Charles Krauthammer | Eric Holder | Worst Attorneys General | The Daily Caller

Sebby:

The text from the interview which you seem to think is a defense of Holders false, inflammatory statement only validates everything Mr Krauthammer said.

"I think that people, despite my law enforcement background, view me as taking these consistently progressive stands, and I think that, philosophically, there is a desire to get at that person,” he said."

That is the problem. His consistently progressive stands are what is inconsistent with the duties of the Attourney General and is precisely why he is in hot water now!

The record is clear:

Obviously, he has been dishonest about his knowledge of operation "Fast & Furious"
He should have helped states enforce immigration law, not confront them.
He should have prosecuted the Black Panthers, not quash the DOJ investigation.
He should have been above interfering in states attempts to maintain voter integrity.
He should have not spent years tyring to resurrect Civil Rights violations by a State Sheriff.
He should have resigned for all of the above abuses of his authority.

He does not personally direct every ATF and BP investigation.

States do not have the authority to enforce immigration law and already have an avenue to assist federal authorities.

No actual crime has been shown to have been committed by the so called New Black Panthers.

The GOP efforts to limit the number of poor and young who can vote in unconscionable, especially in the face of almost non-existent voter fraud. The GOP hypocrisy is evident in that no ID will be required to participate in the Iowa Caucus and they will allow same day registration.

God forbid he seek to bring a Sheriff who has been shown to abuse his power to justice.

The problem is that you don't like liberals, that's fine, but that is not a reason for him to resign.

Sebby:

Mr Holder is not being questioned about his direction of ATF and BP operations, he is being questioned about his knowledge thereof. He is being at the very least evasive, most likely he has lied to Congress.

We know for the millionth time that the states do not have the power to enforce immigration law. That does not give the Federal government the right to ignore it and refuse to enforce it. (If the President does not like the US being a sovereign nation he should be honest enough to say so.)

The New Black Panthers were clearly intimidating voters (there's even a video tape!) , the question is why the Attorney General and his assistant (Thomas Perez) chose to quash an investigation of it?

In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the Supreme Court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed Constitutional.

The problem that you like this radical administration is no defense for the AGs social activism which has denigrated the office of the Attorney General.

This President has increased the border patrol to a historic size and deported more illegals than any President before him and crossings are down to their lowest level in 5 years. explain to me again how the Feds are ignoring the issue?

Not one voter made a claim that they were intimidated, I've seen the tape, they do not prevent anyone from crossing and voting, one of the men on the tape is a registered poll watcher.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 2,000 annually from FY2006, when there were a total of 12,349 Border Patrol agents, to FY2010, when there were 20,511.

abcnews.go.com/.../from-the-fact-check-desk-president-obamas-spee

Whether there are voter claims or not, there should not be an intense debate about what rules any state seeks to implement to protect the integrity of the vote. Political groups can still shuttle in the poor, minorities, lawyers or whatever other group they wish, provided those individuals are legitimate voters and only vote once.

Sebby: Sorry, I did not notice your final sentence.

You think an investigation is only warranted if there is a complaint?

On May 29, 2009, the Department of Justice requested and received an injunction against the member who had carried the nightstick, but against the advice of prosecutors who had worked on the case, department superiors ordered the suit dropped against the remaining members. On July 6, 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testified before the Commission on Civil Rights and alleged that the case was dropped because the Justice Department did not want to protect the civil rights of white people

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_PartyCached - Similar

so you are saying that the DOJ should investigate people even if no laws are broken and no complaints filed against them. They should investigate people because you don't like what they look like? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how law works? While being a complete A-hole for carrying a night stick outside a polling place is annoying being an A-hole is not illegal quite yet. There was an investigation on the matter, in 2008 and since no crime was found to have occurred there were no charges filed. No wonder you support Arpaio, he also decides to arrest people and decide what laws apply to them based on appearance.

I didn't like the guy being there with a night stick any more than I liked the a-hols that showed up to rallies with rifles or the A-hole who parked outside my polling place in 2010 with his two rifles in his gun rack, but since none of those people actually broke a law they get to do that.

Sebby: The fact that nobody complains does not indicate whether or not a law was being broken or not, especially when it involves intimidation. For instance people who witness murders in our inner cities seldom come forward.

There was an investigation under way. It was stropped by the AG and his assistant AG in charge of Civil Rights. Obviously they think that Civil Rights only apply to 11% of the population.

