DOJ attorney resigns over Philly black panther voter intimidation case.

[volinbham]

Anyone got a link to the documentation showing that the criminal charges were dropped when Obama took office? Or at least that they were still in place after that date?

Anyone?

If you had read the article you posted to blow the lid off this thing you'd clearly see that criminal charges were never filed.

The decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.

Sheeesh.

 

[KB5252]

I thought it went to court and won by default since the defendants named never showed up? Did this not happen after Obama was elected and took office or am I mistaken?

 

[BigPapaVol]

I thought it went to court and won by default since the defendants named never showed up? Did this not happen after Obama was elected and took office or am I mistaken?

you're clearly correct. The unwillingness to pursue the default judgment was a Holder decision.

 

[volinbham]

I thought it went to court and won by default since the defendants named never showed up? Did this not happen after Obama was elected and took office or am I mistaken?

As I understand it:

Bush DOJ filed charges (civil).
Defendents didn't show up and case was won.
Obama DOJ dropped citing insufficient evidence and never went forward with penalties.

From there:



Adams told testifier (Perez?) that if he testified that there was insufficient evidence he would be lying.

Day after above testified that there was insufficient evidence, Adams resigned.

Other guy who was involved (and agreed with Adams) was transfered to post in S. Carolina and has not been made available by the DOJ for testimony

Civil Rights Commission says argument for insufficient evidence doesn't hold water.

Adams goes public and also testifies in front of Civil Rights Commission.

Liberals lose their damn minds and make up crap about criminal charges

LG falls for liberal charade and comes in with challenges and tells us we aren't being honest (Again).

 

[gsvol]

if the KKK was outside a majority black area polling booth heads would have rolled. how is this even remotely different?

It's quite amusing how regularly LG's sources are from the Soros funded propaganda machine. Can you say puppet?

He could have picked up his talking points from Airhead America but they didn't get Soros funded and so just diappeared into thin air.

Kill Whitey!

The NOI sponsored 'Zeba' killings ended up with nearly 400 random murders of people just because they happened to be white, how many people are are aware of that??

Well now, interesting.

Bush DOJ decided New Black Panthers no major case | Cynthia Tucker

Turns out that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION was the one who dropped the criminal charges in this case, not the Obama administration.

Hey gsvol, do you ever get your facts right?


* Can't blame you. Fox made this their lead story every three minutes for a solid week. Oddly, now that the truth is out, they are silent on it. No retraction. No correction.

No surprise there.

Still waiting for an apology, looks like you end up as the one with egg all over your face.

You claim to be some sort of intellectual but you seize on the first piece of utter propaganda and try to discredit me, some research, should I tell you how unimpressed I am.

Next you display the reasoning power unworthy of even your average garden slug.

You knew these guys were indicted for crimes committed at the time of the nov '08 election and you act like the doj was able to get a judgement and then drop the case before Obambi took office??

Get real, if you really are a lawyer, you must represent people in court for parking ticket offenses, furthermore if you had read the very first link I posted in this thread you wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself.

I sould ask you the same question, are you ever right??

If so, I am thus far unaware of any such instance.

 

[KB5252]

How anyone doesn't have a serious problem with this is beyond me. If VBH's breakdown of the events are indeed true then it shows the administration was warned by it's own legal representatives that this was wrong and at some level contrary to the very principles of rule of law. It also seems that those who raised concerns were isolated and or transferred. It stinks of CYA to me.

 

[lawgator1]

Let me ask you -- if it was Fox News' intention to state that the Bush administration had dropped criminal charges, and the Obama administration then dropped civil charges (after getting an injunction, by the way), then why all the stories claiming that it was reverse racism done to protect black people? Why is it ok for Bush to drop criminal charges, but reverse racism for Obama's administration to get an injunction and not purse civil charges?

That makes no sense.

The likely truth here is as follows: 1) Notwithstanding the offensive actions of the Black Panthers in the video footage (and I agree, it was heinous and they should be roundly criticized and condemned for it), the deicison was made by the Bush administration's DOJ that they could not convict, so 2) they dropped any criminal investigation and filed civil charges. The Obama administration took over and 1) got an injunction against them and 2) realized there was no more value to a civil claim at that point and so dropped that.

