HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Top Obama Supporter Approved Dismissal of Voter Intimidation Case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Top Obama Supporter Approved Dismissal of Voter Intimidation Case

post #1 of 73
7/30/09 at 7:09am
Thread Starter 
You can find the article here

Quote:
We wrote here about the Justice Department's dismissal of a voter intimidation case against a group of armed Black Panthers who threatened would-be voters outside a polling place in Philadelphia. This video of the defendants indicates the sort of intimidation in which they were engaged:



DOJ's decision to dismiss the case has been mysterious, in part, because it came after the defendants had defaulted. So the case had been won, and Justice decided to give it away.

Republicans in Congress have tried to find out who decided to let the Panthers off, and why, but they have been stonewalled by the Justice Department and the Obama administration. The Washington Times has been investigating, however, and reports that the decision to drop the case was approved by Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli. Perrilli is a Democratic Party activist who raised $500,000 for President Obama's campaign and was rewarded with the number three spot in the Department of Justice.

Quote:
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a June 16 letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it "great confusion, since the NBPP members were "caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.
"Though it had basically won the case, the [Civil Rights Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges , the letter said. "The division's public rationale would send the wrong message entirely -- that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them."
This incident is one of a series of events that suggest the Obama administration has gone to considerable lengths to politicize the Department of Justice.
Interesting stuff.

I wonder if those guys were employed by ACORN.
Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Mark's Weekly Trading Log
Educational videos for new investors!
e-mini S&P Futures Trading
post #2 of 73
7/30/09 at 7:51am
by their statement there, its hard to say what occurred. would need to see the viedo.

lol is that the vid, thats not security.. thats the militant black panther group, (the reform one) look at the uniforms.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 73
10/29/10 at 4:37pm
10/29/10

“High-level” political officials interfered in NBPP case, forced withdrawal:

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 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said the department’s reversal in the case, which drew criticism from conservatives, indicates that its Civil Rights Division is failing to protect white voters and is “at war with its core mission of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws for all Americans.” …
The commission’s draft report said the department’s “repeated attempts to obscure” the involvement of political appointees in the dismissal “raise questions about what the Department is trying to hide. ”
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 73
10/29/10 at 6:40pm
Try Bush for war crimes first...
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 73
10/29/10 at 7:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolexian View Post
Try Bush for war crimes first...
Besides the fact that President Bush isn't guilty of any war crimes, why does one have to do that first?

Is the government not capable of multitasking?

If it's not, shouldn't that be a good reason then to keep it out of the business of health care insurance? Retirement (SS)? Medicare, Medicaid, all sorts of welfare programs, etc?

Sounds like a good argument for putting private business in charge of such things and keeping the government out of it.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 73
10/29/10 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolexian View Post
Try Bush for war crimes first...
The Obamunists spent $2 mill on outside council to explore
the possibility of doing that. Did you notice they didn't?



Filing false charges is political suicide for your Socialists.



.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 73
10/29/10 at 7:45pm
Says who?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Besides the fact that President Bush isn't guilty of any war crimes, why does one have to do that first?

Is the government not capable of multitasking?

If it's not, shouldn't that be a good reason then to keep it out of the business of health care insurance? Retirement (SS)? Medicare, Medicaid, all sorts of welfare programs, etc?

Sounds like a good argument for putting private business in charge of such things and keeping the government out of it.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 73
10/29/10 at 7:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
Says who?
Our wonderful legal system, which says you're innocent until proven guilty.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 73
10/29/10 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Our wonderful legal system, which says you're innocent until proven guilty.
You lost me as usual. You stated he wasn't guilty of war crimes. He was never found innocent either. A matter of fact, he's yet to be charged or indicted- at least at present.

I've never said he's committed war crimes or not, but I can certainly see how it can be argued that he has.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 73
10/29/10 at 8:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
He was never found innocent either.
Have you been found innocent of war crimes?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 73
10/29/10 at 8:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Have you been found innocent of war crimes?
Nor have I been accused of such. If my memory serves me right, Bush has been indicted by another country for war crimes. I cannot recall the country of origin.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 73
10/29/10 at 8:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
Nor have I been accused of such. If my memory serves me right, Bush has been indicted by another country for war crimes. I cannot recall the country of origin.
I'm accusing you of war crimes.

