New Black Panther case

[Anonymous]

I'm quite surprised this has not gotten more attention. This type of intervention by political appointees to kill a case that was *won* by career prosecutors is so far out of bounds, in terms of what is typically acceptable within DOJ, that it is shocking to me there is not more media coverage.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/25/inside-the-black-panther-case-anger-ignorance-and-/

[Anonymous]

This country is quickly learning that Obama is going to make a lot of money on the speaking circuit in a few years

"Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it,"

As i mentioned in the AZ immigration law thread, most people never took the time to read the law, what a sad statement.

How abou thtings coming full cirlce, as many of us know Eric Holder's wife is Sharon Malone of Foxhall OBGYN, her sister Vivian Malone Jones, theo one who had the Alabama Governer blocking her enrollment into University of Alabama. Some where along the line you would hope he would realize that following the laws of the land affordered his sister in law(now deceased) to do what she did because the person in his current postion actually enforced the law.

[Anonymous]

How about you learn the facts of the case before reading a biased opinion?

"During the 2008 presidential election, poll watchers found two New Black Panther militia members outside of a polling place in Philadelphia.[12] One of these two was a poll watcher, while the other was a New Black Panther member who had brought a nightstick. Republican poll watcher Chris Hill stated that voters had been complaining about intimidation, while the DA's office stated that they had not been contacted by any voters.[13]

The New Black Panther with the nightstick was escorted away by the police."

Hardly the "jackbooted thugs" the author refers to. Now, I don't think this was the most appropriate technique, but one of the men was authorized to be there and was unarmed and the other, who received no complaints of intimidation, was escorted away from the property anyway.

I guess "freedom of expression" (wearing what one chooses, including military fatigues) and the "right to bear arms" (including a night stick) only extend to white Republicans.

What is most interesting is that there are no reports that the men actually SAID anything. So exactly who/how were they intimidating? I guess because they were black we're supposed to assume they were intimidating voters to vote for Obama? What if they were McCain supports? Given that they DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, how can we even begin to guess their intent and, therefore, how they were attempting to intimidate?

This country is afraid of black men. There mere presence would have been considered "intimidating" by most folks.

The case was dismissed because it lacked the grounds to move forward. I think they were right to investigate, because there was enough to take a closer look, but once the evidence revealed what REALLY happened, it was right to be dismissed.

[Anonymous]

I am affriad of Landon students and grads

[jsteele]

I wrote about this about a year ago:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/55896.page#399424

As I wrote then:

The justice department has been dropping a number of Bush-era cases. For example, charges were dropped against James Tobin, a Republican political organizer who was involved in jamming Democratic phone lines on election day 2002:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/05/27/feds_end_prosecution_of_gop_organizer/

The fact of the matter is that Republicans have been screaming "vote fraud" at anything that moves. Then, the Bush Administration fired many career professionals from Justice's Civil Rights Division and replaced them with hand-picked political hacks. See this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002543.html

As a result, just about all voting rights cases from that period are tainted. Those cases that aren't politically-motivated witch hunts are screwed up by the incompetence that was the hallmark of the Bush Administration.

[Anonymous]

Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Steele, none of your points go to the merits of this particular case. And if you think the DOJ civil rights division was apolitical before the Bush Administration, please let me know where I can get some of what you are smoking, it is clearly very good stuff. ;-p

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Mr. Steele, none of your points go to the merits of this particular case. And if you think the DOJ civil rights division was apolitical before the Bush Administration, please let me know where I can get some of what you are smoking, it is clearly very good stuff. ;-p

I don't know all the merits of this particular case. My point is a larger one. The Bush-era DOJ launched a large number of politically-motivated cases and simply screwed up a number of others due to incompetence. Probably the best example was Senator Stevens. That was another Bush-era case that Holder decided to have dismissed. Where are your concerns about that one? The James Tobin case is another example. Again, where are your complaints?

