Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case

  • News
  • Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date
In summary: Muslim outreach." In summary, the New Black Panther Party is a black militant/nationalist group that draws influence from the Nation of Islam. They were involved in a voter intimidation case in 2008, but the Obama administration dropped the suit and softened the injunction against the only defendant. There's been outcry from Republican lawmakers and a US Commission on Civil Rights investigation is underway.
  • #1
russ_watters
Mentor
23,234
10,451
Here is another story most of you probably haven't heard about because it has gotten very little traction in the liberal media. It is almost exclusively a Fox News story: the liberal media has picked-up bits and pieces of it to report second-hand, but essentially all of the investigation and original reporting is being done by Fox News.

All of this is paraphrased and/or quoted from the wiki and these stories:
New Black Panther Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party
Fox News interview with the group's leader: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...leader-defends-group-voter-intimidation-case/
Fox News story on the liberal media's silence: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/08/mainstream-media-coverage-slim-nasa-black-panther-stories
WSJ Op-Ed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html
I'm putting the sources up front and paraphrasing to keep this from getting too cumbersome - if anyone wants specific citations of any of the points in the paraphrase, I'll oblige.

The New Black Panther Party is a black militant/nationalist hate group largely drawing influence and membership from the Nation of Islam and not afilitated with the original Black Panther Party (they just co-opted the name for marketing purposes). For the 2008 Presidential election, the NBBP sent members to polling stations around the country to "stop angry whites...use all means at your disposal". In Philadelphia, several members of the NBBP stood outside just outside the door to a polling place and intimidated voters and poll workers. One in particular brandished a night stick, called whites "crackers" and said among other things: "now you will see what it means to be ruled by the black man, cracker". The second link includes these quotes as well as video clips and witness interviews from of the incident. It's an open-and-shut case of voter intimidation. He was escorted away by police, but not arrested. The NBBP suspended him temporarily from the organization and distanced itself from his actions. On Jan 7 of 2009, the Bush DoJ filed a civil suit against the NBPP and won an injunction against the primary defendant barring him from ever coming near another polling place.

Now to be sure, this is a relatively minor case of intimidation and these things do happen - a handful happen each year. And so if the story had ended there, it wouldn't be surprising that it didn't get much press beyond Philadelphia. But it didn't end there.

In May of 2009, Obama's new Assoc Attorney General, Thomas Perrelli dropped the suit against the NBBP and softened the injunction it had already won against the primary defendant to be a 4 year ban against only showing up at Philly polling places with a weapon - which is already illegal. This was opposed by a number of career lawyers in the DOJ, one of whom has since quit and has been speaking out against this action, saying it was motivated by racism. Republican lawmakers have demanded an inquiry, and have been stonewalled. The US Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the DOJ in August demanding answers and is investigating the incident and fallout, saying:
[from the wsj link] "We believe the Department's defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law," its letter stated. It noted "the peculiar logic" of one Justice argument, that defendants' failure to show up in court was a reason for dismissing the case: "Such an argument sends a perverse message to wrongdoers—that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated so long as the persons who engage in them are careful not to appear in court to answer the government's complaint."

Now if the DOJ dropped a case against the KKK after a member brandished a billy club at a polling place, saying 'prepare to be ruled by the white man, n---', there'd be race rioting. But this story has gained little traction in the media. Virtually all of the investigation and reporting has come from Fox news, including interviews with key NBPP members and the DOJ whistle-blower. It has the feel of a media that doesn't accept the concept of black->white racism and doesn't want to question a liberal/black President's administration. Fox of course doesn't miss an opportunity to poke a finger at the rest of the media for their silence (last link at the top), listing the major outlets and the reporting they have/haven't done.

There's another interesting little nugget in that one about the head of NASA who went on Al Jazeera and said that one of the core missions of NASA, as assigned by Obama was Muslim outreach. (no, that's not a joke)
"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/
That's a little bit of an aside, but it doesn't need much discussion anyway - it's just mind boggling at face value.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The New York Times carried the story of J. Christian Adams's claims that dropping the New Black Panther Party was racially driven (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html). The story was written by a NY Times writer and published on page A11 of the print edition on July 7th edition (one day after Adams's testimony).

