|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Gallery | Register | Video Directory | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Games | Today's Posts | Search | Chat Room |
  |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
09-20-2010, 05:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
How Team Obama scrambled to respond to this little website operator
By Michelle Malkin • September 20, 2010 11:57 AM  Former DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams reports today on the latest revelations of DOJ obstructionism and deception over the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. At Pajamas Media, Adams writes: Judicial Watch made an explosive announcement today about the Justice Department’s stonewalling in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal. Forced to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request (so much for transparency), Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.Mark Tapscott at the Examiner has more details about the privilege log and DOJ e-mail communications obtained by Judicial Watch. Adams spotlights one interesting little nugget showing how the DOJ scrambled to react to my May 28, 2009 online exclusive that first revealed the shady dismissal of the NBPP case: The logs show political officials Hirsch and Rosenbaum, and a press spokesperson, swinging into action as soon as the press reported the dismissal on May 28, 2009. “Response to Malkin” shows up on May 28 — they were coordinating a response to Michelle Malkin’s exclusive breaking the story of the outrageous dismissal. These communications are characterized by the log as “pre-decisional,” and therefore protected. Of course, the decision to dismiss the case had already been made. I can’t wait to see what the court does with that in the FOIA litigation. (Though I suppose the decisions about how to cover up the truth of the dismissal were in the formative, pre-decisional process.)Remember: Sunlight — relentless sunlight — is the best disinfectant. And the ballot box is the ultimate sanitizer. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/20...site-operator/
__________________
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
#12
10-22-2010, 04:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Dispute over New Black Panthers case causes deep divisions
By Jerry Markon and Krissah Thompson Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, October 22, 2010; 3:29 PM On Election Day 2008, Maruse Heath, the leader of Philadelphia's New Black Panther Party, stood in front of a neighborhood polling place, dressed in a paramilitary uniform. Within hours, an amateur video showing Heath, slapping a black nightstick and exchanging words with the videographer, had aired on TV and ricocheted across the nation. Among those who saw the footage was J. Christian Adams, who was in his office in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in Washington. "I thought, 'This is wrong, this is not supposed to happen in this country,' " Adams said. "There are armed men in front of a polling place, and I need to find out if they violated the law, because in my mind there's a good chance that they did." The clash between the black nationalist and the white lawyer has mushroomed into a fierce debate over the government's enforcement of civil rights laws, a dispute that will be aired next week when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights unveils findings from a year-long investigation. Two months after Election Day, Adams and his supervisors in the George W. Bush administration filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against Heath and his colleagues, even though no voters had complained. The Obama administration months later dismissed most of the case, even though the Panthers had not contested the charges. Interviews and government documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that the case tapped into deep divisions within the Justice Department that persist today over whether the agency should focus on protecting historically oppressed minorities or enforce laws without regard to race. The dispute over the Panthers, and the Justice Department's handling of it, was politicized from the start, documents and interviews show. On Election Day, the issue was driven by Republican poll watchers and officials and a conservative Web site. At the department, Adams and his colleagues pushed a case that other career lawyers concluded had major evidentiary weaknesses. After the Obama administration took over, high-level political appointees relayed their thoughts on the case in a stream of internal e-mails in the days leading to the dismissal. That decision to pull back the lawsuit caused conflicts so heated that trial team members at times threw memos in anger or cursed at supervisors. The dismissals triggered outrage from conservatives and congressional Republicans, two internal Justice Department inquiries and the investigation by the conservative-controlled civil rights commission. The debate has thrust Eric H. Holder Jr., the nation's first African American attorney general and long the target of Republican attacks, into an unwelcome spotlight. In recent months, Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department's culture, which department officials strongly deny. "The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation, as our record reflects." A 'non-incident' On Election Day, Jerry Jackson arrived first at Guild House West, an assisted-living