Obama administration political operatives overruled DoJ career professionals in the decision to not prosecute Black Panther voting intimidators. I guess that means that it would be OK for KKK members in hoods to hang around voting places with guns, too. Right?
[Friday morning update, with a bump]
More thoughts from Andrew McCarthy:
Republicans…are pressing for details about internal DOJ deliberations on the case, particularly the role played by Obama political appointees in the dismissal. Holder, Mr. Transparency, is naturally stonewalling. Obviously, the enforcement of the civil rights laws is not as important as the discretionary firing of U.S. attorneys (regarding which congressional Democrats demanded, and got, reams of DOJ documents and testimony). Nor is transparent law-enforcement as critical as the top-secret prisoner photos that Holder wanted disclosed to the world despite warnings from military and intel officials that disclosure would endanger our troops.
Seper recaps the sordid facts: “Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black dress shirts and black jackets with military-style markings, were charged with intimidating voters, including brandishing a nightstick and issuing racial threats and racial insults. A third was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape…. Witnesses said [Minister King] Samir Shabazz, armed with the nightstick, and [Jerry] Jackson used racial slurs and made threats as they stood at the door of the polling place.”
I’m sure you’ll be stunned to learn that the sweetheart settlement Holder’s Department gave these defendants does not require them to refrain from election activities. So of course Jackson, the alleged menacing racist who is also — surprise! — a Democrat Party operative, is right back in business again…
Change! But not much hope.
[Update mid morning]
Clarice Feldman has more:
The attorney general who engaged in this inexplicable act was appointed by President Barack Obama, who was sold to the voters as a post-racial figure and a constitutional law scholar.
In 2004, the misnamed left-wing outfit People for the American Way (PFAW) put forth a report entitled “The Shadow of Jim Crow,” which risibly confused efforts to prevent obvious voter fraud with intimidation and suppression. It concluded on this pot-banging note:
Robbing voters of their right to vote and to have their vote counted undermines the very foundations of our democratic society. Politicians, political strategists, and party officials who may consider voter intimidation and suppression efforts as part of their tactical arsenal should prepare to be exposed and prosecuted. State and federal officials, including Justice Department and national political party officials, should publicly repudiate such tactics and make clear that those who engage in them will face severe punishment.
So when I read this story from the Washington Times yesterday, I checked to see if PFAW had anything about it at all. I could find not one word.
Maybe PFAW missed the story, so I checked the NAACP website. I didn’t see a single thing criticizing the politicization of the Department of Justice in a way which undermines every citizen’s right to fair and free elections without intimidation.
Shocking. But expect commenter “Jim” to continue to shill and lie for this fascist and his (now) state-sanctioned black shirts. It’s what he does.
And she has a suggestion:
Perhaps in honor of the cop Obama unfairly maligned we ought to call this kind of racial discrimination “Jim Crowley.”
I like it.
[Update a few minutes later]
And more, from Heritage:
The Department’s spokeswoman says that “the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims.” Really? Then why is the Department refusing to allow the trial team who actually investigated the “facts and the law” or the chief of the Voting Section who supervised the investigation to brief members of Congress? We all know why – because those lawyers would dispute the spurious claim being made by their political superiors.
Justice even sent a letter to Cong. Lamar Smith claiming that one of the defendants was dismissed because he was a resident of the building in which the polling place was located, a “fact” that is completely false. The Department’s own pleadings publicly filed in court in Philadelphia, as well as a poll watcher certificate issued to the defendant by the Democratic Party, show that that this defendant did not live at the polling place (a senior living center). This basic factual error shows just how unimportant the real facts were to those dismissing the case. And that defendant, whose MySpace page lists one of his general interests as “Killing Crakkkas,” was dismissed just in time to be reappointed as a poll watcher for the May 19 primary in Philadelphia!
When the facts don’t fit the narrative, the facts have to be ignored.
The linked article does not say that political appointees overruled career prosecutors; it says that career DOJ supervisors made the call.
Jim, did you follow the same link I followed?
That doesn’t fit Jim’s narrative.
It sure smells like an 0bama connection to the charges being dropped. I see this resulting in nothing less than the emboldening of more of the same thuggery at the next major election. My cell phone video recording function will be ready.
Those were Federal charges. I’ve not seen any word one way or the other about state charges.
