Am I missing something? Isn’t the article saying that there’s no evidence that the Obama administration tried to stop an investigation? Everyone here seems to think that the article says there’s no evidence that the New Black Panthers tried to intimidate voters.
Thernstrom is arguing that the "small potatoes" case was dropped NOT because of any formal Justice Dept. policy protecting blacks over whites but because there was "no direct evidence that they (the uniformed, weapon wielding black panthers) actually intimidated anyone."
Some of us here believe the video and the words of eye-witness Bartle Bull and others indicate obvious and egregious intimidation and would like to know exactly why the case was dropped.
The thing is, the DoJ attorneys had already won a default judgment in the case when their superiors dropped it.
Whatever the writer says is immaterial. It was on National TV. Hell, it was obvious what they did.