Republicans tough on voter fraud

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm still trying to figure out what working for DOJ during the Bush Admin has to do with your claims anyway. Care to explain?

He was hoping to get the 'racist Bush supporter' vibe going, I think.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm still trying to figure out what working for DOJ during the Bush Admin has to do with your claims anyway. Care to explain?

He was hoping to get the 'racist Bush supporter' vibe going, I think.

I think he and Hugo Chavez have much in common in regards to their hatred of Bush. Definitely a case of BDS bubbling to the surface here.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

***

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm still trying to figure out what working for DOJ during the Bush Admin has to do with your claims anyway. Care to explain?

He was hoping to get the 'racist Bush supporter' vibe going, I think.

I think he and Hugo Chavez have much in common in regards to their hatred of Bush. Definitely a case of BDS bubbling to the surface here.

Coate's never seemed to be outraged when the Bush DOJ never persued criminal charges.

Looks like you have the same hatred for Obama that Bin Laden had.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Coate's never seemed to be outraged when the Bush DOJ never persued criminal charges.

So you're claiming that the civil suit that he and the other attorneys brought in Jan 2009 was due to his satisfaction with the lack of criminal charges?

And this makes *sense* to you?

Quote

Looks like you have the same hatred for Obama that Bin Laden had.

Looks like you have the same 'excuse at any cost' syndrome that Chris Matthews has.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm still trying to figure out what working for DOJ during the Bush Admin has to do with your claims anyway. Care to explain?

He was hoping to get the 'racist Bush supporter' vibe going, I think.

I think he and Hugo Chavez have much in common in regards to their hatred of Bush. Definitely a case of BDS bubbling to the surface here.

Coate's never seemed to be outraged when the Bush DOJ never persued criminal charges.

Looks like you have the same hatred for Obama that Bin Laden had.

Wow!!! Great Zinger. Did you think that one up all by yourself?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

***

Quote

Quote

Coate's never seemed to be outraged when the Bush DOJ never persued criminal charges.

So you're claiming that the civil suit that he and the other attorneys brought in Jan 2009 was due to his satisfaction with the lack of criminal charges?

And this makes *sense* to you?

Quote

Looks like you have the same hatred for Obama that Bin Laden had.

Looks like you have the same 'excuse at any cost' syndrome that Chris Matthews has.

At "any cost" Take a good at look who you guys are voting for

the decision not to file criminal charges was made before the civil suit, why was he not hopping mad then.

The bottom line;

The bush DOJ did not press criminal charges, No consevative objections.

The Obama DOJ follows the Bush DOJ, and does not file criminal charges, Consevatives go bat shit.



For several weeks, Fox News pundits have been hammering the Obama administration for its handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.

The gist of the argument is that the Obama administration backed off a slam-dunk case because it has no stomach for going after minorities for civil rights violations.

At issue is an incident on Nov. 4, 2008 -- the day of the presidential election -- when New Black Pather Party members Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz stood outside a Philadelphia polling place dressed in black military-style uniforms. Shabazz held a nightstick, and the two men were accused of making intimidating remarks to both white and black voters. Be one of the 1.5 million people to view the video on YouTube by clicking here. In the video, the men are asking a camera man why he is taping them.

On January 7, 2009, a couple weeks before Obama took office, the Department of Justice filed a civil action in federal court accusing the two men, as well as the New Black Panther Party and its leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, of engaging in voter intimidation. Although none of the defendants responded to the complaint, the Department decided last year to drop its case against all but King Samir Shabazz, the one with the nightstick. The department asked for, and got, an injunction prohibiting Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012.

Many Fox News pundits decried the government's position as outrageously lenient, and evidence of an Obama administration double standard on race issues.

On July 6, 2010, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asked Fox News legal analyst Lis Wiehl whether the Justice Department should have prosecuted the Panthers.

"Of course," Wiehl said. "I mean, there's absolutely no reason. Just take a look at the video that they didn't prosecute. And it's interesting you use the word prosecute, because all that the department did was file a civil complaint, which they won by default judgment. They dropped that afterwards, because, oh, one of the Black Panthers has said, oh, I'm not going to show up for three years at that particular polling area with a night stick. And that's all they wanted. They never pursued criminal charges, Bill. And they could have done that."

"Okay, but you say they should have done that?" O'Reilly asked.

"Oh, absolutely," Wiehl said.

Later, OReilly asked Fox News legal analyst Kimberly Guilfoyle if the matter should have been prosecuted.

