect black hate groups.

7/12/2010 7:41:00 PM

Quote :

"So, by moron and sarijoul's logic, klansmen should be able to dress up in their bedsheets and hang out outside of a mostly white polling place brandishing baseball bats and that should be A-OK, right? "

LOLs

how is anyone remotely saying that?

7/12/2010 8:28:30 PM

because if you were to actually read anything or watch the videos, its quite obvious that members of the New Black Panther party dressed in paramilitary clothing were at a voting placing brandishing nightsticks and communicating threats. This is a clear case of voter intimidation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud#Intimidation).

However, despite video evidence of the events of that day, and the many interviews of which the leader of the New Black Panther Party has stated that it was part of a national movement and not an isolated incident, political appointees within the DOJ determined (against their own legal team's advice) that there was no case. Therefore several DOJ attorneys involved have resigned in protest, and have come forward to shed light on the case.

So, since you think that all of the above is ok, and I quote

Quote :

" nice that seems like you admit the right-wing media is furiously trying to spin this into something it's not. "

(because it clearly is something that is a problem and highly illegal).

Then it can be logically assumed that

Quote :

" So, by moron and sarijoul's logic, klansmen should be able to dress up in their bedsheets and hang out outside of a mostly white polling place brandishing baseball bats and that should be A-OK, right? "

because if you think its ok for the NBPP to do it, why can't the KKK?

7/13/2010 9:34:05 AM

I dont care if Obama knew, Holder knew or Jesse Jackson knew. I dont care if the intimidation was against whites, yellows, browns or rainbows.

the fact that our DOJ has video and eye witness evidence of clear voter intimidation and actively DID NOTHING about it is a fucking farce. on principle alone, everyone of you should be pissed off about it. free and clear elections are the foundation of our country. you cannot allow a single incident to erode it.

dont turn this into racial bullshit. it is about the rights of American citizens to visit their polling place without being threatened by anyone.

7/13/2010 9:40:01 AM

Quote :

"it is about the rights of American citizens to visit their polling place without being threatened by anyone."

thank you

7/13/2010 10:42:46 AM

Quote :

"ACTIVELY DID NOTHING"

7/13/2010 10:50:38 AM

Quote :

"So, since you think that all of the above is ok, and I quote Quote : " nice that seems like you admit the right-wing media is furiously trying to spin this into something it's not. " (because it clearly is something that is a problem and highly illegal). "

But an injunction was filed against the guy brandishing the billy club, from what I understand. Since you are all of a sudden so concerned about vote suppression issues, how are cases like this typically handled? What have been the punishment for other recent cases of voter suppression? I mean, this is a very serious issue to you and all, surely you know how these crimes are normally prosecuted?

And by spinning this into something it's not, i'm talking about you, hooksaw, and his right-wing opinion pieces claiming this is a conspiracy coming down from Obama, when if the link from The Atlantic is to be trusted, these decisions were made well before Obama got his hands on the justice department (and there is actually nothing in Adams' testimony that suggests it's inaccurate actually).

The bigger issue here, which you all are foolishly ignoring in your quest to try and blindly attack Obama, is the claim (by Adams) that for 40+ years now, if Adams' testimony is accurate, the DOJ has only prosecuted something like 3 cases against blacks with white defendants for vote suppression issue cases. Just based on the numbers, you'd naturally expect far more cases of voter suppressions against minorities, but there is enough of a discrepancy that there should be an serious review of what the DOJs procedures are. IOW, this issue has been going on since Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc., etc., etc... It's only now that certain people are so up in arms about it...

But i guess if i'm going to think like an idiot conservative, our evil black president hates whitey, and surely is a racist trying to protect his racist, anti-semitic friends in the New Black Panthers. That's certainly the most reasonably position...

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 4:58:22 PM

^ short answer? the DOJ is supposed to prosecute any cases of election fraud/voter intimidation, etc. THAT is what should have happened.

and

Quote :

" the fact that our DOJ has video and eye witness evidence of clear voter intimidation and actively DID NOTHING about it is a fucking farce. on principle alone, everyone of you should be pissed off about it. free and clear elections are the foundation of our country. you cannot allow a single incident to erode it. dont turn this into racial bullshit. it is about the rights of American citizens to visit their polling place without being threatened by anyone. "

signed x 1000

7/13/2010 5:33:02 PM

Quote :

"^ short answer? the DOJ is supposed to prosecute any cases of election fraud/voter intimidation, etc. THAT is what should have happened. "

And that is what DID happen.

7/13/2010 5:35:59 PM

^ Not exactly:

Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case
Obama Administration Abandons Voter Intimidation Lawsuit
May 29, 2009

Quote :

"Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last year's presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD)."

Quote :

"But on May 15, DOJ changed its mind again. Rather than a default judgment, the DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants."

