Why Didn’t Obama’s DOJ Go After The New Black Panther Party For Voter Intimidation?
Tweet
The case of the New Black Panther Party’s activities in Philadelphia during the 2008 election has been exploited by the conservative movement – including Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Instapundit – in order to make a false association between black supremacists and President Obama. In fact, the Obama administration followed the law and the Bush administration dismissed similar charges.
Department Of Justice closed The New Black Panther case because nobody came forward to indicate a pattern of intimidation. The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation. No witnesses did so from this polling place. None. Nada. Zip. The Department of Justice can’t just go ahead with a prosecution because they feel like it if they lack the required evidence. It would in fact be an abuse of legal power to do so.
An injunction was filed against the New Black Panther Party member with a nightstick. The only weapon at the scene (conservative media has tried to claim there was a gun there, there wasn’t) was a nightstick wielded by a New Black Panther Party member. The DOJ did file an injunction against this man.
Bush administration didn’t prosecute an anti-immigration activist who went to the polls with a gun. The Bush administration in 2006 declined to file charges of voter intimidation against an anti-immigration activist who brought a gun to the polling place in Arizona and said he planned to photograph latino voters.
The “kill crackers” video is from before the election. The National Geographic Channel video of a New Black Panther Party member yelling about killing “crackers” and white babies was made before the 2008 election, not after as Fox and other outlets have falsely promoted.
J. Christian Adams is a GOP hack and his testimony is all hearsay. J. Christian Adams, the former DOJ lawyer who is the right’s star witness in this case, was part of the Department Of Justice’s attempt to stack the office with politically motivated lawyers during the Bush administration. Lawyers like Adams were hired by Bradley Schlozman not based on their legal abilities, but rather their loyalty to the Republican party and advocacy for conservative causes. In his testimony, Adams cites a lot of hearsay but nothing he directly observed. In other words, office gossip at best, possibly completely fabricated stories at worst.
Bartle Bull was a McCain poll-watcher and supports the GOP. Bartle Bull, an author cited by the right as a previous supporter of Democratic campaigns, was working as a poll watcher for John McCain on the day of the incident, and is currently in favor of Rudy Giuliani running for governor of New York.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commision is currently run by conservatives. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, designed as a nonpartisan body, is currently dominated by conservatives after George W. Bush stacked the deck. Even so, one of the Republican commissioners is on the record as indicating that the New Black Panther Party inquiry is without actual merit.
There is no connection between President Obama and the New Black Panther Party. President Obama has no connection to the New Black Panther Party. He does not support their mission or their rhetoric. President Obama has repeatedly denounced racial hatred. The only (false) connection between Obama and the New Black Panther Party is that outlets like Fox News keep trying to connect the two in a cynical, dangerous attempt to play racial politics to aid the Republican party.
234 Responses to “Why Didn’t Obama’s DOJ Go After The New Black Panther Party For Voter Intimidation?”
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I knew FoxNews had gone full conjob, but stuff like this still shocks me, I dunno.
Aren’t there any missing white girls out there this month for them to pimp?
This is an excellent post, Oliver. Here’s a video deconstruction of the “intimidation” incident.
What, another false smear brought to you by the same folks who framed ACORN?
Say it ain’t so.
The right must be happy with their three minority voters.
“They want the white women”-Megyn Kelly
I’m sure it’s just a simple oversight that here you have a racist shouting racist epithets, telling people to slaughter babies, and calling for the total destruction of a race, and neither Oliver, Marco, jr, brother-in-arms Repack Rider, nor anyone else here has one word of disgust about it.
I’m thinking back on the last year and a half about all the freak-outs here about tea party signs that people were sure were racist, of a guy with a sombrero even that people here went nuts over, a woman citing a fictional scene from a Pulitzer-prize winning work of fiction about a deed that would be impossible to carry out, and a census worker that people here were quite positive had to have been the result of census criticisms by Michele Bachman that turned out to be a suicide by a guy who wanted it to look like he was killed by a tea partier-type person- that you guys wanted to hype as much as you could to get the MSM to cover the story….but even as hysterical as you guys have been about supposed racism and supposed calls for violence, I don’t recall one guy from a tea party crowd or even a conservative one, shouting out racist words like Shabazz here, along with calling for the murders of whites, white policemen and white babies, and for the total destruction of a race.
Why are you guys white-washing this? Is racism only a concern when it’s coming from whites, and even then, only when it comes from white conservatives?
Rhetorical question, no one need answer.
“I would never say and I have never said, because it’s not true that Republicans, all Republicans are racists. That would be silly and wrong. But nowadays, if you are racist, you’re probably a Republican.” –Bill Maher
If you want a figure to link to the New Black Panthers, why not David Horowitz, since his ego-drive to be in the center of ‘the revolution’ had him working in a Black Panthers office?
Shorter Dennis: I would like the Justice Department to break the law. Also, I am an idiot.
Actually, Dennis, nobody’s “white-washing” anything when it comes to the New Black Panther Party. Oliver acknowledges that this guy has said some pretty heinous things, but rightly chastises Fox for misreporting the timing of those comments.
Apparently, conservatives don’t realize that the New Black Panther Party has been on the left’s radar screen for a long time — long before this knob showed up and ranted about killing white folks. The Southern Poverty Law Center — that organization the right wing loves to hate – listed the New Black Panther Party as a hate group a long time ago. But as our good friends on the right like to point out, being a racist jackass isn’t a crime. And as hateful as that particular jackass may be, if no voter claimed to have been intimidated by him, then he’s apparently not guilty of voter intimidation.
But if it makes you feel any better, I’ll be happy to say I think the guy’s a racist jackass. Because he is.
Oliver, I’m not asking that laws should be broken, I’m asking you why the double standards? What’s that all about?
And why do you call him ‘this guy’. His name is Malik Zulu Shabazz and he tells people to prepare for war. He’s as racist as they come, as racist and as much a proponent of violence as any conservative racist, real or imagined, that you’ve written about here. He’s not just ‘this guy’, he’s the Chairman of the New Black Panther Party.
You know that.
Oliver acknowledges that this guy has said some pretty heinous things
There’s ‘this guy’ again, Dave. WTF? Why are you guys afraid to acknowledge his name and say what he is? And no, Oliver doesn’t go near far enough to acknowledge just how racist and violent and repugnant the guy is. Not just racist towards whites, but Jews and women, too. And he’s a 9/11 truther and a conspiracy nut. But to you and Oliver and everyone else here, he’s just ‘this guy’, as if he’s some random thug from the streets.
It is a whitewash.
Dennis:
So, you’re in favor of criminalizing speech, eh? Well, too fucking bad. However noxious a person is, pursuing criminal charges without valid complaints is injustice.
And no, Oliver doesn’t go near far enough to acknowledge just how racist and violent and repugnant the guy is.
Oh, fuck you, Dennis. Don’t like the content here? Go away and get your own blog, and then you can dictate the topic of conversation.
No one here is defending Shabazz, Dennis. Absolutely no one. You getting all aghast at the level of condemnation here is akin to getting upset because there wasn’t enough ketchup on your Big Mac. It’s either misplaced or phony outrage, and either way it’s just obnoxious.
You know, I find this very telling about conservatives. When we play by your rules, and the outcome doesn’t work for you, you get mad. No voter that voted that day came forward with a charge that the man intimidated them. It would be an abuse of power to do so. He is a despicable man, who has archaic views that do not mesh with today’s world. However, he has the right, as so many conservatives have espoused, to make them per the first amendment. Threatening a particular person’s life is a crime, threatening a whole ethnic group, we come to find through American history, is not. Unless he acts upon what he threatened, its not a crime.
But see, it doesn’t matter what the Obama administration does or does not do. Its all about getting conservatives with racial resentment out to the polls in November. Its the expected “white backlash”. And how better to gin it up than by insinuating that the Black Panther’s and the Black President and the Black Attorney General are all out to help hate groups with the possible intent on getting the White Man. Its Nat Turner’s slave rebellion 21st Century edition for you guys.
Dennis, you’ll have to forgive me for laughing when I read your last comment. I didn’t call the guy by name because I had forgotten his name and I was too lazy to look it up. That’s not “whitewashing”; that’s “it’s-Sunday-night-and-I’m-relaxing” …
And for the record, I didn’t just call Shabazz “this guy.” I also called him a knob and a racist jackass, and I stand by those comments.
Oh, fuck you, Dennis.
Well, fuck you right back, mambo. I’m not complaining about the content here, I’m not whining, I’m just asking you guys why you’re so comfortable with your double standards after this is exactly the kind of thing, only not as racist and not as much an incitement to violence, that you’ve been clucking like mother hens the last year and a half about.
Dennis is upset whenever you don’t play his game of “look over here.” Also, this guy’s name barely matters because nobody takes the NBPP besides Fox and cons who are trying to connect them to Obama. They have nothing to do with the mainstream, at all.
Dennis, there is no double standard, and your insistence that there is, will not make it so.
Oh, and fuck you anyways.
I got the guy’s name wrong, and he’s not the Chairman. The Chairman is Malik Shabazz. This guy, the guy you call “this guy” is Minister King Samir Shabazz. Both Shabazz guys are racists.
And this isn’t the only case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6660
Gigi Gaston: Voter Intimidation By Black Panthers Not Isolated Incident
They started doing this in the primaries. So watch the video and try to make the case that these people are really just Repbublicans posing as Democrats.
Dennis, there is no double standard, and your insistence that there is, will not make it so.
Oh, and fuck you anyways.
Nikki, do you know what the opposite of above me is? I’ve detailed how it is a double standard, and I didn’t even touch the surface of giving examples. Can you explain how it’s not a double standard, or is it just not because you say it’s not and that’s all you have to say on that?
