Political Discussions
Obama Justice Department Drops Charges
Posted by stevil13 • 6/01/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: black panthers, charges, eric holder, obama, voter intimidation
Why would Obama Justice Department drop charges on these people who were intimidating voters with weapons and racial slurs?
Full story here.
theaxisofstevilshow.com/blog/politics/118-black-panthers-charges-dropped.ht...
User Comments
-
Aww nuts! I mean ACORN anyone? ha ha
They say it is because it wasn't worth pursuing it in court. But I think that had some white men gone into harlem and did the same in front of a polling place, then it might have been worth pursuing.-
I would suspect so.
-
-
thus far I have not been able to find details on this story outside of Foxnews and Huffpost. Any less partisan sources out there? I can't find anything on the wire services o_0 -
I remember that story vaguely. There was something to it - about the fact that the accusations were over-exaggerated. The men did not prevent anyone from entering the polling place and voting, and did not brandish (show) any weapons. They were there for a short period of time.
Typically during an election - those who disturb the polling place are asked to leave, and if they don't are then removed by police. But that's as far as it goes. People rarely go to court or are charged with anything. I don't see why this would be any different.-
wow... no wonder I couldn't find it on Reuters/AP o_0
-
I think it got some publicity on youtube...and one other place. I can't remember where, though. I remember the story, just not the details
it was not a huge story at all. In fact most polling place sagas rarely are.
There are time however, when police involvement turns to pressed charges. People who have phsyically assaulted polling officials or voters, damaged the machines, that sort of thing. it's rare in my experience. Most voter violence or threats of violence are quickly handled without any legal intervention. -
Yes, but we can still feign outrage!
-
/Stomps foot and throws a shoe at the computer...
The audacity! The travesty! It's...outrageous!!!!
(Is that good?) -
I think the point is Anok, that what they did was in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was put in place because in the south during the early 60's you had white men, some of them even policemen, brandishing billy clubs and standing in front of polling places to intimidate blacks. That was wrong then and this is wrong now. To use your own logical argument about torture, if it was wrong to be used against us, then it is wrong to use it against others.
-
If you can find a comparable scenario where the people in question were actually charged with something, then I'll consider it a valid point.
However, in my experience, I have had people disrupt the voting process, I have witnessed/stopped violence in the polling place, I have seen corrupt practices that nearly negated the elections at hand - and I have yet to ever see anyone prosecuted for it.
I don't know why this is any different. -
The audacity! The travesty! It's...outrageous!!!!
(Is that good?)
Not bad. It should be in all caps, though. -
That is factually incorrect. You can click on my link and see the video of one of these men holding his nightstick.
-
There was no nightstick in the original video.
And no one was prevented from voting. No one was hurt. No laws were broken.
What is the problem here?
-
-
because Obama is got it in with Acorn-
Why is it that now ACORN is associated with all groups who are black?
The guys in question were black panthers, not ACORN volunteers.
Jesus Christ. -
There you go again, Anok! Defending the Acorn goons... *snicker*
-
No, I don't think Jesus belonged to the Black Panthers. But I could be wrong. I was once.
-
-
-
I'm sure obama payed the black panthers somehow. gotta help a brother out
-
I'm the Anarchist. I'm supposed to be the resident conspiracy theorist here, not you.
-
maybe Michael Steele pulled a little black-on-black frame up job up in there!
*rolls eyes*
-
-
I love it. Here we go agian. The left making excuses as to why this is no big deal. Agit8r you want to know why you cant find much info on the left wing media sites. Hey, I just answered my own question. IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE LEFT WING MEDIA! They aren't going to repport on something that may tarnish obama's image.-
It's "no big deal" because it's...no big deal. The original story died out quickly when people realized that the men were not turning people away from the polls, or acting violently whatsoever.
There was a video out there (don't know if it still is) where you could see voters (of varying races) coming and going from the polls, while the men were standing there. Doing nothing.
They did not prevent people from voting. They did not brandish any weapons if they had any. They did not tamper with the polls. They did not harass voters.
Good God. I've had voters storm into my polls and threaten to beat the ever living crap out of my workers, I've had to use physical force to stop large amounts of angry people from storming through the polls, I've had to chase off over zealous campaigners, politicians, and unofficial poll workers.
