Obama Withdraws Lawsuits Against Blacks?

[jryan]

Pangloss's link says through 2012, i.e. after the next presidential election.

 

Ok, so he can threaten people with weapons at poling places every OTHER presidential election. Next cycle it's the KKK's turn, I guess.

 

 

 

Why should what he said in an interview , i.e. not part of the intimidation complaint, come into play? All sorts of reprehensible speech is protected by the first amendment; there is no caveat that it be "nice" or "agree with any particular ideology." Punishing someone for it is a violation of their civil rights.

 

And, what more could you do as the result of a civil lawsuit?

 

 

There is a bit of a gray area in free speech when that speech is urging people to commit murder.

 

Also, it will have to wait until I get home as I can't search Youtube here, but the video is of Shabazz saying those things on a street corner to a black man walking with a white woman. After seeing the black man with a white woman he begins screaming about killing whitey and killing their white babies. Free speech doesn't cover threats to your life, and seems to be a cut and dry "hate speech" case.

[jackson33]

Adding to jyran's reply;

 

Pangloss's link says through 2012, i.e. after the next presidential election. [/Quote]

 

swansont; In Philadelphia, ONLY!!! My question would be National Law, where any form of campaigning/demonstration is prohibited, with in think 200 feet, on election day near a polling area, already exist.

 

Why should what he said in an interview , i.e. not part of the intimidation complaint, come into play? All sorts of reprehensible speech is protected by the first amendment; there is no caveat that it be "nice" or "agree with any particular ideology." Punishing someone for it is a violation of their civil rights. [/Quote]

 

Even in Civil Cases, this leads to motivation (especially after the fact). You can legally say most anything you want, whether legal or not, but to act on those words, is a different story. I'm wondering why 'Violation of Election Law', wasn't the charge in the first place, filed in Criminal Court.

 

And, what more could you do as the result of a civil lawsuit?[/Quote]

 

A rather healthy 'Financial/Fine Decision', against the New Black Panther Party, including cost to prosecute.

[swansont]

Ok, so he can threaten people with weapons at poling places every OTHER presidential election. Next cycle it's the KKK's turn, I guess.

 

If he repeats, you file another injunction. Just like any other crime — the punishment is supposed to be proportionate to the infraction. Just like we don't generally lock people up just because they might commit another crime, you can't anticipate the action here. That's not how the system works.

 

 

 

There is a bit of a gray area in free speech when that speech is urging people to commit murder.

 

Also, it will have to wait until I get home as I can't search Youtube here, but the video is of Shabazz saying those things on a street corner to a black man walking with a white woman. After seeing the black man with a white woman he begins screaming about killing whitey and killing their white babies. Free speech doesn't cover threats to your life, and seems to be a cut and dry "hate speech" case.

 

This still doesn't connect it to the lawsuit that was filed. The unprotected speech/expression at the polling place was dealt with.

[jryan]

If he repeats, you file another injunction. Just like any other crime — the punishment is supposed to be proportionate to the infraction. Just like we don't generally lock people up just because they might commit another crime, you can't anticipate the action here. That's not how the system works.

 

But they DID commit a crime because threatening people at a polling station is voter intimidation.

 

Take careful note while you read that and consider what the reaction would have been had a Republican president ordered any of the cases sighted in the Slate article to be dropped.

 

This still doesn't connect it to the lawsuit that was filed. The unprotected speech/expression at the polling place was dealt with.

 

You mean to say that the street corner threat to kill a white woman and white children is in no way connected to physical threats against white people at a polling station? I beg to differ. I think that would be called a "pattern" in court when determining the defendants actual sentence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, here is a video that shows the intimidation as well as a short documentary about Shabazz which includes his threats to kill white people.

[swansont]

But they DID commit a crime because threatening people at a polling station is voter intimidation.

 

For which an in junction was placed against him. i.e. the result of the legal action has taken place. You're trying to additionally punish him for a crime he has not (yet) been charged with or even committed.