It would be a waste of time to explain it to you. I find it hard to believe that you don’t actually realize that it isn’t, and are just playing “let’s pretend”.
But, whatever.
I guess this is just proof random right-wing blogs are better investigators than the Department Of Justice. Or I should make a deal now and maybe get my own harem of women when Obama and Holder unleash their secret Black Panther Army on America.
Dennis is upset whenever you don’t play his game of “look over here.” Also, this guy’s name barely matters because nobody takes the NBPP besides Fox and cons who are trying to connect them to Obama. They have nothing to do with the mainstream, at all.
Not upset in the least; I find it kinda humorous actually. Oliver, you’ll post the name of some racist douchebag plumber out in the middle of East Giblip Colorado because he sent you a racist email, but you won’t say word one about some guy calling for the murder of white policemen and white babies and the organization he’s a Minister of. Why not just be honest about it?
But, whatever.
But…. you’re bailing.
So yeah, whatever. Your first post in months and you’re tongue-tied.
MALIK ZULU SHABAZZ is a shitbag. However, the question wasn’t “should I invite him to dinner”, it was, “Personal distaste aside, aside from the nightstick, what did he do on the video that warrants prosecution?”
Now, to play Devil’s advocate, here’s the anti-immigrant (I’d say “illegal”, but if you read about him, he seems to confuse that with “people more brown than he is”) activist that the Bush administration chose not to pursue (in a video before the 2006 elections)- send a big “hola!” to Roy Warden.
Bear in mind, that’s a 16 year old Latino brazenly crossing the, uh, arbitrary border he’s drawn on public land, who is threatened twice with a “bullet in the head”. And he gets roughed up, too- Big ‘ol Blueblocker Roy got nailed for assault on that one. Can we only infer that Dennis’s refusal to comment on Warden in this thread is tacit approval- a “white-washing”, if you will?
Dennis, for Pete’s sake, please go fuck yourself.
Can I get a second on that? How many here agree?
Because his name is immaterial to what we’re discussing here. It’s a red herring. A lot of yahoos yell for people to be killed. Unless they’re on Fox News, most people ignore them for the crazies they are.
Oh, poor Dennis. Sorry I am not hitting the streets in outrage regarding the Black Panthers saying racist things like you are. Is it because…
A. I didn’t even know they still existed until the video hit Fox a year and a half ago?
B. It’s not shocking?
C. They, unlike tea tards, have no connection to my party?
D. Unlike you, I refuse to participate in phony GOP “Patriot” Games like playing “Obama is the real racist” when reality tells me it’s not the case?
Dennis, either you’re a tool who has fallen for the GOP scandal machine or you’re a knowing tool betraying your own sense of logic and reason for… what? I don’t know.
Message board glory? Either way, both choices are pretty bad. Either way, you’re a tool.
I’m bailing because it’s useless to argue with Conservatives such as yourself [not to mention extremely tiresome] since they almost always know better than I or any other liberal.
Dennis, you’re hilarious.
And this isn’t the only case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6660
Sadly, there is no voter intimidation in the original case you cite. You need a voter to claim intimidation. One day you’ll get that.
But Dennis, regardless of your feelings about the NBPP, which most African Americans respect as much as most White Americans respect the KKK, you never mentioned about Fox’s race baiting trying to connect President Obama and Eric Holder to them.
It always seems as though you find a way to justify the bigotry from the Becks’, Limbaughs’ and Fox. So, simple question; was fox correct to connect President Obama and the DOJ to the NBPP? i didn’t read a direct comment regarding the point Oliver presented.
“Dennis, you’re hilarious.” – gumby
If by hilarious you mean sad and pathetic, yes.
Marco –
That’s kinda what I meant. Like a teary-eyed clown. Poignant, in a way.
“i didn’t read a direct comment regarding the point Oliver presented.”
Mmm…. not the way the Den-ster rolls.
It always seems as though you find a way to justify the bigotry from the Becks’, Limbaughs’ and Fox. So, simple question; was fox correct to connect President Obama and the DOJ to the NBPP? i didn’t read a direct comment regarding the point Oliver presented.
Limbaugh I’ve just made the case that the degree of accusations of racism were incorrect in many cases and were of a dubious nature; Beck I rarely say much about. Tell me what specific connection Fox is making to Obama, Connie. Oliver doesn’t go into specifics, so I’m not sure I know what you mean.
I know, gumby. I just had to add to the obvious. Looks like he may have parked the clown car for the night.
Sadly, there is no voter intimidation in the original case you cite. You need a voter to claim intimidation. One day you’ll get that.
Marco, can you cite that particular clause in the Voter Rights Act, and can you say for certain that that is the reason the call was made to drop the case after they originally pursued it. So they pursued the case without anyone coming forward, but then dropped it much later, after getting an injunction?
I’m not a lawyer, but J. Christian Adams is, and he says this:
Maybe you can cite where this is not the case and call Adams a liar and a fraud for quoting laws he knows nothing about.
“Tell me what specific connection Fox is making to Obama, Connie. Oliver doesn’t go into specifics, so I’m not sure I know what you mean.”
So Oliver didn’t go far enough in defending against accusations that weren’t made? Classic. Hilarious.
“I’m not a lawyer, but J. Christian Adams is, and he says this:”
Yeah, a lawyer said it so it must be true. Hilarious again!!
Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.—J. Christian Adams
Dennis, odd that one of the puppeteers behind this shocking case of voter intimidation, in his op-ed for the highly-esteemed Washington Time, doesn’t bother to even give an explanation or even a cursory quoting of or an example of how the law he says “punishes even the attempt” and doesn’t require “a successful effort to intimidate” even works, operates or how it has been prosecuted in the past.
Nope. Doesn’t bother to explain the bit you quoted with regards to the law at all.
Jesus, Dennis. Do you actually need to see Statler and Waldorf mocking you from the balcony before you realize you’ve got the right wing scandal machine’s hand up your ass?
At a minimum, without sufficient proof that New Black Panther Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed or controlled unlawful activities at the polls, or made speeches directed to immediately inciting or producing lawless action on Election Day, any attempt to bring suit against those parties based merely upon their alleged “approval” or “endorsement” of Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jackson’s activities would have likely failed. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 927 (1982). The Department therefore decided, based on its review of applicable legal precedent and the totality of the evidence, to dismiss the claims against the New Black Panther Party and Malik Zulu Shabazz.
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/14/perez-testifies-at-new-black-panther-party-hearing/
Wow, Dennis really is this dumb. For an “attempt” at voter intimidation to be made someone has to be the victim of it. Nobody made a complaint in this case, even after the DOJ investigated. Also, J. Christian Adams has lied about this case practically every time he’s talked about it.
And this isn’t the only case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6660
Gigi Gaston: Voter Intimidation By Black Panthers Not Isolated Incident
They started doing this in the primaries. So watch the video and try to make the case that these people are really just Repbublicans posing as Democrats…DENNIS
Um, Dennis. Did you even bother to watch the clip you linked to? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF OTHER CASES OF BLACK PANTHER VOTING INTIMIDATION AT ALL.
None. Zero.
There are allegations on video from a PUMA movie (featuring racist asshole Kevin DuJan) in the clip from Fox & Friends (har), but nothing about other incidents about the Black Panthers at all.
When you step in it, you really step in it. Tool.
Dennis.
Click on the link.
Click it.
Click the link Dennis.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||| You know you want to.|||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think he’s already there.
Also, J. Christian Adams has lied about this case practically every time he’s talked about it. ODubya
Ok, “…Adams has lied practically every time”.
Can you tell me in your own words, i.e., not a Media Matters link, what these lies were, and what makes them lies? You’ve called him a serial liar before without providing examples. Maybe you could this time.
Wow, Dennis really is this dumb. For an “attempt” at voter intimidation to be made someone has to be the victim of it. Nobody made a complaint in this case, even after the DOJ investigated. Also, J. Christian Adams has lied about this case practically every time he’s talked about it. ODubya
——–
Oliver, you’ve obviously done some work here, so maybe you can clear this up where no one else seems to be able to. Above in your blog entry you declare, unequivocally, that…
But from Marco’s Main Justice link, Asst. AG Perez states this…
Does the law require that witnesses come forth, and can you cite that law? Adams says that is not the case and you have called him a serial liar, so can you back up your statement?
We wouldn’t want this to be a situation where you’re concerned about misinformation and you compound the problem with more misinformation, would we?
“Sadly, there is no voter intimidation in the original case you cite. You need a voter to claim intimidation. One day you’ll get that.”–Marco
—————–
Marco, you are the one making an unequivocal statement about the law. If you want me to “get that”, please show me the law, or at least someone in authority who has referred to it as law, because Asst. AG Perez, whose testimony in the decision of this case, does not mention this is the law at all.
Perez states that the ability to get a conviction is difficult in that a voter has to say they were prevented from voting due to this guy’s intimidating actions and that those actions were based on race, and further that the guy wielding the nightstick was doing it at the behest of the NBPP and that this was a part of a nationwide concerted effort by the NBPP. He states that all of these factors were difficult to prosecute. Nowhere does he state that the case was dropped because no one came forth to claim that their right to vote was deprived by these men, or that that was a necessary requirement.
This incident caused a minor stir here in Philly at the time it happened, and rather quickly disappeared (with the exception of a follow-up in – I think – one of the alt-weeklies that detailed just how squirrelly the NBPP is). The only thing I can recall that even seemed vaguely like ‘intimidation’ was when Philly’s Phinest told King Ghidorah Shamwow or whatever his name is to get lost, which he did.
