What are you saying? That Obama put the 2012 expiration date in there so that he’ll be sure to have the guy’s help in intimidating voters in one precinct in 2012? Do you think Obama has him on retainer or something?
Eric Holder was appointed by Obama and can be fired by him. The silence regarding this issue says it all. Can you imagine if this happened under the Bush administration with the KKK?
Given the 2 statements I quoted earlier (one from an former ACLU attorney) I’d say there’s a serious problem in the Justice Department.
Never said that. If you’re going to participate then try to be accuarate and respond to points actually made. I said several times that carrying a weapon outside a polling place was unacceptable and the police got rid of that guy. The problem, from a legal point fo view, was proviong the Black Panther group as a whole coordinated with that individual. {Because the charges were agasint the group as well}
Will you concede that it was the Justice department under Bush that failed to pursue criminal charges and decided the case only warranted a civil charge? That’s what was filed by the DOJ under Bush in Jan of 09. So those claiming it is Holder and the Obama admin failed to pursue criminal charges are incorrect right?
That may be true but it’s a question of what the law allows rather than is he an racist asshole. There may have been a case agasint the individual but there didn’t appear to be one against the group, no matter how bad they are.
Get your details right. no weapons through 2012 not until. That means no weapons during these next two election cycles , including the presidential one. They are not sweeping it under the rug by bringing us the details others intentionally leave out.
Can you explain why the Bush DOJ decided not to pursue criminal charges, and exactly how that is Obama and Holder’s fault.
Uh huh. Adams appears to be pretty partisan which makes his statements suspect. I’ll need more evidence than his word.
Except we don’t have any real evidence it is true.
It appears to me that the there was a case agasint an individual and the DOJ decided to go after a group. Perhaps that was the mistake. Nobody has provided any evidence that there was any coordinated effort by the BPs as a group to intimidate voters.
I agree that posting men in paramilitary uniforms just outside a polling place is might be intimidating and if we have evidence that the BPs did that several times at predominantly white and/or republican polling places that might be a case. One incident at one place is more about the individual and they reached a plea bargin with him.
Show me the race nuetral ramifications of the 2006 case in AZ in which citizens acctually complained about a group with one man carrying a gun rather than a stick. None did in Philly.
It’s interesting to note that the only Dem in the group who is touted as a civil rights champion who worked for Kennedy , was working for the McCain campaign in Philly. Hmmm funny that’s not mentioned.
bottom line for me is that if the BP are actually sending out men in paramilitary garb to a number of polling places to intimidate voters then action needs to be taken to prevent them. Other than that it’s a matter of one or two individuals and should be treated as such. They reached an agreement with the nut with the weapon. Whether that was the right call or not remains to be seen. I don’t think people with as much hatred as that guy apparantly has appreciate 2nd chances.
I’ve already corrected your 2012 mistake. Find me someone, ACLU attorney or not, who claims evidence of coordination between the BP group and the individuals in Philly. Inflamitory statements do not overcome actual facts and real evidence.
I’d still like someone to tell me if that particular polling place was expected to be predominantly republican or not. Since blacks overwelmingly voted for Obama then keeping black voters from voting doesn’t make much sense as intimidation does it?
Can you imagine the BUsh DOJ not filing the same voter intimidation charges against the minutemen of AZ when one openly carried a pistol as they questioned and took pictures of latino voters in 2006. You should be able to because that’s what happened.
cite? Any evidence at all?
btw , a lot of white people voted for Obama.
Really. So if three poll watchers working for McCain file a complaint we don’t need complaints from the actual voters? That’s novel.
once more, if the problem was so rampant, and so serious at that particular polling place, why were two of the witnesses only there for a short time? They claimed voters approached and walked away. Why didn’t we get any of that on video? Why not one short interview with any voter who objected and thought it was so awful?
it was filed January 7 2009. Bush left office January 20 2009. Eric Holder was confirmed February 2nd 2009. The case was dismissed in May 2009.
