Obama Drops Charges Against Black Panthers

[SirGene]

Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
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."
VIDEO: Click to watch the incident on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU)
The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.
A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.
In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."
He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, "The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/

[HorrigEn]

as far as I know, so called 'Minister' King Samir Shabazz is only a toolhead. BPP needs a real leader. yes, its a difficult to get one and yes, Malcol X is never-enough-to-be-regretted.

oh...and those charges were causeless imo.

[Ikimasu]

Is this the "post-racial" era?

[LineDoggie]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1

Hope and Change, Bitches........

[Dominique]

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how Presidnet Obama dropped the charges, as your subject line states. The DoJ dropped the charges, not the Presidnet.

[Laconian]

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how Presidnet Obama dropped the charges, as your subject line states. The DoJ dropped the charges, not the Presidnet.

x2. I've been in the Fed LE business awhile now. I've worked on some high profile cases that were briefed to the AG, and from there the Pres,on a daily basis. I've never heard of the Pres, telling the AG or DoJ what charges to file and/or dismiss.

It could be, and I'm just guessing here, that the local US Attorney looked at the evidence and decided they didn't have enough evidence to convict based on the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof required in a criminal trial. But that's just me. Your mileage and experience may vary...

[Ikimasu]

Is Eric Holder Obma's appointee or not?

[Hollis]

x2. I've been in the Fed LE business awhile now. I've worked on some high profile cases that were briefed to the AG, and from there the Pres,on a daily basis. I've never heard of the Pres, telling the AG or DoJ what charges to file and/or dismiss.

It could be, and I'm just guessing here, that the local US Attorney looked at the evidence and decided they didn't have enough evidence to convict based on the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof required in a criminal trial. But that's just me. Your mileage and experience may vary...


Probably the mileage here is partisan political gains. "Who cares if it is true as long as it fits one's partisan purposes."

[CG51]

Black Panthers = Obama's Brown Shirts.

[HR24]

x2. I've been in the Fed LE business awhile now. I've worked on some high profile cases that were briefed to the AG, and from there the Pres,on a daily basis. I've never heard of the Pres, telling the AG or DoJ what charges to file and/or dismiss.

It could be, and I'm just guessing here, that the local US Attorney looked at the evidence and decided they didn't have enough evidence to convict based on the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof required in a criminal trial. But that's just me. Your mileage and experience may vary...

And I am sure you have run into your share of AUSA's who won't move forward on a case if it isn't an airtight case. Some AUSA's don't have the nuts to go into the courtroom and attempt to argue a case before jurors if it isn't a guaranteed victory. We have a few in our Division like that. Drives you nuts. Not saying that is the case here, and you maybe right on the level of proof that they had, but DOJ entities can be a little prickly considering some use it just to pad conviction records with hopes of moving up the ladder or a career in private practice.

[Ikimasu]

Probably the mileage here is partisan political gains. "Who cares if it is true as long as it fits one's partisan purposes."
So, it made sense to blame Bush for decisions Alberto Gonzalas made, but somehow there is something wrong with pinning Eric holder on Obama?

[Dominique]

Is Eric Holder Obma's appointee or not?

And this means what? Or, are you trying to say this is all some massive conspiracy? As a journalism major, I would hope you'd be a little clearer in your statements.

[Dominique]

Black Panthers = Obama's Brown Shirts.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

[Hollis]

So, it made sense to blame Bush for decisions Alberto Gonzalas made, but somehow there is something wrong with pinning Eric holder on Obama?


LOL, it seems your journo skills are weak my young grasshopper, I happened to like Bush. I also find Bush bashing to be just a distasteful as Obama bashing.

Maybe you know more than our members who are Federal Law Enforcement officer. Care to enlighten us?

[Dominique]

So, it made sense to blame Bush for decisions Alberto Gonzalas made, but somehow there is something wrong with pinning Eric holder on Obama?

It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense for you to it now. And don't start with the "well they did it, so we should do it too", crap. Just because person X is acting like an idiot, doesn't mean you should do the same thing. You're supposed to be an adult, not a freaking three year old. That's one of the major problems we currently have in the US. if people spent more time keeping their own house in order, instead of worrying about what they think the other guy is doing, or pointing fingers every time something doesn't go their way, we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.