center in north Philadelphia that served as a polling place in the overwhelmingly Democratic ward. As a certified Democratic poll watcher who lives in the neighborhood, he had worked several elections at the red brick building with a circular drive in front. Jackson was soon joined by Heath, both decked out in the uniform of the New Black Panther Party: black berets, jackets, shirts, pants and boots. The two, regulars around the neighborhood, also protest often near City Hall. They have been shown in videos and quoted in news reports using incendiary rhetoric, telling African Americans to rise up against their "slave masters" and condemning whites as "crackers." But neighbors said they view Jackson and Heath - who declined to comment - as annoyances rather than threats. Jackson, 54, and Heath, 39, have criminal histories that between them include convictions for drug possession, robbery and simple assault, according to court records. Their local New Black Panther Party is part of a small, radical black nationalist organization with members in a handful of cities. It is not connected to the Black Panther Party of the 1960s. That morning, the men stood a few feet apart on a narrow sidewalk in front of the polling place, forcing voters to walk between them. Some in the neighborhood didn't see a problem. James "Jimmy" Whitmire, 74, who voted in the Guild House recreation room, said he saw nothing "that was destructive . . . nothing offensive." Three other residents who voted that day said in interviews that they agreed. About 10 a.m., a complaint from an unknown caller went to the local Republican Party headquarters. The message was relayed to Chris Hill, a GOP poll watcher, who hurried over with two lawyers volunteering for the party. As he walked up the driveway to the polling place, Hill said in an interview, Heath called out: "What are you doing here, cracker?" Hill ignored him and walked between the two men. Jackson brushed his shoulder, Hill said. Inside, a black poll worker said that although the Panthers had made no direct threats, he didn't feel safe going outside, according to Hill, who then called police. (The worker, a registered Democrat hired that day to work the polls for the GOP, later told the civil rights commission that he did not feel threatened.) Others from the Republican Party showed up that day, including Stephen Morse, a videographer and recent University of Pennsylvania graduate. Morse pulled out a video camera and focused on Heath. Less than 15 minutes later, Philadelphia police arrived. A one-page police report says officers allowed Jackson to stay because he was a poll watcher but asked Heath to leave. "That's why you're going to be ruled by a black man, now!" Heath shouted as he departed, according to witnesses. They said he also called Obama a "tool of the white man." Morse raced back to the GOP headquarters. "This footage is golden," he recalled thinking. But Hill stayed put. A Republican official, he said, alerted him that Fox News was sending a reporter. Within two hours, Morse's video had been uploaded to ElectionJournal.org, a conservative Web site, and Fox played it in newscasts. CNN posted the video online. Calls poured into the Philadelphia district attorney's office reporting voter intimidation at Guild House. But staff members realized they were from cable news viewers as far away as Florida. No call had come from a registered voter in Philadelphia. The office would deem the day's event a "non-incident.'' Deepening a divide In Washington that day, word of the racially charged dispute reached the voting section of Justice's Civil Rights Division, a unit already divided over issues of race and enforcement. The complaint went to Christopher Coates, the section's chief. A respected voting expert, Coates had been hired at Justice during the Clinton administration after a stint with the American Civil Liberties Union. He also came up in an internal watchdog report criticizing politicized hiring at the division during the Bush administration. The report referred to him as "a true member of the team." Since the division was created in 1957, most of its cases have been filed on behalf of minorities. But there has not always been agreement about that approach. Civil rights officials from the Bush administration have said that enforcement should be race-neutral. But some officials from the Obama administration, which took office vowing to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement, thought the agency should focus primarily on cases filed on behalf of minorities. "The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around," said one Justice Department official not authorized to speak publicly, referring to the white Alabama police commissioner who cracked down on civil rights protesters such as Lewis, now a Democratic congressman from Georgia. Before the New Black Panther controversy, another case had inflamed those passions. Ike Brown, an African American political boss in rural Mississippi, was accused by the Justice Department in 2005 of discriminating against the county's white minority. It was the first time the 1965 Voting Rights Act was used against minorities and to protect whites. Coates and Adams later told the civil rights commission that the decision to bring the Brown case caused bitter divisions in the voting section and opposition from civil rights groups. Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs "absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case," said one lawyer. "There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," the lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized." The 2008 Election Day video of the Panthers triggered a similar reaction, said a second lawyer. "People were dismissing it, saying it's not a big deal. They said we shouldn't be pursuing that case." But Coates thought differently; he dispatched two Justice Department lawyers, who interviewed Hill, the Republican poll watcher. Asked whether any voters were intimidated, Hill said he told the lawyers he had seen three people leave the polling place when they saw the chaos out front. Hill did not have their names and did not know whether they came back to vote. "We're not going to let this stand," one of the lawyers told him. An unpopular case Adams, 42, was assigned as the lead lawyer. A voting section lawyer since 2005, he would later resign over the Obama administration's handling of the case, publicizing his views in conservative media. Administration supporters call him a conservative activist; other Justice Department lawyers say his views, while conservative, did not influence his work. Adams scrambled to make the case, documents show. In a December 2008 e-mail to a recipient whose name was redacted, he laid out what he felt he needed: "Under the statute, a black poll watcher for you being abused or insulted is critical, and thus far, I don't have one." A criminal investigation was dropped. But on Dec. 22, Adams, Coates and another lawyer recommended a civil lawsuit under a Voting Rights Act section banning the intimidation or attempted intimidation of voters or those "aiding" voters. "It is shocking to think that a U.S. citizen might have to run a gauntlet of billy clubs in order to vote," they wrote in an internal memo. Although Adams has called the case a "slam dunk," lawyers acknowledged in the memo that less than 10 lawsuits had been filed under this section of the law and no plaintiff had ever won. On Jan. 7, 2009, less than two weeks before Obama took office, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against Heath, Jackson, Malik Shabazz, the party's national chairman and the party, banning them from standing in front of U.S. polling places with a weapon or wearing the party uniform. Although the Panthers later denied intimidating voters, they said nothing about the lawsuit. On April 2, the court clerk in Philadelphia entered a "default" against the defendants for failure to respond. The Justice Department had one month to file a motion for a final judgement. A ruling on that motion would have ended the case. Instead, the department on May 15 dismissed the charges against Jackson, Malik Shabazz and the party without citing a reason. It sought to narrow the injunction against Heath to polling places in Philadelphia through the 2012 elections. That was granted three days later. Legal experts have called the department's reversal exceedingly rare, especially because the defendants had not contested the charges. Coates and Adams say the case was narrowed because of opposition to filing voting-rights actions against minorities and pressure from civil rights groups, but have not cited evidence. Justice Department officials have repeatedly said the reversal stemmed from a legal review and insufficient evidence. Documents show that two career lawyers asked to review the case before it was dropped said the evidence against the party and its chairman was weak, though they recommended that the government proceed against all four defendants. Officials have denied any political considerations and said the final decision was made by Loretta King, a 30-year career lawyer designated by Obama as acting head of civil rights. Asked at a civil rights commission hearing in May whether any of the department's political leadership was "involved in" the decision to dismiss the Panthers case, assistant attorney general for civil rights Thomas E. Perez said no. "This is a case about career people disagreeing with career people,'' said Perez, who was not in the department at the time. He also said that political appointees are regularly briefed on civil rights cases and, whenever there is a potentially controversial decision, "we obviously communicate that up the chain." Justice Department records turned over in a lawsuit to the conservative group Judicial Watch show a flurry of e-mails between the Civil Rights Division and the office of Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli, a political appointee who supervises the division. "Where are we on the Black Panther case?" read the subject line of a Perelli e-mail to his deputy the day before the case was dropped. Perelli, the department's No. 3 official, wrote that he was enclosing the "current thoughts" of the deputy attorney general's office, the No. 2 official. Perelli's staff brought the matter to Holder's attention before the department dropped the charges, other documents show. Holder did not make the decision, officials say. In the months after the case ended, tensions persisted. A new supervisor, Julie Fernandes, arrived to oversee the voting section, and Coates testified that she told attorneys at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases - under a key voting rights section - only on behalf of minorities. "Everyone in the room understood exactly what she meant," Coates said. "No more cases like the Ike Brown or New Black Panther Party cases." Fernandes declined to comment through a department spokeswoman. A few months later, Coates requested a transfer to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina. When colleagues scheduled a farewell lunch, one attorney who attended said Coates vented his frustrations, criticizing the department for failing to enforce the law "on a non-racial basis.'' Justice Department officials say they treat everyone equally. Holder, in a speech last year to the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs said the department's "commitment to Equal Protection - and to full participation in our nation's elections - will not waiver. Never." That was one month after the end of the New Black Panther Party case. markonj@washpost.com thompsonk@washpost.com Thompson reported from Philadelphia. Staff researchers Lucy Shackleford and Julie Tate contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