One of the reasons these folks and their sewer ideology aren’t taken as seriously as, say, Aryan Nations is that they don’t have a track record of actual violence. If the worst they can do is have some wannabe bad-ass show up in revolutionary-retro gear waving a nightstick, I think the White Wimmin can rest easy. Unless, of course, one subscribes to the theory that Scary Negritude is in and of itself a crime. I suppose that has its subscribers, too.
I’m a bit surprised that nobody seems to have considered the obvious in light of what’s happened to radical groups in this country over the last hundred years. Maybe charges were dropped because all of these NBPP members are already in the FBI.
So I guess Dennis is only opposed to “political correctness” if it’s targeted at minorities.
Zython, for about the millionth time here, WTF are you talking about? Late to the meeting and completely clueless once again.
Why do you put political correctness in quotation marks and why do you make it a supposition about me? “So I guess….”. So you guessed wrong…completely wrong. Political correctness is not only not the issue here, no one has even brought it up either. But you put it in quotes. Are you quoting someone in particular here, or someone involved in this case?
You are not only mind-bogglingly stupid, you’re also one of the most bizarre commenters in the whole blogosphere.
So I guess you’re a “complete idiot”.
Dennis, the Bush admin levied a criminal complaint against the defendants. In doing so, they placed the burden on the DOJ to find information to back up the accusation. That’s the way a criminal complaint works. (It’s actually the way, you know, the justice system works in general, but anywho…) IF voters did not come forth saying they were intimidated or could not be found, then the case fails. Now, there WERE witnesses (and video) that said that Shabazz (the racist jackass) had a weapon. Clearly, this is enough to be considered intimidation, which was why the DOJ sought and won and injunction against him.
Honestly, I’m not sure why this is so difficult for conservatives to understand. Shabazz broke the law and was punished for it. His hate speech is PROTECTED by the law and unless he says specifically, “I hate Susie Smith, this particular white woman and want to kill her and her babies,” he is not breaking the law. It’s fairly–and I hate to even say this–black and white.
Dennis, you are amazingly hardheaded. You cannot have voter intimidation without… wait for it… wait for it… VOTERS!
[...] Willis: Why Didn’t Obama’s DOJ Go After The New Black Panther Party For Voter [...]
Adams lied when he claimed that he knew the DOJ made certain decisions when in fact his testimony shows hearsay and no better.
Political arguing aside.
Why in the hell was that fool standing in front of a polling place with a night stick in his hand?
No voters may have come forward, and perhaps the reason to pursue this in court didn’t read within the letter of the law, but I don’t think anyone can disagree that a guy dressed in Black Panther gear with a night stick in his hand would be intimidating.
I am not sure what happened as an end result, but I am also amazed that the cop said “come with me” and turned his back on the guy. I would have told him to put the stick down, and his hands on the car and I would have searched both of them before I started trying to find out why he felt the need to have a night stick out there.
Dennis, you are amazingly hardheaded. You cannot have voter intimidation without… wait for it… wait for it… VOTERS!
This doesn’t make sense, Oliver. There were voters there and there were voters there who filed complaints.
Again, you don’t answer the question or cite the law that backs up what you said in your second paragraph, specifically the first sentence that you deemed worthy of putting in bold:
Just how is it hard-headed to ask you to back up what you claim?
And you’re being evasive again with respect to what you call serial lying by Adams. What are his statements that are lies, Oliver?
And what are the statements by Fox that you claim are an attempt to play racial politics to aid the Republican Party by connecting Obama to the New Black Panther Party?
Here is Perez’ testimony again, Oliver. Nowhere does he state the case was dropped due to no one coming forth. Maybe you have some other information aside from this that would make it clear for your readers, but he does not say what you claim.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46474831/Official-Complaint-United-States-vs-New-Black-Panther-Party—-Voter-Intimidation-National-Election-2008
Official Complaint: United States vs New Black Panther Party – Voter Intimidation National Election 2008
————–
Or maybe you see it here in the Official Complaint where I can’t seem to.
I work in law enforcement. Prosecutors drop charges all the time for insufficiant evidence. Doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed, it just means that given the paucity of evidence, its not worth the time, effort, or money to prosecute a case that you’re probably going to lose.
‘I’m sure it’s just a simple oversight that here you have a racist shouting racist epithets, telling people to slaughter babies, and calling for the total destruction of a race, and neither Oliver, Marco, jr, brother-in-arms Repack Rider, nor anyone else here has one word of disgust about it.’
Perhaps it’s because that video was shot before the election and has nothing to do with the post, not that you give a shit about staying on topic or anything.
Should the media have played the numerous footage of Robert Byrd siding against Civil Rights in the 1960′s while reporting on his death, or would that have been just as topical as what you’re referring to?
Are you aware of how many similar White Supremacist videos were posted online today? Are they worthy of our interest as well? Why should anyone pay attention to racists of any color every minute of every day?
They aren’t worth the spotlight on a daily basis.
‘I’m not complaining about the content here, I’m not whining, ‘
Oh really? Because it sure sounds like it:
‘I’m asking you why the double standards? What’s that all about?’
‘I’m thinking back on the last year and a half about all the freak-outs here about tea party signs that people were sure were racist,’
‘Why are you guys white-washing this?’
‘I’m just asking you guys why you’re so comfortable with your double standards after this is exactly the kind of thing, only not as racist and not as much an incitement to violence, that you’ve been clucking like mother hens the last year and a half about’
‘Oliver, you’ll post the name of some racist douchebag plumber out in the middle of East Giblip Colorado because he sent you a racist email, but you won’t say word one about some guy calling for the murder of white policemen and white babies and the organization he’s a Minister of. Why not just be honest about it?’
Shorter Dennis: How are two Black men standing outside a voter registration office NOT exactly the same thing as thousands of White people all over the country holding signs that call the President a non American/Socialist/Communist/Muslim/terrorist and depicting him as Hitler?
Junior, your distorted view of reality is exactly what one would expect from someone commenting on things in a country that you don’t live in, pay taxes into, vote in, or are a citizen of.
Notwithstanding the fact that thousands is a bit of an overstatement even for claim coming from a Canadian’s perspective, whatever signs you are referring to have gotten a lot of angst and outrage here. They also have nothing to do with voter intimidation, now do they? If those signs by those ‘thousands’ were in violation of any laws, American laws that is, please state what they are. Otherwise, you’re just being another Zython.
I read that article to that point and continued a paragraph past it. I saw no evidence that voters were affected in any legally meaningful way. I also saw a frankly amazing string of logical fallacies. Question begging, appeal to authority, appeals to emotion… it was really pretty amazing.
So, let me see if I have this straight, Dennis. This is essentially another case where rightwingers say “see! See! Someone we approve of is saying nasty stuff that we also approve of!” It has no merit, it has no evidence, it doesn’t really have anything.
But it gets you excited, because you don’t require evidence or merit. Says a lot about you.
Marco, you are the one making an unequivocal statement about the law. – Dennis
Jesus Fucking Christ. Dennis, to have voter intimidation, you’d probably need an intimidated voter, no?
I am making an unequivocal statement about the law? I am not a lawyer, and boy I wish I were because all one has to do with you is claim “I’m a lawyer” and you’re sold hook line and sinker.
It just stands to reason that to enjoy a glass of water, you’d need a glass or water.
But let me hit the internets in my spare time to quote the law that you’ll ignore and instead post a video that’s completely unrelated and never answer for it.
Shorter Junior Funky: It’s ok for us to routinely and continually use random pictures of random participants of tea parties holding signs we think are racially insensitive or racially charged in order to paint all tea partiers as racists and to marginalize, demean and deligitimize them, but it is not ok for anyone, no matter their color or political affiliation, to ask why this case of voter intimidation by a black person, who has called for the total destruction of the white race, called for people to kill white people and white babies and white cops, wielding a night stick and shouting at voters coming in to a polling place was just suddenly dropped. Our methodologies and double standards are not to be questioned, not because we have no answers for those questions, but just because,… well… just because.
Jesus Fucking Christ. Dennis, to have voter intimidation, you’d probably need an intimidated voter, no?
From what I read and from a couple of the links I posted, that is exactly right, you don’t need to have an intimidated voter, at least one who claims they were prevented from voting by the intimidating acts of another person.
You stated that was the case, Marco. Somewhere you had to have read that that was the case in order to type it on here, unless you just took Oliver’s word for it. Now you’re using the word ‘probably’ and using it in a question form as if you’re not sure. And all the while you’re calling me all sorts of names as if you know what you’re talking about and I don’t. I’m just asking you to back your claim, and I’ve even used your own link to show where you were wrong. All you have to do is quote someone who you think knows something about the law that states that a voter has to come forward in order for voter intimidation to be a prosecutable offense, because as sure as you were to make that statement, you had to have gotten it from somewhere other than your rear end.
[...] truth because it’s just too damn threatening. The whole article is worth a read, and check out this from Oliver that just reinforces the study. In the end, truth will out. Won’t [...]
Dennis is gonna take this plane and aim it right for the deck, no matter the facts and data you cite, by God an opinion column by a GOP hack in the Washington Times said something.
http://www.google.com/images?q=racist+sign+tea+party&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jq0&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=nv&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=bDM7TOaAD5Hjnge9wJGRAw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CBAQ_AU&prmdo=1”
Google Image Search racist sign tea party
(my second auto-complete choice after typing in racist sign)
About 1,130,000 results (0.25 seconds)
That’s a lot of ‘randomly selected” pictures.
Bing yielded 512 images, some of which are duplicates, some of which aren’t attacks on Obama aside from “socialist” or “Hitler”, so I merely call your attention to #s 1, 7, 11, and 20.
