Obama regimes DOJ drops charges against the black panther thugs

[OddsOn]

Anybody remember the scene of the black panthers blocking the polling booth during the Barrack Hussein Obama election? Or of the guy screaming on the street to kill white babies for freedom?

So can anybody tell me where the media coverage is of this? Why there is no outrage from the ACLU, Malcolm X, Quanell X, Rev. Jessie Jackson?

If this was a white guy screaming to kill tree monkey babies you can bet your sweet bippy it would be headline news on every station. So where exactly does the racism and the censorship come from these days..........THE LEFT!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mN67KJdd6Mw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mN67KJdd6Mw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Rocketman95]

i wouldn't bet my sweep bippy for anything.

[OddsOn]

i wouldn't bet my sweep bippy for anything.

how about the farm, would you be willing to be that?

[SamFisher]

Thanks, brah, for this breaking news update from JULY 2009.

Hey what do guys think of the Rockets draft picks? Can we get John Wall next year? And maybe Add Bosh too? That would be a killer combo!

[DonkeyMagic]

seems like the make has a reasonable point.

[rocketsjudoka]

This was brought up and discussed in this thread:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=188862

[GladiatoRowdy]

This was brought up and discussed in this thread:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=188862

He participated in that thread, wonder why he felt it necessary to bring up a year-old issue yet again.

[GladiatoRowdy]

seems like the make has a reasonable point.

Go read the other thread, any point he had was decimated there.

[Xenochimera]

Only white people can be racists. Didn't you read the memo?

[GladiatoRowdy]

Only white people can be racists. Didn't you read the memo?

Black people can certainly be racists, nobody has claimed that they can't. What I am complaining about in this thread is the fact that the OP chose to ignore an existing thread on exactly the same subject, a thread in which he posted.

Add that to the fact that the "issue" is a year old and had somewhere between little and nothing to do with the Obama administration, having been a decision made by lawyers within the DoJ, and the OP looks to be nothing more than a troll.

No surprise, just :rolleyes:

[robbie380]

Anybody remember the scene of the black panthers blocking the polling booth during the Barrack Hussein Obama election? Or of the guy screaming on the street to kill white babies for freedom?

So can anybody tell me where the media coverage is of this? Why there is no outrage from the ACLU, Malcolm X, Quanell X, Rev. Jessie Jackson?

If this was a white guy screaming to kill tree monkey babies you can bet your sweet bippy it would be headline news on every station. So where exactly does the racism and the censorship come from these days..........THE LEFT!

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=189269

ODDS ON! DID U HERE BARRACK OSAMA TANK TEH ECONOMY 2 GIT BAK AT WHITE PPL!!!??!

VERY CONTROVERSIAL!!!!!!

[OddsOn]

Thanks, brah, for this breaking news update from JULY 2009.

Hey what do guys think of the Rockets draft picks? Can we get John Wall next year? And maybe Add Bosh too? That would be a killer combo!

In typical Sami fashion your quick attempt to debase the topic misses the actual point altogether.

Here let me help.....READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD

[OddsOn]

Black people can certainly be racists, nobody has claimed that they can't. What I am complaining about in this thread is the fact that the OP chose to ignore an existing thread on exactly the same subject, a thread in which he posted.

Add that to the fact that the "issue" is a year old and had somewhere between little and nothing to do with the Obama administration, having been a decision made by lawyers within the DoJ, and the OP looks to be nothing more than a troll.

No surprise, just :rolleyes:

You and Sami need to learn to read the thread title. But I guess your little brains were focused on trying to make yourselves sound important and you missed the actual point of the title.
The video is from last year and only added to make my point of astonishment that the DOJ dropped the charges...

[B-Bob]

He participated in that thread, wonder why he felt it necessary to bring up a year-old issue yet again.

gotta make his monthly quota.

[mc mark]

you had a point?

[DonnyMost]

You and Sami need to learn to read the thread title. But I guess your little brains were focused on trying to make yourselves sound important and you missed the actual point of the title.
The video is from last year and only added to make my point of astonishment that the DOJ dropped the charges...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/29/charges-new-black-panthers-dropped-obama-justice-dept/

This story is from May 2009.

What the hell are you talking about...?

[Major]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/29/charges-new-black-panthers-dropped-obama-justice-dept/

This story is from May 2009.

What the hell are you talking about...?

You'll have to forgive him. He probably doesn't actually read or comprehend the talking points he's given. He just regurgitates them, so any facts or details are lost on him.

[DonkeyMagic]

Go read the other thread, any point he had was decimated there.


http://www.tynansanger.com/uploaded_images/sarcasm_detector-710630.jpg

[B-Bob]

BUT THE TITLE THINK OF THE TITLE!

... :confused:
It is missing a apostrophe...

[OddsOn]

Here let me assist you in clearing up the confusion since you can't seem to read and comprehend the title thread or do a google search on the topic....

Former U.S. prosecutor to testify on New Black Panthers charges (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20100703_Former_U_S__prosecutor_to_testify_on_New_Black_Pant hers_charges.html)
Former U.S. prosecutor to testify on New Black Panthers charges

[GladiatoRowdy]

How is this different from the other thread on the exact same topic?

[OddsOn]

How is this different from the other thread on the exact same topic?

Ok I will play along.....

This thread focuses on a single act of corruption versus the other thread has many references...

AAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNDDDDDDD

This thread has a cool video where a black panther spews racial slurs against white people and goes so far as to call for the killing of white babies....

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have.....but somehow I doubt it :cool:

[RoxSqaud]

He wouldn't say that around my neighbor hood......

What an idiot.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Ok I will play along.....

This thread focuses on a single act of corruption versus the other thread has many references...

AAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNDDDDDDD

This thread has a cool video where a black panther spews racial slurs against white people and goes so far as to call for the killing of white babies....

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have.....but somehow I doubt it :cool:

In other words, the video you were so keen to post could easily have gone in that other thread, but you preferred one where the premise of the thread hadn't already been destroyed. Gotcha.

BTW, I bet the video you think is so "cool" doesn't speak to anything having to do with the charges, it is just some random racist. I'll bet you $1 to the tip jar that I could find a racist tea partier video just as easily.

To sum up, this thread has no substance whatsoever and should be merged with the other.

[mc mark]

To sum up, this thread has no substance whatsoever and should be merged with the other.


Better yet, if someone is purposely duplicating threads they should be banned from starting threads.

[ChievousFTFace]

Oh boy! I wonder what Rush will talk about next so Odds Off can start a thread on that too!!

[thumbs]

It's almost funny to see the usual suspects obfuscate and deflect rather than face the news that the Civil Rights Commission is looking into the alleged malfeasance by the Department of Justice. I'm sitting back to see how this ball rolls ... and who it rolls over. ;)

[OddsOn]

In other words, the video you were so keen to post could easily have gone in that other thread, but you preferred one where the premise of the thread hadn't already been destroyed. Gotcha.

BTW, I bet the video you think is so "cool" doesn't speak to anything having to do with the charges, it is just some random racist. I'll bet you $1 to the tip jar that I could find a racist tea partier video just as easily.

To sum up, this thread has no substance whatsoever and should be merged with the other.


LOL....you are so bent on sounding like a thread bully that you fail to grasp the point.

First, its my thread, if you don't like it click the back button.

Second, the substance of the thread is the obvious bias of coverage by our media and how its perceived as ok for people affiliated with one party to commit acts like this and its perceived as bad for members of another party to do the same.

Third, the very fact that I have to explain this to you is evidence of your ignorance or lack of comprehension in observing such things.

[mc mark]

It's almost funny to see the usual suspects obfuscate and deflect rather than face the news that the Civil Rights Commission is looking into the alleged malfeasance by the Department of Justice. I'm sitting back to see how this ball rolls ... and who it rolls over. ;)

You really want to get into a discussion about which Admin's DOJ possibly broke laws? Where was your (and OddsOn's) outrage when Chimpy McFlightsuit's lap dogs were firing career lawyers to install "Good Americans"?

[thumbs]

You really want to get into a discussion about which Admin's DOJ possibly broke laws? Where was your (and OddsOn's) outrage when Chimpy McFlightsuit's lap dogs were firing career lawyers to install "Good Americans"?
Non-sequitur. No one was fired. This is a Civil Rights / Voter Rights issue. Why not bring up the Gulf War? That's about as germane.

[GladiatoRowdy]

It's almost funny to see the usual suspects obfuscate and deflect rather than face the news that the Civil Rights Commission is looking into the alleged malfeasance by the Department of Justice. I'm sitting back to see how this ball rolls ... and who it rolls over. ;)

The "news" you mention wasn't even hinted at in the original post. This topic has been discussed at length in another thread, even the OPoster said that his reason for bringing this thread up was because he found a video with a racist black man in it.

To address the "news," if there was malfeasance, I fully support the Commission in punishing those who malfeased [SIC].

[Major]

It's almost funny to see the usual suspects obfuscate and deflect rather than face the news that the Civil Rights Commission is looking into the alleged malfeasance by the Department of Justice. I'm sitting back to see how this ball rolls ... and who it rolls over. ;)

And when it rolls over no one, you'll claim it's the Obama admin covering it all up. You've got all your bases covered such that no matter the outcome, you'll blame Obama.

