President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[donnaplease]

Another lie.

The case was dropped before Holder was appointed - it was actually dropped during the Bush Administration.

Try again.

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf

I don't think it's an "old" issue, it's just an ongoing issue from something that happened a while ago. Using your link, Daniel, there is a more recent posting from the hearings - check out the July 6, 2010 transcript.

This thing was not 'dismissed' until May of 2009, according to this document. They got the default order in April, 2009 and were then waiting for the default judgement. Then (after they were found 'guilty' because they failed to show up to defend themselves) it looks like the charges were dismissed against 3 of the 4 named, and the 4th (the guy telling people to kill cracker babies in another video clip) had the charges altered. It's odd that they would dismiss/reduce charges against someone who never bothered to show up to defend themselves and were essentially admitting their guilt.

In reading some of this testimony, it looks like there is racial discrimination in this department, going back several years. It states that in the 45 years since the department of voting rights was created, only 2 cases were ever brought against a black-on-white situation. Many lawyers refused to even consider working on any such case. I originally thought this was an "obama" thing, and it partially is based on the comments from Julia Fernandes that directed the staff that no charges would ever be placed against a black defendant against a white victim in the Obama administration. However, it also brings to light a mentality within the department itself that has apparently spanned many years, far before President Obama took office.

Why can't people just do what's right for EVERYONE instead of making things so damned politically charged???

[conversationpc]

isn't this whole doj/black panther thing an old story? bush's doj did not find anything to prosecute and obama's is doing a civil thing? or is there something i'm unaware of?

Happened on election day 2008, in Philadelphia.

These two black assholes Shabazz and Jackson need to be prosecuted. Complete garbage.

so it is old. bush admin decided there was nothing to prosecute. holder is pursuing this in civil court i believe. fox news was running this like it was a recent event. they got caught once again lol.

civil court portion is done & the case was dropped... last week... so not really old news.

it happened 2 years ago but it takes time to prosecute.

yes things take time. the problem i have is the whole race crap and saying obama was "for the black man." bush's doj determined there was not a fed law broken, no prosecution. funny too cuz the polling place was a largely democrat spot. holder pursued the case civilly, was unaware it was dropped? or was it thrown out by the judge?

Unless I'm mistaken, the case didn't go to court or was even close to going to court while Bush was in office. It looks like they only considered a criminal case rather than a civil case. Regardless, the video of the incident is very clear that these guys were intimidating voters. Open and shut case, in my opinion. Even one of the attorneys who was working on the case resigned in disgust when they dropped it.

[conversationpc]

Another lie.

The case was dropped before Holder was appointed - it was actually dropped during the Bush Administration.

Try again.

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf

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.

The charges against these guys in the civil case were dropped on May 15th of last year. Considering that the court actually had a judgment against these thugs, that's pretty suspicious. Anyway, the Bush Administration determined apparently that the evidence was not strong enough for a criminal case since no actual incidents of violence occurred. However, as the video of the incident shows, these guys were obviously patrolling the exterior of the voting precinct in Philadelphia, dressed in military-type garb and one of them was armed with a nightstick, which he was brandishing. If that's not intimidation, short of any actual violence, I don't know what is.

[donnaplease]

The charges against these guys in the civil case were dropped on May 15th of last year. Considering that the court actually had a judgment against these thugs, that's pretty suspicious. Anyway, the Bush Administration determined apparently that the evidence was not strong enough for a criminal case since no actual incidents of violence occurred. However, as the video of the incident shows, these guys were obviously patrolling the exterior of the voting precinct in Philadelphia, dressed in military-type garb and one of them was armed with a nightstick, which he was brandishing. If that's not intimidation, short of any actual violence, I don't know what is.

If you read the transcript from the July hearings, it says that the same type of tactics were used in the primaries against Hilary Clinton.