Interestingly, the story says:
The case became a cause célèbre in the conservative media world, and the Civil Rights Commission opened an investigation. The eight-member panel, which has the power to issue subpoenas and issue reports, is controlled by a six-member conservative bloc appointed during the Bush administration.

In testimony before the panel in May, Tom Perez, who became the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division in October 2009, said that “reasonable minds can differ” about the case, but that the acting supervisors had concluded that the case had been over-charged.

Mr. Perez said there was insufficient evidence that the party was responsible for the incident.

Which seems to contradict the assertion that congress has been stonewalled when seeking inquiry into the reasoning behind dropping the case. The insufficient evidence claim seems to be a good reason to drop the case against the individual who was not holding the club although Mr. Adams disagrees that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the ruling.
 
  • #3
The "insufficient evidence" claim of DOJ is laughable. Does anyone doubt that a white supremacist in a white robe with a nightstick uttering racial slurs at blacks at a polling place would be facing hard time?

The lack of conviction and any meaningful punishment is a green light to militant black racists to act out at the polls in November.

Is American Justice now on par with Soviet Justice, Chinese Justice and Iranian Justice?

Skippy
 
  • #4
I was unsure on whether to post the new NASA mission on here, because it came from AJ. The new administration is a joke. 850 days.

The way this administration has taken "racism" if you were to even think about calling a black person lazy, or speak out against Obama, you will be labeled a racist. This doesn't surprise me one bit at all. It is a sad world we live in today.
 
  • #5
If it hasn't been a mainstream story, then most likely, it isn't a siginficant story. No big mystery there. Credible news agencies don't waste their time with drivel and conspiracy theories.

What is the point of this thread: Obama is trying to help black militant groups take over? :biggrin: Yeah, it is a real mystery why that one doesn't get any traction with the credible media.
 
  • #6
KalamMekhar said:
I was unsure on whether to post the new NASA mission on here, because it came from AJ. The new administration is a joke. 850 days.

The way this administration has taken "racism" if you were to even think about calling a black person lazy, or speak out against Obama, you will be labeled a racist. This doesn't surprise me one bit at all. It is a sad world we live in today.

Can you list people who have been labeled 'racist' by the administration? At face value, this statement seems ad-hoc.
 
  • #7
“Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics,” -Obama in New Hampshire, Nashua Telegraph
 
  • #8
KalamMekhar said:
“Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics,” -Obama in New Hampshire, Nashua Telegraph

That clearly didn't answer my question. In your quote he was referring to voters that would not vote for him because he is black. I asked you to show me where he labeled someone a racist for speaking out against someone black as being "lazy." Dare I say, you won't find any such quotes.
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking said:
If it hasn't been a mainstream story, then most likely, it isn't a siginficant story. No big mystery there. Credible news agencies don't waste their time with drivel and conspiracy theories.

What is the point of this thread: Obama is trying to help black militant groups take over? :biggrin: Yeah, it is a real mystery why that one doesn't get any traction with the credible media.

Of course, Obama isn't trying to help black militant groups take over. On the other hand if the black militants happen to scare off some potential white voters in November and this skews a few close races I don't think he will be unhappy. The black thugs now know that they won't be prosecuted.

It might be the case that more voters (black and white) will be so repulsed by the actions of the DOJ that the net result will be unfavourable to Obama. This is a political calculation.

What conspiracy theory? The whole incident is on tape; credible witnesses including a veteran Civil Rights lawyer.

Skippy
 
  • #10
Cyrus said:
That clearly didn't answer my question. In your quote he was referring to voters that would not vote for him because he is black. I asked you to show me where he labeled someone a racist for speaking out against someone black as being "lazy." Dare I say, you won't find any such quotes.

I'll have to admit, I was grasping at straws there.
 
  • #11
KalamMekhar said:
I'll have to admit, I was grasping at straws there.

:-p Meh.
 
  • #12
skippy1729 said:
The "insufficient evidence" claim of DOJ is laughable. Does anyone doubt that a white supremacist in a white robe with a nightstick uttering racial slurs at blacks at a polling place would be facing hard time?