It doesn’t matter what polling location it takes place at. Intimidation is intimidation.
But if you read the links, like the Media matters ones you’ll see it was filed as a civil action rather than a criminal one by the Bush DOJ. Why?
Is this a joke? Of course it matters because the crime of voter intimidation needs intent. If the polling place was expected to vote primarily for Obama then there is no intent of voter intimidation by their presence there. If they are approaching voters and trying to sway their vote then that would qualify. A couple of nasty comments, especially directed at GOP poll watchers, does not qualify as voter intimidation {since they weren’t voters}
Does this mean you have no evidence at all they were intimidating white voters?
There is a report of a black man being called a race traitor {evidently for supporting the GOP} and I’d say that qualifies but one comment is not worth the cost of prosecuting a case.
The problem was and is that for all the noise being made there is insufficient evidence to pursue a case, which means the DOJ is doing their job correctly by dropping it. Perhaps they should have pursued the case against the weapon wielding individual but there was a plea bargain means they did something , and that seems to be more than was done in 2006 with the pistol packing minuteman.
IANAL, Can’t answer your question. Why is Media Matters trying to say it was dismissed in Bush’s term when it was clearly in Obama’s?
Racial intimidation at any location is not a joke, it’s a crime. You’re trying to marginalize it with a specious argument. It wouldn’t fly with the KKK in a predominately white location and it doesn’t fly here.
This shit happened all the time in Bensonhurst where I grew up. Several connected goons standing outside of the polling area was all that was needed to intimidate people into picking the “best candidate”(not that they were against busting some heads when it was needed). Unfortunately for these guys it’s not the year 1955 and they weren’t in a Black Panther controlled part of town.
Which parts of Bensonhurst were under the control of the Black Panthers?
Did media matters say that? I just looked at the two media matters posts. The problem is right wing blogs and TV is claiming the Obama admin and the DOJ under Holder failed to bring criminal charges. That’s false. It was Bush’s DOJ that decided to file a civil action rather than a criminal one.
It is evidently true that the Holder DOJ decided to dismiss the civil action and reached a plea agreement with the one guy who carried a weapon. That appears to be because of a complete lack of evidence agasint the BPs as a group since the three witnesses were all GOP poll watchers and not one, that’s not one, actual voting citizen came forward to complain.
In fairness, I may have misunderstood the details of filing a civil action vs a crinminal one and the actual dismissal. That’s my mistake not Mediamatters’ It does require reading the links to get the details straight.
The second mediamatters link really discredits Adams and demonstrates his bias, repeated false statements, and exaggerations. It’s an old story for right wing blogs to grab onto a few distorted details and create a false story.
honestly, this makes no sense at all. The accusation is voter intimidation and that requires certain elements to exist. If the KKK were hanging out in a predominantly white polling place that was expected to vote white then who the hell would they be intimidating? The only purpose of voter intimidation is to sway their vote or keep them from voting at all. I’m asking for any evidence that existed in the Philly example. Evidently neither you or anyone else has any.
Off topic: So, I had this tab open but was looking at other stuff, then came back to it after forgetting the topic and happened to glance first at this paragraph.
I nearly clicked away, thinking I had stumbled across another oil spill thread!
Dam those paramiltary oil giants with nightsticks. Although there are some pelicans that a good clubbing could help save some dough. Just trying to be practical.
What Media matters posted in bold print was this: It was Bush’s DOJ that decided not to press criminal charges. It then goes on to parse the difference between civil and criminal prosecution. The implication of the bold print is that the DOJ did not pursue legal action under the Bush Administration.
You put on a KKK outfit, hold a club and call black people niggers at the next election and report back on whether or not they felt intimidated. I’m not even going to entertain your arguments along this line.
Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between a KKK robe and hood and “paramilitary garb” as apparently worn by these New Black Panther members? Or the historic activities of these two groups, and their relative place in the common understanding of the public?
