The Black Panther leader that A.G. Holder let off the hook

[BostonPirate]

It looks like I'm on the same page as BostonPirate. I'm seeing a man, (Mr. Adams) who is trying to bypass all answers they are asking. A man who knows his job is up and trying to stop it. A man who had all the freedom that Bush's department offered. Now under a new President he knows over.
He wants Mr Coates to come in and answer all the questions. I don't understand why Mr Coates isn't there as he seems to have all the answers.
Mr Adams doesn't seem to need the 5th amendment as all he has to do is say he won't answer.

I also noted that it was clearly a politicized environment... one two commisioners seem to be giving him real questions but others are saying they saw the fox report, and asking him to make articles he's written part of the record.

 

[iman]

I'm never sure what "on topic" means, but when a poster alleges racial bias simply because the AG and the Pres are black, it is tough to avoid the topic of political racism.

Anyway, it seems that the US Commission on Civil Rights has been deliberately loaded with conservatives and is not bipartisan at all. Bush appointed two Republicans to the commission in 2007 after two Republicans already on the commission switched their political affiliation to "independent", thus loading the commission with conservatives.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007090045?lid=1127215&rid=49931225

This is reminiscent of Reagan appointing Clarence Thomas to head the EEOC in order to sabotage the Equal Rights Commission. Republicans are just not fond of civil rights for other folks.

 

[JB3]

I'm never sure what "on topic" means, but when a poster alleges racial bias simply because the AG and the Pres are black, it is tough to avoid the topic of political racism.
.

That's not whats being alleged and you know it. What is being alleged is that the case was not pursued BECAUSE of the race of the accused. If the AG and Pres' race played into it, we'll find out, but for now it has more to do with the race of the accused than anything else.

 

[opinterph]

US Assistant Attorney General Deputy Julie Fernandez ordered, 'Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.'

When I click on the Fox Nation link I arrive to a webpage with a video and a short statement which includes:

Todd Gaziano (Congressional appointee on the United States Commission on Civil Rights) claim … that US Assistant Attorney General Deputy Julie Fernandez ordered, 'Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.'

As I understand it, the source of information for Mr. Gaziano’s statement in the video is attributed to statements of testimony given by J. Christian Adams to the U.S. Commission On Civil Rights on Tuesday, July 6, 2010. The reference point in the video is at approximately 9:35 minutes. I do not find the same or any similar statement in the transcript of the testimony. The closest statement is perhaps the following from page 62:

MR. ADAMS: … I was told by Voting Section management that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants on the benefit of white victims, that if somebody wanted to bring these cases it was up to the U.S. Attorney, but the Civil Rights Division wasn't going to be bringing it …


MR. BLACKWOOD: … when you were present, who made the statement?

MR. ADAMS: Okay. Two things. The statement was that we were in the business of doing traditional civil rights work, and, of course, everybody knows what that means, and helping minorities -- helping -- litigating on their behalf. That statement was made by Julie Fernandes, who is the DAG.

I wonder what Mr. Adams meant by the statement: “Everybody knows what that means.”

It appears to me that Ms. Fernandes was indicating that the DOJ would pursue non-traditional cases and that the Civil Rights Division would pursue the [familiar and more numerous] cases involving suppression of minority voters. Perhaps my interpretation is incorrect or incomplete, but I do not see anything in the record to suggest that the Deputy AG prohibited lawsuits involving complaints against blacks or other national minorities.

Did I miss something?

 

[opinterph]

[The record of proceedings of The New Black Panther Party Hearing (2) is] a 31 page bunch of nothing that does not implicate or mention Eric Holder not even ONCE.

It's actually 131 pages. Mr. Holder is mentioned once by name on page 99 and once by title on page 102.

 

[iman]

That's not whats being alleged and you know it. What is being alleged is that the case was not pursued BECAUSE of the race of the accused. If the AG and Pres' race played into it, we'll find out, but for now it has more to do with the race of the accused than anything else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------^That's a distinction without a difference. Here is what the OP said in post #7:

You think a racial bias in the DoJ is a joke? You should be concerned instead of diverting attention away from the matter at hand.

This is clear grounds for Eric Holder to be forced to resign for not upholding the duties of his office as well as grounds for disbarrment as an officer of the court.

------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if the AG is black and is racially biased; what kind of bias do you think is being alleged?

The MOD's are acting like their on meth in this thread. A Sarah Palin speech wouldn't get this much editing. What would the General say?