[Hollis]

And this means what? Or, are you trying to say this is all some massive conspiracy? As a journalism major, I would hope you'd be a little clearer in your statements.


I was wondering too about that, I would expect better posts from someone with "said credentials"

[Dominique]

People wonder why I don't like most "journalists", but I tend to find that most of them are self important windbags who are out to do nothing more than promote their points of view, but that's a different subject for another day.

[Soldat_Américain]

So, it made sense to blame Bush for decisions Alberto Gonzalas made, but somehow there is something wrong with pinning Eric holder on Obama?
Alberto Gonzales...and for journalism major you can't spell. The situations are completely different. The local US Attorney dropped the charges, who by the way is a career lawyer for the Justice Department not an appointee.

[Dominique]

Alberto Gonzales...and for journalism major you can't spell. The situations are completely different. The local US Attorney dropped the charges, who by the way is a career lawyer for the Justice Department not an appointee.

Don't confuse the issue with facts, it's far easier for him to speculate and make wild accusations than it is for him to actually conduct research, verify information, and check with multiple sources.

[Ikimasu]

Alberto Gonzales...and for journalism major you can't spell.


What did I misspell?


The situations are completely different. The local US Attorney dropped the charges, who by the way is a career lawyer for the Justice Department not an appointee.Not according to the facts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

During his January confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that during his lengthy Justice Department tenure, the career lawyers were "my teachers, my colleagues and my friends" and described them as the "backbone" of the department.
"If I am confirmed as attorney general, I will listen to them, respect them and make them proud of the vital goals we will pursue together," he said.

[Soldat_Américain]

What did I misspell?

You: Gonzalas
Correct spelling: Gonzales

[Dominique]

What did I misspell?

Not according to the facts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1

So, are you trying to infer that the AG himself dumped the case? And of so, just say so, and if that's what you want to say, why post that Presidnet Obama dropped the case, which isn't a true statement to begin with,. And don't feel as though you're being picked on, if you wnat to stay in journalism, get used to people questioning what you write or say.

[bababooey]

Wow...didn't see that one coming (sarcasm)....

[Ikimasu]

So, are you trying to infer that the AG himself dumped the case?

You mean am I implying? No, I'm not implying anything. I just copied and pasted what the Washington Times article stated.

The politically appointed lawyers dropped the case, even after Eric Holder said that he would listen to his career lawyers. Either way, its Obama's appointees that over ruled the career lawyers.



And of so, just say so, and if that's what you want to say, why post that President Obama dropped the caseI didn't make this thread.


You: Gonzalas
Correct spelling: Gonzales

Oh, well thats is irrefutable evidence that I "cant spell". Between you and Hollis, I cant read or spell!

I'll make sure to keep a close eye on your insignificant typos from now on.

[California Joe]

Goddamn it gets tiresome around here some times.

[RECON DOC]

Goddamn it gets tiresome around here some times.

I feel your pain amigo.

[Curtis E. Bear]

You mean am I implying? No, I'm not implying anything. I just copied and pasted what the Washington Times article stated.

The politically appointed lawyers dropped the case, even after Eric Holder said that he would listen to his career lawyers. Either way, its Obama's apointees that over ruleed the career lawyers.


I didnt make this thread.



Oh, well thats is irrefutable evidence that I "cant spell". Between you and Hollis, I cant read or spell!

I'll make sure to keep a close eye on your insignificant typos from now on.

I can see you lasting a long while here.

[Dominique]

The politically appointed lawyers dropped the case, even after Eric Holder said that he would listen to his career lawyers. Either way, its Obama's apointees that over ruleed the career lawyers.

Eric Holder is the AG, he didn't drop the case, one of the appointees, that works for DoJ did. and are aware that this forum has a spell check function, as you've got several additional typos in your reply. :roll:

[Ikimasu]

Eric Holder is the AG, he didn't drop the case, one of the appointees, that works for DoJ did. and are aware that this forum has a spell check function, as you've got several additional typos in your reply. :roll:

You just agreed with soldat that "the facts" showed "The local US Attorney dropped the charges, who by the way is a career lawyer for the Justice Department not an appointee."

