So many...

[Yonivore]

... ing moving targets with this administration.

Birds of a feather

Or why the Obama administration is not prosecuting the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters into voting for, you know who.

In March 2008, the New Black Panther Party endorsed Barack Obama for president. The Obama campaign allowed the New Black Panthers to post its endorsement on his Web site.

This caused conservatives to howl because once again, Obama was aligned with black racists, like his preacher and mentor of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose sermon, “The Audacity of Hope,” inspired Obama’s memoir, “The Audacity of Hope.”

Gateway Pundit howled.

Mic e Malkin noticed it.

The Obama campaign pulled the endorsement ad.

Segue to today. The Obama administration is blocking prosecution of the New Black Panther Party. My interpretation is President Obama is looking out for the thugs who endorsed him.

There is a danger in constantly dividing people by race. A very big danger. The legacy of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King deserves better. He turned his back on violence. It is time that the president on who stands on those shoulders did the same.

Prosecute.

Instead, he's trying to appoint a woman, who's a member of the Hispanic equivalent of The New Black Panthers, to the U. S. Supreme Court.

I heard someone say this the other day, "This is Chicago Politics writ large." Nothing more.

[ChumpDumper]

So how would the two scary black men know how any one particular voter voted?

Please explain fully.

[Yonivore]

So how would the two scary black men know how any one particular voter voted?

Please explain fully.

The point of the post is that Political appointees in the Justice Department ordered bureaucratic employees of the Justice Department to drop the case.

Nice try at bait and switch. It doesn't matter what they knew or didn't know, what they were doing is illegal. Why isn't the Obama administration going to pursue prosecution?

It's been suggested it's because of this:


Tell me why I should believe othewise.

[ChumpDumper]

It's an extremely weak case if its only basis is Bull's affidavit. He's got two black men standing in a public area. Where's the beef?

Props to Bull for not bothering to make his corrections on his word processor. Very professional.

There is no reason you should believe otherwise -- you're an idiot and that can't be helped.

[Yonivore]

It's an extremely weak case if its only basis is Bull's affidavit. He's got two black men standing in a public area. Where's the beef?

Props to Bull for not bothering to make his corrections on his word processor. Very professional.

There is no reason you should believe otherwise -- you're an idiot and that can't be helped.

The incuriosity continues...

[ChumpDumper]

If you've got more than the Bull affidavit, show it.

I am mainly curious as to why Bull would submit such a weak affidavit.

[Yonivore]

If you've got more than the Bull affidavit, show it.

I am mainly curious as to why Bull would submit such a weak affidavit.

From the Washington Times:

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to do ents and interviews.

"Do ents," "interviews," and the video seem to say there is more than just the Bull affidavit.

The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

For your benefit, I hasten to point out that the word "including" means the affidavit wasn't the only piece of evidence the DOJ ac ulated in the months they were pursuing the case.

In this instance it is hard to see a legitimate motive for dropping the case. DOJ dismissed two defendants completely and as to the third, settled for an order that he not bring a weapon to a polling place in Philadelphia until 2012. One of the three Panthers is a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee.

By the way, did you know this organization campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008? The Obama campaign proudly displayed a New Black Panther endorsement on it's official web page until someone pointed out just how ing stupid that was.

Are you any more curious? I doubt it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

obviously president obama had direct knowledge.


thanks yoni

[George Gervin's Afro]

From the Washington Times:


"Do ents," "interviews," and the video seem to say there is more than just the Bull affidavit.


For your benefit, I hasten to point out that the word "including" means the affidavit wasn't the only piece of evidence the DOJ ac ulated in the months they were pursuing the case.

In this instance it is hard to see a legitimate motive for dropping the case. DOJ dismissed two defendants completely and as to the third, settled for an order that he not bring a weapon to a polling place in Philadelphia until 2012. One of the three Panthers is a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee.

By the way, did you know this organization campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008? The Obama campaign proudly displayed a New Black Panther endorsement on it's official web page until someone pointed out just how ing stupid that was.

Are you any more curious? I doubt it.

curious about what yoni?

[Yonivore]

curious about what yoni?