"You've got a video," Guilfoyle said. "Yes, they absolutely should have proceeded full on this case...I have to tell you, this bothers me because I believe that they are not being race neutral in their enforcement of the Voting Rights Act."

O'Reilly expanded on this point very clearly in a July 19, 2010, column.

"If it were just about the Panthers, the story would be meaningless," O'Reilly wrote. "But because Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges, the situation takes on some importance."

We're fact-checking the claim that the Obama administration made the call not to pursue a criminal civil rights case against the New Black Panther Party, because we think the answer puts the entire issue into a clearer context.

Let's take a walk through the timeline to see who decided what and when.

The 2008 election day incident was reported in the media immediately, and the Department of Justice decided to investigate. Officials weighed a number of prosecution options -- both criminal and civil.

On Jan. 7, 2009, the Bush Administration Justice Department announced that it filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members. Specifically, they were alleged to have violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against "any person for voting or attempting to vote." The aims of the lawsuit were fairly limited: "The Department seeks an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations." In other words, the aim was to make sure they didn't do something similar again in the future. This section of the law does not subject violators to criminal penalties (fines or jail time, for example).

The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, which handles all racially motivated voter intimidation offenses, determined that "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes," according to testimony provided by Thomas E. Perez , Assistant Attorney General, on May 14, 2010. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler confirmed to PolitiFact that that determination not to file criminal charges was made prior to the filing of the civil case.
In other words, the decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division prior to the Obama administration.
Perez also noted, "In July 2009, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined prosecution in the matter. Our understanding is that local law enforcement officials also declined to pursue state criminal charges."

Again, none of the defendants responded to the civil complaint, so it's fair to say this was a slam-dunk case for the prosecution. But according to Perez, "that did not absolve the Department of its legal and ethical obligations to ensure that any relief sought was consistent with the law and supported by the evidence." And upon deeper review, the Justice Department decided to dismiss the cases against the New Black Panther Party, its leader Malik Shabazz, and Jackson (the guy without the nightstick at the polling place that day).

In order to have violated the statute in question, the New Black Panther Party (which is not affiliated with the original Black Panther Party) would have had to "direct a campaign of intimidation," and Perez noted that while the organization had posted a notice that 300 members of the party would be deployed at polling places on election day, the Philadelphia location where King Samir Shabazz was stationed was the only one where an incident occurred. Perez further noted that the group posted a message on its website -- prior to the civil action being filed -- which stated, "Specifically, in the case of Philadelphia, the New Black Panther Party wishes to express that the actions of people purported to be members do not represent the official views of the New Black Panther Party and are not connected nor in keeping with our official position as a party."

The Justice Department, did, however, follow through with its case against King Samir Shabazz, concluding that his display of a nightstick at the polling place "supported the allegation of voter intimidation." The Department asked for, and got, an injunction prohibiting Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012.

Some may say the government was too lenient, that the case should not have been dropped against the three other defendants, or that the injunction against Shabazz should have extended nationwide -- not just in Philadelphia -- and for a much longer time (not just until 2012). Those decisions were made during the Obama administration.

But the pundits have often blurred the distinction between the civil and criminal cases. O'Reilly and other Fox commentators have confused the issue by suggesting Holder and the Obama administration made the call not to pursue more serious charges against the New Black Panther Party members. Perez stated that the Civil Rights Division decided pre-Obama not to pursue more serious, criminal charges. So when O'Reilly brings on legal analysts who paint it as an outrage that the Justice Department did not pursue a criminal case, and the only person condemned by O'Reilly is Holder for not "representing the United States in a fair and balanced way," that's misleading and misplaced. We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. We rate O'Reilly's statement False.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Why would the Bush Admin. file charges when the investigation was not complete until after Bush left office? Even if the investigation had been completed, it's doubtful Bush Admin would have moved forward when they knew they were leaving in 60 days.

Using Politifact as an unbiased source is funny enough by itself.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Looks like you have the same hatred for Obama that Bin Laden had.

Wow!!! Great Zinger. Did you think that one up all by yourself?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Tell you what. Next election, why don't you go down to a polling place and do exactly the same thing with a baseball bat and then report back here to us and let us know what happens.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Looks like you have the same hatred for Obama that Bin Laden had.

Wow!!! Great Zinger. Did you think that one up all by yourself?

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud?

Wendy P.

How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns?

The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud.

400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise.

And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns.

Only you would consider a multiple homicide to be a "smaller occurence".

Well, maybe daVinci would too.;

Actually, I was speaking to the guns and not the crimes - after all, we *ALL* know that you see 1% of crime guns as a greater problem than the 99% of crime guns.