 

You mean to say that the street corner threat to kill a white woman and white children is in no way connected to physical threats against white people at a polling station? I beg to differ. I think that would be called a "pattern" in court when determining the defendants actual sentence.

 

Not charged with the crime. IANAL, but I doubt that would matter.

 

Arrest him on a new charge and try him for that crime. That's how the system works.

[jryan]

For which an in junction was placed against him. i.e. the result of the legal action has taken place. You're trying to additionally punish him for a crime he has not (yet) been charged with or even committed.

 

Which is the crux of the complaint by the DoJ lawyer. The injunction was not what the DoJ would normally seek in his experience as a voting right lawyer, and he was specifically instructed to not pursue the case any further because of the offender's race.

 

 

 

Not charged with the crime. IANAL, but I doubt that would matter.

 

Arrest him on a new charge and try him for that crime. That's how the system works.

 

Again, that is the crux of the complaint. Any other case like this would have had the perpetrator charged with voter intimidation and prosecuted to the fullest. That was the opinion of the whistle blower who IS a lawyer who DID make a career out of prosecuting such cases.

[swansont]

Which is the crux of the complaint by the DoJ lawyer. The injunction was not what the DoJ would normally seek in his experience as a voting right lawyer, and he was specifically instructed to not pursue the case any further because of the offender's race.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, that is the crux of the complaint. Any other case like this would have had the perpetrator charged with voter intimidation and prosecuted to the fullest. That was the opinion of the whistle blower who IS a lawyer who DID make a career out of prosecuting such cases.

 

 

And, of course, you can back this up with some credible sources? I don't see anything about this in the article in the OP. Where are you getting this information?

[ParanoiA]

And, of course, you can back this up with some credible sources? I don't see anything about this in the article in the OP. Where are you getting this information?

 

The DoJ "whistleblower", J. Christian Adams, and his preferences for how this case should have been handled, and his disappointment over the dismissal by the administration is quite well known.

 

From a quick google search...

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/ex-justice-department-lawyer-says-black-panther-case-shows-rights-of-white-voters-are-ignored-97623204.html

[swansont]

The DoJ "whistleblower", J. Christian Adams, and his preferences for how this case should have been handled, and his disappointment over the dismissal by the administration is quite well known.

 

From a quick google search...

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/ex-justice-department-lawyer-says-black-panther-case-shows-rights-of-white-voters-are-ignored-97623204.html

 

I really shouldn't have to clarify, but how about a source that addresses the points jryan raised? Specifically, that this punishment is not in line with other punishments handed down? The Slate article link mentions one specific settlement, which amounts to "stop doing that," i.e. exactly the same result achieved here.

[ParanoiA]

I really shouldn't have to clarify, but how about a source that addresses the points jryan raised? Specifically, that this punishment is not in line with other punishments handed down? The Slate article link mentions one specific settlement, which amounts to "stop doing that," i.e. exactly the same result achieved here.

 

I don't know, I think this interview covers it. They don't use those exact words, but I think it's obvious that if dismissing the case after default victory is not common, then this punishment is not in line with other punishments. At one point, Adams makes the comment that they were pursuing a permanent injunction:

 

KELLY: So you get something that’s called a default judgment, meaning a judgment because they didn’t bother to defend it and the judge says to you at the Department of Justice, OK, write up an order and tell me whether you want to make this final essentially.

 

ADAMS: Yeah, the court had already found and entered the fault against the defendants. It was done. All we had to do is tell the judge what we wanted for punishment.

 

KELLY: OK, but instead of doing that, something changed at the Department of Justice. What happened?

 

ADAMS: Well, the case was dismissed on May 15. All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint.

 

KELLY: So, the only person who wound up facing any punishment was the guy with the baton. And instead of having a permanent injunction, which is what you guys wanted, never let this guy near a polling station to do this, to do this kind of thing again, he got what?

 

ADAMS: He’s stopped from appearing at the polls with a weapon only in the city of Philadelphia and only for a couple more years.

