Bush DOJ decided New Black Panthers no major case
UPDATE: Fox News guest Kirsten Powers made the mistake of thinking for herself. A must-see video:
Several of you have clamored for me to say something about the alleged voter intimidation case in Philadelphia, which involves a thuggish group who call themselves the “New Black Panthers.” (While I was no fan of the original Black Panthers, they don’t deserve to have their reputation further befouled by this group. The two groups are in no way related.)
I was loathe to comment since I know that no rational discussion will follow. How could it? It was clear from the beginning that this was not a case of voter intimidation against anyone who might vote for John McCain. As many observers noted on that day, no matter how badly those two New Black Panters were behaving (and the police were called and responded), it’s a HEAVILY DEMOCRATIC PRECINCT. As blogger Ben Smith noted way back then, “You don’t typically intimidate your own voters.”
But solid reporting from Media Matters and Adam Serwer of The American Prospect ought to put this nonsense to rest (it won’t, but it should). The charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice:
The decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.
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.
From Media Matters:
# Adams has admitted that he does not have first-hand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations;
# The Bush administration’s Justice Department — not the Obama administration — made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;
# The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;
# The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;
# No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;
So, no matter how many times J. Christian Adams declares that the Obama administration refuses to protect the rights of white people — and no matter how many times Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh repeat it — it’s not true.
(See my first post of the day about facts before you respond.)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
335 comments Add your comment
Jojo
July 13th, 2010
10:25 pm
If the case is so egregious why not get criminal charges?
indy989
July 13th, 2010
10:27 pm
Mario @ 10:20- there were victims and complaints were filed. The point is not the case itself. The point is that the outcome of the case or the penalties, were reduced at the last minute even after the verdict was rendered. Why was this done? The motivation behind the reduction in penalty is what most on the “Conservative” side are trying to get at. Many, including myself, view this move by the DOJ as purely political.
indy989
July 13th, 2010
10:30 pm
Jojo @ 10:25 – Criminal charges were filed initially then reduced by the Bush DOJ as I understand it. I am not sure of the motivation behind that. Some have said that it was because it is easier to prosecute a Civil case rather than a criminal one.
Once "Recent" Reader
July 13th, 2010
10:52 pm
Wow, I came upon this post after googling to get more facts about when/who dropped criminal charges . . . .and that was after Fox go wild on it for the past week. Of course not once did I hear them mention the criminal charges were dropped by Bush Admin . . .maybe they might have mumbled something into their hands . . .you know like the ALL IMPORTANT small print at the bottom of the contract that most of us ignore:) I then noticed my AJC moniker in the comment Name field . . . .as I normally come on for Falcons games!! Fun stuff. I liked this posts as it seemed to have a good balance of conservatives/liberals . . ..and the always fun Whackos . . .along with the necessary balance of responsible/sane posters. I haven’t watched Fox tonight, but I wonder how they’ve been side-stepping the Bush Admin impact on this case . . . .or if they are even mentioning it. I’m sure they may mention it and find another angle of attack on the President . . . .or just move on to their next Attack that is not founded on facts . . . .until the facts prove them wrong. Such propaganda out of that station . . ..I actually used to think they were fun and entertaining when Bush was in office. Now their non-step negativity is just emotionally a big downer!
Rick
July 14th, 2010
3:18 am
C, I’m no lawyer, but this intimidation was real. It was a case of assault. Not battery, but assault. What more evidence is needed? The video alone, I thought was scarry. There was terror! And this type of thing should not be done or copied. My God in heaven, what a terrible portrayal of human rights. And it’s in America. We only possess someone in as much as they love us. This is not winning hearts and minds. It is poisoning them. Whether or not one is for or against these men, it is poison for all. As far as a penalty goes, how about, if any actions of the like are done again, anywhere and anytime, (not just for two years in one city), assault charges be given with due process. Put the charge up with other assault charges, and penalize accordingly. There’s nothing harsh in this. This warning would be for anybody at any voting poll. Anybody. The man in the video, I would say was ‘raising a bit of Cain.’ By the way, C, thanks for writing me back. Peace. Rick assault n.) An apparently violent attempt, or willful offer with force or violence, to do hurt to another; an attempt or offer to beat another, accompanied by a degree of violence, but without touching his person, as by lifting the fist, or a cane, in a threatening manner, or by striking at him, and missing him. If the blow aimed takes effect, it is a battery.