These kinds of decisions are routine. It took a political hack within the DOJ getting himself on Fox News (he's a conservative blogger by the way who is loving all the attention he's getting) to make this into something more.

If there was reverse racism in the actions of the Obama folks (who actually got something done in this case) then how do you just ignore the decisions of the Bush administration in the same case?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Let me ask you -- if it was Fox News' intention to state that the Bush administration had dropped criminal charges, and the Obama administration then dropped civil charges (after getting an injunction, by the way), then why all the stories claiming that it was reverse racism done to protect black people? Why is it ok for Bush to drop criminal charges, but reverse racism for Obama's administration to get an injunction and not purse civil charges?

That makes no sense.

The likely truth here is as follows: 1) Notwithstanding the offensive actions of the Black Panthers in the video footage (and I agree, it was heinous and they should be roundly criticized and condemned for it), the deicison was made by the Bush administration's DOJ that they could not convict, so 2) they dropped any criminal investigation and filed civil charges. The Obama administration took over and 1) got an injunction against them and 2) realized there was no more value to a civil claim at that point and so dropped that.

These kinds of decisions are routine. It took a political hack within the DOJ getting himself on Fox News (he's a conservative blogger by the way who is loving all the attention he's getting) to make this into something more.

If there was reverse racism in the actions of the Obama folks (who actually got something done in this case) then how do you just ignore the decisions of the Bush administration in the same case?

this makes no sense whatsoever. They dropped a case in which they had a summary judgment, period. All of your hypothetical gibberish is immaterial. The case could have been dropped long before getting to that point, but wasn't. It's borderline insanity to pretend that this isn't racially driven, and I'm not one to push the racism angle, LIKE SOME OTHERS AROUND HERE.

 

[droski]

as a lawyer surely you understand the burden of proof needed for criminal charges compared to civil ones. that doesn't mean that the bush administration wasn't going to pursue the civil charges with vigor.

 

[BigPapaVol]

as a lawyer surely you understand the burden of proof needed for criminal charges compared to civil ones. that doesn't mean that the bush administration wasn't going to pursue the civil charges with vigor.

did you not get that somehow, and absurdly, backing into a Fox News rationale hypothetical changes all that?

 

[KB5252]

Let me ask you -- if it was Fox News' intention to state that the Bush administration had dropped criminal charges, and the Obama administration then dropped civil charges (after getting an injunction, by the way), then why all the stories claiming that it was reverse racism done to protect black people? Why is it ok for Bush to drop criminal charges, but reverse racism for Obama's administration to get an injunction and not purse civil charges?

That makes no sense.

The likely truth here is as follows: 1) Notwithstanding the offensive actions of the Black Panthers in the video footage (and I agree, it was heinous and they should be roundly criticized and condemned for it), the deicison was made by the Bush administration's DOJ that they could not convict, so 2) they dropped any criminal investigation and filed civil charges. The Obama administration took over and 1) got an injunction against them and 2) realized there was no more value to a civil claim at that point and so dropped that.

These kinds of decisions are routine. It took a political hack within the DOJ getting himself on Fox News (he's a conservative blogger by the way who is loving all the attention he's getting) to make this into something more.

If there was reverse racism in the actions of the Obama folks (who actually got something done in this case) then how do you just ignore the decisions of the Bush administration in the same case?

The difference here is that Bush dropped a criminal case which was going to be very hard to win and pursued civil charges. The Obama administration dropped the civil case that was already won, who cares if there was an injunction or not, the civil case should have been followed through. These people broke the law and civil rights were stepped on.

 

[droski]

did you not get that somehow, and absurdly, backing into a Fox News rationale hypothetical changes all that?

i love the conspiracy theories for foxnews.com. a site that has lindsay lohan and paris hilton news on the front page regurally. arguing fox is about anything, but making money is ridiculous. making things up doesn't exactly help you make money with the way bloggers and the internet will kill you.