Let’s get Big Media Matt’s take on them from last year:
Meanwhile, on Fox News today I saw about a million hours of Tea Party coverage, plus a little coverage of Jamie Foxx allegedly making “racially charged” comments against white people, but nothing about racism at tea parties.
Dennis is gonna take this plane and aim it right for the deck, no matter the facts and data you cite, by God an opinion column by a GOP hack in the Washington Times said something.
You’d better take that back right now. Because Dennis once wrote:
You should be embarrassed, Oliver.
Bullshit Dennis. This is your whole party’s claim that there was voter intimidation and the Department of Different Justice for Blacks didn’t prosecute it. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE of anything out of the ordinary or nefarious such besides the right wing hack behind it all and his word in the Times – Washington Times, that is.
But he’s a lawyer. There is no need for voter to be intimidated in a voter intimidation case because this lawyer said so. He didn’t cite case law. Marco on the internet has to.
My links are here. Oh, that’s right. You don’t count MMFA, but right pundits and phony videos are just fine by you.
Dennis, where is the intimidated voter? There isn’t one. Thanks for playing. Now go post more videos about other incidents of Black Panthers intimidating voters than don’t show Black Panthers intimidating voters.
Marco, J. Christian Adams’ name is on the actual Official Complaint, along with Mukasey’s.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46474831/Official-Complaint-United-States-vs-New-Black-Panther-Party—-Voter-Intimidation-National-Election-2008
I think if he says there doesn’t need to be an actual voter who was turned away in order to prosecute the case, then there’s a good chance that since they decided to prosecute the case, that that is probably true. Also, Asst. AG Perez did not say they dropped the case because no one came forward- that is from your link. Also, Media Matters has not shown the law or anything that states that this case was dropped because no one came forward, but you believe it is so because Oliver said it was the case that it was dropped because no one came forward. Oddly, Oliver won’t say where he got that impression from or the law he was referring to, or the quote from Perez or anyone at the DOJ that the case was dropped because no one came forward.
Sorry, Marco, but that is the very definition of hackery. You won’t say, and Oliver won’t say, just exactly how it is that J. Christian Adams is a liar or a hack, but yet you both call him that, or that anything he said in that article is a lie or is hackery, just that it was printed in the Washington Times. Aside from being a dodge and an ad hominem- the two go hand in hand- that’s pretty much the definition of hackery, too.
Marco, just admit that you had no idea what you were talking about when you said what the law was and why the case was dropped, because if I had done that and fafaroo had called me on it, you’d be requesting the same from me, only not as politely as I am here.
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE of anything out of the ordinary or nefarious such besides the right wing hack behind it all and his word in the Times – Washington Times, that is
Read the link of the Official Complaint and see if you want to still go with that statement, Marco.
What is hard to prosecute is tying his actions to the NBPP and that this was part of a nationwide effort to intimidate voters. What Samir Shabazz did was out of the ordinary- I don’t think anybody here is disputing that besides you, unless you think it’s ordinary to dress the way he did and go down to a polling station with a deadly weapon, pointing it at people and yelling racial threats at people coming in to the polling station to vote. I seriously doubt if you could convince anyone here that that was ordinary.
……You should be embarrassed, Oliver.– Indeed
Indeed, your first post in a month and a half, and that’s the one you want to go with to get the ball rolling again here???
Dark Avenger even had to post your trusty Lee Atwater quote since you weren’t here to tend to that duty. Or were you just lurking and seeing DA quoting Atwater was just too much of a temptation for you to be silent on here another day longer?
So we can all just drop the charade and admit that Dennis is mentally ill OCD, yes?
Jody, cat seems to have gotten tongues of a lot of folks here that can’t seem to back up their own assertions.
Maybe you can de-lurk now for a bit and help them out, you think?
Yes, Dennis, by using the term “probably” I have forfeited the internets to you today.
NO ONE WAS KEPT FROM VOTING. NO ONE.
But please keep linking to the Adams complaint, because that means shit to absolutely no one but you in your bizarro world.
When I get a chance I will look up the laws that you and Adams are too lazy to uncover.
Simply amazing.
Also, since I know you love videos that don’t add to your argument one bit and then run form them, where is the video of the racial slurs mentioned in your golden complaint?
I simply haven’t heard any. Who am I sure you haven’t either?
Shorter Dennis: Banzai! Kamikaze!
Oops, I meant “Why am I sure you haven’t either?” Dennis. All apologies. Sincerely.
And Oliver – yes.
“What is hard to prosecute is tying his actions to the NBPP and that this was part of a nationwide effort to intimidate voters.”
Yeah, but you and Limbaugh & Co. will baselessly try anyway.
Gotcha.
Wow.
What a load of utter bollocks from Dennis!!!
It’s good to see that some still follow the old rule about hope triumphing over experience.
Or more likely it’s the case of someone continuing to dig deeper into the hole they are in.
http://article.nationalreview.com/437619/the-new-black-panther-casebr-a-conservative-dissent/abigail-thernstrom
Yes, from The NRO no less.
Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high.
In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.
Cat? Tongue? Assertions?
With the reams and reams of Dennis droppings all over this site, he thinks I need to cite evidence?
Chalk another one for the mentally ill hypothesis.
Shorter Dennis: Banzai! Kamikaze!
Shorter Oliver: “As much as I hate misinformation, here, I got some more to add to it.
Just don’t ask me to admit it. Heh heh!”
Marco, J. Christian Adams’ name is on the actual Official Complaint, along with Mukasey’s.
Please also note, Dennis, that Adams and all the other lawyers listed at the bottom of that complaint filed a civil complaint against the three, not a criminal case. Why is that? Because, as Perez corroborates in his statement:
No one, not even Adams himself, has ever argued that there was sufficient evidence to file criminal charges against the three people. The facts did not support the charge.
So when Adams’ tells you that, “The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career,” he’s already yanking your chain. Adams writes:
But why then didn’t Adams press for the much more serious criminal charge? Because the facts didn’t warrant it. Adams knows this but he’s deliberately obfuscating the difference between criminal and civil charges to play you for a sucker, Dennis.
And it had clearly worked. Because you still seem to be confused about what the DOJ did and why.
As Perez states in this testimony, the DOJ does not require eye witnesses or any actual victim to come forward to open an investigation:
Correct me if I’m wrong, Dennis, but as far as I know, the only actual complaint filed in this case came from a Republican poll watcher who claimed that he was intimidated by the two guys out in front of the polling place. His video shows him saying things along the lines of “You look intimidating” and “I feel intimidated” but doesn’t really show a lot of actual intimidation. Indeed, there are three other white people in the video just standing around doing nothing, one of whom tells the guy with the video camera “Everything’s fine.” Scary.
But the video does show a guy with a baton standing in front of a polling place. That can be intimidating and it certainly is fucking stupid. And guess what? That’s all the DOJ needed to file an injunction against the guy with the baton:
So based on media reports and a Republican poll watchers complaint, the DOJ opened an investigation, filed civil charges and ultimately found evidence of voter intimidation in the case of one defendant and so they filed an injunction against him.
The complaint was dropped against the other two because the DOJ found no evidence to support the complaint.
Now I know you’re not a lawyer, Dennis, but you don’t have to be a lawyer to stop yourself when writing a sentence as stupid as this:
As noted, the DOJ doesn’t need an actual complainant to open an investigation: A hysterical report on Fox News and a chorus of conservative morons freaking out would appear to be sufficient. And that’s fine.
But the DOJ still needs evidence to bring a criminal charge or a civil complaint and they need to prove their case before a jury or a judge, depending, in order to get an injunction or a judgment from the court.
That’s the order of events, Dennis. So the DOJ did not drop the case after “getting an injunction.” “Getting an injunction” is the end of the case, Dennis. There’s no case to drop after that: You’ve already won.
The DOJ filed for “injunctive relief,” Dennis, but a judge has to make the final decision about whether that relief is granted. That never happened in the case of two of the defendants. The DOJ only pursued an injunction against the guy with the baton and the district court approved the injunction and a judgment was entered against the guy with the baton.
There was never anything more than a complaint filed against the other two defendants. So the case was not dropped as you write, “after getting an injunction.”
But you’re probably still screeching in your head “But but but but the other two scary black thugs didn’t show in court which is an automatic injunction!!!!!”
No. They never had an injunction against them, they never had a judgment against them. And as Perez explains in his testimony, simply not responding to the complaint does not automatically result in a default judgment:
The complaint never resulted in an injunction or a default judgment because the DOJ did not find that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the complaint against two of the defendants.
Now Adams says there was sufficient evidence. Great. What is it? Where is it? If he had it, and this was such a slam dunk case, why didn’t he file criminal charges and take his evidence in front of a jury? Because he’s a hack. How do we know?
In the article you linked to Adams’ writes this:
This is an entirely misleading statement and Adams knows it’s misleading, because the case was not dropped against the guy with the baton. In fact, the case against the guy with the baton was pursued as far as Adams ever could have pursued it himself and the guy received what is probably the maximum penalty that Adams himself could have gotten. Do you know what the maximum penalty is in a civil case such as this, Dennis? Funny that Adams never mentions it either.
As far as I know, none of the three defendants was ever going to get fined or go to jail over their actions because they weren’t brought up on criminal charges, a decision that Adams himself was part of.
In that op ed, Adams also never once mentions that the guy with the baton was charged, prosecuted and punished within the limits of the civil statutes. He does, however, make this allegation:
Now, Dennis, in the NBPP case, a black defendant was charged, investigated and found guilty of the civil complaint that Adams himself filed. How is that evidence of a hostility towards pursing complaints against nonwhite defendants? It isn’t.
