Sunday, December 20, 2009
More Government Transparency from the Obama Administration
So much for Obama having openness in his administration. His Attorney General is promoting racism and obstruction of justice and some in Congress are not happy about it. I wonder what bribe will be offered these representatives to drop their investigation. One thing did catch my eye in the following article. The New Black Panthers advocate violence against Non-Blacks and Jews. It is probably OK with many people in America to discriminate against White Christians, but if you mess with Jews then some folks may have a problem with that.
Civil Rights Panel Subpoenas Justice Department in New Black Panthers Case
- FOXNews.com
The United States Civil Rights Commission, an eight-member agency that investigates accusations of discrimination, has launched its latest offensive against a most unusual target: the Justice Department.
The United States Civil Rights Commission, an eight-member agency that investigates accusations of discrimination, has launched a new offensive against a most unusual target: the Justice Department.
The commission is investigating why the Justice Department dropped charges in May against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in a voter intimidation case that the government won.
The Justice Department has defended its actions, saying it obtained an injunction against one member while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."
But that explanation hasn't satisfied the commission or Republican lawmakers, who say the dismissal could lead to an escalation of voter intimidation.
Three members of the radical group were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force in November 2008 -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
The Obama administration won the case in April but moved to dismiss the charges in May without explanation.
After Republican lawmakers pushed in the summer for an internal investigation, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility obliged, starting a probe that the department has said should conclude before it cooperates with the commission's investigation.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., announced Thursday that he had inserted language into the annual Justice funding bill that requires the OPR to provide results of its investigation -- a resolution that has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and must be voted on within 14 legislative days.
"I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted," Wolf said in a written statement.
"Time and again over the last year, the department has stonewalled any effort to learn about the decision to dismiss the case," he continued. "I have written Attorney General (Eric) Holder on six occasions asking for an explanation for the dismissal of this case. To date, I have received no response from him."
The commission feels it is being stonewalled, too, and has filed subpoenas with the department for the information as well as to interview career attorneys that handled the case.
"They've never given a satisfactory answer," said Todd Gaziano, a member of the commission and director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. "There is a heavy burden on the Justice Department to explain why those facts in the complaint do not constitute voter intimidation."
When asked about the commission's repeated requests for information, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said, "We're reviewing the commission's request."
She told FoxNews.com that the civil division at the department reviews "these types of requests in accordance with longstanding guidelines governing the disclosure of internal department information."
The commission is likely to hold a public hearing on the case early next year and could have a report out by September, Gaziano said.
The commissions sent two inquiries into the Justice Department's dismissal of the case in June and received what it called a "largely non-responsive letter" from the Justice Department in July and none of the documents requested. The commission sent another inquiry in August and September when it said it received notification from the Justice Department that it would not provide any information until its internal investigation was complete.
That prompted the commission to issue subpoenas and send its latest missive this month, a response to a Justice Department letter in November that that the commission said challenged its authority to subpoena the department or its employees.
"While your letter refers to an ongoing 'dialogue' between the Department and the Commission, it is the dearth of cooperation on the part of the Department that has resulted in the Commission's need to issue subpoenas," David Blackwood, general counsel for the commission, wrote.
"We are both mindful of the sensitivity of the subject matter involved and aware that, in response to similar requests, the department has raised various concerns and matters of privilege," Blackwood wrote. "While such considerations carry weight, cooperation with commission investigations is a mandatory statutory obligation."
"Moreoever, due to the unique investigative role of the commission -- akin to that of a congressional committee - -disclosure to the commission of the information sought it is both proper and required,' he added.
Wolf said in his written statement that the attorney general has instructed his department to ignore the subpoenas.
"The nation's chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the attorney general's obstruction," he said, adding that one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel.
"The House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general's obstruction," he said. "He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission."
The United States Civil Rights Commission, an eight-member agency that investigates accusations of discrimination, has launched a new offensive against a most unusual target: the Justice Department.
The commission is investigating why the Justice Department dropped charges in May against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in a voter intimidation case that the government won.
The Justice Department has defended its actions, saying it obtained an injunction against one member while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."
But that explanation hasn't satisfied the commission or Republican lawmakers, who say the dismissal could lead to an escalation of voter intimidation.
Three members of the radical group were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force in November 2008 -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
The Obama administration won the case in April but moved to dismiss the charges in May without explanation.
After Republican lawmakers pushed in the summer for an internal investigation, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility obliged, starting a probe that the department has said should conclude before it cooperates with the commission's investigation.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., announced Thursday that he had inserted language into the annual Justice funding bill that requires the OPR to provide results of its investigation -- a resolution that has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and must be voted on within 14 legislative days.
"I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted," Wolf said in a written statement.
"Time and again over the last year, the department has stonewalled any effort to learn about the decision to dismiss the case," he continued. "I have written Attorney General (Eric) Holder on six occasions asking for an explanation for the dismissal of this case. To date, I have received no response from him."