Why Holder had his Department drop the case.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why Holder had his Department drop the case.

What other case has the DOJ dropped? What cases did Bush's DOJ drop? DO you have any idea? Curious?

Why do you think Holder had the DOJ dropped the case? 2 votes?

[Yonivore]

What other case has the DOJ dropped? What cases did Bush's DOJ drop? DO you have any idea? Curious?

If one had been brought to my attention, I might have been. Do you know of one?

[George Gervin's Afro]

If one had been brought to my attention, I might have been. Do you know of one?

Why do you think Holder had the DOJ dropped the case? 2 votes?

[Yonivore]

In this case the Justice Department filed a complaint under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (which prohibits any attempt to “intimidate, threaten or coerce” any voter) against the New Black Panther Party.

Neither the New Black Panther Party nor any of the individual defendants responded to the suit. The federal judge therefore ordered the Civil Rights Division to file a default judgment. However, without providing any grounds for doing so the Division moved to dismiss the complaint — in essence forfeiting the case.

That isn't curious?

[Yonivore]

Why do you think Holder had the DOJ dropped the case? 2 votes?

I have no idea, it's be a good question for him to answer. Don't you think?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I have no idea, it's be a good question for him to answer. Don't you think?

You won't believe any explanation so just admit you know this is an inside job.

[Yonivore]

You won't believe any explanation so just admit you know this is an inside job.

So, you're not curious?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, you're not curious?

why should i be?

[Yonivore]

why should i be?

I find it curious the DOJ, at the behest of Eric Holder, dropped a voters rights case it spent months developing and had essentially won...and, did so against defendants that endorsed President Obama during the election.

Yeah, I think you should be. But, I can't make you be curious.

[ChumpDumper]

From the Washington Times:


"Do ents," "interviews," and the video seem to say there is more than just the Bull affidavit.

So where are they? Let's see them all.

I am very curious to see all the do entation concerning this. I appreciate your compiling them all for me in advance.

For your benefit, I hasten to point out that the word "including" means the affidavit wasn't the only piece of evidence the DOJ ac ulated in the months they were pursuing the case.

The Bush DoJ?

Yeah, I can see their pursuing a flimsy-ass case that would make Obama supporters look bad. I can also see it's being dropped by a less partisan DoJ -- you know, one that doesn't fire US attorneys for not pursuing flimsy voting rights cases like the Bush administration did.

[Yonivore]

So where are they? Let's see them all.

I am very curious to see all the do entation concerning this. I appreciate your compiling them all for me in advance.

In the hands of the DOJ that threw the case out the window. If you're that curious, I suggest you contact them.

The Bush DoJ?

Yeah, I can see their pursuing a flimsy-ass case that would make Obama supporters look bad. I can also see it's being dropped by a less partisan DoJ -- you know, one that doesn't fire US attorneys for not pursuing flimsy voting rights cases like the Bush administration did.

The defendants failed to respond to the charges and a default judgement had already been issued.

And, the case was pursued by career DOJ staffers, not political appointees.

But, nice try.

And, if what you're suggesting is true, I think it behooves President Obama to stick to his transparency pledge and let us know.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I find it curious that yoni was never curious during mt rushmore's 8 yrs.

[clambake]

don't play the video........just look at the first frame.......

that must conjure up some disturbing feelings...huh yoni?

[ChumpDumper]

In the hands of the DOJ that threw the case out the window. If you're that curious, I suggest you contact them.

So you aren't curious, are you?

The defendants failed to respond to the charges and a default judgement had already been issued.

Let's see the summary judgment. Certainly you were curious enough to read that. Oh, that's right -- you aren't that curious.

And, the case was pursued by career DOJ staffers, not political appointees.

But, nice try.

From whom do DoJ staffers take their orders?

Nice try.

And, if what you're suggesting is true, I think it behooves President Obama to stick to his transparency pledge and let us know.

They did. It's not like you never heard of their decision. If you are really that curious to know more, I suggest you contact them.

[doobs]

Surely, there must be some Obama supporters out there who are upset with this. Replace the NBPP thugs with white guys in white hoods.

Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act:

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.