You then agreed with this quote:


Don't confuse the issue with facts, it's far easier for him to speculate and make wild accusations than it is for him to actually conduct research

You're the one who has it wrong and hasn't done any research. I just posted a clip from the WashingtonTimes article that clearly stated it was career lawyers who wanted them prosecuted and were forced by the political appointees to drop it. The article goes on to imply that Eric Holder may have been behind it, even though his office denies it.

The OP may be wrong that Obama was behind it and I may be wrong in placing it on Eric Holder, but you're still making claims that have been patently debunked. You should get your facts straight before you go wagging your finger at me for mine.

[KJV1611]

Haha yes where going to have a battle for smarts now, forget the news!

[Albatross]

Not sure, but I don't think the pres can drop the case can he? I thought he could only pardon after conviction.

[California Joe]

Asshole, do you have any idea how large the Justice Department is and how Government agencies actually work and how patently absurd it is to act like Obama picked up the Bat Phone, or should I say "Black Phone", and told them to cut some brothas loose?

Get a goddamned grip.

[Dominique]

You just agreed with soldat that "the facts" showed "The local US Attorney dropped the charges, who by the way is a career lawyer for the Justice Department not an appointee."

You then agreed with this quote:



You're the one who has it wrong and hasn't done any research. I just posted a clip from the WashingtonTimes article that clearly stated it was career lawyers who wanted them prosecuted and were forced by the political appointees to drop it. The article goes on to imply that Eric Holder may have been behind it, even though his office denies it.

The OP may be wrong that Obama was behind it and I may be wrong in placing it on Eric Holder, but you're still making claims that have been patently debunked. You should get your facts straight before you go wagging your finger at me for mine.

What claims am I making, other than one, you didn't research the article, and that you implied that it was the AG who ordered the case dropped, and that it all somehow was President Obama who was behind it all. Or am I misreading your statements. If so, please be so kind as to point out where I'm wrong.

[Hollis]

You mean am I implying? No, I'm not implying anything. I just copied and pasted what the Washington Times article stated.

The politically appointed lawyers dropped the case, even after Eric Holder said that he would listen to his career lawyers. Either way, its Obama's appointees that over ruled the career lawyers.

.

After having been banned from this forum at least two other times previously one would think a person would figure it out, if you keep pissing in another person's coffee cup and then telling them it is just that the coffee taste salty is why, you just gotta know it is not going to work the third time when it has failed the other two times.

We "probably" have members, who have been banned before who have figured it out how to post on this forum and are contributing members today.

Other words when you have been banned before, it is not very smart to draw attention to yourself for a repeat performance.

Also the User Agreement for this forum also contain suggestions on posting, you seemed to ignore both. One very good suggestion is:


3. Don't confuse fact for your opinion. Qualify your opinion.

18. Understand that these forums are populated by a minority of guys who've actually been at the sharp end in the service of various militaries. Commonly termed BTDTs (Been There Done That) you will notice them if you lurk long enough. When questioning their opinions or experiences bear in mind that they have, or are, serving and idiotic/sarcastic/rude comments will earn swift retribution both from most BTDTs and the mods.
We do have Fed Agents on this forum with a hell of a lot more experience than you and those "news" articles that you take as fact.

[Laconian]

As a small point of fact: THE US Attorney for a Federal judicial district is a political appointee. His 1st Asst, amd all the other Asst. US Attorneys (AUSA) are government employees, i.e., career employees.

If you can remember the big outcry of when former Pres. Bush fired (or attempted to) fire those 14 (?) US Attorneys, that was in his power as the Pres. They all serve at the discretion of the Pres. The US Attorney (sometimes the Division Chief, sometimes the AUSA themselves) will decline a case for a whole bunch or reasons - mostly on the winnability of the case, jury appeal, etc. That is their right. It doesn't spell conspiracy.

[CG51]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

I guess your meter is not working today.

[Dominique]

I guess your meter is not working today.