 

[jaycee style]

he's not a panther

there are not more panthers.

the last living black panther was LaShane Perish Crooks and it died with him in 1996

 

[laikaNYC]

Even Bartle Bull, the famed civil rights attorney who ran both RFK's and Jimmy Carter's Presidential Campaign in NY, said the decision to drop the charges were 100% politically motivated in order to maximize support among Obama's community activist voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoEpySrLYxs

 

[iman]

^Bartle Bull is a frequent FOX contributor who supported John McCain in the last election, chairs a campaign to draft Giuliani for Governor and has spoken of his personal dislike of Obama. Bartle offers no evidence for his charge against Holder and has tried to tie ACORN to this incident. Bartle has no credibility.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080022

 

[BostonPirate]

^Bartle Bull is a frequent FOX contributor who supported John McCain in the last election, chairs a campaign to draft Giuliani for Governor and has spoken of his personal dislike of Obama. Bartle offers no evidence for his charge against Holder and has tried to tie ACORN to this incident. Bartle has no credibility.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080022

Good catch! I love the people here that fact check the sources for bias.

I try when I can, but it gives me a sour stomach to see page after page of Fixed News Dribble out of all those posts.

 

[rareboy]

^Bartle Bull is a frequent FOX contributor who supported John McCain in the last election, chairs a campaign to draft Giuliani for Governor and has spoken of his personal dislike of Obama. Bartle offers no evidence for his charge against Holder and has tried to tie ACORN to this incident. Bartle has no credibility.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080022

It is only amazing that anyone takes anything Bartle says seriously.

 

[laikaNYC]

^Bartle Bull is a frequent FOX contributor who supported John McCain in the last election, chairs a campaign to draft Giuliani for Governor and has spoken of his personal dislike of Obama. Bartle offers no evidence for his charge against Holder and has tried to tie ACORN to this incident. Bartle has no credibility.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080022

All that proves is that Bull isn't an ideological left-winger. A Democrat dislike Obama, how dare they! Traitor!

 

[rareboy]

^Bartle Bull is a frequent FOX contributor who supported John McCain in the last election, chairs a campaign to draft Giuliani for Governor and has spoken of his personal dislike of Obama. Bartle offers no evidence for his charge against Holder and has tried to tie ACORN to this incident. Bartle has no credibility.

And for emphasis....

 

[laikaNYC]

And for emphasis....

It's common sense, rareboy. I love how you all throw him under the bus solely because he isn't a partisan liberal. He must be unreliable because he speaks out against wrongdoings in his own party What a naughty liberal he is. Shame on him for being bi-partisan! He's never allowed to support someone from another party. He/she must ALWAYS vote their own party no matter what.

 

[rareboy]

Bartle offers no evidence for his charge against Holder and has tried to tie ACORN to this incident.

Gee.

Why wouldn't we all just get behind him.

He's like all the hit and run politicos.

No substantive proof. Only innuendo and smears. And it isn't his party. He's a political gadfly.

Oh yeah. Exactly the kind of person to listen to.

 

[iman]

It's common sense, rareboy. I love how you all throw him under the bus solely because he isn't a partisan liberal. He must be unreliable because he speaks out against wrongdoings in his own party What a naughty liberal he is. Shame on him for being bi-partisan! He's never allowed to support someone from another party. He/she must ALWAYS vote their own party no matter what.

No, Bartle can be discounted because neither you or he offer any evidence for your assertions - (

Even Bartle Bull, the famed civil rights attorney who ran both RFK's and Jimmy Carter's Presidential Campaign in NY, said the decision to drop the charges were 100% politically motivated in order to maximize support among Obama's community activist voters)

.

You base everything on Bull's "credentials" and, in fact, his credentials indicate a disingenuous anti-administration bias. Bull has simply become another FOX hack.

 

[laikaNYC]

What exactly indicates that he has a "disingenuous anti-administration" bias? Because he's not an Obama apologist? He pointed out this farce when he saw it.

And what is a FOX hack exactly? Someone who's not a far-left smear merchant?

 

[BostonPirate]

It turns out that the Bush admin chose not to pursue the Black Panthers

this just in....

But solid reporting from Media Matters and Adam Serwer of The American Prospect ought to put this nonsense to rest (it won’t, but it should). The charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice:

The decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.

This means that the case was downgraded to a civil case 11 days before Obama was inaugurated, 26 days before Eric Holder became attorney general, and about nine months before Thomas Perez was confirmed as head of the Civil Rights Division.

full story

so lets get this right....

Bush and his AG let the panthers off the hook. I suppose that means to some that it was ok because since it was a white guy in charge and a black guy that was being let off.

So.....

what does this do to all the stompy indignation?

 

[BostonPirate]

here is a picture of the document that proves it....

source

here is an outside source for the date of the Obama inauguration.

Inauguration Day Date
Tuesday, January 20, 2009

source


and that, as they say, is that.

 

[laikaNYC]

The New Black Panthers President already admitted they were there to intimidate. A default judgment was entered on the civil case. Obama's DOJ intervened in the prosecution of the civil case and refused any further action on that civil judgment. MediaMatters and Cynthia Tucker really have some clueless readers.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JunrpGf5QRc&feature=player_embedded[/ame]