Now, prove yourself innocent.

Otherwise, you'll find yourself in the same boat Bush is in, of having not proved himself innocent.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 73
10/29/10 at 8:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
I'm accusing you of war crimes.

Now, prove yourself innocent.

Otherwise, you'll find yourself in the same boat Bush is in, of having not proved himself innocent.
And what illegal, unnecessary, and devastating war, killing thousands and thousands of civilian victims, did I start? I'm accusing you of nonsense and stupidity. Now prove yourself innocent.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 73
10/29/10 at 8:54pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
And what illegal, unnecessary, and devastating war, killing thousands and thousands of civilian victims, did I start? I'm accusing you of nonsense and stupidity. Now prove yourself innocent.
Exactly.

Kinda of a stupid thing to say, isn't it?

Think twice the next time you want to use the words, "Prove yourself innocent." Makes you look like a relative of Joe Biden.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 73
10/29/10 at 9:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolexian View Post
Try Bush for war crimes first...
And right after that we'll have the One on trial for "crimes against employment" ; hell let's charge him with "crimes against humanity"...I mean who doesn't believe that the need to provide for family isn't a basic right in this country. Not I.

I thought you O followers were big on Civil Rights violations? Well I guess you're big on supporting women and blacks, too...that is, unless they disagree with your ideology. Predictible response, look over there, it's Bushy.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 73
10/29/10 at 9:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkeysmalls View Post
And right after that we'll have the One on trial for "crimes against employment" ; hell let's charge him with "crimes against humanity"...I mean who doesn't believe that the need to provide for family isn't a basic right in this country. Not I.

I thought you O followers were big on Civil Rights violations? Well I guess you're big on supporting women and blacks, too...that is, unless they disagree with your ideology. Predictible response, look over there, it's Bushy.
Assumptions, assumptions. Of course, it is all identity politics with you.

I am no Obama supporter. He has continued business as usual in Washington. Huge giveaways to the private sector, increase of the deficit, and allowing lobbyists to infiltrate Washington even more.

Bush should be tried for war crimes. For sanctioning torture, which is against the bill of rights and the Geneva convention.

He should be tried for tearing apart the constitution.

Where were the Tea Partiers screaming about the Constitution when Bush violated the fourth amendment?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 73
10/29/10 at 9:54pm
Well, that's because he's white.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rolexian View Post
Assumptions, assumptions. Of course, it is all identity politics with you.

I am no Obama supporter. He has continued business as usual in Washington. Huge giveaways to the private sector, increase of the deficit, and allowing lobbyists to infiltrate Washington even more.

Bush should be tried for war crimes. For sanctioning torture, which is against the bill of rights and the Geneva convention.

He should be tried for tearing apart the constitution.

Where were the Tea Partiers screaming about the Constitution when Bush violated the fourth amendment?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 73
10/29/10 at 10:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techunter View Post
The Obamunists spent $2 mill on outside council to explore
the possibility of doing that. Did you notice they didn't?



Filing false charges is political suicide for your Socialists.



.
Only 2 million?! Must have been a half-azzed attempt to appease some lefty fringe lunatics that demanded it.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 73
10/29/10 at 10:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
Well, that's because he's white.
In seriousness, no, it is about the fact that he is a Republican.

The Tea Party, and the conservative base in general, sees everything in terms of identity.

The only time they vote against Republicans, is in the primaries....when it is Republican against Republican....and even then, identity played a huge factor: get the incumbent out! I don't care who, get the incumbent out!

It is astonishing to me...tea partiers who talk about fixing health care talk about one thing: Tort reform! Except 90% don't even know what that is! Gee, I wonder where they heard that from!
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 73
10/29/10 at 10:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkeysmalls View Post
Only 2 million?! Must have been a half-azzed attempt to appease some lefty fringe lunatics that demanded it.
You realize that the Republicans tried to impeach Bill Clinton because of things in his personal life....
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Politics

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Mark's Weekly Trading Log
Educational videos for new investors!
e-mini S&P Futures Trading
HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Top Obama Supporter Approved Dismissal of Voter Intimidation Case