[conversationpc]

The charges against these guys in the civil case were dropped on May 15th of last year. Considering that the court actually had a judgment against these thugs, that's pretty suspicious. Anyway, the Bush Administration determined apparently that the evidence was not strong enough for a criminal case since no actual incidents of violence occurred. However, as the video of the incident shows, these guys were obviously patrolling the exterior of the voting precinct in Philadelphia, dressed in military-type garb and one of them was armed with a nightstick, which he was brandishing. If that's not intimidation, short of any actual violence, I don't know what is.

If you read the transcript from the July hearings, it says that the same type of tactics were used in the primaries against Hilary Clinton.

How does that change anything? Doesn't matter if it happened in the Democratic primaries or the Presidential election.

[donnaplease]

The charges against these guys in the civil case were dropped on May 15th of last year. Considering that the court actually had a judgment against these thugs, that's pretty suspicious. Anyway, the Bush Administration determined apparently that the evidence was not strong enough for a criminal case since no actual incidents of violence occurred. However, as the video of the incident shows, these guys were obviously patrolling the exterior of the voting precinct in Philadelphia, dressed in military-type garb and one of them was armed with a nightstick, which he was brandishing. If that's not intimidation, short of any actual violence, I don't know what is.

If you read the transcript from the July hearings, it says that the same type of tactics were used in the primaries against Hilary Clinton.

How does that change anything? Doesn't matter if it happened in the Democratic primaries or the Presidential election.

It doesn't change anything, it just reaffirms this as a problem because she, too, was an opponent of Obama's. I think it's likely that we will see this in a much larger scope and severity now that the behaviors were essentially endorsed by the failure to follow through with the case to it's conclusion. Honestly, I've never heard of any situation where a prosector all of a sudden decided "oh, never mind" after successfully arguing a case... UNLESS new evidence is brought to light to change the circumstances. That obviously is not the case here.

There is a lot of interesting reading here if anyone is so inclined. Frank Wolf has been all over this case (and apparently has become one of Shabazz's targets).

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/Congressional ... reNBPP.pdf

[conversationpc]

It doesn't change anything, it just reaffirms this as a problem because she, too, was an opponent of Obama's. I think it's likely that we will see this in a much larger scope and severity now that the behaviors were essentially endorsed by the failure to follow through with the case to it's conclusion. Honestly, I've never heard of any situation where a prosector all of a sudden decided "oh, never mind" after successfully arguing a case... UNLESS new evidence is brought to light to change the circumstances. That obviously is not the case here.

There is a lot of interesting reading here if anyone is so inclined. Frank Wolf has been all over this case (and apparently has become one of Shabazz's targets).

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/Congressional ... reNBPP.pdf

Agreed...Fortunately, the New Black Panther group is very small but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they're involved in an outbreak of violence before too long.

[7 Wishes]

Interesting theory, donnaplease, but flawed.

The Bush Administration dropped the charges because there wasn't sufficient evidence for a conviction. A slap-on-the-wrist sentence is a more likely outcome with the broader brushstroke - but punitively diminished specter - of a civil case conviction. Besides, no voters were intimidated into not voting - and if your theories were true, they wouldn't have been practicing their intimidation in the projects (and at this polling station, votes for Obama numbered over 500, whereas his opponent received a grand total of 13) - they would have been across town where the opposition would have been polling much higher.

Yet another DOA non-issue proffered by witch-hunting Limbaugh acolytes with nothing else to do in their downtime but vent their racist steam and bark up catless trees.

[ohsherrie]

Yet another DOA non-issue proffered by witch-hunting Limbaugh acolytes with nothing else to do in their downtime but vent their racist steam and bark up catless trees.

That bears repeating.

It's the same as their behavior during the Clinton administration. If they can't find anything legitimate against them they just make something up and blather on about it until their lemmings start believing it's true. If they finally manage to blow enough smoke the MSM decides maybe they should look for a fire. Then they're likely to spend several billion dollar of taxpayer money on an all-out, special prosecutor investigation. All of which are attempts to keep the administration from being successful. After all, when obstructing every bill that would help out somebody besides one of their corporate special interests doesn't work they have to resort to bullying. That's why they've come to be known as rethugs.