 

KELLY: And the other three defendants?

 

ADAMS: Nothing. They’re dismissed from the case completely.

 

If adams is to be believed, and I have no reason not to believe him thus far as opposed to excellent reasons not to believe the caucophobic black bully party, then it's plainly obvious that the department's dismissal is highly unusual, and politically motivated.

 

I'm not sure how common it is to politicize voter fraud.

 

 

Here's some more interesting stuff.

 

However, one of the witnesses at the Philadelphia polling station was Bartle Bull, a renown civil rights attorney who was Robert F. Kennedy's New York campaign manager and worked along side Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' older brother, enforcing voting rights laws in Mississippi in the 1960's. On November 4, 2008, Bartle worked as a poll watcher at the same Philadelphia polling station and witnessed the New Black Panthers harassing and yelling racial slurs at voters and poll observers in order to intimidate them. Will the DOJ accuse him of being politically motivated in the same way it tried to discredit Adams? They won't even try. Instead they'll ignore him as best they can because they know that his credibility is unimpeachable.

 

When Michelle Malkin covered the case back when it was first brought by the Bush DOJ, she posted Bartle Bull's affidavit, which you can read here. In it, he said that never in his entire career as a civil rights attorney has he ever seen or heard of an instance where uniformed and armed men intimidated and blocked voters as they tried to enter a polling station. Not even in Mississippi in the 1960's.

 

Megyn Kelly spoke to Bartle Bull about this case as well. When you watch the video, you will see that he is nothing short of outraged that the Obama administration is refusing to apply the voting rights laws equally to all citizens.

 

I do find it most curious that Bartle Bull is not who is in the headlines, but rather the DoJ attorney. I guess smear campaigns only work on those without a spotless public resume. I wonder if anyone, besides Fox news, has interviewed him about this. Weird that a supposedly fake news outlet would be the main source for the only credible witness for the entire story. Go figure...

Edited July 8, 2010 by ParanoiA

[swansont]

I don't know, I think this interview covers it. They don't use those exact words, but I think it's obvious that if dismissing the case after default victory is not common, then this punishment is not in line with other punishments. At one point, Adams makes the comment that they were pursuing a permanent injunction:

 

No, that doesn't cover it. If you will reread my previous post, I asked for evidence that this punishment is not in line with other punishments handed down. This interview is only about this particular case, so it covers precisely none of what I was requesting.

 

 

If adams is to be believed, and I have no reason not to believe him thus far as opposed to excellent reasons not to believe the caucophobic black bully party, then it's plainly obvious that the department's dismissal is highly unusual, and politically motivated.

 

I'm not sure how common it is to politicize voter fraud.

 

I think fraud has a particular meaning, and this isn't it.

 

As far as having reasons to disbelieve him, how about this: in his original blog post (mentioned by Pangloss in the OP), Mr. Adams defends the DoJ under the Bush administration, yet a GAO report finds things to be quite different. They prosecuted less than half as many voter rights cases per year as under Clinton, and there's this

 

When the Bush administration ran the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, career lawyers wanted to look into accusations that officials in one state had illegally intimidated blacks during a voter-fraud investigation.

 

But division supervisors refused to “approve further contact with state authorities on this matter,” according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office auditing the activities of the division from 2001 to 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/us/politics/03rights.html?_r=1&ref=politics

 

and

 

Regarding one of the cases mentioned by the GAO, Rich testified that division political leadership denied a Voting Section recommendation to investigate a case on behalf of Wind River Reservation in Fremont County, Wyo.

 

It involved a possible violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act based on the county’s use of an at-large election system, which makes it more difficult for minority candidates to win even if they constitute a majority in parts of the jurisdiction. Officials told the Voting Section not to investigate it because it was their belief that there were a large number of Republicans in the area, according to Rich. According to Rich, after the Justice Department declined to act, the American Civil Liberties Union later filed a lawsuit against the Fremont County jurisdiction. DOJ eventually signed on to the complaint and a court found in favor of the ACLU.

