barrys DOJ Lied to Congress in the Black Panther Case

[chefdennis]

Remember those black Panthers that got away with "voter Intimidation because the DOJ said that lowly civil service workers said there was no case....seems they lied and they lied to Congress, The Civil Rights Commission as well as the people of the US...and the press went right along with it....wonder hwere and how far up the WH ladder this all starts....LOL....

Proof: New Records Show DOJ Lied About New Black Panther Dismissal

A FOIA request reveals contradictions in statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public. Some of these statements were made under oath.

September 20, 2010 - by J. Christian Adams
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/proof-new-records-show-doj-lied-about-new-black-panther-dismissal/

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.
It shows — in a rather dramatic way — that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.

In July, I complied with a subpoena and provided testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I did so in part because inaccurate statements had been made about the case by DOJ officials. Some of these statements falsely claimed that ethical rules mandated the dismissal of the charges against the New Black Panthers. This was nonsense.

But the real whopper? DOJ’s claim — repeated over and over again — that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.

Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.

The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.

Some of these statements were under oath.

For example: on May 10, 2009, the third highest-ranking official inside the DOJ — Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli — emailed Sam Hirsch, one of his deputies:

Where are we on the Black Panther case?

The description of the email contains a bombshell:

asking for update on the NBPP litigation between officials in the [Associate’s office] and noting the [deputy attorney general’s] current thoughts on the case.

The deputy attorney general is the second highest-ranking official in the Department. The use of the term “current thoughts” infers that there were prior thoughts and ongoing discussions with the second highest-ranking political official at DOJ about how to handle the case.

Further, the logs show dozens of communications between senior DOJ political officials in the two weeks prior to the dismissal of the case.

Congress and the public have been told — for over a year — that the dismissal of the New Black Panther case resulted from nothing more than a dispute between lowly career civil servants. Lapdog reporters have repeated this lie, if they even covered the case at all. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch expose the ruse.

Rarely in our nation’s history have officials in the Department of Justice engaged in a dishonest misinformation campaign to Congress, the public, and other fact-finding tribunals. Thankfully, these few episodes have been confined to the darkest and most corrupt eras of the republic.

Sam Hirsch is a former Democratic Party operative, and one of the most partisan election law attorneys in the entire nation. He worked for the Democratic Party in numerous redistricting fights, trying to squeeze every last drop of partisan advantage from plans in places like Texas. He has led efforts to impose racial divisions on Hawaii by creating native classifications and powers — and he is proud of it. He was heavily involved in the Obama presidential campaign.

As deputy associate attorney general — a senior Obama political appointee — Hirsch emerges in the privilege logs as the fulcrum around which the New Black Panther case was dismissed. Throughout April and May 2009, Civil Rights Division political appointee Steve Rosenbaum engaged in extensive legal analysis with Hirsch. In turn, Hirsch had extensive communications with Associate Attorney General Perrelli about the case. The emails are sometimes described as “deliberations” between the senior political appointees. These are deliberations which the DOJ inferred never existed. Nothing more than a dispute between civil servants, they repeated without equivocation.

The privilege logs show at least thirteen communications between Hirsch and Perelli in the two weeks before the dismissal on May 15.

On April 30 alone, Hirsch and Rosenbaum communicated at least eight separate times about the case. This occurred the day before the Voting Section decided not to seek a final injunction, and instead asked the court for a two-week delay. Someone, somewhere, didn’t want the easily obtained victory by default. Perhaps it was now-resigned Deputy Attorney General David Ogden. After all, he had some “current thinking” he was eager to share. Perhaps it was someone else.

On May 8, the same day that the logs show the Voting Section provided its analysis supporting a full remedy against all four defendants, Rosenbaum immediately forwarded the Voting Section’s work to the associate attorney general’s office. It’s clear from the logs who was calling the shots — and it wasn’t the career civil servants. Rosenbaum looks like an errand boy, nothing more.

The logs also show extensive communications between Rosenbaum and multiple lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division’s Appellate Section. Apparently Rosenbaum was looking for a second opinion to back up political hostility to the case. He never got it.

According to the logs, the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section was also recruited to help kill the case. On May 12, Rosenbaum wrote an email to political appointee Hirsh, which the privilege log describes as follows:

[Rosenbaum] provides [Associate AG] in charge of CRT with requested follow-up information and confirmation that additional actions would be conducted by Criminal Section Chief per his request.

