Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

barrys DOJ Lied to Congress in the Black Panther Case

Discussion in 'The Soapbox' started by chefdennis, Sep 20, 2010.

  1. chefdennis

    chefdennis New Recruit

    Remember those black Panthers that got away with "voter Intimidation because the DOJ said that lowly civil service workers said there was no case....seems they lied and they lied to Congress, The Civil Rights Commission as well as the people of the US...and the press went right along with it....wonder hwere and how far up the WH ladder this all starts....LOL....

    Proof: New Records Show DOJ Lied About New Black Panther Dismissal

    A FOIA request reveals contradictions in statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public. Some of these statements were made under oath.

    September 20, 2010 - by J. Christian Adams

    J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is Election Law Center.
  2. Poorboy

    Poorboy New Recruit

    And the Obumma administration lying is new?
    That's all they ever do. You can always tell when Obumma and his little clan of thieve's are lying by the movement of their lips. When the lips are moving then they are Lying cuz that's all they ever do And the koolaid drinkers actually believe them! :D
  3. witness23

    witness23 Seasoned Expediter

    Link: Right-wing media shocked to learn that DOJ attorneys send email to each other | Media Matters for America

    Right-wing media shocked to learn that DOJ attorneys send email to each other

    Media conservatives claim that the existence of communication between Justice Department attorneys proves that department officials lied when they said that career attorneys and not political appointees decided not to pursue additional charges against members of the New Black Panther Party. In fact, DOJ officials have said repeatedly that political appointees were made aware of the decision-making process.

    Right wing latches on to a list of emails in desperate attempt to revive phony New Black Panther Party "scandal"

    Judicial Watch: Emails "contradict testimony" by assistant AG. On September 20, Judicial Watch claimed that an index of emails released by the Department of Justice in response to a public records request contradicts "sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that no political leadership was involved in the decision" not to pursue additional charges against members of the New Black Panther Party. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton claimed:

    J. Christian Adams: "New records show DOJ lied about New Black Panther Dismissal." J. Christian Adams, a right-wing activist and former Justice Department attorney who has aggressively pushed the phony, racially charged "scandal," claimed in a Pajamas Media blog post that the email index was "an explosive announcement" that "shows -- in a rather dramatic way -- that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case." Adams wrote:

    But the real whopper? DOJ's claim -- repeated over and over again -- that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.

    Today we learn, from the Department's own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.

    Von Spakovsky: Emails "indicate that high-level Justice Department officials have been misleading the public and Congress." Hans von Spakovsky, a former official in the politicized Bush Justice Department, wrote in a National Review Online blog post that the emails referenced in the index represented "tunning new developments in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) voter-intimidation scandal" that "indicate that high-level Justice Department officials have been misleading the public and Congress" and "may have also committed perjury before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights." According to van Spakovsky, "The log details numerous discussions and legal deliberations between the Civil Rights Division and political appointees in the highest reaches of the Justice Department, including former deputy attorney general David Ogden and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli (the number-two and number-three officials under Eric Holder)." [National Review Online, 9/20/10]

    Wash. Times: DOJ's "claim that political appointees were not involved in the case appears to be false." A September 20 Washington Times editorial claimed that the email index "undermines the credibility of Mr. Perez and of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder." The editorial further claimed, "The department's claim that political appointees were not involved in the case appears to be false." [The Washington Times, 9/20/10]

    Fox Nation: "New Records Show DOJ Lied About Black Panther Dismissal." Linking to Adams' Pajamas Media post, Fox Nation displayed the following headline on September 21:


    Communication between career attorneys and political appointees is nothing new and consistent with past DOJ statements

    Perez: "Whenever there is a decision involving a case that has attracted attention ... we obviously communicate that up the chain." In his May 14 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights -- the testimony media conservatives say is contradicted by the email index obtained by Judicial Watch -- Perez directly addressed lines of communications between political appointees and career attorneys. Asked by Chairman Gerald Reynolds to explain whether career attorneys or political appointees have "the responsibility and the ownership" for decisions, Perez responded:

    DOJ: "Consistent with the Department's practice," attorneys "informed Department supervisors of the Division's decisions related to the case." In a January 11 response to interrogatories and document requests made by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Justice Department said that "[c]areer supervising attorneys" made the decision not to pursue additional charges in the case and that "political considerations had no role in that decision." The response document -- filed with the Civil Rights Commission and made public -- also made clear that "[c]onsistent with the Department's practice, the attorney serving as Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights informed Department supervisors of the Division's decisions related to the case":