 

http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/12/07/report-delivers-hard-numbers-on-bush-civil-rights-division/

 

 

GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-256T

 

Here's some more interesting stuff.

 

 

 

I do find it most curious that Bartle Bull is not who is in the headlines, but rather the DoJ attorney. I guess smear campaigns only work on those without a spotless public resume. I wonder if anyone, besides Fox news, has interviewed him about this. Weird that a supposedly fake news outlet would be the main source for the only credible witness for the entire story. Go figure...

 

Well, a quick Google would answer that question, so there is no need to just go ahead and incorrectly assume that Fox is the only organization mentioning Mr. Bull, though it being a partisan issue is sufficient to explain their interest and zeal.

 

His opinion aside, remember that no voters complained about intimidation, and as far as "prosecution to the fullest extent" that jryan mentioned, it should be noted (again) that this was a civil complaint, and it was the Bush administration DoJ that made the decision to file a civil case rather than a criminal case. Why? Because they decided that there was no basis for a criminal complaint!

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070001

 

 

So it seems to me that this is probably no more than standard partisan bickering and finger-pointing.

Edited July 8, 2010 by swansont
typo

[ParanoiA]

No, that doesn't cover it. If you will reread my previous post, I asked for evidence that this punishment is not in line with other punishments handed down. This interview is only about this particular case, so it covers precisely none of what I was requesting.

 

Yes, you're right I didn't answer that question good enough then. I'm sorry, this seems to be only of interest to my-team, your-team competition psychology. I'm not terribly concerned with the status quo of bureaucratic suits, I'm about right and wrong.

 

For instance child molesters should go to jail. I don't care if republican officials typically don't do that, I care that all officials should do it.

 

So, yeah, I'm not sure about the answer to your question. Not sure why it matters. I would be throwing poop at my department of justice when they handle voter intimidation with timid resolve, like they have here. We'll see what happens when the KKK returns the favor in 2012. I'm just sure they're watchig. Not going to be a proud moment for anyone either.

 

 

 

I think fraud has a particular meaning, and this isn't it.

 

I meant voter intimidation.

 

As far as having reasons to disbelieve him, how about this: in his original blog post (mentioned by Pangloss in the OP), Mr. Adams defends the DoJ under the Bush administration, yet a GAO report finds things to be quite different. They prosecuted less than half as many voter rights cases per year as under Clinton, and there's this

 

Well he could very well be dishonest and at this point I'm positive he's politically motivated and likely to spin every bit of information he has.

 

But then so does everyone else, from what I can tell. That quote above is about a decision made by supervisors, not Adams and the first bit appears to be a slam on Bush's DoJ, although Adams defended it.

 

So far Adams has not dropped in credibility to the likes of a dumb racist. Queen Shabazzle, or whatever his clown name is, thinks like a 12 year old and I'm pretty sure has a driver's license. That ought to scare everybody.

 

But that's ok, that's the point of focusing on Adams anyway. Let's just chuck him under the bus and talk about Bartle Bull. Bartle said, in a sworn affidavit, quoted from that article above "that never in his entire career as a civil rights attorney has he ever seen or heard of an instance where uniformed and armed men intimidated and blocked voters as they tried to enter a polling station. Not even in Mississippi in the 1960's."

 

I'm not inclined to think of this as a typical case when a man like Bartle Bull, with his experience directly on this matter, expressly states it's not. In fact, he's pretty outraged about it.

 

Well, a quick Google would answer that question, so there is no need to just go ahead and incorrectly assume that Fox is the only organization mentioning Mr. Bull, though it being a partisan issue is sufficient to explain their interest and zeal.

 

No, I don't mean "mentioning" him, I mean covering him. Where's all the interviews? Where's the exclusives? He should be right in the middle of this - he's the only witness! Unless the voters could be tracked down, he's the only one to see this activity.

