Replies

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, [blacks in the South suffered] and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,” [more than the white people in Philadelphia exposed to the black panthers] said Holder, “...............

What I object to are headlines that give the impression someone said something they didn’t. For example “Holder says Whites Can’t Be Victims of Racial Injustice Because They Haven’t Suffered Enough”. In fact he didnt say anything close to that. No where in the article did he say “whites cant be victims racial injustice”, thats just a lie. MAybe we can interpret thats what he meant, but he didnt say it. He also never said whites didnt suffer enough. He just didnt agree that what the panthers did was as bad or worse than what blacks went through as far as voting rights. Thats undoubtedly true, but the congressman specified “during his career”, which is also probably true as the worse voting rights violations happened over 30 years ago.
In short, I’d like to see the interpretation of what people say in the comments section, not the headline.

Posting false and inflammatory headlines like this has been happening all too often recently and people assume it is the truth.

That's pretty strong words to a ten plus year FReeper, especially because that was the title of the article and the FReeper didn't make it up.

Holder may not have said those exact words but he refuses to answer whether it's true or not that one of his assistants told a room full of DOJ lawyers to prosecute only civil rights cases involving black victims.

EDITORIAL: Holder ill serves his ‘people’

excerpt:

In short, race comes first. It makes allies, not adversaries, of black criminals and prosecutors. On Tuesday, Mr. Holder again dodged questions asking him to deny that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes had told her division to prosecute only civil rights cases involving black victims, not black perpetrators. He refused to release relevant documents about the decision-making behind dropping most of the Black Panther case. For two years, Justice has pressed for explicitly race-conscious legal action.

I believe the title of this article pretty much accurately reflects Holder and the appointed thugs working for him. I also believe you should do some beggin-your-pardons to smoothsailing.

In short, I’d like to see the interpretation of what people say in the comments section, not the headline.

Okay, but this was an opinion piece, thus the author's interpretation of what Holder meant with his words. His interpretation makes sense.

The author could have used the title: Comparing NBP voter intimidation in Philadelphia to intimidation that occurred to AA's in 60's South does a great disservice to my people.....kinda long.

As you noted, Holder was defending something that wasn't even said. The congressman said this intimidation was the worst he'd seen in 30 years. I'm sure it was. Holder has to go back over 40 years ago to try to deflect the congressman's charges. Not only did he deflect the congressman's concerns, he had to add his personal admonition that the congressman was doing a great disservice to "his people".

Typical liberal bait and switch. Can't answer the question?..... attack your questioner.

You can argue that the title was misleading.....I disagree.

I am very concerned when an AG doesn't think a crime was bad enough to be fully prosecuted.....(because it doesn't rise to the level of some previous crime?) The AG should be focussed on the rule of law, not the color of someone's skin committing a crime.