Is DoJ Complicit in Election Crimes?

Some of my most interesting ideas come not from fellow bloggers or established media pundits, but from readers themselves. Today at Pajamas Media I wrote about the inexplicable decision by the Department of Justice to drop the uncontested prosecution of Black Panther members in Philadelphia who engaged in conduct in the 2008 election which clearly intimidated voters and poll watchers.

A follow up editorial by the Washington Times which uncovered the role of the Associate general Counsel in this outrage makes it even clearer that the decision was inappropriate and will surely lead to more illegal voter intimidation:
Mr. Wolf's July 22 letter raised numerous discrepancies between Justice Department explanations and readily available facts. In a July 13 letter to the congressman, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch wrote that the department dropped the cases against the New Black Panther Party as a whole and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, because "the factual contentions in the complaint did not have sufficient evidentiary support" to prove that they "managed" and "directed" the intimidating behavior of the two Panthers deployed at that polling place.

Mr. Wolf responded that, "the confession on national television by Malik Zulu Shabazz on Nov. 7, 2008, flatly contradicts your assertion. Mr. Shabazz unequivocally claims that his activities in Philadelphia were part of a nationwide effort involving hundreds of party members, and that the use of weapons was a necessary part of the Black Panther deployment."

Mr. Welch claimed one reason the charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped was that "he was a resident of the apartment building where the polling place was located," and thus allowed to be there. Mr. Wolf wrote back that Mr. Jackson "has never resided" at that address, which is a senior living facility called Guild House. At a fit and trim age 53, Mr. Jackson hardly qualifies for a retirement home.

Mr. Jackson's MySpace page still lists one of his main "general interests" as "Killing Crakkkas." Four days after the Justice Department dropped the complaint against Mr. Jackson, he again was named an official election poll watcher for the Democratic primary in Philadelphia's municipal election. How convenient.
My reader suggesrs what is behind this act:
The hypothesis about the DoJ decision on the Panthers is straightforward: This is an Official Cover-up, designed to protect disclosure of any possible links between the NBPP, the Philly Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign.  If the baton-wielding thugs faced serious jail time, they might roll over on their patrons and their sources of funding for election day (known as Walk-Around Money in Philadelphia politics).  The best way to stop that disclosure-both the cheapest and most effective-is to prevent prosecution in the first place.  Since the Republicans do not control either the House or the Senate, they can't even hold a hearing on this and pose hard questions in public to the DoJ's top political appointees.  To put it bluntly, we need to know if the DoJ is actually part of a conspiracy to further the commission of a crime.


I think if the Attorney General does not refile this improperly dismissed case, it's time to demand a serious independent investigation of the matter. And once again how about the "speaking truth to power" press departs the Obama shrine and gets to work?
Some of my most interesting ideas come not from fellow bloggers or established media pundits, but from readers themselves. Today at Pajamas Media I wrote about the inexplicable decision by the Department of Justice to drop the uncontested prosecution of Black Panther members in Philadelphia who engaged in conduct in the 2008 election which clearly intimidated voters and poll watchers.

A follow up editorial by the Washington Times which uncovered the role of the Associate general Counsel in this outrage makes it even clearer that the decision was inappropriate and will surely lead to more illegal voter intimidation:
Mr. Wolf's July 22 letter raised numerous discrepancies between Justice Department explanations and readily available facts. In a July 13 letter to the congressman, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch wrote that the department dropped the cases against the New Black Panther Party as a whole and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, because "the factual contentions in the complaint did not have sufficient evidentiary support" to prove that they "managed" and "directed" the intimidating behavior of the two Panthers deployed at that polling place.

Mr. Wolf responded that, "the confession on national television by Malik Zulu Shabazz on Nov. 7, 2008, flatly contradicts your assertion. Mr. Shabazz unequivocally claims that his activities in Philadelphia were part of a nationwide effort involving hundreds of party members, and that the use of weapons was a necessary part of the Black Panther deployment."

Mr. Welch claimed one reason the charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped was that "he was a resident of the apartment building where the polling place was located," and thus allowed to be there. Mr. Wolf wrote back that Mr. Jackson "has never resided" at that address, which is a senior living facility called Guild House. At a fit and trim age 53, Mr. Jackson hardly qualifies for a retirement home.

Mr. Jackson's MySpace page still lists one of his main "general interests" as "Killing Crakkkas." Four days after the Justice Department dropped the complaint against Mr. Jackson, he again was named an official election poll watcher for the Democratic primary in Philadelphia's municipal election. How convenient.
My reader suggesrs what is behind this act:
The hypothesis about the DoJ decision on the Panthers is straightforward: This is an Official Cover-up, designed to protect disclosure of any possible links between the NBPP, the Philly Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign.  If the baton-wielding thugs faced serious jail time, they might roll over on their patrons and their sources of funding for election day (known as Walk-Around Money in Philadelphia politics).  The best way to stop that disclosure-both the cheapest and most effective-is to prevent prosecution in the first place.  Since the Republicans do not control either the House or the Senate, they can't even hold a hearing on this and pose hard questions in public to the DoJ's top political appointees.  To put it bluntly, we need to know if the DoJ is actually part of a conspiracy to further the commission of a crime.


I think if the Attorney General does not refile this improperly dismissed case, it's time to demand a serious independent investigation of the matter. And once again how about the "speaking truth to power" press departs the Obama shrine and gets to work?