 

Fox is the only news organization or pretend news organization that I've seen pretend to act like a real news organization and cover this guy. But you're right, the others sure "mention" him. Wow. Go media.

 

His opinion aside, remember that no voters complained about intimidation, and as far as "prosecution to the fullest extent" that jryan mentioned, it should be noted (again) that this was a civil complaint, and it was the Bush administration DoJ that made the decision to file a civil case rather than a criminal case. Why? Because they decided that there was no basis for a criminal complaint!

 

Correct. So why did Obama drop what little case we had? It was won, and it was clear intimidation so it's not like we had a group of young black men that were falsely accused or being misrepresented by angry old white dudes. So, the civil case was "to the fullest extent".

[swansont]

Correct. So why did Obama drop what little case we had? It was won, and it was clear intimidation so it's not like we had a group of young black men that were falsely accused or being misrepresented by angry old white dudes. So, the civil case was "to the fullest extent".

 

The justification given in the original article is that there is/was no national strategy of voter intimidation, so if taken at face value, one has to at least consider the possibility that this was the action of individuals, and not the group to whom they belong.

 

There was only one baton, so only one of the group could only have threatened anyone.

 

So why is is such a slam-dunk that more than one of them should be punished? Seeing as how one of them was actually punished.

[ParanoiA]

The justification given in the original article is that there is/was no national strategy of voter intimidation, so if taken at face value, one has to at least consider the possibility that this was the action of individuals, and not the group to whom they belong.

 

There was only one baton, so only one of the group could only have threatened anyone.

 

So why is is such a slam-dunk that more than one of them should be punished? Seeing as how one of them was actually punished.

 

I don't know that it's a slam dunk as much as it's a unusually timid response from prosecution. We all have our roles to play, and the prosecution's role is to fiercely fight this stuff, prioritizing certainly which could lead to ignoring one incident while focusing on another.

 

And here, we have a case that was already done. No prioritizing even necessary. Yet they dismiss this as if it was still a case to be argued and processed in court with doubts for success - this thing was a done deal. Yet, we essentially respond by withdrawing our winnings as well as dicontinuing the punishment.

 

That's the equivalent of a politically based pardon. And it's very ugly politics on this one. We have shamed ourselves with acts like this. If this goes on regularly, and this political approach to enforcement of voter intimidation laws based on race is typical, then I'm quite content to watch America choke.

 

We just blew off racial intimidation - and we think we're enlightened? We think 1960 is in our past? Please, we are every bit as repugnant as we were then. Still making excuses to shit on each other.

[swansont]

I don't know that it's a slam dunk as much as it's a unusually timid response from prosecution. We all have our roles to play, and the prosecution's role is to fiercely fight this stuff, prioritizing certainly which could lead to ignoring one incident while focusing on another.

 

I don't know that it's a timid response until I know what other responses there are, to which I might compare them. Hence my request for the punishments meted out for other civil actions.

 

We have Mr. Adams saying it was timid, but we also have him implying that the Bush DoJ was a beacon of light in these matters, and the GAO report tells us Adams was embellishing quite a bit. Which is why I want some independent source of information on this.

 

And here, we have a case that was already done. No prioritizing even necessary. Yet they dismiss this as if it was still a case to be argued and processed in court with doubts for success - this thing was a done deal. Yet, we essentially respond by withdrawing our winnings as well as dicontinuing the punishment.

 

Except that's not what happened. The punishment of the individual with the baton was not withdrawn. The charges were dropped against individuals who had no weapons with which to intimidate anyone. Perhaps the view is that there should not have been a complaint against them in the first place. Remember, the Bush DoJ had already decided that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a criminal complaint.

 

It's not like dropping charges against individuals (or, in the case of criminal matters, detaining and then releasing without charging them) is an unprecedented event.

[ParanoiA]

I don't know that it's a timid response until I know what other responses there are, to which I might compare them. Hence my request for the punishments meted out for other civil actions.