[GladiatoRowdy]

LOL....you are so bent on sounding like a thread bully that you fail to grasp the point.

First, its my thread, if you don't like it click the back button.

It is a useless new thread whose content should have been placed in the other one on this exact same topic, if at all.


Second, the substance of the thread is the obvious bias of coverage by our media and how its perceived as ok for people affiliated with one party to commit acts like this and its perceived as bad for members of another party to do the same.

Where have you shown anything like this? There hasn't been a single person that I am aware of who defended the Black Panthers who tried to intimidate people at the voting booth. Their actions were out of bounds and they have been found guilty (through a default judgement since they didn't show up in court) and have been barred from engaging in similar activities in the future.

It wasn't OK when GOP operatives engaged in these practices and it wasn't OK for these guys to engage in them either.

Where is the perception you are talking about?


Third, the very fact that I have to explain this to you is evidence of your ignorance or lack of comprehension in observing such things.

The fact that you explained it like you did tells a much more compelling story about you.

[SamFisher]

In typical Sami fashion your quick attempt to debase the topic misses the actual point altogether.

Here let me help.....READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD

I read the title - are you using "regimes" as a verb? :confused: And why did you start this thread over a year after the event?

[Oski2005]

I read the title - are you using "regimes" as a verb? :confused: And why did you start this thread over a year after the event?

Because Fox News has brought it up again recently. I'm pretty sure I heard Laura Ingraham talking about it while flipping channels.

[DonnyMost]

You'll have to forgive him. He probably doesn't actually read or comprehend the talking points he's given. He just regurgitates them, so any facts or details are lost on him.

I guess he's too embarrassed about being rage-fluffed by Fox News on a slow news day into posting this angry tirade on an ancient re-tread story to admit that he didn't really bother researching the issue before starting this thread.

[thumbs]

And when it rolls over no one, you'll claim it's the Obama admin covering it all up. You've got all your bases covered such that no matter the outcome, you'll blame Obama.
I love baseball, especially when all the bases are covered. I'll be so glad when 2014 rolls around -- the end of my 20-year strike moratorium -- so that I can watch the games again. What is apropo is that there are four bases, one for each year of Obama being in office before his retirement. :)

[rimbaud]

What is apropo is that there are four bases, one for each year of Obama being in office before his retirement. :)

There are three bases, a plate, and a pitcher's mound w/rubber. Your credibility has now been devastatingly destroyed in an explosively awesome manner!

[thumbs]

There are three bases, a plate, and a pitcher's mound w/rubber. Your credibility has now been devastatingly destroyed in an explosively awesome manner!
Home plate is still a base, hence the term "four-bagger" for a home run.

[mc mark]

"four-bagger"


that's a strong tea

[Rashmon]

Does this breaking news affect LeBron's coverage tonight?

[thumbs]

that's a strong tea
Yep ... but needed to wake up the country! :grin:

[mc mark]

Yep ... but needed to wake up the country! :grin:


from what?

[thumbs]

from what?
If this were 1775, you would have had Paul Revere jailed for disturbing the peace. ;)

[mc mark]

Not really clear on your meaning, but anyway.

I would like to hear an answer to this "we're taking the country back" mantra.

Back from what? What exactly is someone referring too when they say that?

[thumbs]

Not really clear on your meaning, but anyway. I would like to hear an answer to this "we're taking the country back" mantra. Back from what? What exactly is someone referring too when they say that?
Okay, mc mark, haven't you ever considered just kicking back and having fun? Does everything have to have a deeper, darker meaning? You're beginning to sound like Major, who I can't imagine smiling let alone ever laughing without meanness. As you well know, the really good actors can also do comedy.

[mc mark]

Actually I just got back from 5 days, deep in the heart of the Catskills and I'm about to head out for 2 weeks on Martha's Vineyard . Life is good; thanks for the concern.

Why can't anyone answer that question?

Odds you wanna give it a try? What does "taking the country back" mean to you?

[rimbaud]

Home plate is still a base, hence the term "four-bagger" for a home run.

Your mamma is a bag.

[KingCheetah]

I'm intrigued - does he have a newsletter?

[thumbs]

Your mamma is a bag.
My mom turns 90 next Monday. If you knew her, you would feel very badly about that remark, for a kinder, gentler more loving person you would never find. If ever I could achieve her level of humanity, I would be very content.

[rimbaud]

My mom turns 90 next Monday. If you knew her, you would feel very badly about that remark, for a kinder, gentler more loving person you would never find. If ever I could achieve her level of humanity, I would be very content.

Why would I feel bad about a joke that had no chance of being taken seriously that further was posted on the internet?

OK, my mom is a bag. And a whore. And smokes crack while wearing army boots. Wow, did I really just go there? I would feel bad if I knew that she was a good person and devoted her life to severely disabled children.

[thumbs]

OK, my mom is a bag. And a whore. And smokes crack while wearing army boots. Wow, did I really just go there? I would feel bad if I knew that she was a good person and devoted her life to severely disabled children.
I feel badly for you that you never knew your mother well. But, to her credit, it does appear that she did look after at least one severely disabled child.

[cml750]

The DOJ dismissed the charges against those obviously racist people who intimidated voters. Eric Holder is a racist. If a KKK member had intimidated black voters I am quite sure he would have went for the kill as he should have yet he let's Black Panthers go. There is undeniable video evidence that these thugs intimidated voters yet the AG lets them go. Par for the course for this administration.

It find it quite amusing that people ignore what happened and focus on the fact the OP did not post this in an old thread. I feel this should have it's own thread because it is a new story that our sorry AG let these people go when he had a slamdunk case. Eric Holder is obviously a very racist person. He is more worried about Arizona and a law that a majority of the country supports than people being intimidated when trying to perform one of our most basic rights in voting.

November and 2012 can't get here fast enough. If we survive that long. Obama and his liberal/progressive cabinet are really making a huge joke of themselves.

[SamFisher]

The DOJ dismissed the charges against those obviously racist people who intimidated voters. Eric Holder is a racist. If a KKK member had intimidated black voters I am quite sure he would have went for the kill as he should have yet he let's Black Panthers go. There is undeniable video evidence that these thugs intimidated voters yet the AG lets them go. Par for the course for this administration.
.

Yes, those openly racist people who intimidated voters from going to a polling station in.....inner city philadelphia.

AKA Palin's base.

[geeimsobored]

I feel badly for you that you never knew your mother well. But, to her credit, it does appear that she did look after at least one severely disabled child.

Good god man, you answer so many posts with "have fun" or "I'm joking" and yet you take the time to get serious about a "your mom" joke of all things.

I find you evade way too many posts to ever take you seriously.

[thumbs]

Good god man, you answer so many posts with "have fun" or "I'm joking" and yet you take the time to get serious about a "your mom" joke of all things. I find you evade way too many posts to ever take you seriously.
Maybe that's why you are so bored.

[mc mark]

November and 2012 can't get here fast enough. If we survive that long. Obama and his liberal/progressive cabinet are really making a huge joke of themselves.

Hey cml750! Maybe you can answer the question?

What does "takin' the cuntry back" mean?

[Bandwagoner]

Hey cml750! Maybe you can answer the question?

What does "takin' the cuntry back" mean?
I think it is a colloquial term for raping a woman.

[thumbs]

Hey cml750! Maybe you can answer the question? What does "takin' the cuntry back" mean?
Perhaps I can explains what that question means to me:

Every four years the American peoples have a chance to change the direction in which the country is headed. In the elections of 2008 Democrats took back the country from the Republicans, just as the Republicans had taken it back in the elections of 2000. Tea party factions, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, Progressives, Socialists, etc. all want to take the country in the direction they feel is the most correct. Of course, only those parties who have actually held control of the nation can justify the "taking it back" mentality. The rest just want to "take it." Does that help?

[FranchiseBlade]

Perhaps I can explains what that question means to me:

Every four years the American peoples have a chance to change the direction in which the country is headed. In the elections of 2008 Democrats took back the country from the Republicans, just as the Republicans had taken it back in the elections of 2000. Tea party factions, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, Progressives, Socialists, etc. all want to take the country in the direction they feel is the most correct. Of course, only those parties who have actually held control of the nation can justify the "taking it back" mentality. The rest just want to "take it." Does that help?
So taking it back, means going back to the GW Bush type administration?

It's like the GW Bush administration was some civil war saw bones doctor that took arms and legs off of people with indigestion, and you tea baggers barely made a whimper. Then the Obama administration makes a few superficial scratches and you all are crying like babies.

[Bandwagoner]

So taking it back, means going back to the GW Bush type administration?

It's like the GW Bush administration was some civil war saw bones doctor that took arms and legs off of people with indigestion, and you tea baggers barely made a whimper. Then the Obama administration makes a few superficial scratches and you all are crying like babies.
I want to join who is going to take it back to an administration where they wore glasses without frames and had target practice on the WH lawn.

http://www.geppisentertainment.com/images/hake/rough_rider.jpg

I'm taking it back to when they made cowards disappear into thin air by puttin **** through em.

