A double standard? Absolutely!

[walk the walk]

Former DOJ Lawyer Says Holder Dropped Black Panther Case For Racial Reasons
June 30, 2010 ? Filed Under Politics, U.S. News
A former DOJ lawyer is speaking out about the Justice Department?s decision to drop a no-brainer case of voter intimidation against the Black Panthers.

J. Christian Adams felt so strongly about the decision that he resigned from the DOJ over it. He says Holder?s decision to drop the case after the government had already won it was motivated by race.

"There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases," Adams told Fox News? Megyn Kelly.

Adams says the dismissal is a symptom of the Obama administration?s reverse racism and that the Justice Department will not pursue voting rights cases against white victims.

"In voting, that will be the case over the next few years, there?s no doubt about it," he said.

I?ve said many times on this site that Eric Holder is the most dangerous and radical person in the Obama administration. The man supposedly brought in to clean-up the ?politicized? Justice Department of George W. Bush, has instead created the most highly politicized Justice Department in US history.

Everything radical leftist Holder does has a political motivation behind it. Whether it?s trying 9/11 terrorists in federal court, dropping the case against the Black Panthers, or trying to prosecute CIA interrogators.

Eric Holder is a menace. The sooner we can throw his ass out the better off the country will be.

I said at the time of Holder?s confirmation that any Republican who votes to confirm him should not be re-elected. Holder was a corrupt scumbag when he worked under Janet Reno and he?s a corrupt scumbag today.

I still remember Lindsey Graham voting for Holder because ?elections have consequences? ? which is what he?s been saying at Elena Kagan?s SCOTUS hearing as well.






Seriously,this is soo obvious.Chalk up another victory for liberals and what they stand for.....DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Could you imagine if 2 KKK members did the same thing and Bush and his attorney general dismissed the case.....Let the riots begin and rightfully so.

 

[GoodWitch58]

Walk the Walk, please source your information if you are going to cut and paste.

 

[scooterbug44]

I definitely missed something - white people aren't allowed to vote now?

 

[sunspotbaby]

You can bet your sweet ass if that had been some Aryan skin head boys with sticks patrolling a polling place declaring that a white man was going to win the election one way or another....they would already be in prison. :roll:

 

[ugabuga]

Goldilocks Approach to Race Needed

We need a Goldilocks approach to race issue:

The Obama administration is accused of being too fast on the Sherrod case & too slow on the Black Panthers case.

Can't they get it "just right"?

 

[sarawind]

Walk the Walk - this case is rank hypocrisy by the administration. "The only people who don?t think this was a serious case of voter intimidation seem to be apologists for the administration who want to sweep this case under the table and make excuses for the inexcusable conduct of the political appointees who are running the Civil Rights Division and the Justice Department."

 

[Edgy Grammy]

Walk the Walk, please source your information if you are going to cut and paste.

You guys and your "list your source". Don't you read and watch the news? Don't you keep current with things going on and reported on? I have notced that if the post falls under your political leanings you don't ask for a source or proof, but let someone express an opinion or post about something that doesn't lean your way and you start shouting "prove it".You guys have learned your talking points well, if
all else fails-----intimidate!

 

[scooterbug44]

I am sure it was not because the person selectively edited an article and then failed to give a source. :roll:

From what I believe is the same article:

"The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler dismissed Adams' accusations as a "good faith disagreement" with ulterior motives. "It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda," she said in a written statement.

The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully."

FOXNews.com - Former Justice Department Lawyer Accuses Holder of Dropping New Black Panther Case for Racial Reasons

 

[Edgy Grammy]

We need a Goldilocks approach to race issue:

The Obama administration is accused of being too fast on the Sherrod case & too slow on the Black Panthers case.

Can't they get it "just right"?

they were also a little fast on the professor and the policeman too...

 

[GoodWitch58]

You guys and your "list your source". Don't you read and watch the news? Don't you keep current with things going on and reported on? I have notced that if the post falls under your political leanings you don't ask for a source or proof, but let someone express an opinion or post about something that doesn't lean your way and you start shouting "prove it".You guys have learned your talking points well, if
all else fails-----intimidate!

Intimidate...I don't think so. Sorry you took it that way.

I am simply asking for a source for the information--that's what I learned in Journalism 101! Always source your materials--otherwise, how can your reader give any credibility to what's printed? or understand the frame of reference? W/out a source, it is just meaningless words.

I've no idea whether I agree or not, when I saw it was an unsourced piece that had been cut and pasted, I went on to the next item.

If we want to have a civil discussion, we need to know if one is posting an opinion, linking to an article, or rambling.... IMO.