Never have I ever had to press charges against anyone, nor did their actions tamper with the voting process to any extent which would warrant legal prosecution.
Get over it guys - this poll, and the 3 men who stood in front of it for an hour did not throw the election. -
Rueters and AP are left wing...?
o 0
~~ -
Anok, is it possible that the Black Panthers waited until the cameras were gone to do what witnesses have said they did? As I said, it IS a big deal. We base our entire society on the ability to participate in the voting process. ANY hinderance to that process must be dealt with swiftly and justly. Besides, the DOJ DID get a conviction, but Holder dropped it AFTER that.
-
Anything is possible Antics.
What did they convict the men of? Voter tampering? They would have to convict every asshole that has ever acted like an asshole at a poll, then. I can think of at least one for every election I've ever worked at -
The Justice department won the case in Feb, but dropped the charges on May 15. They did secure an injunction against one of the men. It says that he cannot do it in the future. A slap on the wrist, really. The three defendants never showed up for court, so the DOJ got a default judgment against them. What I find odd, is that they just dropped it out of nowhere. Why even charge them? Well, after doing a little digging I found out that the charges were pressed under Bush's admin and then dropped under Obama's. I would think he would want to insure that in the spirit of transparency these kinds of things would not be tolerated. But it is just another case of the DOJ being politicized. Happens in every admin.
Luckily, I live in a small town of 15,000 so it is really a good experience when one goes to vote. Heck the lady I pay my water bill to is one of the polling officers. -
antics pays the polling officer!
...oh, my bad -
*blush*
-
Anok: Antics is right. Why would the black panthers do anything when the cameras were on?
-
-
Who is saying it threw the election? And please, before you continue to spread the lie that they did not show a weapon, please watch the video at the link above which shows them brandishing a weapon. In the video they also attempt to prevent a poll worker from entering the polling place. Please fact check thyself.
-
I saw the video when it was first released. The polls were already open and NO ONE was prevented from entering the polls. You could watch the people come and go right in the video. They did not have a nightstick in plain view in the original video.
No claims were originally made about brandishing weapons. The only complaint was that they were scary, and one reacted aggressivley towards the guy with the camera asking questions.
Stop making things up. I'm sick and tired of it.
Edited to add - had they had weapons or used physical intimidation (assault) to prevent voters from entering the polls, the police would have arrested them for it on the spot. They did not.
End of story. -
but police are always sympathetic towards black people.
-
*snort* LOLLOL
-
Um Anok. This video clearly shows the Black Panthers brandishing billy clubs. They are wearing militant style uniforms and regardless of how the left wants to water this down, they ARE intimidating.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
This video is an interview with a voter, a white male who describes what happened in an interview with Rick Leventhal from Fox News - I copied and pasted the interview as it was posted on the website that I saw the video on.
"CITIZEN: we got a phone call that there was intimidation going on. i walked up to the door, two gentlemen in black panther guard, one brandishing a nightstick, standing in front of the door. they closed ranks as i walked up. i am a veteran, that does not scare me. i went inside and found full- watchers, they said they had been here for an hour — i went inside and found poll-watchers, they said that they had said not to let people outside because black people are going to win no matter what. at that point, i spoke to him, we would not get into a fistfight, i said, and i called the police.
LEVENTHAL: the person with the nightstick was escorted away, which i just confirmed inside. but the implication is that you were telling me that the black panthers were there to intimidate white voters from coming to this location?
CITIZEN: anyone who is not going their way, i do not know. someone in front of a polling place with a nightstick, that is intimidating for all voters.
LEVENTHAL: this is the first time i have heard of black panthers being stationed outside of a polling place. the one gentleman who is still here, he is a poll-watcher?
CITIZEN: yes, and he can wear what he wants.
LEVENTHAL: the other person was not allowed to be there with a nice that?
CITIZEN: you cannot stand with a nightstick anywhere, that is a weapon. obviously, you cannot stand around with a weapon menacingly in your hand under any circumstances."
So you see, there WERE weapons being brandished and there WERE witnesses to it.