[thumbs]

So taking it back, means going back to the GW Bush type administration? It's like the GW Bush administration was some civil war saw bones doctor that took arms and legs off of people with indigestion, and you tea baggers barely made a whimper. Then the Obama administration makes a few superficial scratches and you all are crying like babies.
Your response is why I usually just give up in disgust because there is no point in attempting a sane discussion. Had you read my answer to mc mark, you would not go off the deep end by assigning to me motivations and thought processes which clearly exist only in your boundless imagination.

What I said was everyone, you included, has his or her own idea of what taking back the country means. Democrats felt they took back the country in the election of 2008. Republicans want to take back the country in 2012. The others have never held power so they just want to take charge.

Twisting what people say into something preposterous is the general style of many on the board. Personally, I lose patience with this technique. Sometimes I volley for a while, but I always get tired of the silliness which degrades into downright pettiness.

BTW, tea parties evolved because the participants in them got fed up with both Democratic and Republican policies of gridlock, greed, in-fighting and the fact that those politicians work for us, the people ... that means you and me and all who read or don't read this response ... not themselves -- and we the people certainly don't work for the politicians.

Also, "the Obama administration makes a few superficial scratches and you all are crying like babies" IMO is like saying Sonny Corleone suffered flesh wounds at the toll booth in "The Godfather."

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

how about the farm, would you be willing to be that?

Get used to it - Obama is chicago style baby and he's going to rule with an iron fist. This was all the plan, we're going to liberalize this country until everything you hold dear is gone!

[mc mark]

BTW, tea parties evolved because the participants in them got fed up with both Democratic and Republican policies of gridlock, greed, in-fighting and the fact that those politicians work for us, the people ... that means you and me and all who read or don't read this response ... not themselves -- and we the people certainly don't work for the politicians.


You might have more credibility to your argument if you and your fellow travelers would have made your stand while a Republican was running the country into the ground, destroying the economy and plunging us into a needless and criminal war. Now you just look like a bunch of mindless bigots.

You didn't have any problems for 8 years and then barely a year into a black president's term you lose your minds. I know what taking the country back means to you freaks. You're just too much of a coward to say it publicly.

[KingCheetah]

Obama built a basketball court at the White House OddsOn - what did you expect?

Welcome to our socialist world peons - HA HA HA HA HA ha HAAAA!

[cml750]

Yes, those openly racist people who intimidated voters from going to a polling station in.....inner city philadelphia.

AKA Palin's base.

So voter intimidation is okay with you? So if a KKK member intimidated a black voter it would be okay with you as long as it was in an area that was considered "Palin's Base"? :confused:

Personally, I think it is wrong no matter where it happens. I think groups based in hate like the KKK and Black Panthers should stay away from polling places unless they are going to quietly exercise their Constitutional right to vote.

[cml750]

Your response is why I usually just give up in disgust because there is no point in attempting a sane discussion. Had you read my answer to mc mark, you would not go off the deep end by assigning to me motivations and thought processes which clearly exist only in your boundless imagination.

What I said was everyone, you included, has his or her own idea of what taking back the country means. Democrats felt they took back the country in the election of 2008. Republicans want to take back the country in 2012. The others have never held power so they just want to take charge.

Twisting what people say into something preposterous is the general style of many on the board. Personally, I lose patience with this technique. Sometimes I volley for a while, but I always get tired of the silliness which degrades into downright pettiness.

BTW, tea parties evolved because the participants in them got fed up with both Democratic and Republican policies of gridlock, greed, in-fighting and the fact that those politicians work for us, the people ... that means you and me and all who read or don't read this response ... not themselves -- and we the people certainly don't work for the politicians.

Also, "the Obama administration makes a few superficial scratches and you all are crying like babies" IMO is like saying Sonny Corleone suffered flesh wounds at the toll booth in "The Godfather."

Very well said!!!

[giddyup]

I find the kind of broad accusations made by the Lefties on this board about other posters to be unbelievable, sad and disgusting. And you're supposed to be the "tolerant ones?" LOL. :eek:

[cml750]

Hey cml750! Maybe you can answer the question?

What does "takin' the cuntry back" mean?

I am not a member of the Tea Party, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or any other political party. I generally vote for who I feel is the best candidate. You may be surprised to know that I voted in the Texas Democratic primary in March. I was never a big fan of Bush and did not vote for him in the primary elections however I did vote for him in the general elections because I thought he was much better than the other choices(ie. Gore and Kerry). As much as I disliked Bush, I dislike Obama even more. I do not think his policies are good for the country. So my idea of "takin' the cuntry back" is to vote for who I think is the best candidate. If the Republicans end up with a candidate who I think is worse than Obama I will gladly vote for Obama.

[mc mark]

Sorry that I’m not tolerant of bigotry and racism like you are giddyup

[giddyup]

Sorry that I’m not tolerant of bigotry and racism like you are giddyup
There you go again.... do you just have no sense of decency or fairness?

BTW, I will venture to say that I have a group of long-standing friends (none of whom EVER vote Republican) who would bitch-slap you to Hell and back for the kind of insults you hurl at me and others here. They have grace and tolerance.

What you and your ilk do is so unfounded, reckless and irresponsible, but then those are the underpinnings of Keyboard Warriorhood.

Did you notice my lack of support for Rush regarding his recent lame remarks? Man, I must be going soft here in The Latter Middle Ages... :grin:

[mc mark]

Can you please point out what is unfounded, reckless and irresponsible about not tolerating racism?

tia

[cml750]

Can you please point out what is unfounded, reckless and irresponsible about not tolerating racism?

tia
mc mark, I agree with your stance on not tolerating racism. I abhor it myself! Based on your statement I would take it that you disagree with AG Holder's decision to turn these racist voter intimidaters loose?

[thumbs]

You might have more credibility to your argument if you and your fellow travelers would have made your stand while a Republican was running the country into the ground, destroying the economy and plunging us into a needless and criminal war. Now you just look like a bunch of mindless bigots.

You didn't have any problems for 8 years and then barely a year into a black president's term you lose your minds. I know what taking the country back means to you freaks. You're just too much of a coward to say it publicly.
I disagree. The outrage IMO has been simmering for the past 20 years or so, but it finally came to a boil due to Obama's policies. Many of the tea party participants voted for Obama because they believed he was "hope and change" rather than "more of the same ... or worse." Every movement begins in foment before it bursts onto the scene. As an example, but only as a very superficial example, look at the populist movement led by William Jennings Bryan. His "Cross of Gold" speech ignited the movement and stirred changes in monetary policy before flaming out when people discovered his true character.

Obama, while being the antithesis of Jennings politically, is his mirror image when it comes to disenchantment by the independents -- the swing votes who are neither Democrats nor Republicans. They swept Obama into office and are now very likely to sweep him back out.

But, as to your trite charge that the tea party participants were inactive under Bush, I give you Barack H. Obama. Many of us were disenchanted with Bush and looked to Obama as a punishment to Republicans with the only serviceable weapon the populace possesses -- the vote.

[Rashmon]

You might have more credibility to your argument if you and your fellow travelers would have made your stand while a Republican was running the country into the ground, destroying the economy and plunging us into a needless and criminal war. Now you just look like a bunch of mindless bigots.

You didn't have any problems for 8 years and then barely a year into a black president's term you lose your minds. I know what taking the country back means to you freaks. You're just too much of a coward to say it publicly.

Repeated for truth.

[thumbs]

Repeated for truth.
What you really mean is, "repeated for truth due to lack of original thought." :p

[SamFisher]

So voter intimidation is okay with you? So if a KKK member intimidated a black voter it would be okay with you as long as it was in an area that was considered "Palin's Base"? :confused:


Yes, I am ok with it as long as it happens in Palin's base in west Philly. Also her other bases in Watts, Bed-Stuy, Lower 9th Ward, Garfield Park, South Bronx, etc etc etc.

PS you might want to look above your head for all the stuff flying past it..maybe a periscope of sorts.

[Major]

I disagree. The outrage IMO has been simmering for the past 20 years or so, but it finally came to a boil due to Obama's policies. Many of the tea party participants voted for Obama because they believed he was "hope and change" rather than "more of the same ... or worse."

Tea Partiers are ideologically identical to conservative Republicans. You're saying these people voted for Obama?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141098/Tea-Party-Supporters-Overlap-Republican-Base.aspx

All tea partiers are is conservative Republicans that vote Republican but don't like to call themselves that because being Republican has become unpopular.

[Major]

Whoops - while that poll is relevant as a whole, this is the better one:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141119/Debt-Gov-Power-Among-Tea-Party-Supporters-Top-Concerns.aspx

Issue by issue, Tea Party = GOP.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qtcikz2fse2svokp293ajw.gif

[jo mama]

Also, "the Obama administration makes a few superficial scratches and you all are crying like babies" IMO is like saying Sonny Corleone suffered flesh wounds at the toll booth in "The Godfather."

his point is that bush spent 8 years trampling all over the constitution, spending like a drunken sailor, expanding the federal government to record levels, lying us into wars, ect, ect and yall not only did not speak out against it, you attacked those who did speak out. it was unpatriotic and unamerican to criticize the president...and obama comes along and now all of a sudden yall are for small government and fiscal responsibility. and its now ok to openly criticize the president. arent we still at war? doesnt it hurt the troops and embolden our enemies to be so critical of the president?

its very hypocritical.