Nice that you ignore multiple homicides as unimportant. QED

The word used was "guns" and not "murders", perfesser. Honesty problems again, or just reading comprehension?

Why don't you compare the number of gun homicides in 2011 with the number of confirmed cases of voter fraud in 2011.

Then tell us that the gun homicides are a "smaller occurrence".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud?

Wendy P.

How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns?

The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud.

400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise.

And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns.

Only you would consider a multiple homicide to be a "smaller occurence".

Well, maybe daVinci would too.;

Actually, I was speaking to the guns and not the crimes - after all, we *ALL* know that you see 1% of crime guns as a greater problem than the 99% of crime guns.

Nice that you ignore multiple homicides as unimportant. QED

The word used was "guns" and not "murders", perfesser. Honesty problems again, or just reading comprehension?

Why don't you compare the number of gun homicides in 2011 with the number of confirmed cases of voter fraud in 2011.

Then tell us that the gun homicides are a "smaller occurrence".

ANOTHER attempt to move the goalposts? The word used was "guns" and not "murders", perfesser.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud?

Wendy P.

How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns?

The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud.

400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise.

And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns.

Only you would consider a multiple homicide to be a "smaller occurence".

Well, maybe daVinci would too.;

Actually, I was speaking to the guns and not the crimes - after all, we *ALL* know that you see 1% of crime guns as a greater problem than the 99% of crime guns.

Nice that you ignore multiple homicides as unimportant. QED

The word used was "guns" and not "murders", perfesser. Honesty problems again, or just reading comprehension?

Why don't you compare the number of gun homicides in 2011 with the number of confirmed cases of voter fraud in 2011.

Then tell us that the gun homicides are a "smaller occurrence".

ANOTHER attempt to move the goalposts? The word used was "guns" and not "murders", perfesser.

FAILEed attempt to weasel your way out of your stupid comment.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud?

Wendy P.

How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns?

The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud.

400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise.

And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns.

Only you would consider a multiple homicide to be a "smaller occurence".

Well, maybe daVinci would too.;

Actually, I was speaking to the guns and not the crimes - after all, we *ALL* know that you see 1% of crime guns as a greater problem than the 99% of crime guns.

Nice that you ignore multiple homicides as unimportant. QED

The word used was "guns" and not "murders", perfesser. Honesty problems again, or just reading comprehension?

Why don't you compare the number of gun homicides in 2011 with the number of confirmed cases of voter fraud in 2011.

Then tell us that the gun homicides are a "smaller occurrence".

ANOTHER attempt to move the goalposts? The word used was "guns" and not "murders", perfesser.

FAILEed attempt to weasel your way out of your stupid comment.

I refer you back to my mention of 'guns' and not 'murders', which is unchanged.

When you have to *LIE* about what I posted to make an argument, it should be a pretty strong hint that your argument is a bad one.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Just a though - 11 reply-to's is probably unnecessary...or more bluntly, lame as fuck. Trim it down to the last 5 - that's more than enough context for these insipid 1 liner debates you two like to have.

[kallend 2,182]

Some 75% of US homicides use guns. GUN homicides outnumber proven cases of voter fraud by a large margin.

Vainly trying to weasel out of your absurd comparison was one of your lamer weaseling attempts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Some 75% of US homicides use guns. GUN homicides outnumber proven cases of voter fraud by a large margin.

Word used was *STILL* 'gun' and not 'murder'.

Quote

Vainly trying to weasel out of your absurd comparison was one of your lamer weaseling attempts.

Yet another kallend LIE.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Some 75% of US homicides use guns. GUN homicides outnumber proven cases of voter fraud by a large margin.

Word used was *STILL* 'gun' and not 'murder'.

Quote

Vainly trying to weasel out of your absurd comparison was one of your lamer weaseling attempts.

Yet another kallend LIE.

Mikey, Kallend has you 100%.

RWCs have been fed a bogeyman by their chickenhawk leaders in the form of "VOTER FRAUD".

True to form, once a really stupid concept that sounds good on the surface, but actually has no content catches hold with RWCs, no amount of factual evidence can get them to understand what the true facts are on an issue. They are told that something is a huge issue and needs to be fixed. The fixing actualy goes against their supposed beliefs, IE, smaller government, less regulations, fewer intrusions on the freedoms of citizens, etc, etc. New laws are passed and enforced to "fix" the issue, even if it means MORE control of the citizens, not less.

Hipocrisy at it's purest. Unfortunately, that is par for the course with RWCs.