No one was attacked, that we know of anyway and thank God for that. But wrong is wrong, Anok. I find it hard to understand why you think this isn't wrong. It is in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here is where those gentlemen broke the law, I took it word for word from the VRA of 1965 -
" Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate."
I ask you, were the Bush admin to sweep something under the rug like this; say maybe a couple of KKK members intimidating black voters, don't you think that the mainstream media would be all over this? -
Obviously the police didn't think the guy with the billy club was a threat. Watch as the cop turns his back on the two perpetrators and tells them to follow him:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY&NR=1 -
Then charge him for having a weapon. (Why was he not aressted for having a weapon on the spot?)
Standing in front of a polling place, no matter how they are dressed, is not intimidation. People were not prevented from voting. No law was broken in that regard.
If he broke a law with regards to the alleged weapon, then he should have been charged, and dealt with ages ago. Because he had a weapon.
I've had people actually come into the polling place, and threaten or use violence to prevent voting from happeneing. They were never charged with anything. It is not common to charge people with a crime for standing in front of a polling place.
Hell, we had a drunk guy crash his car into our polling place once. He was charged with drunk driving, though. Not with voter intimidation. -
Maybe their intention was to protect black people from being intimidated. I don't know or care enough to research it.
-
Anok, they were charged and found guilty. Three members of the New Black Panthers, that is. The thing that stinks about it is that Holder dropped the charges AFTER the verdict. I still can't believe you would think it was okay for this to go on. For sati to agree with it wouldn't surprise me, but you Anok? I thought you were smarter than that. You say that torture used against us in WWII was illegal so EIT's used today against our enemies are illegal. In this case, voter intimidation that went on against blacks in the 60's was illegal, but today you say it isn't when it is two black gentlemen doing the same thing. You can't have it both ways.
-
The thing that stinks about it is that Holder dropped the charges AFTER the verdict.
Kind of like with Ted Stevens? -
EXACTLY like with Stephens. Either prosecute or not. But in fairness, I think it was a case of misconduct in the initial investigation in the Stephens case. However, unless it was egregious enough to jeopardize the case, I think they should have gone through with it.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cases of voter intimidation in the 60's and prior were quite different from two guys, standing in front of a poll, not preventing anyone from doing anything.
In the first instance, you had the very new reversal of Jim Crow laws, and the use of physical violence against minorities - not to swing an election, but simply because they did not want "coloreds" having the right to vote. Intimidation went beyond standing in front of polling places, and spilled into and/or was part of a wide spread violence against minorities during a time of massive hatred due to integration.
These guys didn't prevent people from voting, and didn't engage in violence in the second case.
Maybe it was dropped because it was a bogus, trumped up charge, by an administration that really wanted McCain to win.
-
-
My computer is video-challenged, maybe Anok or Antics can describe it for me
-
arghhh... they're telling me different things!!!!!!!!
-
-
I AM OUTRAGED THAT THOSE CHARGES WERE DROPPED!!!
-
OUTRAGED I SAY!!!!!!111!!!!ONE!!!1111!!!!
*giggle* -
Now you're getting the hang of it! Except in all the excitement, your finger slipped off the shift key.
-
Yeah I was really outraged! Couldn't focus or nuthin.
-
-
Anok I remember it we discussed it here, and there were eye witnesses who said no such think happened they were hired the one guy who was a friend was asked to leave and he did the other and there were a couple of policemen across the street who also said there was no intimidation an done cameraman who started to purposely agitate the men. If I have time to look, which is doubtful I will look back to see where I read the eyewitnesses accounts, one was actually a McCain voter who wrote some comment somewhere the other was just a random local reporter who was also there. I know they bring it back up hoping no one will remember the stuff that negated what really happened.
You tube is not your friend.
-
Thats what I remember as well. I'll bet it's on page 40 or so here
-
it is possible that there was no clear cut case... as the Justice Department said.
-
-
Here is the original BC thread about it:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/voter-intimidation
there are many valuable links in there.
Many also stating (from news sources) that they were not in fact black panthers, and they did not prevent people from voting, and left when asked to leave. The mayor stated that they did not break any laws.
No voter has been denied the vote...this is the United States of America and unless [the men standing outside] break the law or do anything, they have the right to stand out there. We don't need anybody trying to trump up anything or generate any kind of excitement," said Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.