Knaw, it's been on the fritz, as I've been in a pissy mood for the last few days.

[Virus]

Asshole, do you have any idea how large the Justice Department is and how Government agencies actually work and how patently absurd it is to act like Obama picked up the Bat Phone, or should I say "Black Phone", and told them to cut some brothas loose?

Get a goddamned grip.

WHAT!? He renamed the bat phone?! BLACKSPIRACY!

[FullMetalJackass]

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how Presidnet Obama dropped the charges, as your subject line states. The DoJ dropped the charges, not the Presidnet.


You should realize by now, that people like you that defend this, would have **** a brick if it happened under another administration not to your political liking.

[California Joe]

Actually Dom wouldn't.

[Dominique]

You should realize by now, that people like you that defend this, would have **** a brick if it happened under another administration not to your political liking.

I'm not defending jack sh*t, as I think they should have been prosecuted. What I have a problem with is 1) people making BS statements as though they were facts (namely the title of this thread 2) people constantly attacking the sitting US president for no reason other than they're pissed their party didn't win (grow up, get over it, move on), 3) idiots who want to tell me what I'm thinking without actually reading over what I actually post.

For those of you who are relatively new here, I'll break this down for you. I didn't vote for Obama because he's far to liberal for my tastes, and I have issues with MANY of his policies. But unlike many of you, I don't spend what seems like every waking moment prowling the internet looking for stories to post on MP.net, crying over how he's the Anti-Christ, and accusing him of being in some massive conspiracy. If I've got an issue with him, I actually post what I think the problem is, and a try to come up with a solution. I don't post stories about teleprompters, and other BS that has nothing to do with his ability to govern or mis-govern the country.

As long as he's the sitting President/Commander and Chief, I'll do my best to show him the respect his office deserves, whether I agree with him or not. Just As I've done with Reagan, George H. Bush, Wild Bill, and George W. Bush (and I've had issues with things each and everyone one of them has done.)

[LineDoggie]

Here's a copy of the Witness Statement in PDF if anyones interested:

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bull-declaration_04-07-20092.pdf

[Dominique]

Here's a copy of the Witness Statement in PDF if anyones interested:

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bull-declaration_04-07-20092.pdf

As I said, I'm not in any way shape or form condoning the actions of these two idiots. I think the both of them sould have been arrested by Philly PD. Do I think there was enough evidence to convict them of voter intimidation, I don't know, as I'm not familiar enough with the US Code covering that, nor have I seen what evidence or witness statements the prosecutes have collected. My personal opinion is it could have been prosecuted, but I'm not the one calling the shots on this case.

[LineDoggie]

As I said, I'm not in any way shape or form condoning the actions of these two idiots. I think the both of them sould have been arrested by Philly PD. Do I think there was enough evidence to convict them of voter intimidation, I don't know, as I'm not familiar enough with the US Code covering that, nor have I seen what evidence or witness statements the prosecutes have collected. My personal opinion is it could have been prosecuted, but I'm not the one calling the shots on this case.

The referenced link was to Bartle Bull's witness Statement

[Dominique]

The referenced link was to Bartle Bull's witness Statement

I know who it's from, but that one witness statement is not enough to build a case on, much less win in court. Remember they had a sh*t load of evidence against OJ, and he still walked.

[USMCRTop]

"Ikimasu" means I am going-- freudian slip ??

[Geezah]

It's a shame they couldn't use the National Geographic footage that had of King Samir Shabazz. He was an absolute knob head, who not only hates whitey, he hates what America stands for. They had the Star and Stripes on the ground and had people walking all over it. Made my blood boil...........:(

[panzrman]

I'd be pissed off too, with a name like Shabazz.

[HorrigEn]

It's a shame they couldn't use the National Geographic footage that had of King Samir Shabazz. He was an absolute knob head, who not only hates whitey, he hates what America stands for. They had the Star and Stripes on the ground and had people walking all over it. Made my blood boil...........:(

and what does america stands for? :)


I'd be pissed off too, with a name like Shabazz.

sounds like you'd be pissed just because he's a muslim. talk about ignorance.