The commission feels it is being stonewalled, too, and has filed subpoenas with the department for the information as well as to interview career attorneys that handled the case.
"They've never given a satisfactory answer," said Todd Gaziano, a member of the commission and director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. "There is a heavy burden on the Justice Department to explain why those facts in the complaint do not constitute voter intimidation."
When asked about the commission's repeated requests for information, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said, "We're reviewing the commission's request."
She told FoxNews.com that the civil division at the department reviews "these types of requests in accordance with longstanding guidelines governing the disclosure of internal department information."
The commission is likely to hold a public hearing on the case early next year and could have a report out by September, Gaziano said.
The commissions sent two inquiries into the Justice Department's dismissal of the case in June and received what it called a "largely non-responsive letter" from the Justice Department in July and none of the documents requested. The commission sent another inquiry in August and September when it said it received notification from the Justice Department that it would not provide any information until its internal investigation was complete.
That prompted the commission to issue subpoenas and send its latest missive this month, a response to a Justice Department letter in November that that the commission said challenged its authority to subpoena the department or its employees.
"While your letter refers to an ongoing 'dialogue' between the Department and the Commission, it is the dearth of cooperation on the part of the Department that has resulted in the Commission's need to issue subpoenas," David Blackwood, general counsel for the commission, wrote.
"We are both mindful of the sensitivity of the subject matter involved and aware that, in response to similar requests, the department has raised various concerns and matters of privilege," Blackwood wrote. "While such considerations carry weight, cooperation with commission investigations is a mandatory statutory obligation."
"Moreoever, due to the unique investigative role of the commission -- akin to that of a congressional committee - -disclosure to the commission of the information sought it is both proper and required,' he added.
Wolf said in his written statement that the attorney general has instructed his department to ignore the subpoenas.
"The nation's chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the attorney general's obstruction," he said, adding that one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel.
"The House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general's obstruction," he said. "He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission."
# posted by Ingineer66 @ 12/20/2009 11:15:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
You know every so often something comes along that reminds me how differently the right and left see things. This is one example. Two guys stood outside a black polling booth and wore black panther clothing; so they were charged with a crime of intimidation and now a civil rights violation although isn't that supposed to be about one race hurting another? This didn't impact the election and unless you are worried that Obama secretly plans to turn the government over to the Black Panthers, with all the other things out there right now, this is what you consider important? It's really a big gap between people. I did go looking for more about it and got this link on how the dems saw it: Democrats return fire on black panther case. To me it's like a way down the line concern-- as in below whether Tiger Woods story matters... I know it's obviously not how the right wing sees it though.. Big gap.
I didn't know that there were "black" Polling booths. I thought they were open to all citizens of the United States. I guess we do see things differently. Liberals think that illegal activity is OK for some people. Either voter intimidation is illegal or it is not. There is no gray area. If it is OK for the New Black Panthers to do it then it was OK for the KKK to do it back in the 60's in Mississippi. I mean what difference could it have made for blacks to vote? The Democrat was still going to win anyway.
And yes this is a big deal Rain. If the Attorney General or the White House is ordering the Justice Department to drop charges against certain people that is illegal and there should be charges brought. Many high level officials have had to resign or be tried in a court for less.
And again it was Obama that said he wanted to have transparency in the government. But apparently only when it is convenient for him. Kind of like he said he did not want any lobbyists in his administration and then started appointing them to positions in his administration.
Character Does Matter.
And yes this is a big deal Rain. If the Attorney General or the White House is ordering the Justice Department to drop charges against certain people that is illegal and there should be charges brought. Many high level officials have had to resign or be tried in a court for less.
And again it was Obama that said he wanted to have transparency in the government. But apparently only when it is convenient for him. Kind of like he said he did not want any lobbyists in his administration and then started appointing them to positions in his administration.
Character Does Matter.
Did it matter when it was Bush doing this kind of thing and he did? And it's two guys, one of whom worked at the polling place, which is why the case was week. It's two guys and the Attorney General took the view it was a lot of money for prosecuting, cost is something you'd usually think matters.
And there are black, Oriental, Hispanic and white districts; a lot of that is thanks to Congress who gerrymanders these sites to make sure that they can keep their seats. We do still have neighborhoods that are mostly one race or another which might also amaze you but it happens to be true also.
The point is you care about this because it's Obama. I don't un-care about it when it impacts an election (like the voter fraud in Florida or Ohio) but I also think that there are a lot of things that don't get such attention. This is purely a partisan issue, of interest only to embarrass Obama, not because it does matter and it's why you are writing about it.
Say this cost a lot of money to prosecute for those two guys, it'd be fine with you even if it was likely to end up a loss for the government? I can't personally see Obama wanting to see the Black Panthers take over the country, doubt he was even a factor in this decision, but hey whatever floats your paranoia boat.
It's lucky you didn't vote for him and keep up making issues like this a big deal and you might find he gets a second term. There are a lot of things that do matter, where he might be doing wrong, but this is so minor that if it wasn't the Black Panthers, it'd not interest the right wing at all.