[giddyup]

Can you please point out what is unfounded, reckless and irresponsible about not tolerating racism?

tia
How does it go? "I see what you did there..."

[FranchiseBlade]

Your response is why I usually just give up in disgust because there is no point in attempting a sane discussion. Had you read my answer to mc mark, you would not go off the deep end by assigning to me motivations and thought processes which clearly exist only in your boundless imagination.

What I said was everyone, you included, has his or her own idea of what taking back the country means. Democrats felt they took back the country in the election of 2008. Republicans want to take back the country in 2012. The others have never held power so they just want to take charge.


I did read it, that's why I made the comment I did. When Obama took control I never once said taking the country back. But if I did, I could tell you right now, where I hoped he was taking it back to, what he was taking it back from, and based on specific policies of the Bush administration and policy positions from Obama, I could tell you what the changes might look like, and why I favored them. I could also accurately compare both the Bush, and Obama administrations policies to other policies in the past, and tell you why one was a departure from the traditions, goals, and spirit of what this nation had been about, and why one was more in line with that spirit.

You can't or haven't done any of that. The tea party can't or hasn't done any of that, and when they've tried the references have usually been inaccurate or related to racist policies of the past.

Anytime you or others in the tea party have talked about specific policies that you all don't like, those policies were going on in the same way if not more so under Bush, or are being put in locally like in AZ, but you actually support it.

I'm not telling you what your motivation is, but I can see by your actions, (at best) selective outrage, that isn't philosophical opposition to specific policies set forward by the Obama administration.

[FranchiseBlade]

mc mark, I agree with your stance on not tolerating racism. I abhor it myself! Based on your statement I would take it that you disagree with AG Holder's decision to turn these racist voter intimidaters loose?
Who were they intimidating votes for or from? They weren't Obama supporters.

[thumbs]

Tea Partiers are ideologically identical to conservative Republicans. You're saying these people voted for Obama?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141098/Tea-Party-Supporters-Overlap-Republican-Base.aspx

All tea partiers are is conservative Republicans that vote Republican but don't like to call themselves that because being Republican has become unpopular.
Many of the tea party participants did vote for Obama. That is why many are angrier than the norm because they feel cheated by Obama's performance. I remind many of them that Obama is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. They weren't listening. I voted for McCain because I did listen to Obama and his staff and friends. Even so I was optimistic about a change in direction.

Now, with that, I am going to apologize for my absence until Monday. I was expecting about 75 people at my "event" Sunday, but the number is more than doubling, which is causing a boomlet in the local hotel economy. I wonder if it's too late to get a tupperware sales kit.

[mc mark]

Many of the tea party participants did vote for Obama. That is why many are angrier than the norm because they feel cheated by Obama's performance.

bull****

[GladiatoRowdy]

bull****

To be fair, I am certain that the Tea Party members who voted for Obama feel betrayed. Both of them.

[Rocketman95]

BTW, I will venture to say that I have a group of long-standing friends (none of whom EVER vote Republican) who would bitch-slap you to Hell and back for the kind of insults you hurl at me and others here. They have grace and tolerance.

did anyone else lol at this comment? your friends, full of grace and tolerance, would bitch slap us for criticizing you? your definitions of grace and tolerance are a little off, i'd say.

[mc mark]

I was going to let it go, but yes, I did find the contradiction humorous.

[giddyup]

did anyone else lol at this comment? your friends, full of grace and tolerance, would bitch slap us for criticizing you? your definitions of grace and tolerance are a little off, i'd say.
your side is so blinded by an arrogant self-certainty that you leave no room for alternative viewpoints. BTW, it was meant to make us laugh. It's called irony. The real point is that mc mark is not open to any discussion. Are you?

Remember, the guys in the original video are "intimidating" voters and the guys in the second video are spewing hate speech on a public street corner? What is to defend there?

[glynch]

I was wondering how bs like this came to the attention of the OP. Then I was walking by a business that had Fox on.

The more this bs goes on it makes me start to wonder if we perhaps need to start trying to reuglate the ability of crank billionaires to spread propaganda to the majority of thei citiizens. Maybe limit them to a local radio or tv station or two.

Garbage in garbage out.

If Fox told these morons to rise up in arms against the government because Obama was going to enslave the white race they would probably try to do so.

[pgabriel]

his point is that bush spent 8 years trampling all over the constitution, spending like a drunken sailor, expanding the federal government to record levels, lying us into wars, ect, ect and yall not only did not speak out against it, you attacked those who did speak out. it was unpatriotic and unamerican to criticize the president...and obama comes along and now all of a sudden yall are for small government and fiscal responsibility. and its now ok to openly criticize the president. arent we still at war? doesnt it hurt the troops and embolden our enemies to be so critical of the president?

its very hypocritical.

Someone reminded me of this on cnbc this this morning

"Deficits don't matter"

Dick Cheney

[basso]

part of a pattern of racism and lawlessness at the Obama DOJ? i can think of only one reason you wouldn't want to purge the voter rolls of ineligible voters... (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lawlessness-at-the-doj-voting-section-told-not-to-enforce-purging-the-dead-or-ineligible-from-voting-rolls/?singlepage=true)

Lawlessness at the DOJ: Voting Section Told Not To Enforce Purging the Dead or Ineligible from Voting Rolls
It's not just the New Black Panther case: in November 2009, political appointee Julie Fernandes told a packed room of Voting Section employees to simply ignore this provision of the "Motor Voter" law.
July 8, 2010 - by J. Christian Adams

I was at the Voting Section of the Justice Department for over five years. This office is responsible for enforcing most federal election laws which do not involve criminal matters. My previous articles at Pajamas Media have spoken of the DOJ’s lawless abandonment of race-neutral enforcement of voting laws, and other outrageous conduct. I will continue to publish here at Pajamas Media more instances of failure to enforce the law equally by the Department.

One such instance relates to the Motor Voter law, and will shock Americans who care about integrity in the electoral process.

The “Motor Voter” law was passed in 1993 to promote greater voter registration in the United States. It did this — most Americans now know from visits to the DMV — by requiring states to offer voter registration materials whenever someone had contact with a variety of state offices. These included welfare offices, social service agencies, and motor vehicle departments.

A lesser-known provision also obliged the states to ensure that no ineligible voters were on the rolls — including dead people, felons, and people who had moved. Our current Department of Justice is anxious to encourage the obligations to get everyone registered, but explicitly unwilling to enforce federal law requiring states to remove the dead or ineligible from the rolls.

In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political employee serving at the pleasure of the attorney general. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions.

The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity:

We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.

Jaws dropped around the room.

It is one thing to silently adopt a lawless policy of refusing to enforce a provision of federal law designed to bring integrity to elections. It is quite another to announce the lawlessness to a room full of people who have sworn an oath to fairly enforce the law.

Worse yet, it is a broken campaign promise by Barack Obama, and I’m sure he would not be happy to have heard the announcement. After all, his Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez has been traveling around the country bashing the Bush-era Department of Justice. Perez says as often as he can:

Those who had been entrusted with the keys to the division treated it like a buffet line at the cafeteria, cherry-picking which laws to enforce.

Yet at this meeting, Ms. Fernandes openly relished her time at the buffet line in the Voting Section cafeteria.

The problem with this sort of lawlessness, apart from the fact that it is becoming a trend in this administration, is that it nullifies the important compromise that Congress reached in 1993. Greater access to registration came by turning welfare agencies into voter registration offices, but the law also included provisions to ensure greater integrity. It is a dangerous development for our electoral system when one part of that compromise is tossed overboard by a bureaucrat.

It will be impossible for this purportedly transparent administration to deny this direction was given. There were dozens of good people in the room that I know care more about the truth than about saving Ms. Fernandes’ career.

Plus, the cases the Justice Department has brought — or not brought — corroborate the account: the Department has not filed a single case under the Motor Voter provision where there are problems.

Are there problems with list integrity? Yes, but that’s a story for another article. Even worse than not bringing cases, the Holder Justice Department has dismissed a case against Missouri that the previous administration had started. In many places in Missouri, there are more voters than humans with a heartbeat old enough to vote. Instead of fully litigating the case to a favorable outcome, the DOJ made it go away, nicely, quietly, completely. Sound familiar?

The blame-Bush instincts of this administration will no doubt lead to talk about all the cases the Bush DOJ didn’t bring to open up public welfare agencies to voter registration. Good luck. I’d suggest citizens go online and see the Section 7 NVRA, or “Motor Voter,” cases that were commenced under the Bush administration. Bush brought voter registration cases under Motor Voter against Arizona and Illinois.

This Justice Department, in contrast, has “cherry picked” which parts of Motor Voter law they will enforce. You wouldn’t think it has anything to do with politics or the upcoming elections, would you?

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com.

[basso]

per the post above, if illegal voters hadn't been allowed to vote in MN, Al Franken probably wouldn't be a senator today. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/)

[uolj]

per the post above, if illegal voters hadn't been allowed to vote in MN, Al Franken probably wouldn't be a senator today. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/)
The "maybe" in that headline is a virtual statistical impossibility based on the information cited in the article. The "probably" in your post is completely wrong.