Quote :

"DOJ only asked for a default judgment against one defendant, Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. But sources say the proposed order for the default judgment asks for none of the usual conditions the Justice Department would want, such as keeping Mr. Shabazz away from any polling locations for a set number of years into the future. Hans von Spakovsky is a former career Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He thinks the inaction by the Justice Department is unprecedented. He told The Bulletin that the dismissal by Justice, with no notice on the Justice Department press site, particularly against an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. He said DOJ has failed in its duty to enforce voting laws. He is outraged by the action. 'It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default,' he said. Mr. von Spakovsky said that the NBPPSD's lack of response was the legal equivalent of an admission of all the allegations made about the defendants' organized effort to threaten and intimidate voters. 'And dismissing an individual who was a local Democratic party official who defaulted by not answering the complaint smacks of the worst sort of political partisanship,' he said. 'It is completely contrary to all of the promises that Eric Holder made when he was confirmed to be Attorney General.'"

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 7:15 PM. Reason : Honestly, can you not see why this is a problem on many levels? ]

7/13/2010 7:13:46 PM

^
What part of that is "not exactly"? Your quoted section even affirms my statement. Thanks i guess...

7/13/2010 7:23:23 PM

^ The meaning of "not exactly" is self-evident. Obama appointees in the DOJ didn't even want to prosecute the case to begin with, but when the DOJ finally proceeded with some type of action, it had none of the usual conditions, particularly considering that members of a hate group were involved in the incident in question.

Which part don't you get? Or don't you want to get it?

7/13/2010 7:32:18 PM

Quote :

" Obama appointees in the DOJ didn't even want to prosecute the case to begin with"

This is a factually incorrect statement. From the 2nd link you posted in this thread:

Quote :

" Last month, we heard testimony from Thomas 7 Perez who is the Assistant Attorney General for Civil 1 Rights regarding the Department's decision to largely 2 dismiss the case. He testified that the facts and the 3 law supported dismissal of the case against all but 4 one defendant and the narrowing of the injunction 5 sought against the defendant. 6 "

Quote :

"but when the DOJ finally proceeded with some type of action, it had none of the usual conditions, particularly considering that members of a hate group were involved in the incident in question."

What information is this based on? The only similar case (also reference by Adams) was vs. Ike Brown, and it seems the punishment was an injunction, just like what was served in the NBP case.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/litigation/caselist.php

There are only 2 actions listed on that page too BTW where the defendant isn't a state or county.

It seems your opinion on this matter is not based on facts.

And you are continuing to ignore the wider issue, but this was never about justice for you to begin with.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 7:56:07 PM

Quote :

"They seemed to be making a point about the legacy of voter intimidation by whites against blacks. It looks like they were there to protect the voters at that particular precinct, not intimidate them."

So, whites show up and do action X, and it is called "intimidation." blacks show up and do action X and it is called "protecting voters." There's this damned thing we have called the "equal protection clause" that begs to be brought up...

7/13/2010 8:07:18 PM

Quote :

"And that is what DID happen."

prosecution is worthless without punishment.

why are you being so obtuse? are you saying you think that it was ok for these men to do this? that no crime was committed?

7/13/2010 8:13:06 PM

^^^ So, you dispute the facts listed in The Bulletin piece above?

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 8:22 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2010 8:16:10 PM

me?

7/13/2010 8:19:23 PM

^ You know who I meant!

7/13/2010 8:22:44 PM

if I did, I wouldn't have asked

7/13/2010 8:25:25 PM

^^^^^ What?

Are you suggesting that the DOJ, Obama, or Holder think the NBP did nothing anything wrong? Was the person who as intimidating voters in this case not charged with voter intimidation?

^^^^
Your claim that the DOJ dismissed the case is factually incorrect. The headline for that article states this (very dishonestly it seems), but the content of the article does not. So I guess i disagree with the headline (because it is not factual), but not the content (which is at odds with the headline they chose).

Quote :

"But sources say the proposed order for the default judgment asks for none of the usual conditions the Justice Department would want, such as keeping Mr. Shabazz away from any polling locations for a set number of years into the future. "

This portion MIGHT be true, but there is nothing in the case law that the DOJ has been involved in regarding voting issues that corroborates The Atlantic's assertions, therefore you nor I have no reason to accept this as factual (although it's plausible). You do seem like the person though to accept unverified statements at face value, so if it makes you happy to uncritically believe an unsourced assertion, then go right on ahead... but it's not a very intelligent thing to do.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 8:25:34 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that the DOJ, Obama, or Holder think the NBP did nothing anything wrong? Was the person who as intimidating voters in this case not charged with voter intimidation?"

being "charged" doesn't mean shit when the charges are dropped, dumbfuck.

7/13/2010 8:28:35 PM

The charges weren't dropped against Samir Shabazz the guy actually brandishing a weapon, intimidating voters. How do you not get this?

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 8:32 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 8:32:04 PM

only, they effectively were. they told him to stay away from polling places in philly until the next election. there was no fucking punishment. if that's not tantamount to "dropping charges," then I don't know what is. I mean, there wasn't even a slap on the wrist, for fuck's sake.

7/13/2010 8:37:01 PM

LOL

Is that your problem?

What should the punishment have been then? What are the punishments like in similar cases?

7/13/2010 8:43:28 PM

can you at least admit that there should have been a punishment?

7/13/2010 8:48:47 PM

There was a punishment, and it seems to fit the crime in this case, from everything i've read thus far.

7/13/2010 8:57:28 PM