Reda StCyr
July 14th, 2010
3:47 am
Typical right wing FixNews fool She wont allow her guest to speak because she knows her guest makes so much sense
miff
July 14th, 2010
8:17 am
You are right Cynthia, Kirsten can’t think for herself, since she’s only reciting DailyKos/Michael Moore type propaganda. A. The guy had a WEAPON in front of a polling location. B. The young man that made the video SAID it was intimidating. C. The man is a proven RACIST that incites hatred and MURDERING of white people and their BABIES.
The case was filed during Bush’s presidency and then it was dropped by Eric Holder. You Mrs, are one of the most dishonest, bigoted, dangerous people in America.
the implosion continues!!!
July 14th, 2010
8:23 am
granny,
If you watched tv other than MSNBC and CNN, and read websites other than DailyKos and DemocratUnderground and this very propaganda blog you would have heard of if just fine. I suspect you have heard of it and in typical liberal fashion are just lying through your teeth, well, dentures.
jack
July 14th, 2010
8:32 am
hahahahahaha!!!!!! Megyn straight handed that Commie her lunch!!! Kristen is dumber than dirt and was clearly grasping for straws!!! Love it!!!
Fix
July 14th, 2010
8:35 am
Wow. I’m still not understanding the radical leftist logic. We were told for 8 years how incompetent and evil Bush, how everything he did was dead wrong, yet, they are routinely making the argument to defend Obama that “hey, Bush did it too,” even though it’s an outright lie every time. I just find it hilarious that the “stupidest human being ever born” was apparently now really a genius since the Kenyan Marxist is “mimicing” him.
James
July 14th, 2010
9:53 am
You should retract this article. By making one phone call, you could have discovered that career attorney Mark Kappelhoff, chief of the criminal section, made the decision to not pursue criminal action. Kappelhoff is a longtime democratic donor and was appointed to a political position by Obama immediately after inauguration. Maybe it was a reward for helping sweep this under the rug. You should feel shame for your part in promoting disinformation.
Chris
July 14th, 2010
12:41 pm
Ms. Tucker, is this not just a distraction attempt by those on the left? Isn’t this whole controvesy over Holder’s actions not to pursue the civil charges against these New Black Panthers? What does the DOJ under Bush downgrading the criminal charges to more winnable civil charges have any bearing on this topic? Why should this, as you say, put to rest any of this controvesy? Why has this topic only been reported on left wing blogs and certain MSNBC primetime shows? I ask these questions respectfully and would like to hear your response. Thank you.
panix
July 14th, 2010
1:02 pm
This “downgrade” talking point is apparently supposed to excuse the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss virtually the entire civil voter intimidation case and to neuter the injunction sought against the one remaining defendant so substantially that what was left was little more than a minor annoyance.
These claims by a nonlawyer betray a fundamental ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal prosecutions and a total misunderstanding of how things work at the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division. First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.
Criminal cases can take longer to develop, particularly since the government usually has to convene a federal grand jury to return an indictment. Also, criminal cases focus like a laser beam on individual defendants, whereas civil cases can include an organizational defendant (like the NBPP).
The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party. In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.
Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.
not-barain-obawashed
July 14th, 2010
2:27 pm
Bush Department of Justice? The BUSH DOJ? hahahahah Now do all the Libs feel better that it was the BUSH DOJ and not the Obama DOJ…. who’s prez again?
richard
July 14th, 2010
3:37 pm
After reading the blog post and the comments below, I am reminded of Dr. King’s quote:
“Nothing pains some people more than having to think”.