The logs reveal a full court press to find someone, anyone, willing to provide a death blow to the case with the imprimatur of the civil service.

They never got it.

Political officials Rosenbaum and Hirsch communicate an additional twenty-two times in the days before the case is finally dismissed on May 15. Hirsch even had to review the scaled-down final order which prevents King Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon until 2012, and only in Philadelphia.

Reading the logs, one is struck by the level of intimate involvement by the highest-ranking political officials at the DOJ. Frankly, the level of political coordination saddened me, especially given the countless statements to Congress and the public characterizing the decision as having been made only by civil servants.

For example, DOJ press spokesperson Tracy Schmaler has crowed about the Panther dismissal being made solely by career civil service attorneys, and the resulting controversy being nothing more than a “disagreement among career attorneys.” False. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez repeated the same mantra to the Civil Rights Commission. Again, not true.

When Justice Department officials deliberately misrepresent facts to the public and to Congress, there must be consequences.

Schmaler is the same press spokesperson who accused me of deliberately misrepresenting facts to advance an agenda. My testimony was under oath. I gave up a great job at the Department so I could truthfully comply with a subpoena. My only agenda is the truth.

Schmaler, or another Justice official, told Fox News that I had been reassigned to other duties and was therefore a disgruntled employee. This was laughably false. I hadn’t been reassigned anywhere — instead, I had been promoted two weeks before I resigned, and had the same duties with a GS-15-9 pay grade. When I heard this lie, I was astounded that someone at DOJ would not only breach personnel privacy policies, but engage in gutter tactics so completely divorced from the truth.

General Holder should ensure that the first obligation of his press shop is to tell the truth, then spin afterwards. And reporters dealing with Tracy Schmaler should be cautious.

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.)

If Congress ultimately suspects that they were lied to, they might scrutinize an undated entry: Karen Stevens is listed as an author of “talking points for the Attorney General regarding the DOJ’s handling of the NBPP litigation and the decision to drop charges.” She should get a subpoena from Congress next year also.

Similar entries evidencing the creation of an ultimately dishonest spin are throughout the log.

I would not be surprised if the log omitted documents. Inspector General Glenn Fine’s investigation of the Voting Section should include an inquiry into whether the Department is fully responsive to various requests from Congress, the press, and the Civil Rights Commission.

The log provided by DOJ to Judicial Watch contains numerous unidentified documents. The listing provides no information whatsoever about these documents, as the identity of both the authors and recipients are omitted. Congress might also demand to know what all the untitled, undated entries are in the log.

Today was a very bad day for the Justice Department, but a worse day for our country. The privilege logs show what most Americans suspected all along: that the Department was lying, and the corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther Case was made high up the political chain of command.

Let’s see if the Department’s defenders in the press and on the Civil Rights Commission keep repeating the lies.

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is Election Law Center.

 

[Poorboy]

And the Obumma administration lying is new?
That's all they ever do. You can always tell when Obumma and his little clan of thieve's are lying by the movement of their lips. When the lips are moving then they are Lying cuz that's all they ever do And the koolaid drinkers actually believe them!

 

[witness23]

Link: Right-wing media shocked to learn that DOJ attorneys send email to each other | Media Matters for America

Right-wing media shocked to learn that DOJ attorneys send email to each other

Media conservatives claim that the existence of communication between Justice Department attorneys proves that department officials lied when they said that career attorneys and not political appointees decided not to pursue additional charges against members of the New Black Panther Party. In fact, DOJ officials have said repeatedly that political appointees were made aware of the decision-making process.

Right wing latches on to a list of emails in desperate attempt to revive phony New Black Panther Party "scandal"

Judicial Watch: Emails "contradict testimony" by assistant AG. On September 20, Judicial Watch claimed that an index of emails released by the Department of Justice in response to a public records request contradicts "sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that no political leadership was involved in the decision" not to pursue additional charges against members of the New Black Panther Party. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton claimed:

These documents show the Obama Justice Department's decision to drop the Black Panther case was certainly political and potentially corrupt. ... The Black Panther decision is a scandal for the Obama administration and it merits serious attention by investigators. Assistant Attorney General Perez seems to have been less than candid in his sworn testimony when he said no political appointees were involved in the decision. This scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse for the Obama Justice Department. [Judicial Watch, 9/20/10]

J. Christian Adams: "New records show DOJ lied about New Black Panther Dismissal." J. Christian Adams, a right-wing activist and former Justice Department attorney who has aggressively pushed the phony, racially charged "scandal," claimed in a Pajamas Media blog post that the email index was "an explosive announcement" that "shows -- in a rather dramatic way -- that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case." Adams wrote:

But the real whopper? DOJ's claim -- repeated over and over again -- that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.