__________________
|
|
#13
10-23-2010, 11:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Time for Heads to Roll Over New Black Panther Dismissal
Posted By J. Christian Adams On October 23, 2010 @ 10:10 am In Uncategorized | 6 Comments Today the Washington Post graces its front page with a long overdue expose [1] on the dismissal of the New Black Panther case. The story is extremely bad news for the Eric Holder Justice Department. Through multiple deep sourcing within the Voting Section and Civil Rights Division, it confirms everything that Christopher Coates and I testified about before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But that isn’t the biggest shocker of the Post piece. It also has administration officials defending the dismissal by arguing that the civil rights laws weren’t intended to protect whites. Alas, they confess to their true beliefs after more than a year of lies and misdirection. This is the worst possible news for the wrongdoers at DOJ, a week before the midterm elections. While purely anecdotal, I have received numerous emails from people around the country confessing their own mea culpa: that they once could not believe the DOJ could act in racially discriminatory fashion, but now they do. Mounting evidence moves minds. The Post story is largely fair and factual. It does omit the fact that the New Black Panthers are a virulent anti-Semitic organization who routinely rage against “the Jews!” and who have called for the murder of “cracker babies in their cribs.” One can only presume that one of the two authors of the piece did not want to remind readers of the vilest views of this outfit. It strangely renames King Samir Shabazz. Shabazz was born with a “slave name” of Maruse Heath. Shabazz calls it his slave name and thus he abandoned it at least a decade ago. Again, this editorial decision seems to insulate Shabazz. A friend commented to me that if the Post was covering a transvestite, say “Walter,” but who went by the phony name of “Wendy,” the Post would defer to Wendy’s wishes. This may be true or it may not. But as one commentator has pointed out, “even Heath does not call himself Heath.” Only the Post does [2]. Lastly, it also gives short shrift to the worsening predicament that various Justice Department officials are in regarding statements to Congress and the public, sometimes under oath. This is the real tragic part the controversy. The cover-up is always worse. For example, administration officials told the Civil Rights Commission they were unaware of any hostile attitudes in the DOJ toward equal enforcement of the law. Others have run interference for them in communications to Congress and the Commission. In the old days, the Washington Post had a name for this behavior. Then comes the bombshell. The Post article quotes an unnamed DOJ official defending the decision to dismiss the case because the civil rights laws don’t apply to whites. The Post reports: “The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around,” said one Justice Department official not authorized to speak publicly, referring to the white Alabama police commissioner who cracked down on civil rights protesters such as Lewis, now a Democratic congressman from Georgia.This is an astonishing admission. It confirms what we have been saying all along. It is also the tip of the iceberg. The crooked defense of racially selective law enforcement has many more storylines, and I heard them all when I worked there. I wrote [3] at PJM last summer: To the many who expressed such hostility, often thoughtful but wrong, it would be a help to all of us if they might engage the debate with the respectable tenor which they sometimes did when I was in the Department of Justice. After all, such opponents of race-neutral law enforcement surely weren’t “cowards” about discussing race in those instances, and we might all benefit from a full understanding of their views. So let’s have the opponents of race-neutral enforcement of voting cases come out in the open and tell the American public why they oppose it.In that article, I wrote how Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King told a meeting of the entire Voting Section, including Attorney General Eric Holder who was standing next to King, how glad she was that “two black men are running the country.” The inappropriate stupidity of that remark sounds a bit like the quote in the Post from the unnamed administration official. Whoever said that to the Post simply doesn’t understand the rage the confession will unleash. Americans don’t want to hear the law doesn’t protect them. The admission by an administration official that the civil rights laws were made to protect only minorities is nothing