    DOJ: "As is customary with complex or potentially controversial issues" attorneys "advised the Associate Attorney General." In a supplemental document filed with the commission in April, the DOJ further explained that decisions related to the New Black Panther Party case were communicated with the Office of the Associate Attorney General:

    Phony "scandal" does not stand up to the evidence

    Right-wing activists and Fox News promoted unsubstantiated allegations based on hearsay. Right-wing media figures -- led by Adams -- have relied on distorted evidence and hearsay to accuse the Obama Justice Department of racially charged "corruption" based on the decision not to pursue additional charges against members of the New Black Panther Party accused of intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling center in 2008, claiming that the decision was based on "hostility in the voting rights section to bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities." Fox News has discussed the phony scandal during more than 100 segments since June 30.

    Unsubstantiated allegations can't stand up to facts. Adams has acknowledged lacking firsthand knowledge of the events he has cited to support his claims, and the suggestion that the Civil Rights Division in the Obama DOJ is hostile to "bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities" falls apart given the fact that the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one defendant in the case and requested additional judgment against black leaders in Mississippi who were found to have discriminated against white voters.

    Conservative Civil Rights Commission vice chair ridiculed commission's investigation. A July 16 Politico article reported that Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican who serves as vice chair of the Civil Rights Commission and who is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said, "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." Politico also quoted Thernstrom saying, "My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president."
  4. dieseldiva

    dieseldiva New Recruit

    Let's my right hand, Judicial my left, Media Matters...which one should I choose to's tough, I'll tell ya. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Who said what, when, and where doesn't really matter to me. What matters is that these people were ON TAPE having broken the law and nothing of substance was done about it. Now, perhaps the DOJ should have avoided even the appearance of favoritism and prosecuted to the fullest extent.....that would have settled everything.

    What's good for me is good for thee.
  5. witness23

    witness23 Seasoned Expediter

    I understand, it is much easier to just listen to what people tell you and believe what they tell you, rather than find out all the facts.

    What law was broken? Nobody has come forward saying they were intimidated, if someone did I'm sure the Bush DOJ would've gone forward with a case of voter intimidation, but that is not what happened. I know, I know, President Obama and his cronies must have gotten to those individuals and threatened them so they wouldn't come forward. This whole thing is a sham and being politicized by the right.

    Link: Fox's Napolitano regurgitates myths to smear Obama as "in tight" with New Black Panthers | Media Matters for America

    Decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by Bush DOJ, not Obama

    Bush DOJ, not Obama, made decision not to pursue criminal charges. Before President Bush left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. In May 14 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but did "file a civil action on January 7th, 2009." From Perez's testimony:

    Obama DOJ actually obtained judgment against individual carrying weapon at polling place

    May 2009: DOJ obtained default judgment against Shabazz for carrying weapon outside polling station. On May 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against King Samir Shabazz. Perez stated in his May 14 testimony that the Justice Department had obtained "sufficient evidence to sustain the charge" of voter intimidation against Shabazz, identified by Perez as "the defendant who had the nightstick," and that "the default judgment was sought and obtained as it related to him." Perez also testified:

  6. dieseldiva

    dieseldiva New Recruit

    Some of us here are trying to rise above personal attacks so I'll say can take that comment and roll it up into a tiny (or not so much) little ball and........fill in the rest.

    Now, we could continue a copy and paste war on this all night but you're going to have to battle it out alone after this post as I'm only offering one article....

  7. witness23

    witness23 Seasoned Expediter

    First in red: If the Commision adduced that voters turned away, I would assume they have there identities and they are willing to come foward.

    Second in red: Of course they expressed alarm; there was a black man with a baton standing outside the polling station.