[mc mark]

per the post above, if illegal voters hadn't been allowed to vote in MN, Al Franken probably wouldn't be a senator today. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/)


And if the supreme court wouldn't have committed a coup, we never would have heard of Chimpy McFlightsuit

[mc mark]

Oops!

Seems a very interesting story is about to break.

stay tuned!

[mc mark]

Oops!

Bush DOJ decided New Black Panthers no major case (http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/07/12/bush-doj-decided-new-black-panthers-no-major-case/)

The decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office. (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=when_was_the_new_black_panther)

This means that the 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.

From Media Matters: (http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070020)

# Adams has admitted that he does not have first-hand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations;

# The Bush administration’s Justice Department — not the Obama administration — made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

# The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

# The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

# No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;

[SamFisher]

per the post above, if illegal voters hadn't been allowed to vote in MN, Al Franken probably wouldn't be a senator today. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/)

Can you find an example of one illegal vote cast? thanks. Just a single one.

[mc mark]

I'm sure, OddsOn, you're just taking the time to think up the appropriate apology for the President and the DOJ.

I'm sure that's it....

[basso]

Can you find an example of one illegal vote cast? thanks. Just a single one.

how about 341? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/)

[SamFisher]

how about 341? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/)
That says that 341 people have the same name as people who were convicted felons.

Even if we assume that it is impossible for two people to have the same name, I guess it would be too much to assume that you are aware that felons are not automatically barred from voting in Minnesota?

Can you identify a single illegally cast vote?

The answer is no. You can't.

[rocketsjudoka]

per the post above, if illegal voters hadn't been allowed to vote in MN, Al Franken probably wouldn't be a senator today. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/)

Relying on Minnesota Majority's analysis would be like relying upon Code Pink to say that GW Bush didn't actually win 2004.

You can speculate all you want but the recount was thoroughly handled with ever opportunity for Coleman to contest to a MN Supreme Court of mostly non Democrat, DFL for MN, appointees.

[Edit] A followup. I just heard Ramsey county DA Phil Carruthers on the radio talking about the case. He said that it is impossible to know if this case had any affect on the outcome of the election and any view otherwise is pure speculation.

[basso]

Relying on Minnesota Majority's analysis would be like relying upon Code Pink to say that GW Bush didn't actually win 2004.

You can speculate all you want but the recount was thoroughly handled with ever opportunity for Coleman to contest to a MN Supreme Court of mostly non Democrat, DFL for MN, appointees.

[Edit] A followup. I just heard Ramsey county DA Phil Carruthers on the radio talking about the case. He said that it is impossible to know if this case had any affect on the outcome of the election and any view otherwise is pure speculation.

my point wasn't really to go back and refight the MN senate race- it's over, franken was declared winner, i've moved on- but to demonstrate that not purging voter rolls can have an effect on an election. it's hard to understand why one wouldn't purge these voters from the rolls, but i suspect it's because these voters tend to support one particular party, and this willful disregard for the law is part of a pattern (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026742.php) in the Obama/Holder DOJ.

[SamFisher]

it's hard to understand why one wouldn't purge these voters from the rolls

Why do you think legal voters should be purged from the registration lists?

[basso]

Why do you think legal voters should be purged from the registration lists?

why do you think additional entitlements lowers the level of overall entitlement spending?

[rocketsjudoka]

my point wasn't really to go back and refight the MN senate race- it's over, franken was declared winner, i've moved on- but to demonstrate that not purging voter rolls can have an effect on an election. it's hard to understand why one wouldn't purge these voters from the rolls, but i suspect it's because these voters tend to support one particular party, and this willful disregard for the law is part of a pattern (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026742.php) in the Obama/Holder DOJ.

As the DA noted though there is no way to know whether or not purging the voter roles favored one party or the other. Clearly your presumption, as MN Majority, is that felons are urban minorities and would vote DFL, leaving aside the inherent racism of that view, there is no proof regarding how they voted and in a state like MN it would also be a mistake to presume that most felons are minorities from urban areas.

Also in regard to the Obama /Holder DOJ did you see the article that pointed out that the case against the Black Panthers was dropped before Obama or Holder were in office?

All you are left with is raw speculation that this had an effect on the election.

[basso]

As the DA noted though there is no way to know whether or not purging the voter roles favored one party or the other. Clearly your presumption, as MN Majority, is that felons are urban minorities and would vote DFL, leaving aside the inherent racism of that view, there is no proof regarding how they voted and in a state like MN it would also be a mistake to presume that most felons are minorities from urban areas.

Also in regard to the Obama /Holder DOJ did you see the article that pointed out that the case against the Black Panthers was dropped before Obama or Holder were in office?

All you are left with is raw speculation that this had an effect on the election.

my assumption is that felons would vote for the democratic candidate. Franken is white, as was his opponent.

If anyone is making race-based assumptions now, it is Holder (and perhaps you?)

[rimrocker]

my assumption is that felons would vote for the democratic candidate.

We disagree...

http://www.ramasscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Jack-Abramoff.JPG

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/libbyscooter.jpg

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/dukecunningham3.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Bob_Ney.jpg/160px-Bob_Ney.jpg

[rocketsjudoka]

my assumption is that felons would vote for the democratic candidate. Franken is white, as was his opponent.

If anyone is making race-based assumptions now, it is Holder (and perhaps you?)

First off MN Majority focussed their study on the Twin Cities, the one major urban area of MN and the one where there are the most minorities. Why then would they conclude that would lead to a Franken victory?

Are you agreeing with their analysis and what do you base the assumption that felons would vote for a Democractic candidate on?

Also where did Holder make a race based assumption in regard to what MN Majority is saying?

[rocket3forlife2]

That dude in the video is scum, but what does this have to do with Obama?

[basso]

First off MN Majority focussed their study on the Twin Cities, the one major urban area of MN and the one where there are the most minorities. Why then would they conclude that would lead to a Franken victory?

Are you agreeing with their analysis and what do you base the assumption that felons would vote for a Democractic candidate on?

Also where did Holder make a race based assumption in regard to what MN Majority is saying?

as i said above, i was making a general statement about a pattern of race-based decisions in the Obama DOJ. i was not making a specific point about MN in that regard, citing it as an example where allowing felons who should have been purged from the roles to vote, could affect the outcome. don't draw any further inference.

back OT, this is just fun to watch, not least because of the particular pulchritude of the participants:

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=K99TJ326XT4N41QN&widget_type_cid=svp" width="575" height="400" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

[weslinder]

I'm late to the game, but if gay is the new black, what does that make the New Black Panther Party?

[DonkeyMagic]

I'm late to the game, but if gay is the new black, what does that make the New Black Panther Party?

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/blog/new_kids320.jpg

[rocketsjudoka]

as i said above, i was making a general statement about a pattern of race-based decisions in the Obama DOJ. i was not making a specific point about MN in that regard, citing it as an example where allowing felons who should have been purged from the roles to vote, could affect the outcome. don't draw any further inference.

Except Obama's DOJ had nothing to do with the MN case so why even bring it up and conflate it with Obama and Holder?

[basso]

Except Obama's DOJ had nothing to do with the MN case so why even bring it up and conflate it with Obama and Holder?

because of the continued contention that illegal voters don't affect elections, and because the Obama DOJ is refusing to purge the rolls elsewhere.

[rocketsjudoka]

because of the continued contention that illegal voters don't affect elections, and because the Obama DOJ is refusing to purge the rolls elsewhere.

Except the DA in the MN case has said that it is impossible to know if there was any affect and anyway as I noted earlier MN Majority's case is focussed on a limited section of the MN electorate. In fact yesterday Norm Coleman addressed the issue by stating he has no plans to pursue anymore legal challenges and this case doesn't change anything.

Also the original topic is about the New Black Panthers and not purging voter rolls. As noted earlier it turns out the GW Bush DOJ dropped the case before Obama was even in office.

[mc mark]

Also the original topic is about the New Black Panthers and not purging voter rolls. As noted earlier it turns out the GW Bush DOJ dropped the case before Obama was even in office.


why let the facts get in the way of a good Obama bashing?

[basso]

Except the DA in the MN case has said that it is impossible to know if there was any affect and anyway as I noted earlier MN Majority's case is focussed on a limited section of the MN electorate. In fact yesterday Norm Coleman addressed the issue by stating he has no plans to pursue anymore legal challenges and this case doesn't change anything.


i said in my origianl post that it wouldn't change anything, and the article says the same thing. i don't understand why you continue to try to infer something i've repeatedly said i wasn't trying to imply.

[basso]

Also the original topic is about the New Black Panthers and not purging voter rolls. As noted earlier it turns out the GW Bush DOJ dropped the case before Obama was even in office.

they dropped a criminal case, but proceeded with a civil case, and won a default judgement. after holder came on board, in May 2009, most of the suit was dropped, and the rest was cut back.

[mc mark]

Eric Kleefeld bitchslaps the basso (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/right-wing-howls-felons-put-franken-over-the-top-um-not-really.php?ref=fpblg)

[rocketsjudoka]

i said in my origianl post that it wouldn't change anything, and the article says the same thing. i don't understand why you continue to try to infer something i've repeatedly said i wasn't trying to imply.

Why did you bring it up in the first place? Was this just some random posting or was there a purpose?

Are you saying now that this case has no bearing to this thread even though you early posted that it did?

