New Black Panther case

[Anonymous]

You also have to look at the DoJ's movement, which I linked to earlier. Based on the actions of two men, who were admittedly linked to the NBPP, the movement sought to ban any member of the NBPP from any polling station indefinitely. That was rightly dismissed. But some people really wanted that and consider an absence of that to be a denial of justice. But that was such BS.

[Anonymous]

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/adam_serwer/2010/07/when_was_the_new_black_panther_content.html

Looks like, if there IS any legitimate griping about downgrading the charges in this case, Obama and Holder might not be the targets. Again, I don't think there is griping to be done, but it looks like a lot of the people getting criticized and maligned are being wrongly targeted. Hopefully, for anyone who DID believe this, it puts to rest the idea that Obama/Holder let the NBPP off the hook because of their own racism.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, my understanding (from what Jeff said) is that a case was never opened, so it will never be known whether action was warranted or not against any other entities than the man with the billy club. People PO'd may have wanted a legal airing of the facts, rather than heading off the investigation at the OK Corral.

A case was opened. The defendants chose not to answer the charges. As such, the government could have sought a summary judgement. It chose not to in the case of the guy without the billy club and the NBPP. Since the defendants chose not to show up in court, there wouldn't have been an airing of the facts. All there would be is the government's version of events and a judge's determination. I suppose it's possible that the judge could have decided not to issue a summary judgement if he felt the government's case is weak.

I continue to wonder why people are upset about this case, while not bothered by the significantly larger number of white guys whose cases Holder also decided not to pursue.

Examples of the significantly large number of white guys/voter intimidation in the last election whose cases Holder also decided not to pursue
(and by your verbage you are admitting he chose not to pursue this one?)

Just curious/thanks.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Examples of the significantly large number of white guys/voter intimidation in the last election whose cases Holder also decided not to pursue
(and by your verbage you are admitting he chose not to pursue this one?)

Just curious/thanks.

I didn't say the whites guys were guilty of voter intimidation. If you allow me to put my own words in my mouth, I would appreciate it. Moreover, I don't think either of the NBPP or the NBPP itself was guilty of voter intimidation either. Furthermore, I have listed many of the cases previously. But, since you apparently didn't pay attention, here are a few:

James Tobin: helped jam Democratic party telephone lines during election. Holder's Justice Department decided to drop the case:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/feds_drop_new_hampshire_phone-jamming_case.php

Bradley Schlozman - Head of DOJ's Civil Rights Division broke federal laws in order to purge the division of anyone with whom he disagreed politically. He admitted that he wanted to fill the division with "good Americans". He then lied to Congress about it. No charges pursued. One of the "good Americans" Schlozman hired was J. Christian Adams -- the guy who is currently raising all the stink about the NBPP case.

Other people against whom charges could have been pursued but weren't include those responsible for illegal wiretaps and those who approved and/or conducted torture. With respect to torture, here is what Obama himself said:

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that."

Obviously, Holder in a blatantly pro-white act decided not to prosecute Bush's lawyers.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Examples of the significantly large number of white guys/voter intimidation in the last election whose cases Holder also decided not to pursue
(and by your verbage you are admitting he chose not to pursue this one?)

Just curious/thanks.

I didn't say the whites guys were guilty of voter intimidation. If you allow me to put my own words in my mouth, I would appreciate it. Moreover, I don't think either of the NBPP or the NBPP itself was guilty of voter intimidation either. Furthermore, I have listed many of the cases previously. But, since you apparently didn't pay attention, here are a few:

James Tobin: helped jam Democratic party telephone lines during election. Holder's Justice Department decided to drop the case:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/feds_drop_new_hampshire_phone-jamming_case.php

Bradley Schlozman - Head of DOJ's Civil Rights Division broke federal laws in order to purge the division of anyone with whom he disagreed politically. He admitted that he wanted to fill the division with "good Americans". He then lied to Congress about it. No charges pursued. One of the "good Americans" Schlozman hired was J. Christian Adams -- the guy who is currently raising all the stink about the NBPP case.

Other people against whom charges could have been pursued but weren't include those responsible for illegal wiretaps and those who approved and/or conducted torture. With respect to torture, here is what Obama himself said:

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that."

Obviously, Holder in a blatantly pro-white act decided not to prosecute Bush's lawyers.