What's the problem?-
The problem is that the mayor's name is "Nutter."
-
The Deputy Mayor must be named "Butter." That would make it the "Nutter/Butter" administration.
-
How delicious!
But seriously, if the people, at the time of the incident who handled the incident, including the mayor and the police were saying no laws were broken....and no one was prevented from voting....why would there have even been a legal pursuit of any kind?
Who brought up the charges? When? And with what evidence?
-
-
What's the Black panther guy's name? Maybe i can find it on reuters using his name
-
A quick and dirty search got me this - just from a blog, but it is the news article.
"The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”
The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15."
romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/charges-against-new-black-panthers-dr...
-
-
Can't wait to see some nice southern gentlemen in white robes outside a polling place..
Who wants odds that those charges won't be dropped?-
What would Robert Byrd be doing at a polling place?
-
Most likely not voter intimidation... that appears to be reserved for the true pondscum.
-
Charges shouldn't be filed, unless what he's doing is against the law.
As distasteful as it is - just standing there, regardless of how he is dressed, is not against the law.
Nor are the atrocious ideologies of the KKK. -
As the "activist" Hugo Black confirmed
-
-
This week, the Justice Department pushed back against the tide of angry rhetoric. Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told PW the decision to drop charges came from career attorneys in the department, “following a thorough review that determined the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims in this case.”
www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/Fox-and-the-Panthers.html-
Nice left wing opinion piece.
-
Yeah, anything that doesn't conform to the right-wing talking points is left-wing. *rolls eyes*
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department -- see, she works for the justice department -- told PW the decision to drop charges came from career attorneys in the department, “following a thorough review that determined the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims in this case.”
See, she was explaining why they dropped the charges. It's not an opinion piece. It's the reason they dropped the charges. Comprende? No? I didn't think so. -
Oh I'm sorry sati, did you say something? (worth listening to, that is) "No? I didn't think so."
-
Yeah, just the facts. Something you have little regard for.
-
Here is the original complaint. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/misc/philadelphia_bpp_comp.php
Looks like more people are upset about it...
www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/06/01/top_stories
/doc4a23b1ae4c1bd410553609.txt
So here you go sati, I did a little researching for you, since you only seem to be able to find blogs about this. Here is an article from The Washington Times which has this to say about who dropped the charges:
"People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them."
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting...
See, the REPORTER was telling the entire story. That the career (not politically appointed or motivated) lawyers within the DOJ were actively pursuing legal action against the Black Panthers in question in the complaint when POLITICAL "higher-ups" told them to drop it.
Now I ask you, sati. Had this been a case of three Neo-Nazi's or members of the KKK doing the same thing to black voters and the Bush admin dropped the charges, would you not be saying there was something wrong?
I will tell you why the charges were dropped - the timing just was too close to Obama's Cairo speech where he has tried to woo the muslims by apologizing, yet again for America. But that last sentence is just my opinion. The rest are researched facts.
Comprende? -
From your own article:
Justice officials declined to say whether Mr. Holder or other senior Justice officials became involved in the case, saying they don't discuss internal deliberations.
So there goes your spin.
That said, I think they should have been prosecuted, but the facts are what they are. -
First of all, it isn't MY article. I did not write it. Secondly, that is only one quote and you neglect to include the context, which was that the anonymous source within the DOJ was only saying they wouldn't say which political appointee told them to back off.
This quote from the article backs up what I said -
"People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them."
So there goes YOUR spin. Nice try...eh, not really. I kinda expected better, even from you.
But in the end, you agree that they should have been prosecuted, so congrats on being right for once. -
"People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them."
That's a meaningless piece of drivel. "People familiar with the case?" That could be almost anybody and is extremely shoddy reporting. But then again, the Washington Times isn't exactly a respectable news source. -
But in the end, you agree that they should have been prosecuted, so congrats on being right for once.
And you'd agree that abortion clinic protesters should also be arrested if they try to intimidate the clients. You can't pick and choose who should be given freedom of speech depending on your ideology. -
Hmmmm, abortion clinic protestors? Gee, I thought this thread was about the New Black Panthers getting a pass from Obama.
