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

[BostonPirate]

really

lets have a grown up discussion right now

the truth is that... The Black Panther leader that Bush's AG Mukasey let off the hook should be the real title of this thread.

does that make this any less racist to the righties that are screaming about this?

just the posting of another clip showing how the guy is a bad guy isn't enough, because you have been so offended that Obama did it. It becomes important now to know whether you think an injustice has been done and whther or not the person that did it had racist motives??

whether or not the guy is a panther is not in dispute. what is in dispute here, by reading thte thread title, iswhether or not AG holder did it if he was racially motivated.

well Bush's guy let him go.

what does this mean now to the righties?

 

[laikaNYC]

The hubbub has been all about the civil case that Holder dropped (which the Bush DOJ wanted to prosecute), not the criminal case.

 

[BostonPirate]

ok... i will give you guys a bit more to read incase no one is clicking on the links....

source...

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.

Conservative activist and former Voting Section Attorney J. Christian Adams identified United States Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli as the person who ordered the case dismissed, but he wasn't confirmed until March, three months after the case was downgraded. (see clarification here) Adams also said that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes declared, “Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.” But according to the Raben Group, a progressive PR firm Fernades worked for prior to the Justice Department, she didn't leave her job with them until June 22, 2009, more than six months after the criminal case against the NBPP members was dropped. Even if she did say that -- and none of my sources in the Voting Section ever heard her say anything of the sort -- it wouldn't have had any bearing on the NBPP case, because she wasn't there when it was dismissed.

 

[CowboyBob]

This happened before President Obama was inaugurated.

BostonPirate's amended title is accutate:

The Black Panther leader that Bush's AG Mukasey let off the hook

Yet another distortion from the right wing.

 

[BostonPirate]

This happened before President Obama was inaugurated.

BostonPirate's amended title is accutate:

The Black Panther leader that Bush's AG Mukasey let off the hook

Yet another distortion from the right wing.

it's a little more complicated than that... it requires us to look at our perceptions and partizanships.

see.... If you think it was Ok for Bush to let the guy go criminally, but that Holder was expected to pursue civily because he was the same color as the defendant than that is an entirely new aspect that we have not addressed.

If Holder Doesn't prosecute a black guy, does it automaticaly add up to racism? Why? as we read above, the person suposedly carrying holders message woudl never have been in the meetings, so this is trumped up.

but it doesn't free us of a bigger issue in this thread..... that the color of the AG mattered because he was the same color of the defendant.

I'll quote JB3...

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.

well the guys that let him go were white. where does that leave the racist accusations and what does it say about those that made them?

 

[laikaNYC]

well the guys that let him go were white. where does that leave the racist accusations and what does it say about those that made them?

The Bush DOJ didn't let them completely off the hook They would have proceeded with the civil case that Holder dropped, allegedly because his DOJ doesn't go after cases with black defendants and white victims.

 

[BostonPirate]

The Bush DOJ didn't let them completely off the hook They would have proceeded with the civil case that Holder dropped, allegedly because his DOJ doesn't go after cases with black defendants and white victims.

but you are saying that you DON'T hold Bush responsible for not pressing criminal charges when you also said that you DO hold Obama responsible for not pressing civil charges.

and that is almost irrelevant because the report you posted indicates this....

Adams also said that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes declared, “Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.”

she was working for a private firm at that time and did not come on board at the DOJ until June 22, 2009.

She could not have been there to say that which is being attributed to Holder's orders.

She didn't come on board for six months after the case was decided.

Adams lied under oath.

It is bogus.

 

[laikaNYC]

You're confused between the non-existent criminal case and the civil case which Holder refused. The civil case was not decided six months before she came on board. The decision to drop the civil charges were made in late May 2009. She came on board the next month. The transcripts from the hearing state that the statements were made by Fernandes in November 2009. Sloppy reporting by MediaMatters and Cynthia Tucker, but what else is new.

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt

 

[BostonPirate]

You're confused between the non-existent criminal case and the civil case which Holder refused. The civil case was not decided six months before she came on board. The decision to drop the civil charges were made in late May 2009. She came on board the next month.

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt

bush's people refused the criminal case. Obama's people refused the civil case.If you believe this is a crime, what is worse?

and.... she couldn't have said that month before that she had been given orders by Holder to drop all cases against african americans, right?

 

[construct]

Hmm. This timeline stuff is interesting. Would you like another complicating factor? The standard of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal case. The standard in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence. The standard in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt. So one could win a civil case that would be lost as a criminal case. Think of O.J. Simpson as a famous example.

Now, let me see if I got this right. The Bush Justice Dept. dropped the criminal case but wanted to pursue the civil case which would have been easier to win. The Obama Justice Dept. dropped the civil case as well for reasons unknown--unknown because the source for the alleged racial motivation would not have been privy to that information.

Have I understood the situation correctly?

The next question raised here then became, "Why are certain people so insistent that there was a racial motivation when such motivation can't be proved?" Could it be that a black person dropped a case against a black person because there was great likelihood that the case was a dog? Could the fact that everybody was the same race be coincidence? Well, sure. Likely? I don't know.

Have I understood this part correctly? Is all this more complicated than I think?

 

[bankside]

BostonPirate, what's with all these <airquotes>sources???</airquotes>

I just don't see a lot of truthiness in them. I don't feeel it in my gut.