Today we learn, from the Department's own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.

The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.

Some of these statements were under oath. [Pajamas Media, 9/20/10]

Von Spakovsky: Emails "indicate that high-level Justice Department officials have been misleading the public and Congress." Hans von Spakovsky, a former official in the politicized Bush Justice Department, wrote in a National Review Online blog post that the emails referenced in the index represented "tunning new developments in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) voter-intimidation scandal" that "indicate that high-level Justice Department officials have been misleading the public and Congress" and "may have also committed perjury before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights." According to van Spakovsky, "The log details numerous discussions and legal deliberations between the Civil Rights Division and political appointees in the highest reaches of the Justice Department, including former deputy attorney general David Ogden and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli (the number-two and number-three officials under Eric Holder)." [National Review Online, 9/20/10]

Wash. Times: DOJ's "claim that political appointees were not involved in the case appears to be false." A September 20 Washington Times editorial claimed that the email index "undermines the credibility of Mr. Perez and of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder." The editorial further claimed, "The department's claim that political appointees were not involved in the case appears to be false." [The Washington Times, 9/20/10]

Fox Nation: "New Records Show DOJ Lied About Black Panther Dismissal." Linking to Adams' Pajamas Media post, Fox Nation displayed the following headline on September 21:

Communication between career attorneys and political appointees is nothing new and consistent with past DOJ statements

Perez: "Whenever there is a decision involving a case that has attracted attention ... we obviously communicate that up the chain." In his May 14 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights -- the testimony media conservatives say is contradicted by the email index obtained by Judicial Watch -- Perez directly addressed lines of communications between political appointees and career attorneys. Asked by Chairman Gerald Reynolds to explain whether career attorneys or political appointees have "the responsibility and the ownership" for decisions, Perez responded:

Let me give you how our lines of communication work because I think this is responsive to your question. We meet regularly with -- my direct supervisor in the Civil Rights Division is the Associate Attorney General.

We meet on a weekly basis to communicate with him what is happening in the Division. There are representatives of the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General's office in those meetings.

And there are coordination meetings here, 'Here are the significant things that are happening. Here are the significant things that are going on in the weeks ahead.'

Whenever there is a decision involving a case that has attracted attention, we -- when the decision is made, we obviously communicate that up the chain. [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights testimony, 5/14/10]

DOJ: "Consistent with the Department's practice," attorneys "informed Department supervisors of the Division's decisions related to the case." In a January 11 response to interrogatories and document requests made by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Justice Department said that "[c]areer supervising attorneys" made the decision not to pursue additional charges in the case and that "political considerations had no role in that decision." The response document -- filed with the Civil Rights Commission and made public -- also made clear that "[c]onsistent with the Department's practice, the attorney serving as Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights informed Department supervisors of the Division's decisions related to the case":

Career supervising attorneys who have over 60 years of experience at the Department between them decided not to seek relief against three other defendants after a thorough review of the facts and applicable legal precedent. The Department implemented that decision. Political considerations had no role in that decision and reports that political appointees interfered with the advice of career attorneys are false.

Consistent with the Department's practice, the attorney serving as Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights informed Department supervisors of the Division's decisions related to the case. The Department supervisors did not overrule that attorney. [Response of the Department of Justice to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1/11/10]

DOJ: "As is customary with complex or potentially controversial issues" attorneys "advised the Associate Attorney General." In a supplemental document filed with the commission in April, the DOJ further explained that decisions related to the New Black Panther Party case were communicated with the Office of the Associate Attorney General:

As is customary with complex or potentially controversial issues, the then-Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights advised the Associate Attorney General that she was making a case-based assessment of how to proceed in this case, engaged in discussions about how to proceed with the Associate Attorney General's staff, and informed the Associate's office of her decision before it was implemented. [Letter to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights general counsel, 4/16/10]

Phony "scandal" does not stand up to the evidence

Right-wing activists and Fox News promoted unsubstantiated allegations based on hearsay. Right-wing media figures -- led by Adams -- have relied on distorted evidence and hearsay to accuse the Obama Justice Department of racially charged "corruption" based on the decision not to pursue additional charges against members of the New Black Panther Party accused of intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling center in 2008, claiming that the decision was based on "hostility in the voting rights section to bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities." Fox News has discussed the phony scandal during more than 100 segments since June 30.