Jim will not comment again following 6:03 and 30 seconds, after he was once again demonstrated to be an illiterate by Brock.
Really, are there any ethical lines this administration will not cross? Hollywood got its perfect government now, exactly like the bad-guy in so many of the movies.
Big surprise that they were rooting for those bad guys the whole time.
Big surprise that they were rooting for those bad guys the whole time.
Not really. A good bad guy really makes the movie. Heroes and their romantic interests are typically cardboard characters that move the plot along between appearances of the bad guy.
The brandished weapon was a billy club not a gun, and the charges were not dropped against the one wielding it. This still stinks of racialism and political interference, but it’s not quite as bad as some have made it out to be. The most egregious fact seems to be that the DoJ dropped the charges against three of NBPP members after it had aready secured a default judgement against all four, something I’ve read is highly unusual. The fact that the NBPP activities were on behalf of the regime now in power just makes it all the more redolent; Holder & crew definitely have some ‘splainin’ to do.
Jim, did you follow the same link I followed?
Yes, and instead of taking Andy McCarthy’s summary of the Washington Times article at face value I followed his link and read that report. Here’s the Times lede:
Compare that to McCarthy’s summary:
Being consulted and approving a decision are not the same thing as making a decision. In fact, as the Times makes clear, it was career employees who made the decision:
and:
Being consulted and approving a decision are not the same thing as making a decision.
That depends on whether approval was necessary for the decision to go through. If it was, then the approval was the decision. Sounds to me like a “career employee” (appointed by Obama) wouldn’t have had that sort of authority, otherwise they wouldn’t have needed explicit approval from a higher up.
Wow, I was wrong. Jim will go to any lengths to continue to defend the indefensible.
He truly is a useful idiot.
You are correct – this was voter intimidation, and a political decision was made not to prosecute.
On the other hand, it’s some dudes at a polling station who were promptly shoed away by the cops.
Calling it a tempest in a teacup is an insult to every tempest in a teacup.
On the other hand, it’s some dudes at a polling station who were promptly shoed away by the cops.
In other words, a federal felony occurred and the police interceded before the perpetrators could cause much harm. I’m not sure what makes that a tempest in a teacup.
makes that a tempest in a teacup No votes changed? No material difference to the election, even in that precinct?
To add to my previous comment (an “edit”button is a wonderful thing) I am aware of a company where an employee defrauded the company of a sum in the low five figures. Said (ex)-employee got probation. Since the employee lived in a different state than the company, the matter was decided in Federal court.
Based on that, I can only suspect that the Black Panthers in the original article weren’t exactly looking at hard time.
To add to my previous comment (an “edit”button is a wonderful thing) I am aware of a company where an employee defrauded the company of a sum in the low five figures. Said (ex)-employee got probation.
He should have gotten serious jail time. Next.
Chris, suppose I try to kill you, but fail to the point that nobody is hurt physically and no property damaged. Does that mean I should get a light sentence? No. We have this crime called “conspiracy”. The idea is that you should be punished for planning to commit a crime even if the crime doesn’t occur.
Now it’s possible that the people in question didn’t realize that they were committing a crime. Seriously, we’re probably not dealing with the brightest here. That would mitigate a conspiracy charge because they wouldn’t have realized that they were planning or trying to carry out a crime.
But Chris, your claim of a tempest in a teacup just isn’t the point. Intent to commit voter intimidation is a serious thing. Even if the attempt failed this time, they can try again as long as there is no consequence to failure (and plenty of upside if they succeed).
He should have gotten serious jail time. My lawyer friends were not at all surprised at the sentence. “Should” and “usually happens” are different things.
Chris, suppose I try to kill you, but fail to the point that nobody is hurt physically and no property damaged. Does that mean I should get a light sentence?
We do usually give lighter sentences for attempted murder vs. actual murder. Conspiracy can get even lighter sentences.
My point is this – these mopes in Philadelphia failed to affect the vote and were not looking at real jail time. So maybe we might want to worry about more important issues?
So maybe we might want to worry about more important issues?
Yes, because voter intimidation is only an important issue when it’s voters who are intimidated into not voting Democrat.
Voter intimidation at one polling place for a short period of time.
There is a concept in accounting called “materiality.” If you’re a few cents off on balancing a million-dollar account, the error isn’t “material” or important enough to look at.
This voter intimidation wasn’t material for Philadelphia, let alone the nation.