Or, since Conservatives have difficulty understanding satire, allow me to rephrase.

No conspiracy here. QED. Move along.

 

[BostonPirate]

Construct that is what I am thinking... perhaps not stating as clearly as you, but that is what the evidence presented here is showing.

 

[laikaNYC]

Hmm. This timeline stuff is interesting. Would you like another complicating factor? The standard of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal case. The standard in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence. The standard in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt. So one could win a civil case that would be lost as a criminal case. Think of O.J. Simpson as a famous example.

Now, let me see if I got this right. The Bush Justice Dept. dropped the criminal case but wanted to pursue the civil case which would have been easier to win. The Obama Justice Dept. dropped the civil case as well for reasons unknown--unknown because the source for the alleged racial motivation would not have been privy to that information.

Have I understood the situation correctly?

The next question raised here then became, "Why are certain people so insistent that there was a racial motivation when such motivation can't be proved?" Could it be that the fact that a black person dropped a case against a black person be because there was great likelihood that the case was a dog? Could the fact that everybody was the same race be coincidence? Well, sure. Likely? I don't know.

Have I understood this part correctly? Is all this more complicated than I think?

Correct about the first situation and the second part depends on if you believe Mr. Adams' testimony or not.

 

[bankside]

Hmm. This timeline stuff is interesting. Would you like another complicating factor? The standard of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal case. The standard in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence. The standard in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt. So one could win a civil case that would be lost as a criminal case. Think of O.J. Simpson as a famous example.

Now, let me see if I got this right. The Bush Justice Dept. dropped the criminal case but wanted to pursue the civil case which would have been easier to win. The Obama Justice Dept. dropped the civil case as well for reasons unknown--unknown because the source for the alleged racial motivation would not have been privy to that information.

Have I understood the situation correctly?

The next question raised here then became, "Why are certain people so insistent that there was a racial motivation when such motivation can't be proved?" Could it be that the fact that a black person dropped a case against a black person be because there was great likelihood that the case was a dog? Could the fact that everybody was the same race be coincidence? Well, sure. Likely? I don't know.

Have I understood this part correctly? Is all this more complicated than I think?

The answer is clear. As the available evidence fell below "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence" and then to "wild-eyed conjecture", the venue changed from Criminal Court, to Civil Court, to Kangaroo Court, where Fox News viewers need only consider the "truthiness" of the matter.

N'est-ce pas? Clearly, this feeels like a conspiracy...

 

[BostonPirate]

Correct about the first situation and the second part depends on if you believe Mr. Adams' testimony or not.

you presented mr adams testimony as proof that Mr Holder was implicated.

 

[construct]

Construct that is what I am thinking... perhaps not stating as clearly as you, but that is what the evidence presented here is showing.

Then aren't we sitting around as armchair attorneys trying the case in absentia with incomplete evidence? And then the second question (the one about the motivation the Obama Justice Dept.'s critics) becomes the only real question?

 

[construct]

The answer is clear. As the available evidence fell below "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence" and then to "wild-eyed conjecture", the venue changed from Criminal Court, to Civil Court, to Kangaroo Court, where Fox News viewers need only consider the "truthiness" of the matter.

N'est-ce pas? Clearly, this feeels like a conspiracy...

I guess I got my answer.

 

[bankside]

Then aren't we sitting around as armchair attorneys trying the case in absentia with incomplete evidence? And then the second question (the one about the motivation the Obama Justice Dept.'s critics) becomes the only real question?

The jury box in Kangaroo Court is filled with armchairs. All of them have beer holders.

The Jury Room (also known as the "green room") even includes satellite TV for time-shifting Nancy Grace, so the jurors can always obtain advice on any points of law they want to clarify during their deliberations.


</satire>

At some point, in a discussion like this, does a preponderance of opinion not come into it? It isn't the scandal it is though to be.

Though the asshat in the video is an asshat, clearly.

 

[construct]

The jury box in Kangaroo Court is filled with armchairs. All of them have beer holders.

The Jury Room (also known as the "green room") even includes satellite TV for time-shifting Nancy Grace, so the jurors can always obtain advice on any points of law they want to clarify during their deliberations.


</satire>

At some point, in a discussion like this, does a preponderance of opinion not come into it? It isn't the scandal it is though to be.

Though the asshat in the video is an asshat, clearly.

Kudos for the part about Nancy Grace!

 

[BostonPirate]

Then aren't we sitting around as armchair attorneys trying the case in absentia with incomplete evidence? And then the second question (the one about the motivation the Obama Justice Dept.'s critics) becomes the only real question?

we are. that has been my issue, that Holder is being accused of a crime with no proof and conservatives are assigning motive where there is no proof, just one testimony that is easily disproven.

the assertion, Bt Adams, in the report Laika supplied, is that Eric Holder has ordered the DOJ to NOT press charges against any African american organisation, through Ms Fernandez.

She wasn't employed at Doj until a month after this and mr adams resigned two weeks after the event... the day the decision was made.

they couldn't have been in a meeting together. They missed each other by two weeks as employees. they litterally were never in the building at the same time.

so yes... the motivation of the Obama admin is the bottom line, and as I had asserted earlier, when it comes to politically hot issues, like the torture cases, this DOJ does not get involved. they seem to avoid a political case liek the plague, even if there may have been real crimes committed.