Bobby
July 14th, 2010
3:56 pm
How do we know this was voter intimidation and not voter protection? And while I shouldn’t be, I’m really amazed and alarmed at the racist hate that’s been put up on this board. It’s really sad and discusting.
Denny Neff
July 14th, 2010
4:22 pm
Ms. Tucker, Please read the Civil Rights Commission investigation on this. One of the two men was charged and jailed (the one carrying the club) the other left between 9:30 and 10:00 AM and it was deemed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him. Obama DOJ declined to proceed with the civil action. Check your facts.
Jeff Macmillan
July 14th, 2010
9:06 pm
This is not over….stay tuned. A coward has found his voice.
KTD
July 15th, 2010
2:33 am
Ms. Tucker, I really don’t care what race someone is or what party they support, if you stand outside of a polling place in a paramilitary uniform waving a nightstick around you are in the wrong. What about that is so hard to understand?
Reda StCyr
July 15th, 2010
2:37 am
What good does it do to keep talking about a subject the people whom believe what they get from Fix News & Limbaugh are told to disregard any truth and they do
This is nothing but another distraction from the real important subject of Jobs & unemployment for those who can’t find work
Republicans & Corporate America are doing all they can to try and make this President fail by blocking all of his meaningful legislation, the continuing outsourcing of needed jobs and all they not outsourcing they employ illegals & under pay them
The purchase of most all of our national media does not help the situation either, because it keeps those on the fence & politically uneducated, even more so that they come up with this kind of extreme ignorance.
I urge the few we have left n media, with guts to stand up against this kind of distraction & talk about the real issues important to this country
ctucker
July 15th, 2010
7:16 am
KTD, Did you read anything that suggests I thought the New Black Panthers were right?
Chris
July 15th, 2010
11:18 am
Ms. Tucker, why are you only responding to comments that you can easily refute? Isn’t this whole downgrading of charges a Democratic talking point meant to be a distraction? The controvesy today is over Holder’s actions to not pursue the civil case further. The criminal charges being downgraded is not relevant to this whole argument. Not even a little bit.
ctucker
July 15th, 2010
11:21 am
Chris, How far should Holder have pursued the case. The Obama Justice Dept got an injunction against the man with the club. What would you have wanted the DOJ to do?
Wildebeast1
July 15th, 2010
11:28 am
I’m surprised at how many people haven’t thought about the issue that if there is no plaintiff, it is impossible to pursue a civil matter in the court. But, apparently, the talking head in the FOX video believed that fast and loud talk has the image of truth, that demonstrates the pedantic nature of their broadcasts when they are wrong on the issues.
Doesn’t FOX NEWS have anybody who can explain the in and outs of the law to their commentators?
Men driving pick-up trucks with guns racked at the rear window, flying the confederate flag can be just as intimidating as a man carrying a billy club, but more things need to be considered than the act by itself.
Chris
July 15th, 2010
12:38 pm
Personally Ms. Tucker, I don’t think the case should’ve been narrowed to include only the individual carrying the nightstick. But, that’s a judgement call with many legal and political implications. If your stance is that the injunction against the one man is sufficient, that’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. My disagreement with your post here is that you stated that this controvesy should be put to rest because the DOJ under Bush downgraded the criminal charges to civil ones. That has no bearing on how Eric Holder handled the civil case. For the record, I think going after Holder for this, of all issues, is a mistake by conservatives. I think there are many more bigger issues to go after Holder about. But, that’s for another day. Thanks for responding Ms. Tucker.
hnf
July 15th, 2010
12:55 pm
Wildebeast1,
I think you’re the one most in need of an explanation of the “ins and outs of the law”. Yes, a plaintiff is a prerequisite to any civil matter; but I think you’ve foolishly and ignorantly assumed that only private parties may be plaintiffs. The DOJ has standing to pursue both criminal and civil remedies under the Voting Rights Act; how do you think the complaint for injunctive relief was filed in the first place?