-
-
Antics - thanks for the links. Here are the official complaints from your first link - this is what they are/were in court for:
8. On November 4, 2008, during the federal general election, the Defendants Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson deployed at the entrance of a polling location at 1221 Fairmount Street in the City of Philadelphia. The Defendants wore military style uniforms associated with the Defendant New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. These uniforms included black berets, combat boots, bloused battle dress pants, rank insignia, Defendant New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense insignia, and black jackets.
9. During his deployment at the polls on November 4, 2008, at the entrance to the polling location at 1221 Fairmount Street, and in the presence of voters, Defendant Samir Shabazz brandished a deadly weapon. The weapon deployed was a nightstick, or baton. The baton included a contoured grip and wrist lanyard. Throughout the course of this deployment at the polling location, and while the polls were open for voting, Defendant Samir Shabazz pointed the weapon at individuals, menacingly tapped it his other hand, or menacingly tapped it elsewhere. This activity occurred approximately eight to fifteen feet from the entrance to the polling location. Defendant Samir Shabazz was accompanied by Defendant Jerry Jackson during this activity, and the two men stood side by side, in apparent formation, throughout most of this deployment.
10. Defendants Samir Shabazz and Jackson made statements containing racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals at 1221 Fairmount Street on November 4, 2008, while the polls were open for voting.
11. At the polling place at 1221 Fairmount Street on November 4, 2008, Defendants Samir Shabazz and Jackson made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.
Really? Honestly? This is worth the money to go to court over this? They stood 15 feet from the entrance, and looked menacingingly at voters, and said rude, racial statements to both black and white voters? And pointed at them?
That's the crime they are being charged with?
No wonder they dropped this. How bogus - the local drunk who flashes young girls probably breaks more laws.
Have them charged for having weapons, and leave it at at that.-
Have them charged for having weapons, and leave it at at that.
Is it even illegal to carry a stick? I doubt it. And making rude comments may be protected by the First Amendment, just like the pro-lifer's right to protest abortion clinics. -
Anok, it isn't worth money to uphold the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Also, you know as well as I do that when a complaint is filed against someone it has to describe in complete detail what was and wasn't done. It isn't the fact that they didn't club people over the head, it is the fact that they intimidated or attempted to intimidate voters.
@sati, I wish you would speak softly (or not at all) and carry a big stick. Your equating a billy club with a stick is asinine, but satus quo for you. -
if there's a legit case, they can sue the justice dept., like what happened to Gonzalez
-
A truncheon or baton (also called a cosh, Paddy wacker, billystick, billy club, nightstick, sap, blackjack, stick) is essentially a stick of less than arm's length, usually made of wood, plastic, or metal...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightstick -
Sati - it may have ben illegal to be carrying those clubs (although why they weren't arrested for it when the police showed up is beyond me).
Antics - I think it was dropped because the charge of "intimidation" is seriously trumped up. They were assholes, no doubt. But that isn't illegal. In the complaints - which are details of the case - no complaint of actual intimidation occurred. No one complained that they did not vote because these guys scared them away, chased them away, or prevented them from voting in any way. The complaint was that they "seemed" intimidating.
Not that they actually intimidated anyone. The complaint goes on to say they "might" have scared off potential voters. Not that they actually did. The wishy-washy language used in the complaint doesn't suffice for criminal charges.
They were assholes, who stood a legal distance away from the polling place for an hour, and left when asked by police. Had they resisted the request to leave, had they chased off voters, blocked the entrance.....OK charge them. They didn't.
They were asked to leave and that was the correct thing to do. Having them charged for voter intimidation for what they did? It's over board. -
This d-bat is perfectly legal (measures 18" long)
There's not a big difference between a d-bat and the club the Black Panther was carrying. -
Probably not, I wouldn't want to be hit with either of them...
@Anok, I agree with you to a great degree. I just think that the media is giving Obama a pass on this and were it reversed they (the media) would be crying for Bush's blood.
We both agree they broke the law, and I can see both sides of the situation. Like you, I don't know why the police didn't arrest the guys who had the billy clubs. That baffles me, but then it was the Police that made that call and they were there on the ground. It is easy to armchair something like this.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
