okay,
Stay accurate. There was no they with clubs. There was one guy with and one without. Now can you look in his minds and tell me under what circumstances the club would be used?
I mean as people were going in and out of the polling place was he telling them how to vote. Did he have any way of knowing who was voting for Obama and who wasn’t? How do you suppose his intimidation was supposed to work?
If people just didn’t vote because these scary men were there how did he know he was keeping McCain supporters away and not Obama supporters. Or, was he just protecting the thousands of ACORN bogus voters that were going in and out.
So you don’t find it objectionable for this stellar witness civil rights lawyer to suggest serious crimes concerning ACORN and the Black Panthers without offering a shred of evidence. You don’t see that as any kind of race baiting?
And not only that, but you would wear one of those pointy German helmets and play “The Internationale” on the harmonica while dancing the Funky Chicken in your leiderhosen.
He’s got you figured out, Dio, might as well give it up.
You seem blissfully unaware of the bias against reporting this kind of thing by the NY Times etc. Anyway, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting on this case for a while.
I don’t know if you’re quite making a fair comparison, there. No question, the Times is thoroughly corrupted by the liberal compulsion for facts, whereas the Journal has no such handicap, and is free to interpret reality in an improvisational style. But aren’t you comparing a dumpster slut with a girl who’s no better than she should be, setting Danny DeVito to play basketball with Steven Hawking?
The stuff about Adams and Bull has already been covered. It being in the WSJ does not make their accusations any more or less true. As people are screaming “Oh No they dropped the charges!” let’s remind ourselves that it was a civil case filed by the Bush DOJ because they decided there was* no criminal case they could prosecute* What do Bull and Adams think should have happened if the DOJ pursued the case? I notice in the interviews that particular detail is left out. What specifically, do they think the DOJ could have and should have done if the case was pursued. Being a civil case no jail time was an option. It seems to me that what they could have gotten was an injunction perhaps barring those 3 individuals from standing outside a polling place. Instead they did get an injunction barring the man carrying the nightstick from doing it again through 2012. So, realisitically, what the hell is all the uproar about? We see two people in the video , one of whom lived in the neighborhood and had a poll watchers certificate. One is now prohibited from bringing any weapon to a polling place. Where is the great injustice here that Adams and Bull and the rightwing blog is having such a shit fit about?
It seems clear that Adams is playing the race card by insinuating that the DOJ was instructed to not pursue cases against minorities. Once again playing to racial fears. IMO it is incredibly irresponsible as a lawyer and as a citizen to go that route unless you have some serious evidence.
I see in the WSJ articles they are purusing the potential voter fraud angle. Bull talked a lot about that. They mentioned another case
So every so often the voter roles are supposed to be purged of voters who are dead. moved, felons, illeagal etc. The suggestion is by not doing this they are purposely leaving the door open for voter fraud. This is similar to what Bull suggested when he tried to connect ACORN to the the Black Panthers.
My question is how serious an issue is this? What is the realisitic likelyhood that enough bogus voters could successfully vote{thousands according to Bull} and change the outcome of an election? It occurs to me that it would be pretty dam obvious if more voters voted than were registered or even if voter turnout suddenly went through the roof and jumped from 50% to 80%. Huge red flagg right? Wouldn’t it be fairly easy to discover that kind of voter fraud? So, is it a something to realsitically worry about or just a bullshit political talking point like we saw with ACORN.
There are realsitic ways that elections are influenced. Problems in FL in 2000 and 2004 with long lists of possible felons. I remember a minister being denied his right to vote because his name was to similar to a name onn the list.
Sending too few or older voting machines to specific areas to discourage voter turnout with long lines. We could make a long list of shenanagans designed to hurt the opposition and influence elections.
WSJ says,
so the case had progressed for 4 freaking years and they are bitching that it was dropped? If MO has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic leaning cities then lets see it. Where are the spcifics rather than evidence free accusations? Let’s have one solid example that relates to the danger of massive voter fraud where thousands of votes are cast by bogus voters. It seems to me that a problem like that would be very exspensive to coordinate and run a high risk of being caught. Relatively easy to investigate and establish evidence. Am I mistaken?
I was just reading the Motor Voter act and it occured to me that a relatively simple and inexspensive way for states to maintain accurate voter registration is to have people register every four years, let’s say every presidential election year. If you register you get to vote for the next four years, if you don’t your name drops off the voter roles. That would automatically remove people who had died or moved and those who had incurred felony charges in the meantime would be inelligible. {something I don’t agree with btw}
I see the dim outlines of the mountain, through the fog.