Unsubstantiated allegations can't stand up to facts. Adams has acknowledged lacking firsthand knowledge of the events he has cited to support his claims, and the suggestion that the Civil Rights Division in the Obama DOJ is hostile to "bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities" falls apart given the fact that the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one defendant in the case and requested additional judgment against black leaders in Mississippi who were found to have discriminated against white voters.

Conservative Civil Rights Commission vice chair ridiculed commission's investigation. A July 16 Politico article reported that Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican who serves as vice chair of the Civil Rights Commission and who is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said, "This doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers, this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration." Politico also quoted Thernstrom saying, "My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president."

 

[dieseldiva]

Let's see.....in my right hand, Judicial Watch....in my left, Media Matters...which one should I choose to believe.....hmmm...it's tough, I'll tell ya.

Who said what, when, and where doesn't really matter to me. What matters is that these people were ON TAPE having broken the law and nothing of substance was done about it. Now, perhaps the DOJ should have avoided even the appearance of favoritism and prosecuted to the fullest extent.....that would have settled everything.

What's good for me is good for thee.

 

[witness23]

Who said what, when, and where doesn't really matter to me.

I understand, it is much easier to just listen to what people tell you and believe what they tell you, rather than find out all the facts.

What matters is that these people were ON TAPE having broken the law

What law was broken? Nobody has come forward saying they were intimidated, if someone did I'm sure the Bush DOJ would've gone forward with a case of voter intimidation, but that is not what happened. I know, I know, President Obama and his cronies must have gotten to those individuals and threatened them so they wouldn't come forward. This whole thing is a sham and being politicized by the right.

Link: Fox's Napolitano regurgitates myths to smear Obama as "in tight" with New Black Panthers | Media Matters for America

Decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by Bush DOJ, not Obama

Bush DOJ, not Obama, made decision not to pursue criminal charges. Before President Bush left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. In May 14 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but did "file a civil action on January 7th, 2009." From Perez's testimony:

PEREZ: Moving to the matter at hand, the events occurred on November 4th, 2008. The Department became aware of these events on Election Day and decided to conduct further inquiry.

After reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.

Obama DOJ actually obtained judgment against individual carrying weapon at polling place

May 2009: DOJ obtained default judgment against Shabazz for carrying weapon outside polling station. On May 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against King Samir Shabazz. Perez stated in his May 14 testimony that the Justice Department had obtained "sufficient evidence to sustain the charge" of voter intimidation against Shabazz, identified by Perez as "the defendant who had the nightstick," and that "the default judgment was sought and obtained as it related to him." Perez also testified:

PEREZ: Based on the careful review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence collected supported the allegations in the complaint against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Department, therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from otherwise violating Section 11(b).

The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the constitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms.

 

[dieseldiva]

I understand, it is much easier to just listen to what people tell you and believe what they tell you, rather than find out all the facts.

Some of us here are trying to rise above personal attacks so I'll say this.....you can take that comment and roll it up into a tiny (or not so much) little ball and........fill in the rest.

Now, we could continue a copy and paste war on this all night but you're going to have to battle it out alone after this post as I'm only offering one article....

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE



Myth vs. Fact: The New Black Panther Party Investigation

By Peter Kirsanow
Posted on July 26, 2010 7:06 PM

There are several assertions broadly circulating in the media about the New Black Panther Party matter that are inaccurate or misleading. These are the most commonly repeated:


1. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’s investigation is confined to the reasons behind the Department of Justice’s dismissal of the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

False: The Commission investigation has four principal areas of inquiry:

A. Whether high-level political appointees within the Department of Justice have enunciated a policy or tolerate a practice of enforcing certain civil-rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner;

B. Whether high-level political appointees within the Department of Justice have enunciated a policy or tolerate a practice of not enforcing Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act;

C. Whether there is pervasive hostility within the ranks of the Civil Rights Division toward enforcing the nation’s civil-rights laws in a color-blind manner; and

D. Why did the Department of Justice dismiss most of the claims of voter intimidation in the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation lawsuit after there had been an entry of default in the matter?
​

2. The investigation has uncovered no evidence that the Department of Justice has adopted a policy or practice of enforcing civil-rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner.

