Skip to comments.Black Panthergate
Posted on 09/21/2010 5:57:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
Justice: Despite administration denials under oath, documents obtained by a watchdog group indicate that the decision not to pursue a clear-cut case of voter intimidation was indeed a political decision.
It was perhaps the most clear-cut case of voter intimidation ever. On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were videotaped intimidating voters as they stood, dressed in military garb, outside a Philadelphia polling place.
Their conduct was so egregious that the Justice Department of President Bush charged the three thugs with violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act through intimidation, threats and coercion. When none of the defendants filed a response or showed up at a subsequent hearing, you'd have thought the Justice Department would have won its suit by default.
But a new administration brought a new, and somewhat jaundiced, perspective. Instead, the Justice Department of President Obama essentially dropped the case in May 2009, letting two of the three walk and issuing a weak injunction against King Shabazz. He was forbidden from showing up at another Philadelphia polling place with another nightstick and intimidating other voters for the next three years, an action that was already illegal. He is presumably free to do the same thing in, say, New Jersey in 2012.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission wanted to know why the case wasn't pursued and if political considerations were involved. On May 14, Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, testified that there was no "political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was" and it was only "a case of career people disagreeing with career people."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
I think Eric Holder may care a lot next year when he's up on the Hill testifying about this, and Michelle Bachmann is asking him a lot of really direct questions with his testicles in one hand and a 10" straight razor in the other.
I remember back in the 80's, when the networks ruled the airwaves, and the MSM went nuts over "Iran-Contra." That was a joke as well. Reagan "violated the spirit of the obscure 'Boland Ammendment' to an Authorization Bill." Give me a break. It was a foreign policy dispute between Congress and the White House, with Congress supporing Communists in Central America. Once the American People found out more and more facts, the MSM and the Democrats had no choice but to pound the table even louder.
I am cynical today too, but here is the difference with the Black Panther Voting Intimidation Scandal.
1. A legitimate crime was committed
2. Not only are there witnesses, there is videotape
3. The Obama Administration did not just intervene, they threw the case out because of racial reasons, and then lied about their involvement
4. If the GOP controls the House next term, the majority party has subpoena power, and that is HUGE! (the minority party has no such authority). The Democrats know this, and it worries the hell out of them. Contempt of Congress and Lying to Congress can still get you in a heap big pile of trouble. Ask Roger Clemens.P> So, while I wouldn't bet my Easter candy on it, I will say that in a few months, Eric Holder and his clowns are going to be a tad more nervous about the crime and cover up they committed.
Some lower underling will probably be tossed from the boat by the fascist regime.
But then again.....you never know what you will find until you start digging.
only if rino’s are willing to dig..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.