June 30, 2010 Former Justice Department Lawyer Accuses Holder of Dropping New Black Panther Case for Racial Reasons A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration's handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons. A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration's handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons. J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger, also accuses Deputy Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath to Congress about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe. 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." But Adams told Fox News that politics and race was at play in the dismissal. "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. In an opinion article published in the Washington Times last week, Adams said the dismissal "raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election." 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. In the final days of the Bush administration, three Black Panthers -- Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson -- were charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act in November 2008 by using coercion, threats and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station -- with Shabazz brandishing what prosecutors called a deadly weapon. The Obama administration won the civil case in federal court in April 2009 but moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully. The department "is committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of federal law that prohibit voter intimidation. We continue to work with voters, communities, and local law enforcement to ensure that every American can vote free from intimidation, coercion or threats," Schmaler said Wednesday. But the Justice Department's explanation has failed to appease the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which is probing the department's decision, or Republican lawmakers who say the dismissal could lead to an escalation of voter intimidation. The commission held a hearing in April in which Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who has led the charge for answers from the Justice Department, was among those testifying. The Justice Department did not provide witnesses at that hearing. Instead, Perez provided the commission with written remarks in May. "At a minimum, without sufficient proof that New Black Panther Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed or controlled unlawful activities at the polls, or made speeches directed to immediately inciting or producing lawless action on Election Day, any attempt to bring suit against those parties based merely upon their alleged 'approval' or 'endorsement' of Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jacksonâs activities would have likely failed," he said in the statement. The commission has repeatedly sought information from the Justice Department, going as far as filing subpoenas. Schmaler said the department has provided 2,000 pages of information in response. But Adams said in the Times article that the department ordered the attorneys "to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptably legal limbo." Adams also says that after the dismissal, Justice Department attorneys were instructed not to bring any more cases against racial minorities under the Voting Section. Adams told Fox News that the New Black Panther case was the "easiest I ever had at the Justice Department. "It doesn't get any easier than this," he said. "If this doesn't constitute voter intimidation, nothing will." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/
The obama admin is racist? Nothing new there for those of us who were paying attention to his 20 yr mentoring relationship with revered wrong.
Pretty blatant. Blacks goons intimidating voters on the steps of the polling site, with video proof. If they had been white men, they would be in federal prison now.
Not so fast, just as it's popular to call obama the most radical President while forgetting fdr, woodrow wilson. Let's don't forget the barking at the moon madness of ramsey clark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark
Yes, they say only white people can be racist. If non whites do it, it's merely an indignant response to oppression at the hands of the intrinsically evil white people.
Whites are the biggest victims of racism in America today, and the only victims of systemic racism. The "affirmative action" quotas imposed by the government on universities and corporations could accurately be called "non white" quotas to which everyone must adhere. They have to meet "diversity" (non white) goals. They have to have a certain amount of non whites comprise their work force, and in some cases get "diversity" bonuses for having even more non whites than the quotas require. They are racially based quotas, plain and simple. It's racial discrimination against Caucasians. They have attempted to justify racial discrimination in the past with more racial discrimination in the future. However, if you want the admission to go to the best student, or the job to go to the most qualified applicant REGARDLESS of race- if you are in favor of NO racial discrimination whatsoever, then YOU are the racist...??? Anyone else see the irony??