In other words, Adams is hanging serious, racially inflammatory charges on evidence that he knows is false or exceedingly flimsy at best.
Note that he provides no other evidence corroborating his broader claims other than hearsay bullshit like this:
This is pretty serious stuff but he offers nothing solid to support it except the entirely misleading claim that the DOJ dismissed the case in the NBPP case. It didn’t dismiss the case against the guy with the baton which was the only case that the DOJ says it had the evidence to pursue.
Again, Adams claims otherwise, but he offers nothing to support that claim and he himself decided against filing criminal charges against the three, charges that would have required the DOJ to go in front of a jury with the evidence it had.
If the case was so slam-dunk and the evidence so overwhelming and obvious, why did Adams sign off on the lesser civil complaint?
So to recap, when Perez says that they dropped the complaint against the other two defendants because the DOJ did not have “sufficient evidentiary support” for the complaints, you can assume that they believe they had no evidence of an attempted or an actual act of voter intimidation in the case of those two.
In other words, the complaint was dropped because no one came forward with evidence that these two either attempted or actually committed voter intimidation.
They did, however, have clear evidence of voter intimidation in the case of the guy with the baton, because the guy had a fucking baton and he was caught holding it on video tape. So the DOJ pursued the complaint against him and got an injunction.
So the DOJ prosecuted a nonwhite defendant in a civil rights violation.
Given all the actual facts of the case and the DOJs handling of it, do you actually believe that, as Adams’ claims, there is a conspiracy being orchestrated by black DOJ lawyers against white defendants?
Really?
Are you fucking insane?
Yes, from The NRO no less.
I’m in agreement, it is small potatoes. But that doesn’t bolster your case any more and it doesn’t cover up the fact that what you wrote was bullshit, Marco. Just admit it and move on. You’re not even the worst offender of misinformation on this thread, you just relied on that person a little too much, that’s all. Folks here will understand.
Oh, now it’s small potatoes? After 300 posts.
Right, Dennis. Again you win the internet. I was wrong. Your case of scary black men VS. scared white republican lackeys who are still upset with having a black boss is teeming with merit.
I was wrong Dennis. So wrong. I am sorry. I was wrong.
Don’t you feel better now, Marco. You did what Oliver cannot do.
As for your scary black men vs. scared white republican lackeys, you’re just playing the race card. Neither you nor Oliver nor anyone here has shown where Fox or anyone is tying Obama to the New Black Panther Party.
300 posts here because I disagree with yours and Oliver’s misinformation campaign; basically you both used baseless assertions to fight what you think are baseless accusations. And you do it with a straight face and a sense of moral superiority.
I’m in agreement, it is small potatoes. But that doesn’t bolster your case any more and it doesn’t cover up the fact that what you wrote was bullshit, Marco.
This is just fucking AWESOME!!!
Dennis has linked to and defended Adams whose central argument is that the NBPP case is evidence of a vast black conspiracy against white people at the DOJ, a proposition being picked up and pushed by leading conservatives in the media.
But it’s “small potatoes.” What’s really important is that some guy on the internet is wrong about something.
You’re a complete tool, Dennis. A complete and total tool.
I think fafaroo just beat Dennis with a figurative nightstick.
Neither you nor Oliver nor anyone here has shown where Fox or anyone is tying Obama to the New Black Panther Party. 300 posts here because I disagree with yours and Oliver’s misinformation campaign …”
Dennis, how do you feel about Adams’ claim in the article you linked to:
Do you believe that Adams has made a sufficient case to back up these claims?
Late to the meeting and completely clueless once again.
I know it pisses you off that I’m not here at your beck and call, but I have my own life to live. Deal.
Why do you put political correctness in quotation marks
Because it’s a BS term.
and why do you make it a supposition about me?
Because you’ve made comments indicating said supposition as valid.
You are not only mind-bogglingly stupid
Coming from a guy who things “editting in order to mislead” and “falsified” are two entirely different things, this doesn’t carry a whole lot of weight.
But you put it in quotes. Are you quoting someone in particular here, or someone involved in this case?
I’m deriding it, stupid. I’ll put Political Correctness in capital letters instead as to not hurt your little mind.
So you guessed wrong…completely wrong. Political correctness is not only not the issue here, no one has even brought it up either.
Here’s your cries of Political Correctness:
“I’m sure it’s just a simple oversight that here you have a racist shouting racist epithets, telling people to slaughter babies, and calling for the total destruction of a race,”
As for your scary black men vs. scared white republican lackeys, you’re just playing the race card. Neither you nor Oliver nor anyone here has shown where Fox or anyone is tying Obama to the New Black Panther Party.—
Um, Dennis. Your own link to rightwingpundits (or whatever)IN THIS THREAD tries to tie Obama and the Panthers. You know the link you still refuse to acknowledge? THE ONE YOU PROVIDED?
The man all upset about a case he admits is small potatoes, that the entire right wing is frothing at the mouth about, that he has oozed fake outrage over is claiming others are misinforming and playing the race card.
Jesus Fucking Christ, Dennis. Really, you have no integrity whatsoever.
I think fafaroo just beat Dennis with a figurative nightstick.
You think that because you aren’t sure, Jesse. Because it’s War and Peace you think surely there were some good blows in there. You can’t say for sure, though, because you’re like the rest of the lemmings here who just take other people’s word to tell them how to think.
You can’t say for sure, though, because you’re like the rest of the lemmings here who just take other people’s word to tell them how to think.
Feel free to respond to anything I’ve written here, Dennis. By all means. Go for it.
But it’s “small potatoes.” What’s really important is that some guy on the internet is wrong about something.
I agree with the author that there are a whole lot worse things this administration is doing, fafaroo, and they deserve more attention. That doesn’t mean I won’t ask you why you have such a double standard system about you that you’ll shriek about the woman invoking a work of fiction calling for a senator’s hanging, but you say nothing about a guy calling for, shouting it in the streets among a large crowd actually, white babies and white policemen to be killed.
Tell me, fafaroo, was this statement of Oliver’s correct?
If so, please show me where you found that to be the case. If not, please call Oliver the same thing you’d call me if I made a false assertion like that- you know the word, it starts with an ‘h’ and you use it frequently.
Political correctness is a relative term, invented by conservatives to deride liberals while hiding their own morally questionable behavior. For example, Dennis calls me “Little Timmy” as a term of endearment which subtly disparages, while hiding the fact that he’s typing with one hand while wanking with the other, on company time.
Feel free to respond to anything I’ve written here, Dennis. By all means. Go for it.
Good God, just where should I start, fafaroo? Or what chapter, rather? Even fucking Jesse Ewiak didn’t take the time to read that, he just presumed there had to be something good somewhere.
Dennis calls me “Little Timmy” as a term of endearment which subtly disparages, while hiding the fact that he’s typing with one hand while wanking with the other, on company time.
I call you Little timmy because I had a few friends in grade school named Timmy, but they all to a person changed it to Tim by the time they were in the fifth grade.
Shorter Dennis: “Misinformation” = things I pretend to not understand. Now, look at this thing from National Review!!!
But it’s “small potatoes.” What’s really important is that some guy on the internet is wrong about something.
Oliver wrote that, fafaroo. He put it in bold, too. It’s still there, even. Marco just repeated him. He called Adams a liar and said that was why the case was dropped, when that was not the case. It was central to his blog post, and no one here will call him on it, not even you, unless it’s hidden in your War and Peace post which I haven’t gotten to yet.
Shorter Oliver: “Sorry I can’t answer Dennis directly without having to admit my error, but thanks all for getting my back.”
Shorter Dennis: Sixth amendment? We don’t need no stinking Sixth amendment!
Dennis, your defense of the woman who wished that a politician be hung was ludicrous. If you’d like to find the link to that thread, by all means, post here so we can review your stupidity.
As for this:
Yeah, those are vile, despicable things to say and calls for violence against anyone, regardless of their race or politics, is offensive and obscene. It is very incendiary language, which is exactly why conservatives play that audio over and over again as if it had something to do with what happened in Philly on election day. There is no connection whatsoever because they was no evidence that MBPP or its leader had anything to do with the two guys at the polling place and what they did.
So what’s wrong with this, you ask:
As noted, the DOJ did, in fact, drop the case against the NBPP itself and its leader because it had no evidence whatsoever–whether it was eye-witness evidence or evidence of a pattern of behavior–that either the party itself or its leader had anything to do with what happened in front of the polling place in Philly.
Prosecutors drop cases where there is no evidence to support a charge all the time. Why? Because the law requires that the prosecutor prove their case with evidence. No evidence? No case. Doesn’t matter whether the evidence is an eye-witness who comes forward or a physical piece of evidence, such as an email from the NBPP leader to the two guys saying: “Intimidate white voters on behalf of the NBPP.”
Now, if the question is whether the DOJ needs someone to come forward to claim voter intimidation before they can open an investigation into voter intimidation then the answer is,”No.” It doesn’t. The law does not appear to require that since Perez said that even a media report of voter intimidation is sufficient to open an investigation.
Once the investigation is open, if the DOJ finds witnesses who saw a voter intimidated but were not intimidated themselves, it appears to me that this is enough to warrant a charge and to support a prosecution. But the law still requires that this testimony be credible, among other standards, before it can be taken as evidence to support a conviction.
So Oliver might be guilty of only vague and sloppy writing: You don’t need a complaint of intimidation to file a charge, but you still need evidence of intimidation to win a conviction. In other words, the law does requires that any witnesses testimony be credible, be first hand and that it support the charge.