[wild_wild_wes]

Asshole, do you have any idea how large the Justice Department is and how Government agencies actually work and how patently absurd it is to act like Obama picked up the Bat Phone, or should I say "Black Phone", and told them to cut some brothas loose?

Get a goddamned grip.

So naive.

This is the Chicago way.

[XShipRider]

It isn't really worth wasting ban width, to post something every time Obama does something that someone can spin..................

This one too I suppose.

[Walter Sobchak]

Wow... I hope my spelling is okay, because we journalism majors are taking it on the chin, it seems! :roll:

Linedoggie brought up Bartle Bull's affadavit, of which the Times story stated, "Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files". So much for "fact finding", huh?

Read Bartle Bull's resume. He's not exactly Rush Limbaugh or **** Cheney. He's an old school liberal, like my mother and her contemporaries were. They were people that thought wrong was wrong, no matter whether it had a -D, and -R or an -I behind it. I think George McGovern may be one of the only other ones left, besides Bull.

The fact is that the defendents had not answered the charges, and thus the Court had entered a default judgment against them on 20 April. All the US District Attorney had to was file the paperwork. Period.

Holder's office over-ruled this action and moved to drop the charges. Bartle Bull has been calling this a blatantly political move, but for some reason the same media who pummeled Bush for politicizing DOJ, are completely silent.

In Bull's own words: http://lucianne.com/article/?pageid=bartledebut

Here is the full Washington Times story and You-tube video: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/print/

Is there a double-standard? One of the defendants, Jerry Jackson, was an "elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee, and was credentialed to be at the polling place last Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling observer, according to the Philadelphia City Commissioner's Office".

When do the Congressional hearings start?

[deagle]

watever. is it a coincidence that neo-nazi's aren't prosecuted in this day and age with Caucasian officials ? must everything be about race ?lol

[Walter Sobchak]

I know who it's from, but that one witness statement is not enough to build a case on, much less win in court. Remember they had a sh*t load of evidence against OJ, and he still walked.

The OJ trial spoke to a different type of ignorance: prosecutors, judge, witnesses and jury.

As far as "winning in court", the defendants had not answered the charges (no plea), which is a default plea of guilty.

Did you even read the story? Did you see the You Tube video of the polling station?

It's all on camera. Eric Eversole, a former litigation attorney with the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, told the Washington Times: "It is truly unprecedented for the Voting Section to voluntarily dismiss a case of such blatant intimidation. The video speaks for itself." (my underlines) 'Unprecedented' is the word he used.


I'd also suggest reading the Voting Rights Act of 1965, concentrating on the language in Section 11. Courts and case law have expanded (a) and (b) to include persons carrying a weapon within X-number of feet of a polling place. Most states, including PA, have a law against this.

Read the next-to-the-last paragraph, a Shabaaz quote, of this CNN story: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/justice-department-drops-charges-in-voter-intimidation-case/

"We want to thank President Obama and his administration for dropping charges against us that were vindictively brought by the Bush administration," Malik Shabaaz told CNN. "We don't condone any type of illegal activity at polling stations."

Yeah, it was all just politics.... law, notwithstanding, of course! :cantbeli:

[Dominique]

The OJ trial spoke to a different type of ignorance: prosecutors, judge, witnesses and jury.

As far as "winning in court", the defendants had not answered the charges (no plea), which is a default plea of guilty.

Did you even read the story? Did you see the You Tube video of the polling station?

It's all on camera. Eric Eversole, a former litigation attorney with the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, told the Washington Times: "It is truly unprecedented for the Voting Section to voluntarily dismiss a case of such blatant intimidation. The video speaks for itself." (my underlines) 'Unprecedented' is the word he used.


I'd also suggest reading the Voting Rights Act of 1965, concentrating on the language in Section 11. Courts and case law have expanded (a) and (b) to include persons carrying a weapon within X-number of feet of a polling place. Most states, including PA, have a law against this.

Read the next-to-the-last paragraph, a Shabaaz quote, of this CNN story: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/justice-department-drops-charges-in-voter-intimidation-case/

"We want to thank President Obama and his administration for dropping charges against us that were vindictively brought by the Bush administration," Malik Shabaaz told CNN. "We don't condone any type of illegal activity at polling stations."

