The Right Scoop
I agree that the 10% still have the right to cast their vote. I was saying that it makes no sense for the NBPP to go to that precinct, when they would make more of a difference at one where the numbers were more even, or where there were more white voters to intimidate. At this precinct, how many white voters you think they would have? A couple dozen, all day? Further, there is no evidence that their intention was actually to stop anyone from voting.The facts, as best I can determine, are that the Bush DoJ originally opted to file only a civil suit. If Obama's DoJ had intended not to do any more than that they could have simply let it stand. But they asked for, and were granted an extension of time to amend it to criminal, while they investigated. Why do that if their intention was to not file one? Meanwhile, the NBPP did not respond to the civil complaint, resulting in a default finding against them... on the civil matter. Had a criminal complaint been filed, they would then have had more time to answer. But since section 11b of the law set injunctive relief as the only relief allowed... and they didn't intend to do what they were enjoined from doing until at least 2012 anyway... why incur the expense to fight it?Holder's DoJ decided that there wasn't a strong enough case to push for criminal enforcement, since all they could prove was vaguely intimidating behavior, but not any actual threats, nor any attempt to stop anyone from voting, nor any expressed intention to stop anyone from voting.If I have a nightstick and I'm tapping it against the palm of my hand... it may look intimidating, but I'm not threatening anyone with it,not any more than by merely glaring at someone, or standing with arms folded and exaggerating one's biceps. They NBPP spoke... but did not threaten. They were insulting, obnoxious, yes. They stated their opinion "You're going to be ruled by a black man, cracker." This is an opinion, not a threat. The DoJ decided there simply wasn't enough to go forward.And from what I've read, though I haven't researched it, Bush's DoJ had apparently declined to prosecute a similar case in 2006.
Much better on sources,you're learning. However you will note in my post "a Violation of the Civil Rights of voters.", this is how the Feds get somebody is by charging someone with violating someone's Civil Rights,it does not matter if the district is 90% for candidate A the 10% that favor candidate B have a right to cast their vote as well,free from intimidation of any kind.The reason is this case was only recently dropped,the Judge issued his decision in April 2009. Why did Holder wait until just recently to drop the case? This is why it's getting attention,not to mention Adams statements warrant an investigation. However, if you stand on a street corner and brandish a weapon at someone,that under the law is assault,sure they have a right to observe the polling but not to brandish weapons at the public period.In closing a question, why then if Holder was in possession of this information as I am sure it was made it available to him why did he not close the case then?
You're right about Mulkasey.But here's a link to a letter written Jan 11 2009 from Joseph Hunt of the DOJ to Chairman Reynolds of the Commission on Human Rights.http://www.usccr.gov/correspd/1-12-10_Hunt2Reyn...Page 2 states that under section 11b of the Voting Rights Act, the injunction they had already obtained by the date of this letter was all they could get under the law. It specifically states that the law doesn't authorize criminal penalties or other kinds of relief. I had problems with the logic of the story to begin with. The precinct in question (at 12th and Fairmount) was leaning about 90% towards Obama. So they would go there and intimidate... whom? There wouldn't be enough white voters in that precinct to make a difference. What possible purpose could it serve? Unless they were doing what they had said they were going to, and mounting a defensive presence in case anyone tried to intimidate the black voters there. (I think you have to admit, in our history, voter intimidation has traditionally been directed more at blacks than whites)This letter though, might explain why the NBPP didn't bother to contest the matter in court. If the defendant knew that all he was looking at was a civil injunction until 2012, and they weren't looking as far as the mid terms... why bother fighting it? The election was over, and their guy won as decisive a victory as any politician could want. I posted this one since it was under the Bush Administration... but I saw a 38 page response by Holder to a Congressional inquiry which referred to the same Section 11b and its limitations.So the other question... why is this being dredged up now, a year and a half later? Why didn't the media, in interviewing J Christian Adams, mention this letter? Does that pass the smell test?
The suit was originally filed on January 7,2009 for violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,as a Violation of the Civil Rights of voters.The DOJ team did not present their draft "request for entry of default" of the case until March 23,2009.The Judge made his ruling against the NBPP in April 2009. State and Local officials are responsible for filing Criminal charges in this case, i.e.Assault,Intimidation etc. It is a typical strategy of the DOJ to get someone found guilty of violating the Civil Rights of another first, then pursue any Federal criminal charges.It was Obama's DOJ that dropped and open and shut case, that it is the point here and it has nothing to do with Bush's DOJ. The blame Bush mantra is even more irrelevant than usual here.
One problem with this. The event took place in Nov. 2008, and according to transcripts, the DOJ downgraded it to a civil matter in early January 2009. That would be during the Bush Administration, and Alberto Gonzalez's DOJ.
Too bad he's one of those sick Bohemian Grove weirdos like both bushes, Clinton, and Jimmy Carter.
I watched this too. I may not agree with Newt on everything (though I do most), but the guy is one of the smartest and wisest thinkers on the planet.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.