Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Charges Against Black Panthers Dropped by Obama JD (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Charges Against Black Panthers Dropped by Obama JD
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But please stop pretending that what you're talking about somehow constitutes a meaningful reply to what I said.
I'm not sure where you think I claimed I was meaningfully replying to you...?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's an interesting fact that has not been emphasized by the Conservative Media:

quote:
The men stationed themselves near the entrance to a polling place in a largely black neighborhood. Shabazz carried a nightstick. Their actions quickly came to the attention of police, who told Shabazz to leave but allowed Jackson, a certified poll watcher, to remain.
Now while I would find two black men dressed in Panther's uniform intimidating, apparently the police did not think so at the time. Otherwise they would have required both men to leave.

So with the police deciding at the time that Jackson was not sufficiently intimidating, and with no one filing charges of intimindation, isn't there reasonable doubt that Jackson did not actually intimidate people near the polls?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was invited to come and visit this thread, and I must admit it is a slog going through this much material. I like Wayward's response the best - this seems like real extremist ugliness, but at the same time I remember many posts regarding the sting on ACORN, and when further facts came out, there was no recovering those previous hours of our lives spent on an incomplete and inaccurate description of what had actually occurred.

I am also suspicious of J. Christian Adams who I believe was involved with the largely imaginary crusade against voter fraud (Republicans removed many tens of thousands of voters from rolls in defense against purported voter fraud that, upon investigation, let to only a handful of demonstrated convictions of people voting. So using the fear of a largely imaginary crime against democracy, they committed the same act against democracy on a scale hundreds of times larger).

Pete's MSNBC citation is MSNBC citing an AP story, so his real question is whether AP and the Washington Times are right wing blogs. In fact, the Washington Times has been a right wing propaganda source since its founding, but not so with the AP.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thread title is ambiguous as it could refer either to charges against the Black Panthers as a group or against these two individuals. In practice it seems unlikely anyone could have proved the Black Panthers as an organization told these men to take weapons to a polling place, even if the act itself was clearly improper. As to the resolution, enthusiastic amateurs get carried away and commit illegal acts in every election, and this misconduct seems to have been halted by the police when they observed it. So far as I am aware, the usual outcome then is for a court to order the offender not to do it again - and if he does so in the next election, a court will likely be less sympathetic. That is what happened this time. And I see no reason Obama himself should be involved with a violation of election law of so little consequence.

[ July 09, 2010, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But you forget, hobsen, that the Bush Administration was quite gung-ho on prosecuting these men to the fullest extent of the law.

And, as we all know, there can only be nefarious reasons for the Obama Administration to not continue Bush Administration policies... [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I was invited to come and visit this thread, and I must admit it is a slog going through this much material.

Not that much. Short video clip and skim of 5 pages from 3 different articles, which I've highlighted here.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I like Wayward's response the best - this seems like real extremist ugliness, but at the same time I remember many posts regarding the sting on ACORN, and when further facts came out, there was no recovering those previous hours of our lives spent on an incomplete and inaccurate description of what had actually occurred.

I am also suspicious of J. Christian Adams who I believe was involved with the largely imaginary crusade against voter fraud (Republicans removed many tens of thousands of voters from rolls in defense against purported voter fraud that, upon investigation, let to only a handful of demonstrated convictions of people voting. So using the fear of a largely imaginary crime against democracy, they committed the same act against democracy on a scale hundreds of times larger).

Pete's MSNBC citation is MSNBC citing an AP story, so his real question is whether AP and the Washington Times are right wing blogs. In fact, the Washington Times has been a right wing propaganda source since its founding, but not so with the AP.

My real question in inviting you was the flaming jackass test that you were discussing with others on the other thread. From your response, I'd say you only seem to let that your partisanship take you to reasonable suspicion; you don't dismiss the story outright. You're willing to let facts overcome your bias. So while my refence is untimely, and not to the right people (sorry), I do certify you as not a flaming jackass. (That's in response to Greg's question on another thread, otherwise it would be an illicit motive inference).

I hope you distinguish a conservative news source like WA times or even Fox News from an actual right wing blog. But I was glad to have MSNBC and AP in as a source. I hope to see better sources on the Fox claims re Eric Holder.