Yeah, it was all just politics.... law, notwithstanding, of course! :cantbeli:

Walter, I'm all for prosecuting these two idiots, but as I said, I don't know what evidence the prosecutor had available to him. If he felt he couldn't take this case to trial, and win it, it's his choice to hold off on prosecuting them, but he can go back and reinstate the charges later. As far as these two turds wanting to "thank President Obama and his administration for dropping charges" goes, they can think who ever they want, that doesn't mean they won't be charged at a later date, or that the people they're thanking had anything to do with them having the charges dropped.

[wild_wild_wes]

Holder's office over-ruled this action and moved to drop the charges. Bartle Bull has been calling this a blatantly political move, but for some reason the same media who pummeled Bush for politicizing DOJ, are completely silent.


Ah, the classic "Double Standard" of the Mainstream Liberal Media.

copy-pasta:

Presidential comparison quiz


If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Tony Blair a set of inexpensive and useless (to Tony Blair's UK video formatting) DVDs, when Tony Blair had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

[budgie]

Half of these points are highly debatable but here's the short end of it.


Ah, the classic "Double Standard" of the Mainstream Liberal Media.

copy-pasta:

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
Nobody 'approved' of Obama's tasteless joke either and it was roundly criticized all over the media.

If George W. Bush had given Tony Blair a set of inexpensive and useless (to Tony Blair's UK video formatting) DVDs, when Tony Blair had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have approved?
Nobody gave a crap about the gifts and most people realize the Obama's probably didn't make the decision anyway. These gifts are always useless and perfunctory and a waste of time to nitpick over.

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
This bowing allegation is still in dispute. But since the Bush clan has a long history of bending over and taking it in the keester from their Saudi paymasters, the complaint is moot.

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
Yes, and just another of many typical Bush slips. Obama made some too. Whatever.

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
Likewise nobody 'approves' of any indescretion in either cabinet.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
Bush has made far greater breaches of his constitutional authority that has resulted in war, torture and illegal detentions. Apples and oranges.

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
Under Bush's watch America actually accumulated the largest debt in its history! At least Obama is proposing to spend on improving the country's economy in the long term, rather than investing so much blood and treasure invading crippled dictatorships that are no threat to America.

[G-AWZT]

"New" Black Panther Party......................LOL! Let me guess, new taste without all the calories. More like same morons, new outfits, same vile message.

[Alpheus]

Under Bush's watch America actually accumulated the largest debt in its history! At least Obama is proposing to spend on improving the country's economy in the long term, rather than investing so much blood and treasure invading crippled dictatorships that are no threat to America.

You have got to be kidding me. You're bashing Bush for reducing the budget deficit from $412 billion dollars in 2004 to $162 billion dollars in 2007, and at the same time praising Obama for quadrupling it?

[Gunge]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/30/no-3-at-justice-okd-panther-reversal/?feat=home_cube_position1

EXCLUSIVE: No. 3 at Justice OK'd Panther reversal

Case involved polling place in Philadelphia

By Jerry Seper (http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/jerry-seper/) (Contact (http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/jerry-seper/contact)) | Thursday, July 30, 2009