new to me. I have been speaking about it for months. Now let’s see if the apologists for the administration who have attacked me and Christopher Coates admit error. Let’s see if certain commissioners on the Civil Rights Commission seize this opportunity to take the intellectual high road instead of continuing along the gutter track shilling for partisan or personal advantage. Christopher Coates’s testimony offered the first chance at redemption. The front-page Washington Post piece containing confessions offers the second. The vote will be later this week on approval of the report. It will be very difficult to live with the reputation years from now that you defended racial discrimination and racially selective law enforcement. That stain on your reputation will follow you forever. Lastly, the biggest threat to the DOJ spin, and the officials who have made incorrect statements under oath, is the fact that Justice attorneys inside the Voting Section are now talking to the Washington Post. Justice should be concerned they are also talking to Congress, which they have every right to do under the law and Constitution. Some might argue they have an obligation to do so considering the lies which have been pushed to Congress and the public about the Panther dismissal. The many DOJ officials behind this debacle — Tom Perez, Julie Fernandez, Loretta King, Steve Rosenbaum and others throughout the DOJ who have run interference for the wrongdoing — should be very nervous. At least three DOJ lawyers still at Justice are starting to tell the truth to the Washington Post, and there is nothing now that can contain it. Expect more to follow if the lies continue and if heads don’t roll soon. With the election just a week away, the smartest thing the White House could do is to roll some heads. Consult the list above for suggestions. Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/time-fo...her-dismissal/ URLs in this post: [1] expose: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...prss=rss_print [2] does: http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/...race-policies/ [3] wrote: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/black-p...s-the-country/
__________________
|
|
#14
10-29-2010, 03:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
“High-level” political officials interfered in NBPP case, forced withdrawal
Share194 posted at 10:32 am on October 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey printer-friendly The US Civil Rights Commission has concluded in an extensive report that the strange decision to dismiss a case the Department of Justice had won by default against a New Black Panther Party activist for voter intimidation came after the involvement of political appointees. Furthermore, and most embarrassing, the 131-page report accuses the Department of Justice of attempting to cover up that involvement, and that the cover-up came from “high-level” officials in the DoJ. The USCRC concludes that the Civil Rights Division is “at war with its core mission”: The Justice Department has tried to hide the involvement of high-level political officials in the dismissal of a controversial voter-intimidation lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party, a federal commission concluded in a draft report.The news comes at a particularly and obviously bad time for the White House. One of the more secondary messages this election cycle from Democrats was a claim that a new Republican majority in the House would do nothing but conduct vendettas against the Obama administration. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) would become the chair of the Oversight Committee and already has this case on his radar. This report strongly suggests that Congress needs to start demanding accountability from the executive branch, and that Democrats have utterly failed in their constitutional duty to provide it. It also poses a conundrum for all of those who screamed about the politicization of the Department of Justice during the Bush administration. The claims centered on the requests for resignations of political appointees in order to emphasize a focus on vote fraud, which critics charged was an abuse of power — even though political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President at all times, with the exception of the judiciary. Now we have solid evidence of not just politicization of prosecution decisions, but a political cover-up as well. Will we get the same level of demands for inquiries now? And I’m not just talking about elected officials, either. Will the media give this the kind of coverage that a political cover-up deserves? http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/2...ed-withdrawal/
__________________
|
|
#16
10-30-2010, 09:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
New Black Panther thugs head back to polls; Democrat panelist blocks Civil Rights Commish report
By Michelle Malkin • October 29, 2010 07:24 PM  They’re baaaaaaack. Before the Philly New Black Panther Party radicals showed up at a voting booth in 2008 with billy clubs and racial epithets at the ready, my old nemesis Malik Shabazz — the NBPP thug-in-chief — put out a nationwide warning. Remember? “We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people.” Well, NBPP official Quannell X in Texas says his militant minions will return…to monitor citizen election watchdogs. Election Law Center says: Strap in. And bring your cameras. In related developments, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission was blocked from finalizing a report on DOJ’s obstructionism and politicization of the Philly NBPP voter intimdation case. A lone Democrat holdout stymied the panel: Democratic member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights walked out of the panel’s meeting Friday to block acceptance of a report critical of the Justice Department’s handling of a voting-rights investigation involving the New Black Panther Party.Remember in November. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/29...ommish-report/