It didn't work with Clinton. He'd have been reelected again if he could have run despite their holier than thou rantings and stone throwing over the blow job. But this time they have the inherent racism of a good portion of this country on their side. That's what they're counting on.

[donnaplease]

Interesting theory, donnaplease, but flawed.

The Bush Administration dropped the charges because there wasn't sufficient evidence for a conviction. A slap-on-the-wrist sentence is a more likely outcome with the broader brushstroke - but punitively diminished specter - of a civil case conviction. Besides, no voters were intimidated into not voting - and if your theories were true, they wouldn't have been practicing their intimidation in the projects (and at this polling station, votes for Obama numbered over 500, whereas his opponent received a grand total of 13) - they would have been across town where the opposition would have been polling much higher.

Yet another DOA non-issue proffered by witch-hunting Limbaugh acolytes with nothing else to do in their downtime but vent their racist steam and bark up catless trees.

Where do you get that there were ever any criminal charges, that were "dropped"? I don't see any evidence of that in the government documents that you first linked. I see no evidence of anything that you're suggesting. All actions in this matter were taken in January, 2009 and after, and were civil actions based on some rule 11(b). They had a conviction of sorts, because of the failure of the defendants to even respond to the charges or show up for the hearing. In the time between the 'conviction' and the 'sentencing', someone in the DOJ decided to change their mind about pursuing the case, and therefore an already 'won' case was dismissed.

These are well-documented and uncontested events. The only thing at question at this time is WHY the case was dropped. Why do you try to make it appear as this is a non-issue? If it were the other way around, and those were tea party members at the poll, I can only imagine the outrage that you and the rest of the liberal world would be shouting from the rooftop. And if a tea party member showed up at the polls waving a billy club and spewing hate toward the black man, you would be justified.

[RedWingFan]

Interesting theory, donnaplease, but flawed.

The Bush Administration dropped the charges because there wasn't sufficient evidence for a conviction. A slap-on-the-wrist sentence is a more likely outcome with the broader brushstroke - but punitively diminished specter - of a civil case conviction. Besides, no voters were intimidated into not voting - and if your theories were true, they wouldn't have been practicing their intimidation in the projects (and at this polling station, votes for Obama numbered over 500, whereas his opponent received a grand total of 13) - they would have been across town where the opposition would have been polling much higher.
Yet another DOA non-issue proffered by witch-hunting Limbaugh acolytes with nothing else to do in their downtime but vent their racist steam and bark up catless trees.

So with your retarded thinking, the Klan patrolling 98% white polling stations would be perfectly fine because they would only be intimidating a 2% minority.

You're a true Obama drone!
Delusion runs rampant on your side.

SUMMER SOUR: Consumer Sentiment Sinks To Lowest Level in 11 Months...

Obama: 'My policies got us out of this mess'...

[conversationpc]

Interesting theory, donnaplease, but flawed.

The Bush Administration dropped the charges because there wasn't sufficient evidence for a conviction. A slap-on-the-wrist sentence is a more likely outcome with the broader brushstroke - but punitively diminished specter - of a civil case conviction. Besides, no voters were intimidated into not voting - and if your theories were true, they wouldn't have been practicing their intimidation in the projects (and at this polling station, votes for Obama numbered over 500, whereas his opponent received a grand total of 13) - they would have been across town where the opposition would have been polling much higher.
Yet another DOA non-issue proffered by witch-hunting Limbaugh acolytes with nothing else to do in their downtime but vent their racist steam and bark up catless trees.

So with your retarded thinking, the Klan patrolling 98% white polling stations would be perfectly fine because they would only be intimidating a 2% minority.

You're a true Obama drone!

There are other videos floating around out there of one of these guys intimidating people of his own race, screaming at them about their white girlfriends and about killing "crackers". To say that he would have had to have been "across town" at another polling place is ridiculous on its face. It doesn't matter where it occurred. The fact of the matter is, if the situation were reversed and this and a KKK member were standing outside a polling place wearing his robes and hood, you lefties out there would be crying foul and rightly so.