EXCLUSIVE:
Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November's election, according to interviews.
The department's career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of its members after the government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the men.
Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.
The delay was ordered by then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli concerns about the case during one of their regular review meetings, according to the interviews.
Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.
She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.
Questions about how high inside the department the decision to drop the case went have persisted in Congress and in the media for weeks.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The Washington Times that the department has an "ongoing obligation" to be sure the claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law. She said that after a "thorough review" of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined the "facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants.
"As a result, the department dismissed those claims," she said. "We are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote."
While the Obama administration has vowed a new era of openness, department officials have refused to answer questions from Republican members of Congress on why the case was dismissed, claiming the information was "privileged," according to congressional correspondence with the department.
Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee who has raised questions about the case, said he also was prevented from interviewing the front-line lawyers who brought the charges.
"Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case?" Mr. Wolf asked. "There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven."
Ms. Schmaler said the department has tried to cooperate with Congress. "The Department responded to an earlier letter from Congressman Wolf in an effort to address his questions. Following that letter, the Department agreed to a meeting with Congressman Wolf and career attorneys, in which they made a good-faith effort to respond to his inquiries about this case. We will continue to try to clear up any confusion Congressman Wolf has about this case."
Ms. King and a deputy are expected to travel to Capitol Hill on Thursday to meet behind closed doors with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the panel, to discuss continuing concerns about the case.
The department also has yet to provide any records sought by The Times under a Freedom of Information Act request filed in May seeking documents detailing the decision process. Department officials also declined to answer whether any outside groups had raised concerns about the case or pressured the department to drop it.
Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department and shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She said, however, her organization was "not involved in the decision to dismiss the civil complaint."
She said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has consistently argued that the department should bring more voter intimidation cases, adding that it was "disconcerting" that it did not do so.
Mr. Perrelli, a prominent private practice attorney, served previously as a counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration and was an Obama supporter who raised more than $500,000 for the Democrat candidate in the 2008 elections. He authorized a delay to give department officials more time to decide what to do, said officials familiar with the case but not authorized to discuss it publicly. He eventually approved the decision to drop charges against three of the four defendants, they said.
At issue was what, if any, punishment to seek against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) and three of its members accused in a Jan. 7 civil complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black dress shirts and black jackets with military-style markings, were charged in a civil complaint with intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place, including brandishing a two-foot-long nightstick and issuing racial threats and racial insults. Authorities said a third NBPP member "managed, directed and endorsed the behavior."
None of the NBPP members responded to the charges or made any appearance in court.
"Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process," said Grace Chung Becker, a Bush administration political appointee who was the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights at the time the case was filed. "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously."
Mrs. Becker, now on a leave of absence from government work, said she personally reviewed the NBPP complaint and approved its filing in federal court. She said the complaint had been the subject of numerous reviews and discussions with the career lawyers, and she agreed with their assessment to file the case.
Mrs. Becker said Ms. King was overseeing other cases at the time and was not involved in the decision to file the original complaint.
A Justice Department memo shows that career lawyers in the case decided as early as Dec. 22 to seek a complaint against the NBPP; its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident; Minister King Samir Shabazz, a resident of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter who was accused of wielding the nightstick; and Jerry Jackson, a resident of Philadelphia and a NBPP member.
"We believe the deployment of uniformed members of a well-known group with an extremely hostile racial agenda, combined with the brandishing of a weapon at the entrance to a polling place, constitutes a violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits types of intimidation, threats and coercion," the memo said.
The memo, sent to Mrs. Becker, was signed by Christopher Coates, chief of the Voting Section; Robert Popper, deputy chief of the section; J. Christian Adams, trial attorney and lead lawyer in the case; and Spencer R. Fisher, law clerk. None of the four has made themselves available for comment.
Members of Congress continue to ask questions about the case.
"If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable?" Mr. Wolf asked.
Mr. Smith also complained that a July 13 response by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to concerns the congressman had about the Philadelphia incident did not alleviate his concerns.
"The administration still has failed to explain why it did not pursue an obvious case of voter intimidation. Refusal to address these concerns only confirms politicization of the issue and does not reflect well on the Justice Department," Mr. Smith said.