As noted, prosecutors drop weak cases all the time.
The larger point here is that the DOJ did prove voter intimidation in the case of the guy with the baton and they got a judgment against him as a result. I do not believe they would have needed any witness to come forward to make that charge stick because they had the video tape evidence, but, the Republican poll watcher who shot that video did, in fact, file a complaint and that is the only complaint that I know of which was filed. And I could even be wrong there.
Is Oliver wrong? I don’t know. Does it matter? No. Because even if the DOJ could have carried on the prosecution without an eye-witness or an actual victim of intimidation coming forward, they would still need EVIDENCE that there was an attempt or actual intimidation to prove the case.
The DOJ says that this evidence did not exist in the case of two of the defendants. That’s what’s important, Dennis.
The DOJ says there was not sufficient evidence against two of the individuals but had enough in the third.
Adams is insinuating that the case was dropped entirely against all three because he never acknlowledges the third person. Neither do you.
Why is that?
Oliver wrote that, fafaroo. He put it in bold, too. It’s still there, even. Marco just repeated him….Dennis
No Dennis, I didn’t just repeat Oliver. Just because you haunt this blog does not mean all of us only get our information here.
I assumed evidence of voter intimidation would include an actual voter being intimidated. In this case, there was video evidence of the black panther with a nightstick and the evil Pro-panther DOJ filed an injunction against him.
You are now pretending you’ve won a substantive victory in your argument for the honor of your Washington Times Op-ed lawyer, while denying everything else anyone has mentioned regarding the case to you here, in this very thread everyone can read.
And again, your bullshit video links still go unmentioned. How embarrassing.
He called Adams a liar …
Adams is a liar, Dennis. The “case” was not dismissed against the guy with the baton. Adams is willfully obfuscating that fact. He’s a lying sack of shit.
As for this:
Either respond specifically, Dennis, or STFU. Okay?
…unless it’s hidden in your War and Peace post which I haven’t gotten to yet.
Oh my god, Dennis. Will you please just STFU?
I call you Little timmy because I had a few friends in grade school named Timmy, but they all to a person changed it to Tim by the time they were in the fifth grade.
timmy is a moniker. If I had a need to appear as knowing and arrogant, I might have called myself “Amused Observer”, then “LOL!”. But I get a creepy feeling you’d be calling me “Little Amused Observer” or “My little LOL” if I’d chosen those names.
Even fucking Jesse Ewiak didn’t take the time to read that …
I’m sorry, Dennis, but how do you know that? I posted my comment at 3:11 and Jesse posted his comment at 3:37.
You would need longer than 20 minutes to read that post?
Do you still have to sound out the tough words?
If I had a need to appear as knowing and arrogant, I might have called myself “Amused Observer”, then “LOL!”.
I advise against that. Changing your handle is the equivalent of a mortal sin to *some* around here.
Indeed tried to be sly about it, and he also denied that he even did it. Not a mortal sin, just douchebaggery befitting of a douchebag.
Do you seek my attention, fool? Explain and make it good. Answer now!
Because Barack Obama hates white people.
/s
I’m a white guy.I don’t feel hated. But then I’m not a misogynist, intolerant, bigoted white supremacist.
“Not a mortal sin, just douchebaggery befitting of a douchebag.”
At last Dennis has finally admitted to the true nature of his posts. It’s good to see him finally starting to make some progress.
Dennis, you haven’t refuted anything except maybe the idea that cons have something to offer. There can’t be voter intimidation without a voter who has been intimidated. That was true on election day 2008, true when the Bush DOJ passed on the case, true when the Obama DOJ declined, and true when J. Christian Adams wrote his op-ed and when I wrote this post originally.
Dennis asserts:
Indeed tried to be sly about it, and he also denied that he even did it. Not a mortal sin, just douchebaggery befitting of a douchebag.
Previously, on The Dennis Show:
And when did I ever deny (or for that matter, confirm) that I “did it”? A single link would be nice.
Indeed.
(Not that it’s especially challenging, but wielding this virtual nightstick sure is fun every now and then.)
I have been following this with some bemusment and quite a lot of awe that someone can stick to their guns in the face of how many facts are put before them which completely refute what they are trying to prove.
Dennis.
I salute you!!!
You are without a doubt the poster child for right wing American political group think!! The hivemind will be proud of its success with you.
This Kos diary by Tim Wise could have been written for you personally:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/12/883698/-Black-Powers-Gonna-Get-You-Sucka:-Right-Wing-Paranoia-and-the-Rhetoric-of-Modern-Racism
And his summation is apt:
I wonder Dennis, where you were in 2000 when Kathrine Harris was purging voter roles of the African American community before the Presidential election? Or where you were in 2004 when Ken Blackwell was doing the same? I can bet confidently that you have absolutely no problem with Arizona’s Nazi influenced “papers please” law which will be used to intimidate the growing numbers of Latino voters who will be casting their ballots for democrats in ever increasing numbers as the vile rhetoric increases.
In the 7 years l have closely followed US politics l have rarely found someone who will stick to their guns so readily on an issue which they are not only wrong but deliberately ignore that fact that the person who is providing their main point is lying. And has been shown to be.
Either that or you are being paid to act like a prat.
Whichever it is, well done.
Keep trying Dennis.
King Sysiphus is cheering you on!!
Funny how Dennis hasn’t gotten around to responding to fafaroo’s post. Not surprising though. When confronted with facts, cons cry “look over there” and attack the poster.
“Not a mortal sin, just douchebaggery befitting of a douchebag.”
A more perfect example of projections won’t easily be found.
Funny how Dennis hasn’t gotten around to responding to fafaroo’s post. Not surprising though.
Actually, it’s because it’s past his bedtime.
Fafaroo:
Now now, don’t be so judgemental without being open to other ideas. That’s the sort of thing conservatives do.
There are probably (and this number is in single digits) slightly more progressive conservative parents out there and Dennis may have ones that will allow him to blog until 9.30, if his homework is done.
The really sad thing about this fake republican outrage is the fact that doing some simple journalism destroys the talking point, but as this is Rupert Murdoch’s Faux “News” there is no real chance of that.
Here is an example of what has been missing for years on American News stations:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/mark-haines-journalist.html
As is noted below the piece:
Dennis won’t be back to this thread. He, like any right wing monkey, muddies the waters and runs away only to fling his own shit another day.
They have nothing else but their bullshit.
Keith Olbermann does some summing up on the points made here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#38215180
Anyone care to tell me why people think this is ok?
Dennis your deflection techniques are appalling shallow, but I’ll make a deal with you.
I’ll stop commenting on American politics, which almost certainly has no relevance to a citizen of your largest trading partner and closest geographic neighbor, when you stop commenting on issues outside of the United States.
Deal Den-Den?
Yeah, ‘random’ pictures of tea baggers all over the country espousing racist dribble and sporting the most slanderous signs that demonstrate a mindset from the 1800′s, but that’s all just ‘Liberal’ propaganda.
The videos you refer to were shot at two separate and unrelated events; who the fuck is defending any of what these assholes were saying?
YOU are the one suggesting they demonstrate some secret Liberal agenda of support for racism without bothering to admit that the entire ‘story’ has been manufactured by FOX as a scare tactic to stir up the inherent racist beliefs of their viewers.
Apparently you are among them.
‘The force can have a powerful effect upon the weak minded.’
‘As for your scary black men vs. scared white republican lackeys, you’re just playing the race card. ‘
Riiighhht….unlike you baseless accusation that this whole thing is a secret racist plot to destroy the White race.
Ukobserver; you are about to be told off by Dennis to mind your own business when it comes to American politics, because only Americans can comment on their domestic affairs.
Then he will likely insult the Queen and disparage British cuisine as a caveat to his brilliantly xenophobic paranoia.
Riiighhht….unlike you baseless accusation that this whole thing is a secret racist plot to destroy the White race.
Junior, you’re an idiot and a tool. I didn’t say that, imply that, hint at it, or even infer it. You’re just a blabbermouth who needs to make shit up in order to have something to say. Why don’t you post something I said that comes within half a country mile of your accusation.
I didn’t say that, imply that, hint at it, or even infer it.
It’s called sarcasm, Denise the Dense, like coincidence, you can find it in the dictionary.
Ukobserver; you are about to be told off by Dennis to mind your own business when it comes to American politics, because only Americans can comment on their domestic affairs.
Junior, you only comment on US domestic affairs from the perspective of the liberal lemming that you are. You have only contempt for people who do a hundred times more for this country than you ever have or ever will simply because they don’t follow your adopted liberal ideology. There’s a big distinction between commenting on domestic affairs in other countries and what you do here.
Denise, when will you see some treatment over your OCD problem about answering commentators here?
It’s called sarcasm, Denise the Dense, like coincidence, you can find it in the dictionary.
DA, I’ve never understood your overarching need to speak for other people here. It seems you’d rather speak more on other people’s behalf than you would your own.
DA, I’ve never understood your overarching need to speak for other people here.
I’ve never understood your overarching need to defend and speak for Frank DiSalle here when he’s perfectly capable of doing so himself.
That’s weird. Dennis returned to get all pissy defensive, but he didn’t address fafaroo’s comment at all. Nor did he offer a single example of me denying that I’d changed my name (in these blog comments). Now who could have predicted that?
Projectamundo!
That’s weird. Dennis returned to get all pissy defensive, but he didn’t address fafaroo’s comment at all. Nor did he offer a single example of me denying that I’d changed my name (in these blog comments). Now who could have predicted that?–Indeed (Mister ed)
——–
Here’s your link, Indeed.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/07/29/the-kind-of-hack-work-michelle-malkin-is-famous-for/#comment-167030
Me: “Why do you have to change names and not tell anybody? It’s not like you embarrassed yourself any more as Mister ed than you are already with your new name.”