__________________
|
|
#17
11-02-2010, 12:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
New Black Panther Seen At Polling Place
No Voter Intimidation Reported Tuesday At Poll PHILADELPHIA - Fox 29 News spotted Tuesday a member of the New Black Panther Party standing outside of a local polling place where voter intimidation was reported two years ago. The man was seen outside the polling place in North Philadelphia was wearing a pin that indicated his party affiliation, along with a black hat, sunglasses and leather coat. In footage obtained by Fox News back in 2008, two members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside the same polling place shaking a Billy club and allegedly intimidating voters. The case was ultimately dropped by the Department of Justice after President Obama's administration came into power, although controversy surrounding the incident's handling has persisted. Just last month Attorney General Eric Holder was defending the Justice Department's performance on the matter, saying the top career person in the civil rights division made the decision to seek an injunction against one person. The man seen at the same polling place Tuesday would not answer questions posed by Fox 29 News but was apparently working at the polls as a volunteer and greeting voters. A check with Philadelphia election officials revealed no voter intimidation reports at the polling location this time. http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/...g_Place_110210
__________________
|
|
#18
11-15-2010, 07:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Explosive New Justice Department Black Panther Emails
by Tom Fitton The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot shake the New Black Panther Party scandal. Every week new revelations emerge about the racism and political favoritism that are corrupting our nation’s top law enforcement agency.  Last week, Judicial Watch released to the public brand new documents from the Obama DOJ that provide further evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. And just like previous documents we’ve uncovered, this new evidence directly contradicts sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership participated in the decision. Remember this exchange between Perez and the Commission? COMMISSIONER KIRSANOW: Was there any political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was?Perez also suggested that the dispute was merely “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.” Not true. The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees, former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, indicating both DOJ officials were involved in detailed discussions regarding the New Black Panther Party decision. For example, in one April 30, 2009, email from Hirsch to Perrelli, with the subject title “Fw: New Black Panther Party Update,” Hirsch writes: Tom,Another smoking gun email shows that Hirsch, who worked in the Attorney General’s office, seems to have edited the final order that the DOJ proposed to the court! The proposed order only sought relief against one of the four original defendants. These emails were put into further context by an updated Vaughn index obtained by Judicial Watch, describing New Black Panther Party documents the Obama DOJ continues to withhold. This document, which was attached to the DOJ’s Motion for Summary Judgment filing in a Judicial Watch lawsuit, includes a description of a May 13 email chain that seems to suggest political appointee Sam Hirsch may have been orchestrating the New Black Panther Party decision. Acting DAAG [Steven Rosenbaum] advising his supervising Acting AAG [Loretta King] of DASG’s [Hirsch’s] request for a memorandum by the Acting DAAG reviewing various options, legal strategies, and different proposals of relief as related to each separate defendant. Acting DAAG forwarding emails from Appellate Section Chief’s and Appellate Attorney’s with their detailed legal analyses including the application of constitutional provisions and judicial precedent to strategies and relief under consideration in the ongoing NBPP litigation, as well as an assessment of the strength of potential legal arguments, and presenting different possible scenarios in the litigation. [Emphasis added]Moreover, Hirsch sent an April 30, 2009, email to Steven Rosenbaum (then-Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in charge of voting rights) thanking Rosenbaum for “doing everything you’re doing to make sure that this case is properly resolved.” The next day, the DOJ began to reverse course on its New Black Panther Party voter intimidation lawsuit. Here’s something else certainly suspicious and potentially incriminating: Judicial Watch also uncovered two email reports sent by former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Loretta King, to Attorney General Eric Holder. The first report, entitled “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 8, 2009,” was