I'm not infering anything I am asking you the purpose for bringing it up since by what you are stating it isn't relevant or meaningful.

[basso]

Former DOJ Colleagues Confirm Whistleblower Adams’ Accusations (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/affidavit-of-former-fec-commissioner-hans-von-spakovsky/)

Sworn affidavits from Hans A. von Spakovsky and Karl Bowers, who worked with J. Christian Adams in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, offer broad confirmation of the whistleblower's accusations of bias in enforcing voting rights.

[SamFisher]

they dropped a criminal case, but proceeded with a civil case, and won a default judgement. after holder came on board, in May 2009, most of the suit was dropped, and the rest was cut back.
Wow - that default victory in a civil case and resulting unpaid fine (WITH INTEREST!!!!) would have really stuck it to those two judgment proof guys next time they applied for a Capital One credit card with a low introductory APR...I bet they no longer would have been pre-approved!

[rimrocker]

Former DOJ Colleagues Confirm Whistleblower Adams’ Accusations (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/affidavit-of-former-fec-commissioner-hans-von-spakovsky/)

Sworn affidavits from Hans A. von Spakovsky and Karl Bowers, who worked with J. Christian Adams in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, offer broad confirmation of the whistleblower's accusations of bias in enforcing voting rights.

http://gweiloindublin.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/laugh2.jpg

Do Not Vote for This Guy
He doesn't want Democrats to vote—unless it's to appoint him to the Federal Election Commission.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007, at 6:54 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2174680

Another one for you to file under "fox guards the henhouse": The Senate rules committee votes tomorrow (Wednesday) on whether to give Hans A. von Spakovsky a full six-year term on the Federal Elections Commission. For Senate Democrats to even consider allowing someone with von Spakovsky's background to sit on the independent agency tasked with protecting the integrity of federal elections is beyond incredible. If von Spakovsky is confirmed, it will be yet more evidence that Democrats have no more regard for the rule of law, or the integrity of the Justice Department, than Karl Rove does.

Von Spakovsky currently sits on the FEC as a result of a recess appointment made by President Bush in January of 2006. Before that he served as counsel to the assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division at Justice. Von Spakovsky's Senate confirmation hearing last June was noteworthy for many oddities, not the least of which was a letter sent to the rules committee by six former career professionals in the voting rights section of the Justice Department; folks who had worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations for a period that spanned 36 years. The letter urged the committee to reject von Spakovsky on the grounds that while at DoJ, he was one of the architects of a transformation in the voting rights section from its "historic mission to enforce the nation's civil rights laws without regard to politics, to pursuing an agenda which placed the highest priority on the partisan political goals of the political appointees who supervised the Section." The authors named him as the "point person for undermining the Civil Rights Division's mandate to protect voting rights."

Von Spakovsky's response to these charges at his confirmation hearings? "I was not the decision maker," he claimed. "I don't remember that complaint at all,'' he demurred. "It's privileged," he insisted. That's the kind of bobbing and weaving that likely cost Alberto Gonzales his job. That the same absurd testimony from von Spakovsky might be rewarded with a professional upgrade is unfathomable.

And what was von Spakovsky trying to hide at his hearing? Why is the nation's largest civil rights coalition urging that his confirmation be rejected? Because this man was one of the generals in a years-long campaign to use what we now know to be bogus claims of runaway "vote fraud" in America to suppress minority votes. Von Spakovsky was one of the people who helped melt down and then reshape the Justice Department into an instrument aimed at diminishing voter participation for partisan ends.

I won't belabor these claims here, as few of them are even disputed. Von Spakovsky's preferred method of defending himself—his recent forgetfulness notwithstanding—appears to involve scrubbing his fingerprints off the Web, fudging questions of authorship on an article that indicates his biases. But even a brief poke at his résumé shows a man who has dedicated his professional career to a single objective: turning a partisan myth about voters who cast multiple ballots under fake names (always for Democrats!) into a national snipe hunt for vote fraud.

Richard Hasen has sketched the outlines of the vote-fraud crusaders efforts here for Slate. Adam Lambert has done yeoman's work reporting on von Spakovsky here. The curious among you can check out this 2004 article by Jeffrey Toobin that highlighted a change of direction in DoJ's Voting Section and flagged von Spakovsky's early involvement with the Voting Integrity Project, where, among other things, he spoke out in defense of an effort to keep the Green Party off the Georgia ballot in 2000.

Among his numerous accomplishments at the Voting Section at DoJ, von Spakovsky can take credit for approving the Tom DeLay-sponsored midcensus redistricting in Texas—part of which was later deemed by the Supreme Court to have violated the Voting Rights Act. (To do so, von Spakovsky overrode a 73-page memo written by seven voting-rights experts finding that the DeLay scheme violated the Voting Rights Act by reducing minority voting strength in Texas.) Von Spakovsky similarly pushed for approval of Georgia's restrictive voter-ID law, again over the four-to-one objection of staff lawyers who (in a 51-page memo this time) felt the new law would disenfranchise black voters. State and federal courts later found that statute unconstitutional.

But let's say we chalk all that activism up to bad guesses. Say we concede that von Spakovsky wasn't actively trying to use laws intended to protect minority voters in order to disenfranchise them, but merely trying to stomp out an epidemic of vote fraud. The problem is that von Spakovsky was himself a party to creating the illusion of that epidemic. Such efforts included his anonymous 2005 law review article zealously endorsing voter ID laws like Georgia's, at the same time he was lobbying for the legality of the Georgia law. They also included his lamentable efforts to remove Tova Andrea Wang from the Election Assistance Commission—the entity charged with uncovering voter fraud that was unable to find much of it. Any way you look at it, the man wasn't merely itching to purge minorities from the voter rolls. He was also working behind the scenes—even as a commissioner of the FEC—to prop up the myth that vote fraud is a devastating problem, long after it had become increasingly clear that it was not.

But even that may not be the worst of it. Von Spakovsky's lasting—and perhaps most symbolic—contribution to the state of the Justice Department today is highlighted by one other extracurricular: his efforts to undermine Minnesota U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger, who recently departed Justice on his own steam. As Tom Hamburger reported in the Los Angeles Times this summer, Heffelfinger became concerned when Minnesota's secretary of state directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger wanted the Justice Department to investigate whether that directive might prove discriminatory. According to Joseph Rich, former head of the Voting Section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division (who had served as a career lawyer there for 37 years before stepping down in 2005), it was Hans von Spakovsky who effectively shut down the DoJ investigation before it began.

Three months after expressing his concern over Native American vote suppression, Heffelfinger's name showed up on a 2004 list of U.S. attorneys to be fired and replaced. In her testimony before the Senate judiciary committee about the U.S. attorney firings, White House liaison Monica Goodling mumbled something about hearing Heffelfinger criticized for "spending an excessive amount of time" on Native American issues. Somehow, protecting the voting rights of minority voters had become antithetical to the mission of DoJ.

Senate Democrats are still claiming they want to get to the bottom of the scandal involving the politicization of the Justice Department. If that is the case, they cannot confirm someone responsible for that same politicization, when he was supposed to be protecting the right to vote. It's not an answer to claim—as we are now hearing—that some "deal" may have been struck that would allow a Democratic insider to be confirmed alongside him. To what end? The FEC is not the USA Today editorial page, matching partisan for partisan. Nor is it an answer to claim that the FEC is so toothless and impotent, that it doesn't matter who sits on it. If that is the case, congressional Democrats should hardly be invested in which left-leaning commissioner they can confirm alongside von Spakovsky.

More than almost anyone else—perhaps even including Alberto Gonzales—Hans von Spakovsky represents a Justice Department turned on its head for partisan purposes. Even if a seat on the FEC is merely symbolic, the last thing Democrats should be doing is confirming to that seat someone who symbolizes contempt for what it means to cast a vote.

Bowers resume items from his SC law firm:

* Special Counsel for Voting Matters, United States Department of Justice, appointed by President George W. Bush, 2007–08
* Lead Counsel in Florida for McCain for President campaign, 2008
* Chairman of the South Carolina State Election Commission, 2004–07
* Member of the South Carolina State Election Commission, 2003
* Republican National Lawyers Association

http://www.hallbowers.com/attorneys/butch-bowers/

[basso]

a racial spoils system (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/15/racialist-justice/)

Racialist Justice
Attorney General Holder's lawyers won't protect whites
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES 6:32 p.m., Thursday, July 15, 2010

By now, the default judgment about the Barack Obama-Eric H. Holder Jr. Justice Department is that it discriminates intentionally on the basis of race. By the precise definition used in the American Heritage dictionary, the department is racialist.

The Justice Department hasn't seriously contested the accusation of racialism. Recently resigned whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams has made credible charges, backed by at least five former colleagues, that the department's Civil Rights Division has adopted a policy of refusing to enforce civil rights laws on behalf of whites victimized by minority perpetrators. Mr. Adams cited an incident from November in which Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes openly stated it was departmental policy not to enforce parts of the federal motor-voter law that involve cleaning up dead and ineligible voters from poll registries. Another former department attorney, Nicole S. Marrone, has written that Ms. Fernandes previously discussed that law in explicitly racial terms.

