Export thread

Attorney General Eric Holder finally got fed up Tuesday with claims that the Justice Department went easy in a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African American.

The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

"Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate....to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people," said Holder, who is black.

More here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshg...ack_Panther_case_focus_demeans_my_people.html

It appears Mr Holder vets cases through a view of history and not law. Had the KKK showed up to stand in front of a primarily black polling office with clubs, I do believe that they would have been prosecuted well-beyond the ordinary applications of voter intimidation.

Justice is Blind. (That means it can't see colour.)

Adammon said:

Had the KKK showed up to stand in front of a primarily black polling office with clubs, I do believe that they would have been prosecuted well-beyond the ordinary applications of voter intimidation.

Click to expand...

Why the racial specification? Would it have been okay if your hypothetical KKK members had shown up in front of a white polling office?

SpecialKO said:

Why the racial specification? Would it have been okay if your hypothetical KKK members had shown up in front of a white polling office?

Click to expand...

Of course not. But from AG Holder's perspective, crimes against 'his people' outweigh crimes against...I dunno, "not his people"?

And even more to your point of specification, as a white guy I wouldn't think to be intimidated by a group concerned with the extermination of black people, would I?

Adammon said:

Attorney General Eric Holder finally got fed up Tuesday with claims that the Justice Department went easy in a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African American.

The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

"Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate....to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people," said Holder, who is black.

More here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshg...ack_Panther_case_focus_demeans_my_people.html

It appears Mr Holder vets cases through a view of history and not law. Had the KKK showed up to stand in front of a primarily black polling office with clubs, I do believe that they would have been prosecuted well-beyond the ordinary applications of voter intimidation.

Justice is Blind. (That means it can't see colour.)

Click to expand...

I'd take issue with the bolded bit as well.

If you are white and Catholic, or Irish, or Communist, or currently voting Democratic.... a Carpet Bagger...

They have plenty of hate to spread around.
Added at: 20:49
Bartle Bull did not see any of that. He's 41.
Added at: 20:51
It would be like me saying, Rwanda was the worst case of Ethnic Cleansing that I've seen in my lifetime. Then some one would say the Holocaust was worse. Then I'd have to say, that was before my time.

What do you mean "My people"?



Oh wait, it actually applies this time.....

Adammon said:

And even more to your point of specification, as a white guy I wouldn't think to be intimidated by a group concerned with the extermination of black people, would I?

Click to expand...

Then you should totally be okay with two NBP members standing outside a polling office in a predominantly black/Democrat-voting area. (I know you're not )

Seriously, though, I think you're buying into the story that Holder was the one who dismissed the charges for lack of sufficient evidence, when it was actually the Bush-era DoJ, who also went on to file civil charges against the man carrying the one weapon present.

Maybe Holder simply agrees with the previous AG that in light of the lack of sufficient evidence of intimidation (according to federal law), and the fact that no local voters filed complaints, that the case just wasn't worth pursuing criminal charges against. Maybe he's busy pursuing larger cases of potential voter intimidation.

I agree that he probably shouldn't have opened his mouth and it was a silly thing to say, but I imagine he's sick of people asking him about it.

SpecialKO said:

Then you should totally be okay with two NBP members standing outside a polling office in a predominantly black/Democrat-voting area. (I know you're not )

Seriously, though, I think you're buying into the story that Holder was the one who dismissed the charges for lack of sufficient evidence, when it was actually the Bush-era DoJ, who also went on to file civil charges against the man carrying the one weapon present.

Maybe Holder simply agrees with the previous AG that in light of the lack of sufficient evidence of intimidation (according to federal law), and the fact that no local voters filed complaints, that the case just wasn't worth pursuing criminal charges against. Maybe he's busy pursuing larger cases of potential voter intimidation.

I agree that he probably shouldn't have opened his mouth and it was a silly thing to say, but I imagine he's sick of people asking him about it.

Click to expand...

From your first link:

"Justice officials who served in the Bush administration have countered that the department had enough evidence to pursue the case more fully and called the decision to narrow it political. The matter caught the attention of some Republican lawmakers, who held up the confirmation of President Obama's assistant attorney general for civil rights for months asking for a congressional review of the case.
The conflict intensified last week when former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams, who was hired during the Bush administration and helped develop the case, told the Commission on Civil Rights that he believed the case had been narrowed because some of his colleagues in the civil rights division were interested in protecting only minorities.
"There is no doubt that some people were hostile to this case," Adams said in a phone interview."

Click to expand...

Adammon said:

From your first link:

Click to expand...

Since they filed the civil lawsuit before Obama took office, I have to admire the political chutzpah it takes to criticize the Holder for it (linked from the Politifact article I linked previously)

There are two suits here which you're conflating. The criminal issue which was started and dropped by the Bush administration. The civil issue, which was more defensible in court, started in the Bush adminstration and subsequently completely dropped by Obama's DOJ team.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html

The Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.

Click to expand...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ls-call-question-dojs-story-hans-von-spakovsk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/28/AR2010102807129.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/29/civil.rights.commission/

But hey, keep firing out unsourced Politifact.

Adammon said:

But hey, keep firing out unsourced Politifact.

Click to expand...

Um, of that stuff you posted, unlike Politifact, there wasn't a single source, and barely a linkback to anything. Your original Politico link had more.

You'll also find that if you bothered to read my post with the politifact link that I mentioned that there were two different cases.

I'm still waiting for why you believe that Holder vets cases according to history and race, as you contended in your OP.

Then again, considering the DOJ's ultimate decision to not investigate a voter intimidation incident in New Mexico during the 2008 primaries which involved two elderly hispanic women as plaintiffs, maybe Holder does vet based on history.