Step number one: as every serious person knows, America is a conservative country. All real Americans, at any rate. Therefore it follows that if non-conservatives are winning elections, there is treachery afoot, skulduggery at hand, and Georgia on my mind. But I digress.
But lo! ACORN! The insidious cabal of Alinskyite partisans, swarming over the country, registering God only knows! how many fake registrations, as well as your lesser sort of voting citizen, the misguided and uneducated who are pawns for the socialist liberal machine, bwah ha ha ha ha…
So: ACORN registers them, and armed black radical thugs prowl the polling places to ensure that those votes are counted! Nonetheless, observers are confused by the motley variety of weapons deployed: the baton, an odd bodkin and an eldritch cleaver…
The WSJ is now a Murdoch owned broadsheet. Citing it is exactly the same as citing Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck.
No criminal charges were brought for voter intimidation because there was no EVIDENCE of voter intimidation. It’s very simple. The Panthers didn’t bother anyone going into vote. The Justice Department has already answered that question. There isn’t anymore information the JD can give you. There was no crime. Turn the page. Find another fake scandal. I’m sure Obama will put ketchup on a hot dog or something. Something else will turn up. Just keep watching the Drudge Report.
The Journal has always has crazy wackjob conservatism as the central plank of its Op-Ed page, but it’s journalists have consistently been competent professionals who do a very good job of reporting the news.
As Noam Chomsky—someone not exactly supportive of the WSJ’s political bent—has noted in the past, financial papers like the Journal and the Financial Times (UK) are read by powerful people like politicians, captains of industry, employers, bankers, investors, capitalists. These people want to know what’s going on, and they want it without the usual deluge of populist crap and entertainment news that regular tabloids feed their audience. For this reason, Chomsky refers to the financial press as the only newspapers that tell the truth.
I haven’t paid too much attention to the WSJ since Murdoch took over, and it wouldn’t surprise me too much if he has made clear to the editors that he wants some changes. But i’d also wouldn’t be too surprised if there’s still a whole bunch of solid, hard-working, professional journalists there, reporting on the news the way they always have.
I take the paper’s Op-Ed page with a huge grain of salt, because it’s usually handed over to a bunch of dribbling conservative neanderthals. But i’ve always been happy to rely on their straight reporting for facts and information, and until i see evidence that it has declined, i’ll continue to do so.
That’s all good but reading the articles provided I seem to see a pretty obvious slant
such as “racial slurs against voters” the one we hear repeated is a comment directed at GOP poll watchers, who were not voters. Even when they actually repeat the phrase they fail to point that out. They fail to point out that the Bush DOJ made it a civil case not a criminal one. They then proceed in the next articles to insinuate some sort of potential planned voter fraud. That seems to be blatantly fanning the fires for the GOP.
As they’re raising the alarm over a civil case I wondered what they hoped would happen. What was the justice they think Holder avoided. At least WSJ addressed that.
So in this civil case {they never clarified that significant detail} the DOJ got an injunction against carrying a weapon near polling places. What did the other lawyers want? Evidently they wanted an injunction against wearing paramilitary garb near a polling place. I can support that. Do I think it’s a horrible miscarriage of justice because it wasn’t pursued to cover what clothes they were allowed to wear. What troubles me is the level of exaggeration an outrage over this. It seems to clearly be fanning the fires for political reasons rather than keeping people informed of the facts.
But then, this seems to be an opinion piece which you expect to be slanted right?
I’m glad he’s not letting his resignation from the DoJ stop his relentless pursuit of the New Black Panther Party. And, really, I suppose we should be grateful that *someone * finally has the stones to not only challenge the as-yet-totally-uncorroborated anti-white policy of the Obama/Holder DoJ, but to root out and expose the pernicious influence of the dread New Black Panther Party (which managed to avoid the righteous justice Adams himself was preparing to mete out to them solely by virtue of said policy) among former “WKRP in Cincinnati” castmembers.
Or how about this entry from the day before, where he talks about further developments in the Ike Brown case. See, way back in 2007, the Bush-era Department of Justice filed a civil suit against Brown, alleging both voter discrimination and voter intimidation. The voter intimidation part was thrown out. It is, in fact, incredibly hard to get a civil conviction under the voter intimidation section of the Voting Rights Act. So hard, in fact, that of the only four suits under that section that were filed during the entirety of the Act’s 45 year history, only one resulted in a court-ordered injunction. That sole success in nearly fifty years was the injunction handed down against the New Black Panther Party in the case mentioned in the OP…which is rather odd if you really think that the Obama DoJ is engaged in a policy to intentionally ignore voter intimidation/discrimination if it was a minority doing it to whites. But I digress.