 

I understand the logical exercise you're doing, and I'm rejecting it because I don't accept the same low bar that status quo typically affords.

 

You might find that, in comparison, this is awesome prosecution. To me, that only means that the DoJ and voter intimidation lawsuites are terribly prosecuted; that week-kneed political pardons are apparently regularly served up - which makes everyone involved even more guilty.

 

There is no escape from the insult of this case, other than some miracle of proof that it's all doctored video and a conspiracy involving Bartle Bull.

 

Shame. Shame. Shame on American political bologna.

 

Except that's not what happened. The punishment of the individual with the baton was not withdrawn. The charges were dropped against individuals who had no weapons with which to intimidate anyone. Perhaps the view is that there should not have been a complaint against them in the first place. Remember' date=' the Bush DoJ had already decided that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a criminal complaint.

 

It's not like dropping charges against individuals (or, in the case of criminal matters, detaining and then releasing without charging them) is an unprecedented event.[/quote']

 

They thumbed their nose at the court system and ignored the charges and were rewarded for it. They just legitimized being illegitimate. They should have been punished for what they were accused of and refused to acknowledge. It's absolutely fitting to be punished for something you didn't do, when you disrespected your accusers and all of society when you refused to show up and say so; to participate in the societal structure built for resolving disputes between authorities and citizens.

 

That's intolerable. They should have been punished. Instead, they were rewarded for disrespecting all of society and the institution we created and use for self governing - which is fitting since they regularly disrespect all of society when they call for killing white children too.

[swansont]

I understand the logical exercise you're doing, and I'm rejecting it because I don't accept the same low bar that status quo typically affords.

 

You might find that, in comparison, this is awesome prosecution. To me, that only means that the DoJ and voter intimidation lawsuites are terribly prosecuted; that week-kneed political pardons are apparently regularly served up - which makes everyone involved even more guilty.

 

I have no disagreement with this.

[swansont]

Ran across this:

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070020

 

J. Christian Adams has admitted he has no first-hand knowledge of the DoJ decision, and the Bush DoJ declined to pursue a similar case in 2006, even though it involved a gun at the polling site, not a baton.

 

Also:

 

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

[dragonstar57]

what it comes down to it a group of men were standing together outside of a poling place one of them armed and yelled things at the voters.

Edited August 31, 2010 by cipher510

[Pangloss]

The Democrats got blasted for their Stephen Colbert testimony today, but Republicans may have spent some pretty dubious and questionable time before a Congressional committee today as well. I'm throwing this out there to update the thread, but I believe it has to be taken with a skeptical eye.

 

The new testimony today came from a current Justice Department official named Christopher Coates. Of primary interest for our purposes was his claim that evidence existed which covered the missing bits of the story, as we discussed earlier in this thread. No evidence was presented by Mr. Coates, however, he just said that it existed at one time. (See Washington Post article.)

 

Coates' point seemed to be NOT that the Obama administration was biased against bringing cases against black people, but that the Justice Department has an internal bias of that type, and that it precedes the Obama administration.

 

Coates' testimony may carry some weight due to the fact that, while he was a Bush appointee, he used to work for the ACLU, which was confirmed today by partisan-left watchdog Media Matters for America (though it went on to cite quotes from supporters for the Obama-Holder side of the dispute, who were quoted as saying that Coates is a "very different man" today) (links below). Fox News' Bill O'Reilly claimed tonight on his program that Coates was also given an award by the Georgia NAACP in 1992, though I didn't catch any backup for that point in any of the articles I skimmed on that subject tonight.

 

Coates also spent much of his time today blasting the Bush administration for not following up on cases of voting rights abuse in Mississippi, as was detailed today by the partisan-liberal Media Matters Web site in, I believe, the first of the two links below.

 

Associated Press story:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6PlcZeiW_Nucd6_I72lQV6BEi4QD9IEJLK00

 

Washington Post story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092403873.html?hpid=topnews

 

Media Matters Page on the story today:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009240035

http://mediamatters.org/research/201009240053