 

[droski]

did you not get that somehow, and absurdly, backing into a Fox News rationale hypothetical changes all that?

clearly if you get your criminal charges dropped you are an innocent and the civil ones are without merit. just look at OJ.

 

[volinbham]

Let me ask you -- if it was Fox News' intention to state that the Bush administration had dropped criminal charges, and the Obama administration then dropped civil charges (after getting an injunction, by the way), then why all the stories claiming that it was reverse racism done to protect black people? Why is it ok for Bush to drop criminal charges, but reverse racism for Obama's administration to get an injunction and not purse civil charges?

That makes no sense.

The likely truth here is as follows: 1) Notwithstanding the offensive actions of the Black Panthers in the video footage (and I agree, it was heinous and they should be roundly criticized and condemned for it), the deicison was made by the Bush administration's DOJ that they could not convict, so 2) they dropped any criminal investigation and filed civil charges. The Obama administration took over and 1) got an injunction against them and 2) realized there was no more value to a civil claim at that point and so dropped that.

These kinds of decisions are routine. It took a political hack within the DOJ getting himself on Fox News (he's a conservative blogger by the way who is loving all the attention he's getting) to make this into something more.

If there was reverse racism in the actions of the Obama folks (who actually got something done in this case) then how do you just ignore the decisions of the Bush administration in the same case?

You keep saying they dropped criminal charges - they did not. They never brought them presumably due to the facts in the case.

They did bring civil charges. Obama's DOJ dropped them citing insufficient evidence and no one is buying that. The case was won.

If this type decision is routine, why is the Civil Rights Commission issuing supoena's to the DOJ? Why do they claim the Obama DOJ's explanation doesn't hold water?

It is you that is trying to cover the Obama DOJ actions by claiming something that never happened (Bush DOJ dropped criminal charges that they had brought).

You accused FOX of changing its story on criminal charges and demanded someone show you an article that Obama's DOJ dropped the criminal charges.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that such charges were never filed.

You can produce nothing to support your charge that FOX mislead or misrpresented the story and alleged Obama's DOJ dropped criminal charges. Nothing, Zip, Nada.


Not surprisingly you have the gall to claim we are the ones being dishonest. Your whole argument was based on false accusations.

 

[J-P]

VBH w/ the MOAB!!! Boom! :salute:

 

[Oldvol75]

I must have missed the part in the video of one of the panthers in question where he was saying he hates all crackers and they and their babies should be killed but made sure to point out that he was not talking about democrat crackers. Please post this part please so all of us can see it. Appreciate it.

Here you go......

YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"

 

[Oldvol75]

Did anyone else pick up what Holder said about the guy with the club? That he couldn't carry a weapon at a polling place until 2012! Just in time for the next election for president!

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

Here you go......

YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"

At what point does he say my rants do not apply to democrat crackers? Report back to me. Thanks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[knucklehead_vol]

He's a little biotch, damn.

 

[utvolpj]

At what point does he say my rants do not apply to democrat crackers? Report back to me. Thanks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

there's over a 90% chance he wasn't after democrats

 

[tumscalcium]

Well now, interesting.

Bush DOJ decided New Black Panthers no major case | Cynthia Tucker

Turns out that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION was the one who dropped the criminal charges in this case, not the Obama administration.

Hey gsvol, do you ever get your facts right?


* Can't blame you. Fox made this their lead story every three minutes for a solid week. Oddly, now that the truth is out, they are silent on it. No retraction. No correction.

No surprise there.

Oh yes, the token ignorant liberal. Get back to watching MSNBC for your "facts".

 

[lawgator1]

You keep saying they dropped criminal charges - they did not. They never brought them presumably due to the facts in the case.

Bush admin officials decided that criminal charges were not supported so they brought civil claims. The Obama administration officials secured an injunction pursuant to that and felt that was sufficient. Both are totally understandable. But the right wing race-baiting hate machine declares Obama a reverse racist, and ignores the decision of the Bush administration.

Both were within their discretion. But because some right wing nutjob looking for some publicity predictably cries foul, the discretion exercised by the Obama appointees is questioned.

The illogic of it, the stupidity of it, is mind boggling.


