Obama regimes DOJ drops charges against the black panther thugs

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.

 

Former DOJ Colleagues Confirm Whistleblower Adams’ Accusations

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.​

 

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!

 

Bowers resume items from his SC law firm:

 

a racial spoils system

[rquoter]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.[/rquoter]

 

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


Clutch nailed it...

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Quoted before you could edit your own "stupdty."

 

Rather than discuss specifics and facts, you feel it's better to just call names?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

but Breitbart has a point:

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

[rquoter]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.[/rquoter]

 

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.

 

not just for bloggers anymore:

the story makes the front page of the WaPo.

[rquoter]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[/rquoter]