More importantly, do we have even one person who said, officially, unofficially, anonymously, even, that they were intimidated in Philadelphia? Yes or no, this seems a simple question and the heart of the matter.
Enough with the bullshit evasions and innuendo. If you want to make an accusation, make an accusation. It sounds like you’re trying to imply that Obama wants this guy to be free to intimidate voters in 2012. Do you believe that? Do you believe that Obama wants Black Panthers to intimidate people, and pulled strings specifically so that this guy would be available?
If you’re not willing to come right out and say what you think is going on, then shut the fuck up.
I’m not sure which Media matters link you’re referencing. In the first one in post 11 they make the distinction because of the dishonest references by ORielly and panel. They do not imply the Bush DOJ didn’t pursue any legal action. They point out the fact that it was the Bush DOJ that decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute a criminal action. That’s the exact words of the bold print and the subject of the less than honest comments by ORielly.
Post 23 is another Media Matters link that examines Adams since his resignation and accusations about the incident fired up the right wing.
Do you or anybody else expect Obama and Holder to pursue criminal charges that the DOJ already decided were not warrented by the evidence?
What the Right wing is creating fake outrage about has not been shown to actually exist. The implication and accusation is that Holder and Obama dropped the case because the Panthers are black and Obama supporters. Sure you can hold that opinion , but there’s no real evidence to show it’s true. If the cry is for justice and race nuetral prosecution then someone needs to explain why the gun toting minuteman from AZ was never prosecuted by the BUsh DOJ. From my reading that was a much more aggregious case of voter intimidation.
Whether you want to admit it or not when a legal action is decided and considerable time and money will be spent pursuing it , details and evidence matter. When you file charges of* voter intimidation* {that’s what is listed on the civil action LP linked to} then you might need actual voters who were indeed intimidated.
On the surface the idea of two men in paramillitary garb , one with a weapon, outside a polling place, sure could be an issue of intimidation. In the minuteman case in AZ a group, one man carrying a pistol, puroposely went to polling places and approached latino voters. Seems clear doesn’t it? In the Philly case we have no evidence and no complaints from voters of that kind of thing happening. I’d go as far as saying that just standing close to the entrance is in itself intimidating even if they don’t say anything, if, that’s if, there is any evidence that voters did feel threatened and turned away from voting because of the Panthers. Although the witnesses claim they saw people turn away no actual voters complained and two of the witnesses didn’t stay there long. If they were so alarmed why didn’t they film voters turning away and/or try to talk to voters who were intimidated either on that day or afterwards? Let’s add that to prove a charge against the BPs as a group they have the added burden of proving coordination between the group and the individuals. A brief hateful exchange between a non voting poll watcher and an angry black man is not prosecutable evidence of voter intimidation.
Lacking any real evidence I’d say the DOJ did the smart thing by letting it go and achieved something by reaching a plea agreement with the guy carrying the stick. Did the Bush DOJ even do that much with the guy appraoching voters in AZ carrying a gun? I’d even say if the Panthers as a group decide to stay involved in any way with elections , they need to be watched and information and evidence gathered. Even without a weapon , men standing outside a polling place in matching paramilitary garb is a bad idea IMO. Although I’m not sure there are laws determing who or how many can stand where and how they can be dressed.
Actually the report is that a black man who supported the GOP was called a race traitor and did feel threatened, but that person never came forward, supposedly because he lives in that neighborhood and was scared. While that’s not impossible it’s also not evidence and one angry exchange doesn’t make a case for voter intimidation. If he volunteered his voting preference and someone made an angry comment that’s not a pattern of voter intimidation. Certainly the guy with the weapon was a bad idea and the police took care of it.
There can be subtle voter intimidation just by presence. A group of white men standing outside a polling place in a predominatly black neighborhood might be intimidation, and I’m sure was intended as such in the past. Standing outside a polling place and advocating a particular candidate as voters go in is prohibited I think. There’s a 75 ft rule or something like that.