    Third in red: So one voter was afraid to leave, ooooooo....all this because one person was afraid to leave, c'mon.
  8. witness23

    witness23 Seasoned Expediter

    Way to rise above the personal attacks, such restraint should be a benchmark for all here in the soapbox. It wasn't a personal attack just an observation on my part.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2010
  9. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Seasoned Expediter

    One intimidated voter is all it takes, that's why the legalese states "at least one". The law is black and white on issues such as these. Suppose this tape had been taken in Philadelphia, Miss. and the guys in front of the poll had been wearing a white pointed hoods? Suppose the ONE and only voter that was intimidated (which was not the case, in fact) had been black? This DOJ would have taken an entirely different course of action - the correct one.
  10. witness23

    witness23 Seasoned Expediter

    You are correct, one intimidated voter is one to many. Let me ask you a question, do you think this story is being politicized and hyped by Fox and the conservative radio hosts? Here let me help you out if you're not sure:

    Fox News has devoted more than 100 segments to phony New Black Panther scandal since June 30. Fox News has discussed the Justice Department's handling of voter intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party during more than 100 segments since June 30, devoting more than eight hours of airtime to discussion of the case. A Nexis search found that Fox News hosts have discussed the voter intimidation charges dating back to Election Day 2008.

    Megyn Kelly: Fox "dragged the media kicking and screaming" to cover New Black Panther Party voter intimidation. During the July 12 edition of America Live, Fox News' Megyn Kelly criticized the media for its coverage of "the now infamous New Black Panther voter intimidation case," and said that Fox News "dragged the media kicking and screaming" to cover the case. Kelly has discussed the case during more than 45 segments since June 30.

    Kelly: New Black Panther Party voter intimidation getting attention because "the voting place is sacrosanct." During the July 13 edition of America Live, Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers said, "I cannot believe that this one case, after all the cases that were dismissed during the Bush administration, is getting the amount of attention that it's getting. I find it absolutely shocking. I cannot believe it." Kelly responded: "Let me tell you why. Because the voting place is sacrosanct."

    Carlson: "Remember where they went to vote and there was standing there with clubs?" During the July 7 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said, "We all saw that video during 2008 where people went to vote. First of all, there was that video. Remember where they went to vote and there was, standing there with clubs. DOJ -- Department of Justice -- decided to end that case." Fox News contributor Dana Perino claimed, "I know that if I -- when I was press secretary, and the situation had been reversed -- I definitely would have been asked if the White House knew about it." She also said that "what we should get right now from the Justice Department is at least some sort of an explanation as to why they thought it wasn't a good case."

    Special Report highlighted Adams' claim that it was "a slam-dunk case of voter intimidation." On the July 6, Special Reported highlighted Republican activist J. Christian Adams' testimony before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission about "a slam-dunk case of voter intimidation" against the New Black Panther Party.

    Is this reporting the News or is this an agenda? Then you have people running around saying things like this......
    Doing their darndest to tie President Obama to this matter, which is not even on his radar as it shouldn't be, it is noise to sway the easily swayed.

    Especially when Fox ignores this other voter intimidation story:

    Minutemen were involved in similar voter-intimidation case in 2006

    Armed Minutemen allegedly attempted to intimidate Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006. A November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article reported (from the Nexis database): "In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English." The article continued: "Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons."

    Civil rights attorney "said he reported the incident to the FBI." A November 8, 2006, Tucson Citizen article (from Nexis) reported that Diego Bernal, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) "said he reported the incident to the FBI." The article also reported that Pima County elections director Brad Nelson said: "If intimidation or coercion was going on out there, even though it might have been outside the 75-foot limit, it's something we take very seriously, and we'll be looking into it."

    Perez testified that Bush-era DOJ "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" against Minutemen. As Media Matters noted, Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, cited the Minutemen case in his May 14 testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and said that "the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties." From Perez's testimony:

    Nexis search revealed no mention by Fox News of the 2006 Minutemen allegations. Media Matters searched* Fox News coverage between November 1, 2006, and November 1, 2007, in the Nexis database, and found no results for Fox News related to the voter-intimidation allegations against the Minutemen. Shows available in Nexis for that time period include Hannity & Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, Special Report with Brit Hume, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, and The Big Story with John Gibson.

    *Search terms included "minuteman or minutemen" and "vot! & intimidat! & Arizona."

    Just like there were no charges brought up on the Minutemen case, there should be none in this case.

    Now.....if you would like to talk about voter intimidation and how it has happened in the past and how wrong it is, sounds good. Admit though, its just not as fun unless you say the President and his cronies or his Black SS is somehow in cahoots with one another.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2010
  11. dieseldiva

    dieseldiva New Recruit

    Looks like this case is going to be back in the news in the coming days.....


Share This Page