I concede that Tom is right that I misstated matters when I said that the fact that Fox is reporting this should be newsworthy. What I meant is that if any source with as many viewers as Fox News is reporting such serious accusations, then it behooves moderate and leftist sources to either report on or respond to those accusations, particularly if they are backed or opposed by substantial evidence and testimony.

For example, on the Toronto G20 thread, Tommy brought up one woman's video allegation that Toronto police had threatened to gang rape her, but this was only available or discussed on utube and on left-wing blogs. Just as here, I said that I'd prefer balancing confirmation on mainstream and moderate or conservative news sources (since the accusation came from far left), but that her statements sounded credible, and that the lack of news attention to her accusation seemed troublesome. Since the woman's claims involved threats and assaults on many other women demonstrators in custody, it seems that news sources should have done follow up, and the absence of attention to such serious claims bothered me.

Do you agree, that if the facts turn out to be what these articles say they were, that a call for impeachment against Holder would not be absurd? I ask simply if you recognize that these facts if verified would provide *legitimate* grounds for such an action, not whether you think that it's *sufficient* to impeach or whether you would support impeachment.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you agree, that if the facts turn out to be what these articles say they were, that a call for impeachment against Holder would not be absurd?
Once again, I don't think the facts of the case are in dispute. These guys stood in front of a polling place. One was armed. The police came, told one guy to go away (which he did), told the other to be nice. A poll watcher from New York witness this, complained that it was voter intimidation.

This is agreed to by all.

What is in dispute is why the Obama Administration decided not to fully prosecute these guys. That is the only reason anyone is talking about impeachment. And that is a question, not about facts, but about judgement.

As you well know, before a DA prosecutes a case, he first determines if he has a good chance of winning; if the crime fits the charge; and if there is not more important cases that would be better utilization of his limited resources. A "no" to any of these would be legitimate grounds to drop a case, or at least deal for a plea bargan.

There is some question as to how much these guys actually intimidated voters, since no voter apparently has filed a complaint (or charge), and the police decided at the time to allow one of them to continue to stand at the poll. One of the guys has all ready had a judgement ruled against him for the crime. And, as hobsen indicated, what these guys did may not be that unusual during elections. This case simply may not merit prosecution because of weak evidence, punishment for it under a lesser offense, and lack of significance.

It's a judgement call.

What has not been shown so far is any indication that this case was dropped because of "neferious" reasons, such as payback for election support. The only reason given I've heard so far is "there couldn't be any other possible explanation."

But I just provided three possible explanations!

So the only reason to attempt to impeach Holder--other than if some actual evidence of impropriety emerges, rather than circumstantial evidence--is because none of the reasons I just gave, and none that Perez et al. provide, rings true.

But that will take a lot more than just the facts of this case.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As you well know, before a DA prosecutes a case, he first determines if he has a good chance of winning; if the crime fits the charge; and if there is not more important cases that would be better utilization of his limited resources. A "no" to any of these would be legitimate grounds to drop a case, or at least deal for a plea bargan.
And I also know well, as you should, that this wasn't an issue here since there was already a default conviction against the defendants. The prosecution ran back and changed charges after the default, which was a complete coddling freebie however you look at it.

Furthermore the Prosecution kept the affadavit evidence from the court.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a $64 question: if the actions of these guys were so outrageous, odious and illegal that some believe Holder should be impeached for dropping the civil charges against them, why were criminal charges never on the table?

The decision not to prosecute them on criminal charges was made only a few weeks after the election--and weeks before Obama took office--by the Bush Administration. Only civil charges were started.

Wouldn't something this blatant warrant criminal charges, too? [Confused]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Wouldn't something this blatant warrant criminal charges, too? [Confused]

Absolutely not. Some buddies and I plan on emulating this model at polling stations in the near future. Purely to maintain the integrity of the process, of course. [Wink]

Just to be in compliance with the Obama administration, we'll just dress up in paramilitary clothing, but leave the night sticks at home. Though we'll bring some large umbrella's just in case it rains.

[ July 14, 2010, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just to be in compliance with the Obama administration, we'll just dress up in paramilitary clothing, but leave the night sticks at home.
Why blame this on the Obama Administration? The decision not to press criminal charges was made by the Bush Administration. Shouldn't they shoulder the blame for that?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Why blame this on the Obama Administration? The decision not to press criminal charges was made by the Bush Administration. Shouldn't they shoulder the blame for that?