And you:
“Huh?” That’s a denial. That’s douchebaggery befitting of a douchebag, Indeed. I asked you why you changed names and your douchebag response to that question was “Huh?”.
“Huh?” That’s a denial.
No it isn’t. Perry Mason, you ain’t.
And still no response to fafaroo’s comment. Shocker.
That’s a denial.
That’s a denial.
That’s douchebaggery befitting of a douchebag
Indeed, you asked for a link, I gave you one. You denied you had changed your name.
You’re a weasel.
And a douchebag. If it’s not a denial that you changed your name and were being sly about it, then just what is it?
And still no response to fafaroo’s detailed and thoughtful comment, just lame deflection. Wow. I bet nobody saw that coming.
Still haven’t answered my question, Denise the Dense, still working out your OCD problems with farafoo again?
So it’s gonna be OK when the KKK shows up in November in white robes and starts yelling at people?
And still no response to fafaroo’s detailed and thoughtful comment, just lame deflection. Wow. I bet nobody saw that coming.
What question in particular would you like answered, Indeed the Weasel?
Still haven’t answered my question, Denise the Dense, still working out your OCD problems with farafoo again?
Why do you mock fafaroo’s name, DA?
And what question is it you want answered, the one you asked me why I answer so many questions?
You’re not the d-bag Indeed is, but you seem to have a competitive nature about you that you’d like to give it your best shot.
You’re a weasel.
No I’m not. Not technically, anyway.
And a douchebag.
If it’s not a denial…then just what is it?
So it’s gonna be OK when the KKK shows up in November in white robes and starts yelling at people?
And who said that anyone yelling at people at a polling place was ok?
There is a difference between assholery and breaking the law, it’s not really surprising how many conservatives are unable to tell the difference.
The funniest part of Dennis’ fit of the vapors over Indeed’s name change is how he keeps ignoring half of his own question in order to gin up outrage. He can’t even interpret his own words correctly!
I’m just asking if everyone is gonna be outraged when the KKK shows up in November. I just think that this sets a dangerous precedent. I don’t care what skin color they were or why they think they needed to be there, I don’t think that anyone should be allowed to show up in a uniform with a nightstick and yell at people.
The funniest part of Dennis’ fit of the vapors over Indeed’s name change…
Alleged. Alleged name change.
I work with people that have grossed over a million bucks in commission in a single day
Why does that bother you? Good fortune for them, the guys who made it did it by investing TARP money that their bank clients took in cheap and put it in investments instead of loaning it out. That was the point of me saying that then.
Weigel needs to hit the gym and do the Belly-Off Diet, along with an appointment with his dermatologist. Talk about a doughy pantload.
He does. He’s a dishonest, pimply-faced weasel who embarrassed himself, Indeed. As a weasel yourself, no doubt you’ll defend his weasly tendencies.
I never cited tenets of the Laffer curve
You’re a sick individual aside from being a douchebag and a weasel. That was two years ago and the remark to Oliver was in disagreeing with him that young kids out of college don’t go into business with anything to do with the Laffer curve, as he had said they did. You asked me a million times, first as Mister ed, then as Indeed, to cite the tenets. I never did, they had nothing to do with my response to Oliver. Psycho.
The funniest part of Dennis’ fit of the vapors over Indeed’s name change is how he keeps ignoring half of his own question in order to gin up outrage.
Indeed can change his name all he wants to. I asked him why he did since he was being sly about it, and he denied he did it. Why would someone be embarrassed about their name enough to change it and then deny having changed it unless there was something they were embarrassed about having said previously.
Or unless they were in fact a weasel?
Can you answer that one for me, Prodigal?
I never did
aside from being a douchebag
I think fafaroo just beat Dennis with a figurative nightstick.
Indeed.
Junior, you only comment on US domestic affairs from the perspective of the liberal lemming that you are.
In other words, non-US citizens who agree with Dennis are free to comment.
I don’t think that anyone should be allowed to show up in a uniform with a nightstick and yell at people.
Then that’s when you call in the cops and get him on ‘disturbing the peace’.
Is that so hard to figure out?
In other words, non-US citizens who agree with Dennis are free to comment.
Why do you guys have to start so many of your declarative sentences with “In other words”, or “So, what you’re saying is….”, or “Shorter Dennis:….”?
The other words are your other words, Frothy, not mine. Junior is free to comment all he wants to, I’ve never said otherwise. There are no other words to that.
It’s like Weasel City in here today.
Thank you for finally admitting that your original question wasn’t just about why the name change happened, Dennis. Now are you finally going to reply to fafaroo’s complete destruction of your arguments about the topic of Oliver’s post, or are you instead going to continue being a weasel?
Indeed can change his name all he wants to.
Good to know, in case that ever comes up.
I asked him why he did since he was being sly about it, and he denied he did it.
No I didn’t.
Why would someone be embarrassed about their name enough to change it and then deny having changed it unless there was something they were embarrassed about having said previously.
Good “question.”
Or unless they were in fact a weasel?
I am not now, nor have I ever been, in fact, a weasel. Technically speaking.
I think fafaroo just beat Dennis with a figurative nightstick.
Me too.
“The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation.”
Where did this come from?
In Pennsylvania it is illegal for any person or corporation to directly or indirectly practice
intimidation or coercion through use of force, violence, restraint, or infliction or threatened
infliction of injury, damage, harm, or loss, in order to induce or compel a person to vote or refrain
from voting for a particular candidate or on a particular political issue.
25 PA. STAT. ANN. § 3547; See also: 25 PA. STAT. ANN. § 3539 and § 3527 (2007).
I would say this applies to someone that is standing in front of a polling place with a uniform on, waving a nightstick, and yelling incoherently.
in order to induce or compel a person to vote or refrain from voting
OK. So what person are we talking about in this case?
So standing outside the polling place with a nightstick yelling at people doesn’t constitute threatened infliction of injury?
Wow I’m gonna stop posting on here…
Why do you mock fafaroo’s name, DA?
Why do you think me incapable of error, Dennis?
Besides, unlike you, my mistakes demonstrate that I’m unworthy of the burden of omniscience.
And what question is it you want answered, the one you asked me why I answer so many questions?
Capice?
You’re the East Coast champion, Denise the Dense, if you feel your status is threatened by my postings here from the Best Coast, I’d give you the advice my dad used to give the junior college track runners he coached before each meet:
“Do your best, and don’t look back.”
So standing outside the polling place with a nightstick yelling at people doesn’t constitute threatened infliction of injury?
It constitutes a reason for the cops to be called and for them to arrest the guy for disturbing the peace, but you really, really think that this is going to be a problem of any sort in the future?
Thanks for giving us a glimpse of what clinical paranoid looks like.
It constitutes a reason for the cops to be called and for them to arrest the guy for disturbing the peace, but you really, really think that this is going to be a problem of any sort in the future? –DeeAy
Do you mean would it be a reasonable assumption that the NBPP or members of the NBPP will now be emboldened to try a stunt like this again?
Yes, Dee, we do think it will be a problem in the future.
http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
If you read through the testimony at this hearing you’ll see that there was a lot of disageement at the DOJ re what exactly to do in this case. However, there also was testimony of examples where the Bush DOJ completely ignored even more egregious voter intimidation.
A quote from one of the commisioners at the end of the hearing:
COMMISSIONER YAKI: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I think I have made it very clear, I think that we are spending enormous time and resources on re-litigating an issue, a single-focused issue, and trying to bootstrap within it some Whitewater-esque conspiracy, which I think is going to get us nowhere. It only undermines our credibility as a Commission. We somehow are going to create this atmosphere that the Justice Department will not be pursuing enforcement of voting rights. And I would just like to say this. When you look at what happened during the Bush administration, when you look at the fact that they declined people wearing guns and intimidating Latino voters, that they declined people interviewing elderly black voters in their homes in Mississippi, interviewing elderly Latino voters in New Mexico, going into Philadelphia in sort of Men in Black-type outfits and this Commission has turned a blind eye to that for years, turned a blind eye to Katrina, turned a blind eye to so many other issues but, somehow in this particular instance, we’re going to find fault with the Justice Department is the height, height of hypocrisy.”
Liberal game plan:
1. Blame Bush
2. Call everyone that disagrees with you racist
3. If you can’t prove they are racist then say they support people that are racist
Liberal game plan:
1. Blame Bush
2. Call everyone that disagrees with you racist
3. If you can’t prove they are racist then say they support people that are racist
Ailes would be so proud of the dunces he sets forth to carry on the good word.
What is ailes?
Why do liberals not have a problem calling people racist but they have a problem with everyone calling Obama names?
Why do Republican shills keep claiming that Democrats are the only racists in desperate attempts to change the subject?
I didn’t say Democrats were racists
Why do you feel the need to call everyone a name all the time?
The guy who made the “liberal game plan” post has suddenly decided that it’s not nice to be mean to people?
How is making the liberal game plan not being nice?
The only arguments I ever here from liberals are the three that I just mentioned.
Calling people names behind a computer screen is childish.
That’s two seperate things.
So you follow up the lie that was your “game plan” post with the lie that it bears some resemblance to what the people you hate actually think and say. How precious!
That didn’t really make sense to me. I’m sorry, I’m dumb, explain that last statement please. And how does it prove that democrats don’t just blame Bush and call everyone a racist all the time?
B Holt: read the hearing transcripts. Facts are stubborn things.
You are indeed dumb. That is why I mock you.
“The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation.”
What law are you referring to?