As for character mattering. You would say that after eight years of Bush??? After Ensign? After Sanford? etc etc.... It only matters to you guys when it's the left wing.
And there are black, Oriental, Hispanic and white districts; a lot of that is thanks to Congress who gerrymanders these sites to make sure that they can keep their seats. We do still have neighborhoods that are mostly one race or another which might also amaze you but it happens to be true also.
The point is you care about this because it's Obama. I don't un-care about it when it impacts an election (like the voter fraud in Florida or Ohio) but I also think that there are a lot of things that don't get such attention. This is purely a partisan issue, of interest only to embarrass Obama, not because it does matter and it's why you are writing about it.
Say this cost a lot of money to prosecute for those two guys, it'd be fine with you even if it was likely to end up a loss for the government? I can't personally see Obama wanting to see the Black Panthers take over the country, doubt he was even a factor in this decision, but hey whatever floats your paranoia boat.
It's lucky you didn't vote for him and keep up making issues like this a big deal and you might find he gets a second term. There are a lot of things that do matter, where he might be doing wrong, but this is so minor that if it wasn't the Black Panthers, it'd not interest the right wing at all.
As for character mattering. You would say that after eight years of Bush??? After Ensign? After Sanford? etc etc.... It only matters to you guys when it's the left wing.
I realize that there are neighborhoods that are mostly filled with one ethnic group. And oddly enough most of them are in the North East where the intellectual elite have such a high opinion of their enlightened selves.
And you are wrong. I care about this because it looks like favoritism to one racial group over another. If Bush would have shown favoritism to a Hispanic group that was intimidating voters, I would have been just as upset.
Since when did the cost have anything to do with a Justice Department investigation. How much did Congress spend going after Bush when he was Vice President. There was absolutely no evidence and they still went after him, because there was no evidence they said they had to dig deeper and spend more money.
I agree with you that Obama is probably not a big supporter of the New Black Panthers which is exactly why they should prosecute these guys or be very clear and forthcoming as to why they did not. Do not try to hide and make it look worse than it may be.
And you are wrong. I care about this because it looks like favoritism to one racial group over another. If Bush would have shown favoritism to a Hispanic group that was intimidating voters, I would have been just as upset.
Since when did the cost have anything to do with a Justice Department investigation. How much did Congress spend going after Bush when he was Vice President. There was absolutely no evidence and they still went after him, because there was no evidence they said they had to dig deeper and spend more money.
I agree with you that Obama is probably not a big supporter of the New Black Panthers which is exactly why they should prosecute these guys or be very clear and forthcoming as to why they did not. Do not try to hide and make it look worse than it may be.
Well we will agree to disagree and are you talking about the first Bush and Iran Contra? Can't be the second because he wasn't ever veep.
If you think that investigating things that don't matter by the feds are the right thing to do then I guess you were all for going after Clinton on a blow job which meant serious problems arising with al Qaeda were ignored. There is only so much money for such investigations. Just keep in mind, this wasn't the Black Panther organization. It was not all blacks. It was a couple of guys supposedly yelling things near the voting booths. Isn't that more a local matter than federal? There really isn't anything more important going on?
It's surprising to me with the right as they worry when a black person isn't prosecuted but seem to not worry so much when it's a white. It's like all the upset over Acorn came from the ones who have for years had all the advantages and suddenly they worry that the field might be leveled? If you read the article, you know Justice had some reasons to decide this one wasn't a big one. You might disagree but since you aren't worried the Black Panthers are about to take over, it seems like small potatoes for impacting anybody. If they were disturbing the peace, they should have been arrested and charged locally. There are still laws about such.
If you think that investigating things that don't matter by the feds are the right thing to do then I guess you were all for going after Clinton on a blow job which meant serious problems arising with al Qaeda were ignored. There is only so much money for such investigations. Just keep in mind, this wasn't the Black Panther organization. It was not all blacks. It was a couple of guys supposedly yelling things near the voting booths. Isn't that more a local matter than federal? There really isn't anything more important going on?
It's surprising to me with the right as they worry when a black person isn't prosecuted but seem to not worry so much when it's a white. It's like all the upset over Acorn came from the ones who have for years had all the advantages and suddenly they worry that the field might be leveled? If you read the article, you know Justice had some reasons to decide this one wasn't a big one. You might disagree but since you aren't worried the Black Panthers are about to take over, it seems like small potatoes for impacting anybody. If they were disturbing the peace, they should have been arrested and charged locally. There are still laws about such.
Just a little follow up on this story. Today Wyatt over at Support Your Local Gunfighter posted a follow up story about this. His blog has the story that the guy that recommended that it be investigated just got transferred out of Washington DC.
So I went back and watched that actual You Tube video. It was not at a "black" polling place. There are many whites and Hispanics coming and going in the background of the video.
Post a Comment
So I went back and watched that actual You Tube video. It was not at a "black" polling place. There are many whites and Hispanics coming and going in the background of the video.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