Again, we are back to you wanting to prosecute people who have not committed a crime. In the absence of a complaint exactly what is there to investigate further?

Your comparison makes no sense, we aren't looking for witnesses to intimidation we are looking for actual people who were intimidated. To date, not a single person has come forward and said they were intimidated by that person, that they elected not to vote that they were even spoken to by that person before or after voting. So other than the fact that he was a black guy in military style garb and holding a night stick why do you want to prosecute him? What law did he break?

For anyone who bothers to actually look at the record, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights received direct evidence on that very issue. Those critics also miss the point that it is a crime to attempt to intimidate voters and anyone assisting voters, which would include poll watchers, and no one watching the videotape could come to any conclusion other than the New Black Panthers were trying to intimidate people at that poll in Philadelphia

blog.heritage.org/.../the-new-black-panther-party-evidence-on-voter- ...Cached - Similar

As much as you might like the Heritage people to run the country, they do not. The presence of a black person at a polling place is now cause for intimidation - even though no one was intimidated and no one was even addressed by this individual? You don't like them so they should be arrested, this is your position.

A black person at a polling booth???

The video is included in my link and at least one of the men is armed with a stick. Instead of attacking the source or trying to schmooze the facts, why not ask yourself how you would defend it if it were Klansmen in front of a polling booth in the old south?

Your the one who is not making sense. You wonder why people who are intimidated don't file a complaint? Really?

You can look at the facts or continue the propaganda from MSNBC. Either way Mr Holder will now face the consequences.

What a perfect suggestion, i have a friend who is a Sheriff's Deputy in Bentonville, Ark. Where the Klan is still in existence and even hold the occasional parade. You know why they have to allow it? Because if they don't break any laws they cannot arrest them. So if a klan member in full robes decides to stand out in front of a polling place, even if he armed with a gun at his waist, unless or until he actually seeks to prevent someone from voting, harasses someone or someone complains that they find his presence objectionable he has not committed a crime.

You are actually trying to use the absence of a complaint as evidence, that is ridiculous.

Another fact you are choosing to ignore is when they guy with the night stick was asked to leave, he did so.

Here is your complaint:

Early in 2009 The Justice Department filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members alleging that the defendants intimidated voters and those aiding them during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleges that, during the election, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were deployed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and that Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon.

"Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker. "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously."

According to the complaint, party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Samir Shabazz and Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day. The complaint alleges a violation of 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 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.That is what the DOJ is supposed to be doing.

www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/January/09-crt-014.htmlCached - Similar

this is the complaint that was filed by the AG's office, it is not a specific complaint of an individual that they were intimidated by these individuals. this is what you have called for, the arrest and prosecution of people because you do not like them, not for any actual crime committed. They were accused of a crime, but there was no actual evidence of one being committed.

The complaint alleges a violation of 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

Who was intimidated?

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.

The DOJ did do this, in 2008 and they could not find that any intimidation had actually taken place.

They were specifically attempting to prevent, these people and ONLY this group from being at the entrance of a polling place. Tea party members were deployed in 2010 specifically to question people who were voting.

Sebby: Now you not only want to ignore the obvious violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but you have also brought the conversation to a new low by comparing the Tea Party to the Black Panthers.

Your not interested in facts.

If you had checked out my link in post #4.7 you would have read about the poll worker who observed the voters turning away.

Your lame defense of Holder, and the black panthers could have been equally applied to the Brown Shirts in Nazi Germany as they relocated people to camps, without complaints being filed!

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez testified that even though none of the defendants responded to the charges, the Justice Department still had a continuing legal and ethical obligation to ensure that any relief sought was consistent with the law and supported by the evidence. A decision was then made to dismiss the charges against NBPP chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, the NBPP and Jerry Jackson. The charge against Minister King Samir Shabazz, the individual who was seen brandishing a nightstick, was maintained but narrowed. The original charge against Minister King Samir Shabazz sought an injunction prohibiting acts of intimidation anywhere in the United States, but the charge was narrowed to apply only within the City of Philadelphia. The Justice Department then sought and obtained a default judgment against King Samir Shabazz. The injunction would prohibit Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years.^[10]

^{Now, I understand You would have preferred the man have been executed. However, since the investigation into the matter resulted in 0 findings of actual intimidation, what is yoru problem with how it was handled?}