Only the Criminal division can pursue criminal charges; so, by your misguided understanding of the law, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ would be largely impotent.
I’ve never read such an unbelievably dumb statement before. They made some nonsensical comments, but how you see yourself as fit to criticize is unfathomable.
HyenaKiller
July 15th, 2010
5:40 pm
One word for you, HYPOCRYTE!! Just like all left leaning loons.
Matt
July 15th, 2010
8:37 pm
So Miss Tucker you are saying that if it was a heavily republican district then it would be okay for some white motorcycle gang members to hang out front and crack their nuckles,,,, what if in that heavily democratic neighborhood their were a few republicans,,,,, I mean seriously, a few voters who are not democrats surely should have the right to vote without having to walk past those 2 guys….
Miles Ellison
July 16th, 2010
11:46 pm
How do people who are illiterate operate computers?
BillieT
July 17th, 2010
2:15 pm
The Washington Post summarized this case as follows:
Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn’t contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012
So much for the pesky facts parroted by Tucker from some far left watchdog site who manufactures “factoids” for Tucker and her kindred spirits.
Joe McGough
July 18th, 2010
9:03 am
Cynthia: Re Candor About Racism:
It isn’t racism when you hire your friends or relatives over better qualified applicants. This isn’t always small scale either. I became the personal friend of the personnel manager of a billion dollar corporation. One of his problems was to re-balance the religious diversity of the institution because his predecessor had hired Catholics by preference. My father worked for a billion dollar corporation whose open policy was to consider the relatives of employees first. In both cases, the motivation would be sticking with what you understood best. Hiring human beings isn’t simply a matter of who got the highest grades from the best schools or indeed who has the biggest muscles, In past years the FBI liked to hire Catholics because they tended to respect hierarchy and be loyal not because they were white. If your father and uncles show up sober for work every day it’s likely you will too. I would think both of these motivations would have a negative effect on the hiring of minorities but it’s not racism even with a small r. Is it fair? Yes, because in a sense the successful applicant has a letter of recommendation from a respected source that the passed over applicant doesn’t have and in this sense the successful candidate has better credentials.
CB
July 19th, 2010
11:45 am
I see a lot of you on here saying that it doesn’t matter where they were doing the “intimidation”…how many white people do you know frequent the projects? which is where this “intimidation” was done. Stop being so scary! Are you guys really allergic to facts…Bush DOJ dropped charges b 4 Obama took office, what is so hard to understand? Now some of you are going to say that doesn’t matter (which is STUPID) but I think when the Prez took office he had more pressing issues on his mind…white people stop with this reverse racism mess, it makes you sound like pathetic teenage girls…please come wit some facts and then lets talk…
Black people don’t even know who the NBP are, so stop grouping them 2gether with the rest of us…as u see no one was paying them n e attention
Dave in PA
July 21st, 2010
10:22 pm
My guess is that the Bush DOJ thought that the civil case would be the fastest and easiest way to get a conviction because the burden of proof is much lower. My question is if two tea party members were standing in front of a 100% white polling place with night sticks, would you be blowing that off and making excuses for them?
Lois McPhail
July 27th, 2010
5:48 pm
July27, 2010
This story is back on the news because 7 republican senators are demanding the Justice Dept. investigate this and are making it seem the Obama Adminstration is refusing to do the investigation because head of DOJ and Obama are black. Bush is white and it happened under his watch so I think we should investigat him and his administration for not following the law cause he is white.
Michael Harris
July 29th, 2010
10:50 pm
Cynthia, What good is the injunction. The man with the club has a temporary ban from violating the law in Philadelphia. So he will go to Camden. Please respond to my earlier email about how meaningless it is in contrast to what the court entered before politics got in the way.