Why don’t you just answer me instead of deleting my posts and telling me to move my question to somewhere else?
There must be a law that says this if you quoted it.
Ok I moved it to this story, can you answer my question now?
You’re arguing that someone should have been prosecuted for voter intimidation when no voters claimed to have been intimidated – aside from the fact that you wanted him to be prosecuted without the benefit of being able to face the accusers that don’t exist, under what grounds other than that he’s a scary black man can you defend your position?
I never said anyone should be prosecuted. He quoted a law:
“The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation.”
That is a specific law (if it exists), that specifically says there must be a pattern of voter intimidation to be able to prosecute someone for voter intimidation.
I want to know what law he was quoting, why do you keep changing the subject?
Do you understand that if you quote laws then they must be written down somewhere?
You keep changing the subject and saying things that I never said. Where did I say this?
“You’re arguing that someone should have been prosecuted for voter intimidation…”
You either
a) don’t understand what I’m asking
or
b) don’t know where that’s written and want to keep changing the subject
BHolt:
Do you understand that the Constitution *is* “the law”?
Yes I understand that.
Do you understand that there was specific law quoted:
“The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation.”
I just want to know what law in PA says that.
Why is this so hard to understand and why do people keep saying that the constitution applies to this and that’s all.
Sure the constitution applies, I’m not saying it doesn’t.
If he understood that, he’d have stopped asking the same question that I answered however long ago it was.
It’s weird how people on the Right – the people who constantly claim to respect the constitution – will aggressively fail to acknowledge it when the laws based on it dictate a result that they don’t like.
“Do you understand that the Constitution *is* “the law”?”
So he quoted the constitution when he said this?
“The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation.”
Where does is say voter intimidation in the constitution?
WOW this is crazy, I can’t people this is so hard to get an answer.
Ok now I’m frustrated and I can’t make a complete sentence.
Ok let’s start over,
This is quoting a specific law:
“The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation.”
The reason that I don’t think that he was quoting the constitution is that the constitution doesn’t say anything about voter intimidation in the 6th amendment.
So what law is he quoting?
Time to pour some additional knowledge into the BHole:
Amendment VI:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him…”
This portion of the foundation of all law in the United States, AKA “The Constitution”, is the part of the law that makes it necessary for voters to claim that they were intimidated before someone can be convicted of voter intimidation. Is it that you’re too stupid to grasp this fact, or is it that despite knowing you’re in the wrong, you’re desperately grasping at whatever straw you think might obfuscate your lack of an honest argument to back up your assertions? So far, it’s impossible to tell which of the two possibilities is applicable.
Ok so where did the part about a pattern of voter intimidation come from? Is that in the constitution?
I’m not arguing that there has to be a witness to come and accuse someone, I just want to know where it says anything about a pattern of intimidation is required.
“The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation.”
According to this specific wording, witnesses have to show that there is a pattern of voter intimidation to be prosecuted for voter intimidation. There must be a law that says this, so where is it?
You’re the one claiming that the witnesses will be prosecuted for the crime they witnessed, not him.
There must be a law that says this, so where is it?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/
Because this needs to be pointed out, again, no one has ever testified or come forward who has firsthand testimony of any voter intimidation or attempted voter intimidation.
Accordingly, there was not enough sustainable evidence to bring a case against two of the defendants so the charges against them were dismissed.
“The law” can mean “the specific law that is under consideration”.
It can also mean “the collection of legal definitions in force, collectively referred to as ‘the law’”.
One warning: if you apologize and admit you goofed, people might think you’re a responsible adult.
What law requires that there be a pattern of voter intimidation?
As far as I can tell, states have different laws regarding voter intimidation and I can’t find where it says that there has to be a pattern of voter intimidation.
So can we just say whatever we want and reword things to make it say what we want them to or is there actually a law that says there must be a pattern of voter intimidation?
Clearly BHolt’s fingers are about third-knuckle-deep into his ears. I suggest you just give up at this point, guys.
The Voting Rights Act is mostly aimed at state government officials. (The specific wording of the intimidation bit *could* be read to include intimidation by ordinary citizens, but it looks like it would be a stretch to make it stick.)
As far as I can tell, states have different laws regarding voter intimidation
I’m sure they do. Of course, the DoJ wouldn’t have jurisdiction for violations of state law, now would they?
In Pennsylvania it is illegal for any person or corporation to directly or indirectly practice
intimidation or coercion through use of force, violence, restraint, or infliction or threatened
infliction of injury, damage, harm, or loss, in order to induce or compel a person to vote or refrain
from voting for a particular candidate or on a particular political issue.
25 PA. STAT. ANN. § 3547; See also: 25 PA. STAT. ANN. § 3539 and § 3527 (2007).
This is all I found, where does it say there has to be a pattern of intimidation?
So I’m asking for the PA law that says there has to be a pattern of intimidation, because that is what Oliver said in his rant above. Do you understand that now or are you going to continue to dodge the question?
Well he said that there must be a pattern of voter intimidation and so far Oliver has said nothing to me except trying to dodge the question. I’m just wondering where he read that.
So I’m asking for the PA law that says there has to be a pattern of intimidation, because that is what Oliver said in his rant above. Do you understand that now or are you going to continue to dodge the question?
BHolt, you can shut up now. Because this is a Federal case, not a state case. So you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. So refer back the Federal Rules of Evidence linked to above.
Second, if you knew WTF you were talking about, you would know that PA authorities decided not to pursue any charges at all against the two NBPP guys.
The relevant statute – the only relevant statute – is Section 11(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act,…
Right, In Other Words…. That is the relevant Federal statute. Good for you.
Now tell us all how the Federal government brings charges against someone for violating it if there are no witnesses to the act of intimidation.
Fire a way …
Where does it say there has to be a pattern of intimidation?
BHolt:
Okay.
So, you believe that when Oliver said “the law” he had to be “quoting” (I assume you mean “referring to”) a specific law. Even though the phrase “the law” has a clear, well understood meaning in the vernacular.
So, you’re stupid.
Or, you’re despicably dishonest, trying to put words into another person’s mouth just so you can attack.
As I said: you had a chance to admit you goofed, that you got wound up on a mistake, and if you’d done that, you’d have displayed characteristics of being a responsible adult. I’m more disappointed than you probably realize that you failed so miserably at this.
And remember also, that you’re looking for a Pennsylvania state law that would trigger a federal prosecution. I’m guessing the minions will be up all night looking for that one.
Wait what? Are saying the the Federal government can’t bring a prosecution for a federal crime unless there’s a state stature authorizing it? What do you mean by “trigger”?
They are good at avoiding the question.
Where does it say there has to be a pattern of intimidation?
Bholt, just go away. The civil complaint against the four defendants, including the NBPP itself, included a charge that the NBPP had authorized and organized a nationwide, orchestrated strategy to intimidate voters.
There was and is zero evidence that this ever occurred.
They are good at avoiding the question.
What question are we avoiding?
And no matter how you answer that, my next response will be “But what question are we avoiding?”
And we’ll just keep doing that forever.
Sound familiar?
where did he get that there has to be a pattern of voter intimidation?
I think Bholt is broken.
He said that there has to be a pattern of voter intimidation right? Where did that come from? Where does it say that? That’s all I’m asking.
Where does it say what?
funny liberals… making stuff up then avoiding questions…
What questions?
No. Or, rather, no native speaker of English would make that mistake unless deliberately trying to be dishonest.
Thank you for clarifying your intentions. For a time, I was wondering if anyone could be *that* stupid. Now I know that you’re dishonest. And, stupid… but not *that* stupid.
“The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation.”
That’s a pretty clear statement, I don’t know how many other ways you can interpret it.
I haven’t seen any law that says that, so I’m assuming that there isn’t one. If you want to spin words and dodge the question that’s fine. The fact is that no one can show me a law that was clearly stated here.
BHolt: perhaps this will help (but I doubt it)?
http://article.nationalreview.com/437619/the-new-black-panther-casebr-a-conservative-dissent/abigail-thernstrom
“Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high.
……
In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.
….
The two Panthers have been described as “armed” — which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing “jackboots,” but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.
A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: “We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.” “Indications”? Again, evidence has yet to be offered.
….
The DOJ’s decision to drop the case may have been wrong; so far, we have no hard evidence that can definitely settle the question. But we do know that, in 2008, it was a unique case. And there are much more important questions involving voting-rights enforcement upon which to focus.”
Abigail Thernstrom is the author, most recently, of Voting Rights — and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections. She is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
That is interesting, but maybe I should explain to you that I’m not really worried about the black panther case. I’m worried about Oliver Willis saying things that aren’t true. No one can tell me what law says that there must be a pattern of voter intimidation. All I have seen is dodging and spinning around the question.
Shorter BHole: Concern Troll is concerned.
Prodigal you must be really dizzy with all the spinning and dodging that you’re doing. When you have some actual information to tell everyone, then we will talk. If that ever happens then I beleive I’ll faint. But you have fun calling people names and spinning in circles.
Shorter BHolt:
“When Anatole France said ‘The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.’ he had to be quoting a specific law because… well, just because!”
The only spinning going on here is being done by the BToad in the Bhole.
Fuck the Black panther party! They will end up shooting each other anyway there a joke and fuck shbazz or what ever he call’s himself, he’s a punk thug wannabe.
Didn’t Obama’s pastor of many years preach similar ideas as the Black Panthers. If my pastor said things I believed were wrong, I would go somewhere else.
[...] intolerance, and anger with no regard for the consequences of their actions. Think of the recent connect-the-dots supposedly tying Obama to the New Black Panthers, the supposed indoctrination of children, the [...]