Don't you think for the purpose of this forum we should stick to examples of possible bias in the case of adjudicating voter interference? Otherwise a wide and endless net in all directions, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think for the purpose of this forum we should stick to examples of possible bias in the case of adjudicating voter interference? Otherwise a wide and endless net in all directions, no?

The thread is not about the election incident itself, but about Holder's decision to drop the case. So Jeff's comments are quite germane, or so it appears to me.

[Anonymous]

Don't you think for the purpose of this forum we should stick to examples of possible bias in the case of adjudicating voter interference? Otherwise a wide and endless net in all directions, no?

Look, this is all hand-waving. The GOP and conservatives in general have a long and disgusting history of interfering with the right to vote on the wholesale level. You hear the propagandists on the right (and the useful idiots who will get worked up about whatever they're told to get worked up about) always pointing to instances where some anonymous guy registered as "Che Guevara", or where some unbalanced quasi homeless guy (who was also A Black!) yelled at a Republican poll-watcher. Meanwhile, the Florida secretary of state strikes 50,000 voters from the voter rolls because they have African American -sounding names, and there's nary a peep from the self-proclaimed defenders of clean elections.

The constant ridiculous harping over fraud on the "retail" level is entirely a subsidiary of this effort. The strategy is to make it more difficult for the disenfranchised to vote. Period. And it's disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Check out the link I posted to start the "Privilege" thread for a great commentary on how many conservatives twist, misrepresent, and over-exaggerate isolated incidents while ignoring larger, systematic instances of racism to paint whites as the victims of racism by blacks, directly supported and motivated by the supreme racist of them all, Barack Obama. This has been an increasingly common attack by many leaders (both political and in the media) on the right. They have played up fears that the election of a black man means the coming of a "race war" (direct quote from Michael Savage) with Barack coming after white folks.

The question for me is, why do we assume that any action taken by a member of the Obama administration that directly or indirectly blacks individually or collectively is entirely racially based, while actions taken by members of white presidential administrations (which were all of them up until now) that directly or indirectly beneficial to whites were not seen through the same racialized lens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think for the purpose of this forum we should stick to examples of possible bias in the case of adjudicating voter interference? Otherwise a wide and endless net in all directions, no?

Look, this is all hand-waving. The GOP and conservatives in general have a long and disgusting history of interfering with the right to vote on the wholesale level. You hear the propagandists on the right (and the useful idiots who will get worked up about whatever they're told to get worked up about) always pointing to instances where some anonymous guy registered as "Che Guevara", or where some unbalanced quasi homeless guy (who was also A Black!) yelled at a Republican poll-watcher. Meanwhile, the Florida secretary of state strikes 50,000 voters from the voter rolls because they have African American -sounding names, and there's nary a peep from the self-proclaimed defenders of clean elections.

The constant ridiculous harping over fraud on the "retail" level is entirely a subsidiary of this effort. The strategy is to make it more difficult for the disenfranchised to vote. Period. And it's disgusting.

Just like the long and disgusting history of their counterparts on the left. How about when we see an actual incident, either side, we go after it--creating precedent and disincentive for all? Novel, I know.

[jsteele]

Examples of voter intimidation that were not prosecuted were included in Thomas Perez' testimony to the US Commission on Civil Rights:

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf

Incidents include:

"[I]n Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish.

"In that instance, the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties."

"In 2005, the Division received allegations that armed Mississippi State investigators intimidated elderly minority voters during an investigation of possible voter fraud in municipal elections by visiting them in their home, asking them who they voted for, in spite of state law protections that explicitly forbid such inquiries.

"Here again, the Division front office leadership declined to bring a voter intimidation case in this matter."

Of course, these incidents occurred during the Bush Administration and the victims were minorities. Based on "Fox News Principles", the only conclusion is that Bush was anti-minority and the Justice Department favored whites. Strangely, I don't remember any outrage about voter intimidation in these incidences coming from right wing blogs, Drudge, or Fox. I'm sure they just didn't know about these incidents because their concern about voter intimidation is obviously heart-felt and not at all based on the race of the NBPP guys, Holder, and Obama.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the fact that the guy would come into court with an ACLU lawyer, that he'd say his intent was to protect voters (which might even be true), and that there is no evidence that anyone was discouraged from voting, means that conviction would be very unlikely. So there would be a lot of money spent with no effect other than stoking racial hostility and making this guy into a folk hero.

Maybe, just maybe, that's why Holder decided not to prosecute.