Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case
- Thread starter Cerise
- Start date
catocom
Well-Known Member
Because this president is a divider, not a uniter.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLV1QHQwowI&feature=related
Oh, wait.....yes it does to Holder....
And yes, that is a black panther at the end....
Cerise
Well-Known Member
2minkey
bootlicker
oops, looks like this is a big ball of lies.
for those of us not inclined to leave it to foxnews and legions of gullible dipshits...
"Decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by Bush DOJ, not Obama
Bush DOJ, not Obama, made decision not to pursue criminal charges. Before President Bush left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. Inhis May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but did "file a civil action on January 7th, 2009." From Perez's testimony:
May 2009: DOJ obtained default judgment against Shabazz for carrying weapon outside polling station. On May 18, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against Samir Shabazz. Inhis May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Perez stated that the Justice Department had obtained "sufficient evidence to sustain the charge" of voter intimidation against Shabazz, identified by Perez as "the defendant who had the nightstick," and that "the default judgment was sought and obtained as it related to him." Perez testified:
for those of us not inclined to leave it to foxnews and legions of gullible dipshits...
"Decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by Bush DOJ, not Obama
Bush DOJ, not Obama, made decision not to pursue criminal charges. Before President Bush left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. Inhis May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but did "file a civil action on January 7th, 2009." From Perez's testimony:
PEREZ: Moving to the matter at hand, the events occurred on November 4th, 2008. The Department became aware of these events on Election Day and decided to conduct further inquiry.
After reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.
Obama DOJ actually obtained judgment against individual carrying weapon at polling placeAfter reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.
May 2009: DOJ obtained default judgment against Shabazz for carrying weapon outside polling station. On May 18, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered default judgment against Samir Shabazz. Inhis May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Perez stated that the Justice Department had obtained "sufficient evidence to sustain the charge" of voter intimidation against Shabazz, identified by Perez as "the defendant who had the nightstick," and that "the default judgment was sought and obtained as it related to him." Perez testified:
PEREZ: Based on the careful review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence collected supported the allegations in the complaint against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Department, therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from otherwise violating Section 11(b).
The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the constitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms."
The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the constitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms."
catocom
Well-Known Member
The guy was on his way out.
besides....
If Everything was dropped about it, how was there anything to drop now...
It's 2010?
the other thing is....
Bush stabbed all his constituents in the back form the time he and Paulson
came out to announce the bailout.
It doesn't mean Holder doesn't have a duty to prosecute the case right on.
2minkey
bootlicker
1. ask the legions of dipshits and foxnews why they resurrected it. also - you may have noticed this - often times legal matters take a long time to fully resolve.
2. the thing they did get him on WAS DURING OBAMA, after the other stuff was dropped BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE. the DOJ under HOLDER DID PURSUE THE REMAINING CHARGE.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
2minkey
bootlicker
cato - the whole thing about obama/holder not pursuing a voter intimidation case against those new black panther guys - what foxnews and the dipshit legion have been raving about - is the lie. that part of the case against them was dropped before obama took office. no, it's not bush's fault, either. the DOJ folks didn't think they'd be able to win the case. so they dropped it. BEFORE OBAMA.
cerise - adams is about as credible as the shabazz guy or his brother.
"two Obama political appointees to the DOJ ordered that the case be dismissed." is obviously not true. the case was dismissed on january 9, 2009. BEFORE obama took office. january 9 is a matter of court record. it is indisputable.
cerise - adams is about as credible as the shabazz guy or his brother.
"two Obama political appointees to the DOJ ordered that the case be dismissed." is obviously not true. the case was dismissed on january 9, 2009. BEFORE obama took office. january 9 is a matter of court record. it is indisputable.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
Yes, but 0bammy's transition team was busy at work restoring confidence in the DOJ in November of '08. That would be BEFORE the New Black Pampers case was dismissed. 