False: The uncontroverted testimony of J. Christian Adams, a former attorney in the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, shows that a high-ranking political appointee in the Department of Justice gave instructions that the Voting Rights Section was not going to bring cases “against black defendants on the benefit of white victims.”

3. The Commission investigation has uncovered no evidence that the Department of Justice has adopted a policy or practice of refusing to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA.

False: The uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Adams is that a high-ranking political appointee in the Department of Justice explicitly told the entire Voting Section “that this administration would not be enforcing Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act.” The purpose of Section 8 of the NVRA is to ensure that persons ineligible to vote are not permitted to vote.

4. The Commission investigation has produced no evidence of pervasive hostility within the Civil Rights Division to race-neutral enforcement of civil-rights laws.

False: Uncontroverted evidence adduced before the Commission shows that a culture exists within the Civil Rights Division that is hostile to bringing claims against minority defendants or on behalf of white victims. The evidence shows, inter alia, that a black Department of Justice employee who worked on a case involving black defendants was racially harassed by Voting Rights Section staff; that a Department of Justice attorney who brought a case against black defendants had his authority gradually removed; that repeated statements were made by Department of Justice personnel that the DOJ should not bring cases against minority defendants on behalf of white victims; that attorneys within the Voting Rights Section flatly refused to work on U.S. v. Ike Brown,a case involving a black defendant and both white and black victims; that Voting Rights personnel objected to use of department resources to bring cases against minority defendants; that the department refuses to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on behalf of white victims; and that case-justification documents were altered in a manner that would reduce or eliminate the probability that a case would be filed against black defendants.
Several former Department of Justice attorneys have given statements corroborating Mr. Adams’s testimony that there is pervasive hostility within the Department of Justice toward bringing cases against black defendants or on behalf of white victims.

5. There is no evidence that any voters were intimidated by New Black Panther Party members stationed at the Philadelphia polling place in November 2008.

False: Uncontroverted testimony adduced before the Commission shows that voters turned away after seeing members of the New Black Panther Party stationed outside the polling place. There is also uncontroverted testimony that voters expressed alarm at the presence of New Black Panther Party members and there is evidence that at least one voter was afraid to leave the polling place and pass by the New Black Panther Party members. At least one black poll watcher was called a “race traitor.”

6. Career attorneys made the decision to drop the New Black Panther Party case after a review of the law and facts.

False: The individuals who made the decision to dismiss the lawsuit were political appointees under the Vacancy Reform Act. The evidence shows that all of the career attorneys assigned to the New Black Panther Party case strongly objected to its dismissal. Political appointees also sought the opinion of career Appellate Branch attorneys regarding treatment of the New Black Panther Party case, which attorneys recommended that the case be pursued. There is no evidence of any career attorneys involved in the New Black Panther Party case favoring dismissal.

7. The evidence in the New Black Panther Party matter was provided by a single “disaffected” former Department of Justice lawyer.

False: Evidence gathered by the Commission has derived from multiple sources and thousands of pages of documents.
The Commission continues to seek corroborative and rebuttal evidence regarding the reasons behind the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case, whether there is a policy of non-enforcement of Section 8 of the NVRA, and whether there is a policy or practice of enforcing civil-rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner. The Commission’s investigation in this regard has been impeded by the Department of Justice’s refusal to produce to the Commission DOJ personnel who were involved in the decision to dismiss the New Black Panther Party case. The department continues to refuse despite the fact that:

A. The DOJ has not invoked any cognizable privilege;

B. The DOJ has a statutory obligation to cooperate with the Commission;

C. The DOJ has previously supplied witnesses to the Commission in other voter-intimidation hearings; and

D. There is an evident conflict of interest in the Department of Justice’s refusing to supply witnesses when it has a statutory duty to enforce Commission subpoenas.
In order to avoid continuing disputes with the Department regarding whether the testimony requested by the Commission is privileged, the Commission is requesting that the Department supply witnesses able to testify regarding matters unrelated to case deliberation, i.e., whether high-level political appointees within the Department of Justice have enunciated a policy or tolerate a practice of enforcing certain civil rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner; whether high-level political appointees within the Department of Justice have enunciated a policy or tolerated a practice of not enforcing Section 8 of the NVRA; and whether there is pervasive hostility within the ranks of the Civil Rights Division toward enforcing the nation’s civil rights laws in a color-blind manner. None of these matters is privileged. Thus, the Commission expects the Department to fulfill its statutory obligations to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation and produce the requested witnesses able to testify about these matters.
The Commission investigation is ongoing. Within the next few months the Commission will issue a report on the New Black Panther Party matter to the President and Congress.


– Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

 

[witness23]

5. There is no evidence that any voters were intimidated by New Black Panther Party members stationed at the Philadelphia polling place in November 2008.
False: Uncontroverted testimony adduced before the Commission shows that voters turned away after seeing members of the New Black Panther Party stationed outside the polling place. There is also uncontroverted testimony that voters expressed alarm at the presence of New Black Panther Party members and there is evidence that at least one voter was afraid to leave the polling place and pass by the New Black Panther Party members. At least one black poll watcher was called a “race traitor.”

First in red: If the Commision adduced that voters turned away, I would assume they have there identities and they are willing to come foward.

Second in red: Of course they expressed alarm; there was a black man with a baton standing outside the polling station.

Third in red: So one voter was afraid to leave, ooooooo....all this because one person was afraid to leave, c'mon.

 

[witness23]

Some of us here are trying to rise above personal attacks so I'll say this.....you can take that comment and roll it up into a tiny (or not so much) little ball and........fill in the rest.

Way to rise above the personal attacks, such restraint should be a benchmark for all here in the soapbox. It wasn't a personal attack just an observation on my part.

 

[Pilgrim]

One intimidated voter is all it takes, that's why the legalese states "at least one". The law is black and white on issues such as these. Suppose this tape had been taken in Philadelphia, Miss. and the guys in front of the poll had been wearing a white pointed hoods? Suppose the ONE and only voter that was intimidated (which was not the case, in fact) had been black? This DOJ would have taken an entirely different course of action - the correct one.

 

[witness23]

One intimidated voter is all it takes, that's why the legalese states "at least one". The law is black and white on issues such as these. Suppose this tape had been taken in Philadelphia, Miss. and the guys in front of the poll had been wearing a white pointed hoods? Suppose the ONE and only voter that was intimidated (which was not the case, in fact) had been black? This DOJ would have taken an entirely different course of action - the correct one.

You are correct, one intimidated voter is one to many. Let me ask you a question, do you think this story is being politicized and hyped by Fox and the conservative radio hosts? Here let me help you out if you're not sure:

Fox News has devoted more than 100 segments to phony New Black Panther scandal since June 30. Fox News has discussed the Justice Department's handling of voter intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party during more than 100 segments since June 30, devoting more than eight hours of airtime to discussion of the case. A Nexis search found that Fox News hosts have discussed the voter intimidation charges dating back to Election Day 2008.

Megyn Kelly: Fox "dragged the media kicking and screaming" to cover New Black Panther Party voter intimidation. During the July 12 edition of America Live, Fox News' Megyn Kelly criticized the media for its coverage of "the now infamous New Black Panther voter intimidation case," and said that Fox News "dragged the media kicking and screaming" to cover the case. Kelly has discussed the case during more than 45 segments since June 30.

Kelly: New Black Panther Party voter intimidation getting attention because "the voting place is sacrosanct." During the July 13 edition of America Live, Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers said, "I cannot believe that this one case, after all the cases that were dismissed during the Bush administration, is getting the amount of attention that it's getting. I find it absolutely shocking. I cannot believe it." Kelly responded: "Let me tell you why. Because the voting place is sacrosanct."

Carlson: "Remember where they went to vote and there was standing there with clubs?" During the July 7 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said, "We all saw that video during 2008 where people went to vote. First of all, there was that video. Remember where they went to vote and there was, standing there with clubs. DOJ -- Department of Justice -- decided to end that case." Fox News contributor Dana Perino claimed, "I know that if I -- when I was press secretary, and the situation had been reversed -- I definitely would have been asked if the White House knew about it." She also said that "what we should get right now from the Justice Department is at least some sort of an explanation as to why they thought it wasn't a good case."

Special Report highlighted Adams' claim that it was "a slam-dunk case of voter intimidation." On the July 6, Special Reported highlighted Republican activist J. Christian Adams' testimony before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission about "a slam-dunk case of voter intimidation" against the New Black Panther Party.