To such a specific allegation of lawlessness, the Justice Department's response has been dead silence. No specific denial of the accusation. No statement that the department would not tolerate such lawlessness. No investigation. And when The Washington Times asked directly on Monday about the Fernandes statement, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler responded with boilerplate that neither affirmed nor denied the statement.

As in the voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party - a case developed by Mr. Adams but dropped by the Obama-Holder crew - a failure to contest a charge is to be taken as an admission of the charge. It leads to a default judgment.

Now Mr. Adams says the Justice Department failed Monday to take a simple step that would have disallowed a proposed voting change that was intended to disenfranchise white voters in Noxubee County, Miss. Instead, the department made a flurry of court filings Mr. Adams characterizes as "a strategic feint that allows it to avoid the core issue of equal enforcement" and that is "the most contorted, most expensive way possible to [protect voters.] ... [T]he real motive is to avoid expanding Section 5 to protect a white or Asian victimized minority."

The controversy originated from a case in which Noxubee County Democratic leader Ike Brown canceled ballots cast by white voters. "He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots supporting his preferred black candidates," Mr. Adams explained. "He deployed teams of notaries to roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He threatened 174 white voters."

Mr. Brown spearheaded a request for a voting-practice change to approve the same practices - under cover of law - that he previously had done illegally. The Justice Department did not object. Instead, it issued a "no determination" letter that, according to Mr. Adams, effectively leaves the issue open for another day.

The Black Panther and Mississippi cases are hardly isolated instances. In North Carolina (voting), Texas (race-based admissions) and Connecticut (race-based promotions of firefighters), the Obama-Holder Justice Department advocated racial preferences or results predicated by race. Department officials reportedly have espoused biases in favor of minorities in open meetings.

Mr. Holder called America a "nation of cowards" on racial issues and has said black solidarity should bind black prosecutors and criminals together. These are not signs of equal justice. They are signs of a racial spoils system that's lawless and dangerous.

[knote32]

Basso... "Monkeys flinging poo at eachother"...


Clutch nailed it...

[Major]

Heys OddsOn, I think this person was referencing you:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html


A scholar whom President George W. Bush appointed as vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Abigail Thernstrom has a reputation as a tough conservative critic of affirmative action and politically correct positions on race.

But when it comes to the investigation that the Republican-dominated commission is now conducting into the Justice Department’s handling of an alleged incident of voter intimidation involving the New Black Panther Party — a controversy that has consumed conservative media in recent months — Thernstrom has made a dramatic break from her usual allies.

“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

...



(more at link)

[FranchiseBlade]

Heys OddsOn, I think this person was referencing you:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html


A scholar whom President George W. Bush appointed as vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Abigail Thernstrom has a reputation as a tough conservative critic of affirmative action and politically correct positions on race.

But when it comes to the investigation that the Republican-dominated commission is now conducting into the Justice Department’s handling of an alleged incident of voter intimidation involving the New Black Panther Party — a controversy that has consumed conservative media in recent months — Thernstrom has made a dramatic break from her usual allies.

“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

...



(more at link)Well it's nice to see confirmation of what many of us suspected. Good find.

[Invisible Fan]

With all the fail in his posts, Oddson better start betting on black.

[saintcougar]

Is everybody on this blog a stupd f ing liberal idiot?

[Rashmon]

Is everybody on this blog a stupd f ing liberal idiot?

Quoted before you could edit your own "stupdty."

[FranchiseBlade]

Is everybody on this blog a stupd f ing liberal idiot?
Rather than discuss specifics and facts, you feel it's better to just call names?

[saintcougar]

There's not that many facts needed to make a case. Obama is a radical leftist. Eric Holder is a disgrace. The rule of law and procedure is a moot point with this administration. They will get away with anything and everything. What the hell kind of facts and figures do I need to discuss? Do we really have to go into depth as to why a terrorist vermin scum is being allowed Miranda Rights?

[FranchiseBlade]

There's not that many facts needed to make a case. Obama is a radical leftist. Eric Holder is a disgrace. The rule of law and procedure is a moot point with this administration. They will get away with anything and everything. What the hell kind of facts and figures do I need to discuss? Do we really have to go into depth as to why a terrorist vermin scum is being allowed Miranda Rights?
Well you could show examples of radical leftists policies that the Obama administration has advocated. You could show what Holder has done that is a disgrace.

It is odd that you talk about the rule of law and procedure being a moot point, but then seem to lament that when making an arrest of a terrorist they followed the rule of law and procedure.

You appear to have no consistent wishes for what a government should do.

I've listed facts that you could provide to help make your case. I've seen no radical leftist policies from this administration.

I'm curious how you justify your contrary opinions of whether or not the government should or shouldn't follow the rule of law.

[saintcougar]

Well you could show examples of radical leftists policies that the Obama administration has advocated. You could show what Holder has done that is a disgrace.

It is odd that you talk about the rule of law and procedure being a moot point, but then seem to lament that when making an arrest of a terrorist they followed the rule of law and procedure.

You appear to have no consistent wishes for what a government should do.

I've listed facts that you could provide to help make your case. I've seen no radical leftist policies from this administration.

I'm curious how you justify your contrary opinions of whether or not the government should or shouldn't follow the rule of law.

When they made the arrest of that terrorist scum, they did not follow the rule of law. Prisoners of war do not have civilian rights. Yet this wonderul academic of a lawyer, Eric Holder, is affording the pos a civilian trial. This is beyond absurd, offering our enemy the same rights afforded to us by the constitution, that you and I enjoy as american citizens. Are you kidding me? Do you not see that they are not following the rule of law. Is this not enough evidence for you to realize that if they are willing to break the law to facilitate our greatest enemies, that they will do as they please?

[FranchiseBlade]

When they made the arrest of that terrorist scum, they did not follow the rule of law. Prisoners of war do not have civilian rights. Yet this wonderul academic of a lawyer, Eric Holder, is affording the pos a civilian trial. This is beyond absurd, offering our enemy the same rights afforded to us by the constitution, that you and I enjoy as american citizens. Are you kidding me? Do you not see that they are not following the rule of law. Is this not enough evidence for you to realize that if they are willing to break the law to facilitate our greatest enemies, that they will do as they please?
What nation are we at war with?

Was the prisoner arrested a citizen of that nation?

When terrorist suspects were arrested under the Bush administration the exact same procedure was used, including miranda rights. Obama and Holder did nothing new in that case. For someone who believes in American values you seem very willing to abandon them.

Please tell me how following the rule of law including the miranda rights in anyway facilitates our enemies? The person who was arrested gave up valuable information and helped us in our effort against terrorism. The miranda rights did not hamper this at all.

Listen up. I love the values that made this nation great. I love those values so much that no act of terrorism, or hundred acts of terrorism would make me advocate getting rid of those values. What was done in the arrest proved to be useful in fighting terrorism, and that is a good thing. But it is a better thing because it puts us where we belong above the terrorists or totalitarian regimes. It enables us to hold our heads up with pride, and show that even if the terrorists we fight will use cowardly methods, and have no rule of law, we carry ourselves better than that.

You can disagree with the policies but you are wrong to ascribe a motive to it, which you know nothing of.

[basso]

it's indicative of the seriousness of the democrats that on a day when the country ought to be transfixed by the revelations in coates' testimony in the NBP case, we're instead hearing non-stop about stephen ****ing colbert and corn packing.

[basso]

most of you will dismiss the question because of the source.

but Breitbart has a point: (http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/09/24/which-malik-shabazz-visited-white-house-in-july-2009-mr-president/)

Which Malik Shabazz Visited White House in July 2009, Mr. President?

In May 2009, the Obama/Holder Justice Department dropped charges in a voter intimidation case against Malik Shabazz, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, despite having already won a summary judgment against him, and his New Black Panther Party colleagues King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson who were video-taped outside polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters as they arrived on election day, 2008. In July 2009, when Congress began looking into the matter, someone named Malik Shabazz visited the private residence at the White House.

When news of the visit was released under the auspices of transparency, the White House denied that the Malik Shabazz on the visitor’s log was the same Malik Shabazz involved in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. According to Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, the records contained “a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else.” He specifically cited Malik Shabazz as an example of one of these “false positives”.

At the time, the media did not challenge the White House on the veracity of this claim. The White House’s position was, basically: “We’re being transparent, here are all the visitor logs, and this guy is not the guy you think he is, TRUST US.”

The great thing about transparency – when there is actual transparency – is that it renders trust unnecessary. We ask that the White House identify which Malik Shabazz visited the White House residence on July 25, 2009.
In July 2010, J. Christian Adams, former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Dept. of Justice, testified before the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights that Obama Appointee Julie Fernandes, deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division in charge of voting matters, told DOJ attorneys charged with enforcing Voters’ Rights Law that the Obama administration would not file election-related cases against minority defendants — no matter the alleged violation of law.

According to Adams, that policy is what allowed Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson to walk away without punishment and weapon wielding King Samir Shabazz to receive a wrist-slap sentence that merely prohibits him from appearing at a polling place until after 2012.

Although the Administration has tried to ignore the New Black Panther scandal, their apologists have contended the story was nothing more than a conspiracy theory of the right-wing spun by a lone, partisan, disaffected lawyer looking for attention on Fox News. But today, Mr. Adams is joined by a fellow government whistle-blower, his former supervisor at the Dept. of Justice.