So, this guy convicted of violating the Voting Rights Act files a motion with the Obama DoJ to be allowed to do essentially the same thing he was convicted of. The DoJ responds, essentially, “Hey, back in '07 the court ruled that you were not allowed to manage Democratic Party elections in your county any more, and instead a court-appointed Referee-Administrator would handle all that. Since this wasn’t filed by said court-appointed Referee-Administrator, it’s an illegitimate filing and we can’t rule on it and are basically tossing the whole thing out.”
Adams apparently decided that this meant the DoJ was secretly laying the groundwork for Brown to take back control without the racist DoJ actually having to come out and say so, since once the original 2007 injunction expired in November of 2011, Brown would be in charge once more and could then re-file the challenge, and thus be prepared to commit voter intimidation/discrimination for the important 2012 presidential election (and there’s an amusing exaggeration where the linked Pajamas Media article in that blog entry, also written by Adams, says that he “was told by a news outlet” that the DoJ’s reply was hidden for 24 hours, while the blog entry itself says it was 40 hours, with no explanation for the difference or where he learned about the new number).
Except unfortunately for Adams’ little theory there, the same Obama DoJ that he claims is sweeping Brown’s filing under the rug to secretly allow him to reclaim management of the Democratic Party elections in his county also filed a motion asking that the original 2007 injunction be extended to November 20, 2013…meaning that the court-appointed Referee-Administrator will remain in charge of (and Brown can have no control over) elections there until more than a year after the 2012 elections! And then the Obama DoJ seeks an order to keep Brown from making any more filings asking to change how elections there are held.
In other words, the Obama DoJ told this guy “not only do you not have standing to file what you did, but we’re extending the penalty that was given to you under the Bush DoJ, and further ordering you to never bother us with this crap again for the entire duration of that extended penalty.” And the actual DoJ documents that Adams links to in that very blog entry confirm that.
And, hysterically, the bits of his own Pajamas Media piece that Adams quotes in that blog entry (in addition to linking to it twice in that entry) essentially have Adams concluding from all the above that the only reason the Obama DoJ is acting against Brown (an African American who was already convicted of voter discrimination against whites) by preventing him from not only attempting to make voting procedure changes via Section 5 filings but also extending the punishment that the Bush DoJ gave him so that he won’t be back in control in time for the 2012 presidential elections (like he would have been under the original Bush-era injunction)…is to cover up the fact that the Obama DoJ is totally letting cases of minority voter discrimination against whites slide.
That’s like saying “The police are only catching and jailing criminals to cover up their policy of refusing to catch and jail criminals”!
Why in the hell is this guy Adams is trusted by anyone as a reliable authority on the actions and motivations of the Obama/Holder justice department is completely beyond me.
Let me add to the chorus responding, “bullshit.” You would be apoplectic. I would be too. A KKK asshole brandishing a nightstick, spewing racist garbage on the steps outside a polling place would be intolerable.
This was clearly intended to intimidate. “It wasn’t widespread” or “well, it wasn’t that bad, and only one guy had a nightstick” are not defenses. I have no idea why the DoJ (and I don’t give a shit what administration it occurred under) didn’t pursue this, but the speculation that they find such “reverse intimidation” matters distasteful seems believable. It was, again, intolerable behavior in a democracy. Frankly, I don’t care what their rationale was–they should have pursued this (and any such cases) aggressively. Just when I think this board’s lefty tendencies will no longer surprise me, I am left speechless once again. The simple facts of the case, the video…I’m just speechless. Does everything have to be so partisan? This was fucking WRONG. Set aside the Fox nonsense trying to connect dots that shouldn’t be connected. That doesn’t make the actual crime okay. All of us, Dems, Republicans, ALL OF US, should be disgusted by this. God almighty.
A KKK guy standing outside a polling place, but not harrassing or bothering voters would not concern me in the slightest and would not be a crime. I would think he was a douchebag, but I would not be intimidated.
Voter intimidation charges require some evidence that voters were intimidated. There is no such evdience in this case, hence no ability to support a charge or a suit. Not one voter says they were intimidated, harassed, threatened or bothered in any way. The guy the Panther is yelling at on the tape is a GOP poll watcher, not a voter. . A defense attorney would need only subpoebna the voter rolls, and question every voter in turn. If every single voter says they were not intimidated, then how are you going to support the charge that they were?