[7 Wishes]

STFU, RWF. Way to extrapolate something from nothing. Of course that's not what I'm saying. But it's akin to the Klan trying to "intimidate" "well-informed" uneducated white Mississipians into not voting for an ultra-right wing GOP candidate running against a social moderate.

Anyway, donnaplease...please READ the ACTUAL TESTIMONY from the .gov website.

This is so ridiculous and such a non-issue. THE FUCKING CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE DROPPED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTABLE EVIDENCE. It's all in there. Stop trying to cherry-pick from an apple tree.

[7 Wishes]

And if a tea party member showed up at the polls waving a billy club and spewing hate toward the black man, you would be justified.

This HAS happened, it has been documented, there is footage of it, and yet not ONE teabagger has faced charges. Hmmmm.

Donnaplease, for the LAST TIME...the Bush DOJ DROPPED THE CRIMINAL CASE!!!!!!!!!

[conversationpc]

STFU, RWF. Way to extrapolate something from nothing. Of course that's not what I'm saying. But it's akin to the Klan trying to "intimidate" "well-informed" uneducated white Mississipians into not voting for an ultra-right wing GOP candidate running against a social moderate.

Anyway, donnaplease...please READ the ACTUAL TESTIMONY from the .gov website.

This is so ridiculous and such a non-issue. THE FUCKING CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE DROPPED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTABLE EVIDENCE. It's all in there. Stop trying to cherry-pick from an apple tree.

Again, it doesn't matter a bit if blacks were intimidating blacks, whites intimidating whites, etc. It simply doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if the criminal charges were filed and dropped by the previous administration. The fact of the matter is, these guys were patrolling the exterior of a polling place, dressed in military garb, and brandishing weapons. If that's not intended to intimidate, regardless of what kind of voters were entering that place, then please tell me what is.

[7 Wishes]

Dave, I agree - and I think they should have spent some time in jail.

That's not the issue here, though. Donna is inisisting the Bush DOJ didn't drop the charges, which is the heart of the matter. This idea of hers runs completely contrary to known fact. This isn't about how Deano or I feel about what the new BP's did - it's about the government's case, what they choose to prosecute, when, and under whose watch.

[conversationpc]

Dave, I agree - and I think they should have spent some time in jail.

That's not the issue here, though. Donna is inisisting the Bush DOJ didn't drop the charges, which is the heart of the matter. This idea of hers runs completely contrary to known fact. This isn't about how Deano or I feel about what the new BP's did - it's about the government's case, what they choose to prosecute, when, and under whose watch.

OK...Gotcha. The Bush Administration definitely dropped the criminal charges.

[conversationpc]

Ummm...Did Nancy just get done polishing Barney off or something like that?

[donnaplease]

Dave, I agree - and I think they should have spent some time in jail.

That's not the issue here, though. Donna is inisisting the Bush DOJ didn't drop the charges, which is the heart of the matter. This idea of hers runs completely contrary to known fact. This isn't about how Deano or I feel about what the new BP's did - it's about the government's case, what they choose to prosecute, when, and under whose watch.

Wrong. I am suggesting nothing of the kind. I am not talking about what happened during the 2 months between Obama's election and inauguration. I am talking about what happened in May of 2009. Your link says that they didn't find reason for a criminal prosecution but they pursued a civil case.

After reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.

OK, I get that. It's neither here nor there, though, Daniel. This has nothing to do with Bush. What I'm reading - in your link - is that 4 attorneys spent months working on a case of voter intimidation in violation of section 11(b). They had the support of the DOJ until May 1st, at which time for some undeclared reason they needed to 'take another look' at the case. They were given a 2 week continuance, at the end of which they came forth and revised the charges.