Is this reporting the News or is this an agenda? Then you have people running around saying things like this......

wonder hwere and how far up the WH ladder this all starts....LOL....

Doing their darndest to tie President Obama to this matter, which is not even on his radar as it shouldn't be, it is noise to sway the easily swayed.
Especially when Fox ignores this other voter intimidation story:

Minutemen were involved in similar voter-intimidation case in 2006

Armed Minutemen allegedly attempted to intimidate Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006. A November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article reported (from the Nexis database): "In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English." The article continued: "Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons."

Civil rights attorney "said he reported the incident to the FBI." A November 8, 2006, Tucson Citizen article (from Nexis) reported that Diego Bernal, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) "said he reported the incident to the FBI." The article also reported that Pima County elections director Brad Nelson said: "If intimidation or coercion was going on out there, even though it might have been outside the 75-foot limit, it's something we take very seriously, and we'll be looking into it."

Perez testified that Bush-era DOJ "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" against Minutemen. As Media Matters noted, Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, cited the Minutemen case in his May 14 testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and said that "the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties." From Perez's testimony:

In another case, in 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.

Nexis search revealed no mention by Fox News of the 2006 Minutemen allegations. Media Matters searched* Fox News coverage between November 1, 2006, and November 1, 2007, in the Nexis database, and found no results for Fox News related to the voter-intimidation allegations against the Minutemen. Shows available in Nexis for that time period include Hannity & Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, Special Report with Brit Hume, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, and The Big Story with John Gibson.

*Search terms included "minuteman or minutemen" and "vot! & intimidat! & Arizona."

Just like there were no charges brought up on the Minutemen case, there should be none in this case.

Now.....if you would like to talk about voter intimidation and how it has happened in the past and how wrong it is, sounds good. Admit though, its just not as fun unless you say the President and his cronies or his Black SS is somehow in cahoots with one another.

 

[dieseldiva]

Looks like this case is going to be back in the news in the coming days.....

Uh oh: DoJ lawyer to testify tomorrow on voter-intimidation case dismissal


posted at 12:15 pm on September 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey



When the Civil Rights Commission attempted to discover why the Department of Justice dropped a voter-intimidation case they had already won, the Obama administration told the attorneys in the Civil Rights division to ignore subpoenas from the panel. At the time they complied, but one of the key potential witnesses to the decision has decided to break his silence. In an exclusive, Pajamas Media has the letter from Christopher Coates requesting an immediate audience before the Commission:

In a dramatic development that could shake the political leadership of the Justice Department, career lawyer Christopher Coates has sent a letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights offering to testify Friday on matters related to the controversial New Black Panthers voter-intimidation case. Click here or on the screen capture below to read Coates’ letter in PDF form …

Ten months ago, Coates, the award-winning former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, was subpoenaed by the Commission to testify about the case. He was subsequently instructed by DOJ officials to ignore the subpoena. Within the past hour, commissioners were informed that Chairman Gerald Reynolds had spoken with Coates and that the chairman would reconvene the Commission’s ongoing hearing on Friday at 9:30 a.m. to hear Coates’s testimony.

The Civil Rights Commission has sought to obtain Coates’ testimony on Justice’s dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. In a recent request to Justice, the Commission agreed to limit initial questioning of Coates to accusations made by former career lawyer J. Christian Adams about statements and other actions by Julie Fernandes, an Obama administration political appointee, if DOJ produced Coates.

The DOJ refused.
​

That refusal apparently means that the Commission will not feel obligated to honor those restrictions in the hearing tomorrow. That means that the panel will almost certainly ask wide-ranging questions about the politicization of the CRD and attempts by the White House and Attorney General Eric Holder to squelch prosecution not just in the case of the New Black Panther Party activists in this case, but in other civil rights cases as well.

Coates’ decision to defy the DoJ and presumably the White House to comply with the subpoena cannot be good news for Barack Obama or Holder. Clearly they did not want the career attorneys to speak openly about what has been happening within the CRD or the DoJ. The only one to do so, J. Christian Adams, quit his post to blow the whistle on political pressures being placed on career attorneys concerning prosecutions and compliance efforts on other parts of the various voting regulations, including the necessity of states to remove ineligible voters from the registration rolls.

Expect some fireworks tomorrow. If Coates is this motivated to testify, he must have something explosive to say. That could put Holder back on the hot seat with Congress and have Obama looking to cut some people loose to contain the damage.