For that matter, are you concerned about the slew of possible law-breaking that the Obama administration decided not to investigate because they "didn't want to look backwards"? Why have those who authorized torture escaped being investigated? Why aren't those who authorized illegal wiretaps being charged? A lot of people have been harmed far worse than anyone in Philadelphia. I am not happy about Obama's decision to start with a clean slate. But, that's the choice he made and it's interesting that of all the cases, only this one causes you concern.

[Anonymous]

Of the cases you cite, I'm only familiar with the Stephens case, and that was dismissed due to gross prosecutorial misconduct by the line attorneys involved. Not a good outcome, but one DOJ brought on itself. Not the first time this has happened, and sadly not likely to be the last.

As for "torture" under the Bush Administration, as a practical matter, it seems to me to be difficult to bring a case against anyone involved. Those who authorized or participated those activities had a written legal opinion from DOJ stating that the practices were not illegal, which makes it a hard case to win when it is the same government agency doing the prosecuting. Think of how that would play with a jury. Yes, you can call Woo a hack and invoke Nuremburg all you want, I still think that case is pretty much a loser from a criminal law perspective, and it is probably sound prosecutorial discretion not to bring it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

I wouldn't. Voter intimidation, in any form, is disgusting. Unfortunately our AG seems to pick and choose his umbrage (and reading material...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

Did I say I was cool with it? No. Stop engaging in straw man's arguments. I said it was inappropriate and rightfully stopped by the police. And that an investigation was warranted but, upon review of the facts, there wasn't enough to move forward so it was rightfully dismissed. How about a little reading comprehension?

How do we know these guys were Democratic of Obama supporters? Because they were black? How do we know what their intentions were when they didn't say anything to any voters or potential voters? How much intimidation took place if not a single complaint was registered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

Did I say I was cool with it? No. Stop engaging in straw man's arguments. I said it was inappropriate and rightfully stopped by the police. And that an investigation was warranted but, upon review of the facts, there wasn't enough to move forward so it was rightfully dismissed. How about a little reading comprehension?

How do we know these guys were Democratic of Obama supporters? Because they were black? How do we know what their intentions were when they didn't say anything to any voters or potential voters? How much intimidation took place if not a single complaint was registered?

You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that the facts are as you claim them to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, because carrying a weapon at a polling place is A-OK. How would you react if a "white Republican" was wearing military fatigues and carrying a nightstick at a polling place? You'd be cool with that? As if.

Did I say I was cool with it? No. Stop engaging in straw man's arguments. I said it was inappropriate and rightfully stopped by the police. And that an investigation was warranted but, upon review of the facts, there wasn't enough to move forward so it was rightfully dismissed. How about a little reading comprehension?

How do we know these guys were Democratic of Obama supporters? Because they were black? How do we know what their intentions were when they didn't say anything to any voters or potential voters? How much intimidation took place if not a single complaint was registered?

You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that the facts are as you claim them to be.

Um, for starteres:

During the 2008 presidential election, poll watchers found two New Black Panther militia members outside of a polling place in Philadelphia.[12] One of these two was a poll watcher, while the other was a New Black Panther member who had brought a nightstick. Republican poll watcher Chris Hill stated that voters had been complaining about intimidation, while the DA's office stated that they had not been contacted by any voters.

[Anonymous]

Umm, this is uncited; the quoted material itself notes that a poll watcher had seen such complaints; and, of course, many crimes go unreported. This is pretty weak tea from an evidentiary standpoint, as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous]

The fact is, the Black Panthers don't have to prove they DIDN'T do it, the prosecution has to prove they DID, something they can't do.

So, by your argument, you want an unreported crime, that may or may not have happened, to be prosecuted?

Again, I'm not saying the actions by the Black Panther member was appropriate. But without any evidence to demonstrate that voter intimidation took place, what do you want to happen?

By the way, another poll watcher saying he was told of intimidation is hearsay. It's worth investigating, yes, but again, the claims were ultimately unsubstantiated. The burden of proof is on the government/prosecution and they failed in this regard.