Thanks, Kramer, but I already saw this article:
<<The Department of Justice whistleblower who resigned over the “corrupt nature of the dismissal” of the New Black Panther case testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this week. Unfortunately, except for the Fox News Channel -- Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck and others -- the nation's newsrooms are ignoring the story.
<<At the hearing in the commission’s Washington D.C. headquarters, J. Christian Adams accused the DOJ of racial bias for dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party. An attorney on the case, Adams testified that within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division there is
a pervasive and open hostility towards equal enforcement of the law. So
insidious is this attitude that, according to Adams, even a minority DOJ employee was harassed by DOJ Voting Section staff for working on a case with white victims.>>
Note that Adams is the ONLY source of this and most of the allegations in the article. The "minority DOJ employee" never has come forward to complain about his "harrassment" or otherwise vindicate Adams. Most of Adams' allegations are broad generalities, "a pervasive and open hostility," an "insidious attitude," etc. Nothing concrete.<<To support his allegations regarding the culture of the Civil Rights Division, Adams cited numerous second and firsthand accounts. Notably, he stated that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes told him personally that the division is “in the business of traditional civil rights work.>>
So what? What's wrong with traditional civil rights work?<<"In other words, it will only pursue cases with minority victims," said officials at the Washington watchdog group Judicial Watch.>>
Right. The Deputy Assistant AG says "traditional civil rights work," but her words have to be interpreted by a conservative group founded by some guy who sued the Clintons about two dozen times in the 1990s. The Deputy Assistant didn't SAY that they only protect minority victims, those were words put in her mouth by the conservative group's unnamed "officials."
<<His testimony before the commission focused on the New Black Panther case in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. Members of the New Black Panthers – clad in paramilitary outfits and brandishing a club – intimidated voters as well as poll watchers.>>
Or at least, so says Fox News - - and the DOJ says it hasn't enough evidence to convict anyone of crimes arising out of that.<<The individuals involved are seen on videotape verbally threatening citizens, hurling profanities and racial epithets. >>
Was there provocation for the threats? Was there evidence the threats seen on tape were intended to interfere with the right to vote? Were there individuals charged who were not shown on the tape but were alleged to have instigated or masterminded the alleged intimidation? Where is the evidence?
<<Using the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the group. Despite receiving a default judgment after the defendants in the case ignored the charges, the Obama Justice Department dropped the case in May 2009.>>
Default judgments are very easily set aside, particularly in criminal matters, where the law is pretty clear that no man shall be convicted if he can convince the court that the failure to appear and defend in the first place was due to circumstances other than a deliberate contempt of court. The theory is that every man is entitled to have his day in court.<<
Adams testified that the Obama Administration used a political appointee to scrutinize former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates. When that political appointee delivered the order to dismiss the Black Panther case, he admitted that he had not even read the memos in support of proceeding with it. Additionally,
Adams mentioned that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lobbied in March 2009 to have the case dismissed.>>
Again, Adams testified . . . Adams mentioned that . . . Zero corroboration. Just Adams' say-so.<<During the Hearing, Adams refused to answer several questions concerning specifics on the DOJ’s handling of the case, citing fears that he would be revealing deliberative information. However,
Adams confirmed that political appointees – not career attorneys – made the decision to dismiss the case.>>
Get my point? . . . Adams confirmed. Besides, where is it written that "political appointees" are not full-fledged lawyers in their own right, with just as much experience, knowledge and/or judgment as "career attorneys" and maybe more?<<Despite the Obama Administration’s stonewalling, the hearing reinforces that the New Black Panther Party story is not going away. The lack of transparency in this case forced Judicial Watch to sue the Justice Department.>>
Sure, why not? The guy who founded Judicial Watch sued the Clintons about two dozen times in the 1990s, what's one more lawsuit against another Democrat?<<In a racial double standard, the Obama Administration instructs government attorneys in the Justice Department’s civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims,
according to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.>>
Well, at least we now know the opinion of another conservative opinion-maker. At least it's a change from "Adams says . . . ," "Adams confirmed . . . ," etc.<<The explosive revelation was made this week by a high-ranking Justice Department official who quit over the administration’s handling of a voter intimidation case against members of the radical black revolutionary group known as the New Black Panther Party. Career Justice Department attorneys were ordered to drop a complaint against the group for bullying voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election.>>
Uh, that "high-ranking Justice Department official" is Adams, who's already been quoted above. It's not some other source corroborating Adams, it's the man himself.
<<Clad in military attire, members were captured on video tape intimidating white voters as they attempted to enter a polling place. The Black Panther bullies used weapons, racial insults and profanity to deter voters and federal prosecutors filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia.>>
Well, the tape can't show if any of the white voters were intimidated or not, can it? It can't show the purpose was intimidation either, or that the intimidation was directed towards the exercise of the right to vote. The tape might well show that the Panthers used or at least carried weapons, uttered racial insults (not against the law, is it?) or uttered profanity (also not against the law) but would probably NOT show that the purpose of the weapons, insults or profanity was to deter voters. The Deputy Assistant AG says there was not sufficient evidence against the men and Adams doesn't refer to any specific parts of the videotape that might contain such evidence.<< The case was mysteriously and abruptly killed by a top Justice Department official just as a federal judge was preparing to punish the Black Panthers for ignoring the charges and refusing to appear in court.>>
What's mysterious about not having sufficient evidence? Perhaps the film came from a tainted source, illegally obtained in an illegal search, if the Deputy Assistant AG says there isn't enough evidence, why is that so hard to believe - - especially when Adams, one of the attorneys originally responsible for the case, can't contradict her with any specifics? And if the judge was "preparing to punish" suspects against whom no evidence existed for conviction, surely the right thing to do would have been to kill the case then and there.
<<The order came from Loretta King, who at the time was President Obama’s acting assistant Attorney General for the civil rights division. No explanation was offered for the sudden dismissal and outrage ensued among federal prosecutors handling the case.>>
But we have the explanation - - insufficient evidence.