From the NY Times article I cited above:
In January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush administration left office, the civil rights division invoked a rarely used section of the Voting Rights Act to file a civil lawsuit alleging voter intimidation by both men, the party chairman and the party.
[...]
The department dropped the charges against the party, its chairman and the man who was not carrying a club. It pressed forward with the lawsuit against the man with the club, obtaining an injunction that forbids him from carrying a weapon near an open polling place in Philadelphia through 2012.

So, the NBP member who was holding the weapon was charged. The insufficient evidence claim referred to charges against the party chairman and the party (they probably could not find evidence that they were responsible for the intimidation and that this was not just the case of the one man acting on his own).

However, I do agree with your general sentiment. The punishment (a simple injunction) seems very lenient and it would seem like this should have been a criminal suit, not a civil suit, so more substantial punishment could be dealt.
 
  • #13
Ygggdrasil said:
The New York Times carried the story of J. Christian Adams's claims that dropping the New Black Panther Party was racially driven (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html). The story was written by a NY Times writer and published on page A11 of the print edition on July 7th edition (one day after Adams's testimony)...
Yes, as reported in the Fox piece on other news outlet coverage linked above:

FN said:
The Black Panther coverage was a bit more robust [vs the NASA Islamic outreach story]. The New York Times covered J. Christian Adams' testimony on Tuesday, as did CNN, and The Los Angeles Times noted it briefly. The Philadelphia Inquirer provided significant coverage of the developments -- the alleged voter intimidation occurred in Philadelphia. The Associated Press ran a story on July 1 before the testimony.
But
FN said:
The three nightly network news programs did not run the story. The Washington Post did not provide any original coverage -- it ran the July 1 Associated Press story and provided one paragraph on the case Wednesday online with a link to The Times story.

Ygggdrasil said:
Which seems to contradict the assertion that congress has been stonewalled when seeking inquiry into the reasoning behind dropping the case.
Not Congress, but stonewalling the Civil Rights Commission would the concern. The CRC plans to subpoena Justice's voting section chief Chris Coates, but the subpoenas rely on the Justice Department for enforcement as I understand it.

The insufficient evidence claim seems to be a good reason to drop the case against the individual who was not holding the club although Mr. Adams disagrees that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the ruling.
I think Adams testimony at the US CRC about the Justice voting section being generally instructed not to pursue Voting Rights Act cases against black defendants is the dominate story now, not the dropping of charges against the one guy in Phily.
 
  • #14
mheslep said:
I think Adams testimony at the US CRC about the Justice voting section being generally instructed not to pursue Voting Rights Act cases against black defendants is the dominate story now, not the dropping of charges against the one guy in Phily.
Is there a link to this testimony? Is this testimony based on Adams' own interaction with DoJ higher ups that were disseminating said instructions, or is it hearsay?
 
  • #15
Gokul43201 said:
Is there a link to this testimony? Is this testimony based on Adams' own interaction with DoJ higher ups that were disseminating said instructions, or is it hearsay?
I don't think there is a testimony transcript available, at least I can't find it. There are the several news stories with Adam's quotes, and an article written here by Adams June 28th, prior to testimony on the topic. Lengthy, but cites several perhaps incidents. I expect the CRC will have to talk to higher ups to get first hand accounts.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-you-deserve-to-know-%E2%80%94-unequal-law-enforcement-reigns-at-obamas-doj-pjm-exclusive/
 
Last edited:

Related to Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case

1. What is the "Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case" about?

The "Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case" refers to a decision made by the United States Department of Justice to dismiss a case involving allegations of voter intimidation during a specific election.

2. Why did the Justice Department drop the voter intimidation case?

The Justice Department may have dropped the voter intimidation case due to lack of evidence, conflicting witness testimonies, or insufficient resources to pursue the case.

3. What is voter intimidation?

Voter intimidation is any action that is intended to prevent or discourage individuals from exercising their right to vote. This can include physical threats, verbal harassment, or any other form of coercion.

4. Is this the first time a voter intimidation case has been dropped by the Justice Department?

No, the Justice Department has dropped voter intimidation cases in the past. Each case is evaluated individually based on the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.

5. What impact does the dropping of this case have on future cases of voter intimidation?

The dropping of this case may set a precedent for future cases and could send a message that the Justice Department may not aggressively pursue voter intimidation cases. However, each case will still be evaluated based on its own merits and evidence.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
6
Replies
197
Views
23K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
29
Replies
1K
Views
85K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top