Blame, what blame. You can't hold those poor oppressed minorities to the same standard as civilized folks. It would have been cruel and oppressive to criminalize their justified reactions. They can't be held responsible for their behavior.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can't hold those poor oppressed minorities to the same standard as civilized folks. It would have been cruel and oppressive to criminalize their justified reactions. They can't be held responsible for their behavior.
And this is exactly the problem we had with the Bush Administration, isn't it? They just wouldn't hold minorities accountable. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There was also a report of one of the charged member of the Black Panthers, threatening and intimidating another assigned poll watcher, warning him to stay home. The other poll watcher was a black republican, and this was part of the evidence.
Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And this is exactly the problem we had with the Bush Administration, isn't it? They just wouldn't hold minorities accountable. [Smile]

No, the problem we had with the Bush administration was that they brought charges against these individuals who were just trying to lawfully protect their polling precinct from the evil depredations of Republicans and crackers. [Wink]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Here's a $64 question: if the actions of these guys were so outrageous, odious and illegal that some believe Holder should be impeached for dropping the civil charges against them, why were criminal charges never on the table?

could be cronyism, could be fear. Remember we're talking about an election 08 battleground state.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Could be cronyism, could be fear. Remember we're talking about an election 08 battleground state.
Fear seems a bit of a stretch, since any charges were made after the election (and after Bush lost).

If it was cronyism, does that make the Bush Administration as culpable as the Obama Administration? Or perhaps more culpable, since it was a more serious charge that they buried?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Could be cronyism, could be fear. Remember we're talking about an election 08 battleground state.
Fear seems a bit of a stretch, since any charges were made after the election (and after Bush lost).

Federal charges. Feds tend to be less vulnerable, and also less concious of their vulnerability.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So these guys' behavior is not a criminal act under Federal law, and they can only be charged in civil court? [Confused]

I thought Perez testified that criminal charges were considered back in December 08 or January 09.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So these guys' behavior is not a criminal act under Federal law, and they can only be charged in civil court? [Confused]

Who said that?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one. I assume that there could have been criminal charges under Federal statutes.

But when you said, "Federal charges. Feds tend to be less vulnerable, and also less concious of their vulnerability," I assumed you meant that any criminal charges would have been under local or state statutes.

Let's run through the timeline again. These guys staked out the entrance to a polling place in early November. The police were called; they asked one guy to leave; they allowed one to stay; they charged no one.

A poll watcher complained. The Feds looked at the case in December or early January. They decided not to press criminal charges on these guys. Instead, they decided to press civil charges.

Obama was sworn in and Holder became D.A.

Court date came and went on civil charges and these guys didn't show up. Summary judgement against them. Perez et al looked at the charges and punishment, asked them to be reduced/dropped. Judge OKs it.

Adams, attorney for the Feds, quits because he dislikes how office is being run.

Questions arise over handling of incident. Big to-do in Conservative Media. Accusations of Obama Administration playing favorites with Black Panthers. KE starts this thread.

Congressional inquiry. Perez testifies. Things are quiet for a few months.

Adams asked to testify. Says he has hearsay evidence of Obama Administration showing favoritism for Black Panthers. Big to-do in Conservative Media. This thread resurrected.

So my current question is, if the Obama Administration showed such great favoritism toward the Panthers that doubts about its integrity and even impeachment of Holder are warranted, why did the Bush Administration not persue criminal charges in the first place?

Where there no criminal charges that could have been persued? (Perez apparented indicated that they were some that could have been.) Was the evidence so scant that charges probably would not have stuck (which might explain why Holder, Perez et al decided to reduce/drop the civil charges)? Or was there some nefarious reason like those implied for the Obama Administration (or, perhaps, even more nefarious, since they refused to persue more serious charges? [Eek!]

Personally, I right now favor the second scenario. As bad as the videos are, there is scant evidence beyond it that would hold up in court. So the Obama Administration decided to reduce/drop the civil charges and have done with it. But the Conservative Media, always on the lookout for any scandal possible, decided that this proved Obama favors the Blank Panthers and decided to make a huge deal out of it.

But that's just my paranoia talking. [Smile]

So why did the Bush Administration ignore criminal charges? And if the Obama Administration reduced/dropped the civil charges for nefarious reasons, shouldn't we consider the Bush Administration having even more nefarious reasons for ignoring the more serious criminal charges? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1