Again I ask the question... do you know of ANY case where the facts of a case are undisputed/undenied but when time for sentencing comes the prosecutor comes back and says... "oh, never mind about all that stuff we did over the past 4 months. It's not big of a deal"? There was no new discovery of the events of the case, none. Simply the supervisors, who were from what I understand - in reading this - Obama appointees, directed that the civil charges be amended and/or dropped.

It's not about what they chose to prosecute, Daniel. They already prosecuted it.

How can you not see anything suspect in that? Stop worrying about where Hannity/Beck/Limbaugh's dick is and actually think about it.

[7 Wishes]

There was not sufficent evidence to prosecute criminally, and the sentencing in civil court is a slap on the wrist - plus, there were NO COMPLAINTS of voter intimidation.

[donnaplease]

There was not sufficent evidence to prosecute criminally, and the sentencing in civil court is a slap on the wrist - plus, there were NO COMPLAINTS of voter intimidation.

Actually, there were. It's in that link you posted. I don't have time to go through all 117 or so pages, but I saw it in there. Some black poll watcher was threatened/intimidated and he was afraid to leave the building until everyone was gone. Something like that. I think it said he was a black republican. Not 100% sure on that though. I read the July link with the testimony of Christian Adams before I read the testimony of that Perez dude. Adams bugged me with his refusal to answer some of the questions, but Perez is blatantly squirming and attempting to use words games to alter the course of events. Kinda reminded me of Ollie North in the Iran Contra hearings... (I like Ollie, he was very nice when I met him at our home-town parade, but it was obvious he was doing that same kinda squirming to protect the Reagan administration).

OJ was acquitted - does that make him any less guilty?

I've come to the conclusion that people here don't really want to have an actual conversation about this stuff that's affecting our society. They just want to spout off with accusations against whichever side is opposite their POV.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Ummm...Did Nancy just get done polishing Barney off or something like that?

nah Barney dont like girls

[donnaplease]

I think she farted.

[7 Wishes]

Oh, please, spare me the rhetoric.

You didn't hear me rant and rave about the Teabaggers intimidating and harrassing disabled and crippled people, jumping up and down and claiming they needed to go to jail.

You're the one guilty of the baseless persecution here in Salem, donna. No one else.

[donnaplease]

Oh, please, spare me the rhetoric.

You didn't hear me rant and rave about the Teabaggers intimidating and harrassing disabled and crippled people, jumping up and down and claiming they needed to go to jail.

You're the one guilty of the baseless persecution here in Salem, donna. No one else.

Whatever, dude.

[treetopovskaya]

Oh, please, spare me the rhetoric.

You didn't hear me rant and rave about the Teabaggers intimidating and harrassing disabled and crippled people, jumping up and down and claiming they needed to go to jail.

You're the one guilty of the baseless persecution here in Salem, donna. No one else.

proof please. just because you say it doesn't mean it's true.

btw... thanks for being so kind... it's very much appreciated!

why can't people just be nice instead of always attacking?

[RedWingFan]

Oh, please, spare me the rhetoric.

You didn't hear me rant and rave about the Teabaggers intimidating and harrassing disabled and crippled people, jumping up and down and claiming they needed to go to jail.

You're the one guilty of the baseless persecution here in Salem, donna. No one else.

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

You're the liar and chief fabricator here dipshit! I think you accuse everyone else of it just to feel normal.

[treetopovskaya]

seems tnbpp gives credit to eric holder for throwing out most of the charges against them. hmm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JunrpGf5 ... r_embedded

[7 Wishes]

You're the liar and chief fabricator here dipshit! I think you accuse everyone else of it just to feel normal.

That's right, HimmlerFan. Ignore the repeated posts I have that contain irrefutable facts from .gov websites, and continue to ride Limbaugh's cock like there's no tomorrow.

You're full of shit and you know it. Have a nice weekend.

[7 Wishes]

why can't people just be nice instead of always attacking?

Nice? WTF? I was just making a point. You and your neo-con cronies don't spare the adjectives when it comes to disagreeing with me. I guess turnabout isn't fair play. Typical Republican.

And don't try to deny it, tree...you are most CERTAINLY a Republican.