They did bring civil charges. Obama's DOJ dropped them citing insufficient evidence and no one is buying that. The case was won.


No one? The case was won? What was won? What more could they get than the injunction? Why was the discfretion exercised by the Obama DOJ such an affornt but the discretion by the Bush DOJ "routine."


If this type decision is routine, why is the Civil Rights Commission issuing supoena's to the DOJ? Why do they claim the Obama DOJ's explanation doesn't hold water?


They don't "claim" anything. See, typical right wing wacko sleight of hand. You are as intellectually bankrupt as Feaux News with their banners "Some authorities complain that ...."

It's all crap. It's them speculating. They put on a vague tag, and boom, its news. It's "news." I pray to God you are not in academia because your argument process is about as corrupted by politics as any I've seen.


It is you that is trying to cover the Obama DOJ actions by claiming something that never happened (Bush DOJ dropped criminal charges that they had brought).

Fine, they opted to file civil rather than criminal. You have yet to answer the point that the Obama administration got an actual result for that effort. And, you havce yet to articulate what additional relief they could have obtained, much less whether it would have been worth the expense.

You accused FOX of changing its story on criminal charges and demanded someone show you an article that Obama's DOJ dropped the criminal charges.


It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that such charges were never filed.

You can produce nothing to support your charge that FOX mislead or misrpresented the story and alleged Obama's DOJ dropped criminal charges. Nothing, Zip, Nada.

I don't agree. Where is the proof that the Obama administration did something here for racial reasons? I mean, other than former disgruntled employee in his basement in his underwear eating cheetos and fancying himself a junior Matt Drudge?


Not surprisingly you have the gall to claim we are the ones being dishonest. Your whole argument was based on false accusations.

This story is getting no traction except amongst the racist Obama haters who are already going to vote against him, no matter what. The claim is that the Obama administration dropped civil charges after getting an injunction for reverse racial motives. Those who get their news from Fox believe that, and do not need proof.

Thinking people see this for what it is, which is the typical smear using vague and unattributed bs "reports."

 

[volinbham]

This story is getting no traction except amongst the racist Obama haters who are already going to vote against him, no matter what. The claim is that the Obama administration dropped civil charges after getting an injunction for reverse racial motives. Those who get their news from Fox believe that, and do not need proof.

Thinking people see this for what it is, which is the typical smear using vague and unattributed bs "reports."

Your claims have proven to be wrong. You taunted us to find an proof of something that you were duped into believing. Ironically you cannot provide proof to support your absurd allegation that you got 3rd hand all filtered through left wing sources.

Add to that you've completely trashed a whistle blower all to fit your version of events.

Then you accuse others of "smear".

The injunction is temporary in scope and geography and against only one person. The civil case was against more than one person and sought more permanent penalties.

Was it race based or party based? I don't know but the Civil Rights Commission ain't done with it so there is something fishy going on.

So spare your typical "intellectual dishonesty" BS.

 

[gsvol]

Your claims have proven to be wrong. You taunted us to find an proof of something that you were duped into believing. Ironically you cannot provide proof to support your absurd allegation that you got 3rd hand all filtered through left wing sources.

Add to that you've completely trashed a whistle blower all to fit your version of events.

Then you accuse others of "smear".

The injunction is temporary in scope and geography and against only one person. The civil case was against more than one person and sought more permanent penalties.

Was it race based or party based? I don't know but the Civil Rights Commission ain't done with it so there is something fishy going on.

So spare your typical "intellectual dishonesty" BS.

:clap:

"The illogic of it, the stupidity of it, is mind boggling."ACLG

opcorn:

 

[volfanjustin]

This story is getting no traction except amongst the racist Obama haters who are already going to vote against him, no matter what. The claim is that the Obama administration dropped civil charges after getting an injunction for reverse racial motives. Those who get their news from Fox believe that, and do not need proof.

Thinking people see this for what it is, which is the typical smear using vague and unattributed bs "reports."

There you go, I am sick of you always playing the race card, this shows you don't have any arguement for your piece of garbage socialist regime. I hope you would defend teaparty members if this November some of them stand outside a polling place with clubs.