sent on May 12, 2009, notes, “On May 15, 2009, pursuant to court order, the Department will file a motion for default judgment against at least some of the defendants” in the New Black Panther Party lawsuit. The report further notes that the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense “has been identified as a racist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the founders and members of the original Black Panther Party.” The second report, entitled, “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 15, 2009,” was sent on May 18, 2009, demonstrates that the DOJ did an abrupt “about face” on the New Black Panther Party issue: “On May 15, 2009, the Department voluntarily dismissed its claims” against the New Black Panther Party and two of the defendants, the report noted. The DOJ moved for default judgment against only one defendant. What happened in the week before the first and second reports? That’s what we’re trying to break through the Obama DOJ’s stonewalling to find out. It is now obvious to me why the Obama administration continues to be so secretive regarding the DOJ’s New Black Panther Party decision. These documents show that not only was the New Black Panther Party decision shamelessly politicized by the Obama administration but also that Obama officials lied to cover up the scandal. These documents raise more questions about Attorney General Holder’s involvement as well. You will recall that the DOJ filed its lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party following an incident that took place outside of a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008. A video of the incident showing a member of the New Black Panther Party brandishing a police-style baton weapon was widely distributed on the Internet. According to multiple witnesses, members of the New Black Panther Party blocked access to polling stations, harassed voters and hurled racial epithets. Nonetheless, the DOJ ultimately overruled the recommendations of its own staff and dismissed the majority of its charges. Current and former DOJ attorneys have alleged in sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the DOJ’s New Black Panther Party and other civil rights-related decisions are made on the basis of race and political affiliation. Despite the efforts of Obama officials to sweep this mess under the rug, news continues to break on a weekly basis. http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/201...anther-emails/
__________________
|
|
#19
12-31-2010, 09:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Holder: New Black Panther Case a 'Made-up Controversy'
Really, Mr. Attorney General, it was all made up? Asked about the prospect of oversight hearings and subpoenas involving the New Black Panther case, Mr. Holder said, “there is no ‘there’ there.”Uh, how about some of these facts? Leaders of the New Black Panther Party express joy in a newly available video that Attorney General Eric Holder tolerated their voter-intimidation activities and dropped a case against them.Here's more video of a charming young man Holder let off the hook in the "made-up" case. You see, nothing happened. Except what happened. But according to our Attorney General, what happened was just a fabrication, all video evidence notwithstanding. Ever hear of J. Christian Adams, Mr. Holder? Surely you must have. He's a man who once worked for the Justice Department and resigned over this "made-up" non-story. On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.Why would this man resign his position if this never happened? The irony is the story where the Holder quote comes from generally is sympathetic toward him and laments the frustration he'll be facing with those meanie Republicans in charge of the House. They have some questions for Holder regarding this "made-up controversy," questions I doubt he'll be answering truthfully. http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.co...e-made-up.html
__________________
|
|
#20
12-31-2010, 11:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Amazing, isn't it?
Now even Top DOJ Political Supremacist Eric Holder FLAT-OUT-LIES to We Americans, just like Top DEM Political Supremacist Barack Hussein Obama II or Jr. often deceitfully does. What next type of payback can we mostly all related to despicable white slave owning racist ancestors expect from Officialdom's Morally Superior (audaciously in their eyes ONLY) Black Tyrants? Will such despicable Freedom & Liberty loving whites be lordly ordered to back of the bus? Whatever, Happy New Year to One & All,..................................... Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, White & Half & Half Authoritarian Bigots also). Hopefully for America, by now all black prejudices have been satisfied by TOTAL CONTROLLERS? If not: "Pilgrims",...Screw all such later day gods & goddesses. Even Dictatorial White Ones! Neil
__________________
My Salute & "GarryOwen" to all TRUE Patriots.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Exclusive: Foreign banks may get help | HARDCORE | General Posts | 3 | 09-23-2008 06:28 AM |
| AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq | darrels joy | General Posts | 26 | 07-11-2008 11:40 AM |
| VOTING or NOT VOTING worse ?? | reconeil | Political Debate | 2 | 10-19-2006 10:25 AM |
| Milosevic's Lawyers Can't Quit | David | United Nations | 0 | 02-08-2005 02:56 PM |
| Iraqi lawyers decry prison conditions | thedrifter | Marines | 1 | 10-09-2003 05:04 AM |
     |
Linear Mode