Today, Christopher Coates, former Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Dept. of Justice, has testified before the U. S.

Commission on Civil Rights. His testimony corroborates J. Christian Adams’ testimony before the same commission in July. Mr. Coates had originally signed-off on Mr. Adams plan to go forward with the civil charges against Shabazz. He and Mr. Adams had been ordered by the DOJ not to testify before the commission, and he was subsequently transferred to South Carolina last Christmas.

Coates’ testimony calls into question the Justice Department’s earlier denials that the handling of the New Black Panther case was politically motivated. And their refusal to allow attorneys at Justice to testify under oath about this case recalls the same attitude toward transparency exemplified by the White House visitor’s log policy: “We didn’t drop the charges against the Black Panthers because of politics, TRUST US.”

Continuing to say you’re transparent does not mean you are transparent.
The idea that an individual named Malik Shabazz had a private meeting in the White House residence in July 2009 is highly relevant because throughout July, Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) were beginning to ask questions about to the dropped charges against the NBPP. So was the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Here is a timeline, according to Adams:

July 8, Representative Frank Wolf sent a letter to Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith demanding hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.

July 9, Ten members of the House sent a letter demanding the DOJ Inspector General open an investigation.

July 13, The Dept. of Justice replied but their letter contained factual inaccuracies about the case

July 17 Smith and Wolf send a swift and pointed rebuttal

July 20, Low-level DOJ staffers were sent to the Hill to brief Wolf on the Panther story, but Wolf threw them out of his office claiming they weren’t being truthful to him.

July 22, Wolf sent another letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers.

July 24, Portia Robinson, intergovernmental liaison at DOJ, sent a letter to the Civil Rights Commission trying to deflect attention.

July 25, a man named Malik Shabazz visited the exclusive, private residence in the White House.

July 30, the Washington Times broke the news that top political appointee, Tom Perrelli (the #3 official at Justice) was involved in the dismissal of the case. Perrelli was also a top campaign bundler for Obama.

The White House has assured the American people that the Malik Shabazz that visited the White House at that time is not the same Malik Shabazz at the center of the New Black Panther story. But, the White House has not provided any information to verify its contention or who this “other” Malik Shabazz is.

We call on the White House to act in the spirit of their transparency policy and provide further information, sufficient to independently verify the identity of the person named Malik Shabazz who visited the White House private residence in July of 2009.

[basso]

it's indicative of the seriousness of the democrats that on a day when the country ought to be transfixed by the revelations in coates' testimony in the NBP case, we're instead hearing non-stop about stephen ****ing colbert and corn packing.

a little more background on who coates is:

Christopher Coates received the Thurgood Marshall Decade Award in 1991 from the Georgia NAACP; prior, he was a staff attorney for many years for the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

[basso]

not just for bloggers anymore:

the story makes the front page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092403873.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR) of the WaPo.

Bias led to 'gutting' of New Black Panthers case, Justice official says
By Jerry Markon and Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 25, 2010; 3:44 AM

A veteran Justice Department lawyer accused his agency Friday of being unwilling to pursue racial discrimination cases on behalf of white voters, turning what had been a lower-level controversy into an escalating political headache for the Obama administration.

Christopher Coates's testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was the latest fallout from the department's handling of a 2008 voter-intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans accuse Justice officials of improperly narrowing the charges, allegations that they strongly dispute.

Filed weeks before the Obama administration took office, the case focused on two party members who stood in front of a polling place in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, one carrying a nightstick. The men were captured on video and were accused of trying to discourage some people from voting.

Coates, former head of the voting section that brought the case, testified in defiance of his supervisor's instructions and has been granted whistleblower protection. Coates criticized what he called the "gutting" of the New Black Panthers case for "irrational reasons," saying the decision was part of "deep-seated" opposition among the department's leaders to filing voting-rights cases against minorities and cases that protect whites.

"I had people who told me point-blank that [they] didn't come to the voting rights section to sue African American people," said Coates, who transferred to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina in January. "When you are paid by the taxpayer, that is totally indefensible."

The rare spectacle of a Justice Department lawyer publicly rebuking the department's leaders came amid heightened legal and political fallout from the case. The commission is to issue a report on the matter next month, and an internal probe by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility is pending.

Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general, recently began his own investigation into whether the agency's Civil Rights Division enforces laws in a racially discriminatory manner. It is considered highly probable that House Republicans will hold hearings if they take control of the chamber after midterm elections in November.

"We're not going to let this go," said Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.). "There is something rotten going on at the Justice Department."

Justice officials vigorously contested Coates's allegations and accused the commission, which has been burrowing into the New Black Panther case for months, of a biased probe based in part on hearsay and unsubstantiated media reports. A bloc of conservative members controls the commission, formed 53 years ago to investigate denials of civil rights.

"This so-called investigation is thin on facts and evidence and thick on rhetoric," said Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman. "The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation."

Justice officials tried to turn around the allegations, pointing to internal watchdog reports accusing the George W. Bush administration of politicizing hiring in the civil rights division. The watchdogs concluded, for example, that the division's former head refused to hire lawyers who he labeled "commies."

"The politicization that occurred in the Civil Rights Division in the previous administration has been well documented by the inspector general, and it was a disgrace to the great history of the division," Schmaler said. "We have changed that. We have reinvigorated the Civil Rights Division."

Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, called the Civil Rights Commission's handling of the case "baseless sensationalism." He argued that no voters had come forward to say they were intimidated.

The controversy began last year when the government narrowed the voter-intimidation lawsuit that had been filed against members of the New Black Panthers, dropping the party and one defendant from the case and focusing only on the bearer of the stick. Officials have said they lacked legal precedent and sufficient evidence to pursue the case more fully.

Justice officials who served in the Bush administration called the decision political, and the dispute became a major issue in conservative circles. It has been slow to gain traction among the general public but began heating up in July. Former Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams told the civil rights commission that the case was narrowed because some of his colleagues were interested in protecting only minorities.

Defenders of the administration accused Adams, who publicized the issue with regular blog items and columns, of being a conservative activist out to score political points. Coates was referred to in a Justice Department report on politicization of hiring during the Bush administration as being "a true member of the team" accused of being behind such practices.

But Coates has a pedigree different from that of many conservatives. He was hired at Justice during the Clinton administration in 1996 and had worked for the American Civil Liberties Union. Sheldon Bradshaw, a high-level Civil Rights Division official in the Bush administration, said Coates "is nonpartisan in how he enforces voting rights laws."

In his testimony, Coates said the current Justice Department is "at war" with "race-neutral" enforcement of civil rights laws. He also said there is evidence for broader prosecution of the New Black Panther case.

"We had eyewitness testimony. We had videotape. One of them had a weapon. They were hurling racial slurs," Coates said. "I've never been able to understand how anyone could accuse us of not having a basis of law in this case."

markonj@washpost.com thompsonk@washpost.com

[esteban]

Basso, thank you for posting these articles, keep up the good word, you're a patriot!

[Gutter Snipe]

I can't understand the people who don't see this as a huge problem. There should be a limit to how much of a progressive homer someone could be. What's the deal? Do you think somebody is making this stuff up? Or do you just think that intimidation at voting booths is okay as long as they are helping your team?

[FranchiseBlade]

I can't understand the people who don't see this as a huge problem. There should be a limit to how much of a progressive homer someone could be. What's the deal? Do you think somebody is making this stuff up? Or do you just think that intimidation at voting booths is okay as long as they are helping your team?
Which team were they supposedly helping? They weren't supporters of Obama.

[uolj]

I can't understand the people who don't see this as a huge problem. There should be a limit to how much of a progressive homer someone could be. What's the deal? Do you think somebody is making this stuff up? Or do you just think that intimidation at voting booths is okay as long as they are helping your team?
From what I remember at the time, there was very little real evidence that anything horrible was going on. I think I remember many progressives saying that the guy shouldn't be there with a nightstick, but otherwise I don't think there was anything there to really get upset about. It seemed likely to be one more in a long line of horrible things conservatives caught on video that turned out to be false, fake, taken out of context or blown out of proportion.

Similarly, until now there was no real evidence that anything strange was going on with the DOJ's handling of the case. The Coates testimony makes that more likely, which is why it's now a bigger story. But before that there was almost nothing to indicate something significant happened at the polling place or in the DOJ.

I think many progressives (but not all) will be happy to criticize people acting wrongly in the DOJ if solid evidence shows that's what happened. I'm not sure what else you might be looking for. Why do you consider it to be a huge problem?

[SamFisher]

I can't understand the people who don't see this as a huge problem. There should be a limit to how much of a progressive homer someone could be. What's the deal? Do you think somebody is making this stuff up? Or do you just think that intimidation at voting booths is okay as long as they are helping your team?
LOL, yeah polling stations in inner city Philly were a bastion of McCain-Palin supporters.

[basso]

LOL, yeah polling stations in inner city Philly were a bastion of McCain-Palin supporters.

this wasn't "inner city, or even Center City."

[SamFisher]

this wasn't "inner city, or even Center City."

Yeah like I said, North Philadelphia = McCain Palin Country:

http://www.philaplanning.org/data/pctblack2000.gif