Mr. Smith asked the department's Office on Inspector General to investigate the matter, and the request was referred to the department's Office of Professional Responsibility.
Lawmakers aren't alone in the concerns.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a June 16 letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it "great confusion," since the NBPP members were "caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election."
"Though it had basically won the case, the [Civil Rights Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges ... " the letter said. "The division's public rationale would send the wrong message entirely - that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them."
The dispute over the case and the reversal of career line attorneys highlights sensitivities that have remained inside the department since Bush administration political appointees ignored or reversed their career counterparts on some issues and some U.S. attorneys were fired for what Congress concluded were political reasons.
Mr. Weich, in his letter to the congressman, sought to dispel any notion that politics was involved. He argued that the department dropped charges against three of the four defendants "because the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them. He said the decision was made after a "careful and through review of the matter " by Ms. King. He said:
• While the NBPP made statements and posted notice that more than 300 of its members would be deployed at polling places throughout the United States during the Nov. 4 elections, the statement and posting did not say any of them would display a weapon or otherwise break the law.
• While the complaint charged that the NBPP and Mr. Zulu Shabazz endorsed the activities at the polling places, the evidence was "equivocal" since both later disavowed what happened in Philadelphia and suspended that city's chapter after the incident.
• The charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped because police who responded to the polling place ordered Mr. Samir Shabazz to leave but allowed Mr. Jackson to stay. He also noted that the department approved "appropriately tailored injunctive relief" against Mr. Samir Shabazz for his use of the nightstick.
The injunction prohibits Mr. Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place through Nov. 15, 2012, and Ms. Schmaler said the department "will fully enforce the terms of that injunction."
On its Web page, the NBPP said the Philadelphia chapter was suspended from operations and would not be recognized until further notice. It said the organization did not condone or promote the carrying of nightsticks or any kind of weapon at any polling place.
"We are intelligent enough to understand that a polling place is a sensitive site and all actions must be carried out in a civilized and lawful manner," it said.
Witnesses who supported the Justice Department case said they were surprised by the reversal.
Stephen R. Morse, a blogger hired by Republicans to be at the polls and who videotaped the confrontation, said the NBPP members blatantly used racial insults on would-be voters and other poll watchers, telling one man, "Cracker, you about to be ruled by a black man."
Mr. Morse, a University of Pennsylvania student, said he was "outraged" that the complaint was dismissed, saying he hoped Democrats would join Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf in attempting to ensure that the incident "doesnt become a partisan issue, but rather an issue of right vs. wrong."
Chris Hill, national director of operations for a Gathering of Eagles, an organization dedicated to the support of U.S. troops, said the NBPP members visibly intimidated voters with racial slurs as they tried to enter the building.
Mr. Hill, a U.S. Army veteran who also served as a Philadelphia poll watcher for Republicans, said several voters at the location said they were afraid. He said the NBPP members tried to deny him access to the poll although he was a certified poll watcher, telling him, "White power don't rule here."
A Justice Department memo also says that a black couple, Larry and Angela Counts, both Republican poll watchers, told authorities they were scared, worried about their safety and concerned about leaving the polling place at the end of the day because of the actions of the NBPP members. Mrs. Counts said she wondered whether someone might "bomb the place" and Mr. Counts said the NBPP members called him a "race traitor," the memo said.
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia entered default judgments against the NBPP members April 2 after ordering them to plead or otherwise defend themselves. They refused to appear in court or file motions in answer to the government's complaint. Two weeks later, the judge ordered the Justice Department to file its motions for default judgments by May 1 - a ruling that showed the government had won its case.
The men also have not returned calls from The Times seeking comment.
On May 1, Justice sought an extension of time and during the tumultuous two weeks that followed the career front-line lawyers tried to persuade their bosses to proceed with the case.
The matter was even referred to the Appellate Division for a second opinion, an unusual event for a case that hadn't even reached the appeals process.
Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment unless the department had evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by the government.
She said the complaint was aimed at preventing the "paramilitary style intimidation of voters" at polling places elsewhere and Justice could make a "reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants and probably should." She noted that the complaint's purpose was to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" while leaving open "ample opportunity for political expression."
An accompanying memo by Appellate Section lawyer Marie K. McElderry said the charges not only included bringing the weapon to the polling place, but creating an intimidating atmosphere by the uniforms, the military-type stance and the threatening language used. She said the complaint appeared to be "sufficient to support" the injunctions sought by the career lawyers.
"The government's predominant interest ... is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote," she said.
The front-line lawyers, however, lost the argument and were ordered to drop the case.
Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist who also was a poll watcher in Philadelphia, said after the complaint was dropped, he called Mr. Adams to find out why. He said he was told the decision "came as a surprise to all of us" and that the career lawyers working on the case feared that the failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act "would embolden other abuses in the future."