Who pressured Justice to drop case against voter intimidation in Philly?
Or, as Jennifer Rubin's piece at PJ Media says, "Democrats: It's OK When We Politicize the Justice Department."
After screaming for 8 years about Bush "politicizing" the Justice Department, it appears that there is a clear cut case of interference in a legitimate prosecution of the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters at a polling station in 2008 by Obama appointees.
Rubin's article gives the background:
The Justice Department filed a complaint under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (which prohibits any attempt to "intimidate, threaten or coerce" any voter) against the New Black Panther Party after months of research and acquiring a sworn affidavit attesting to the intimidation. The affidavit by veteran civil rights attorney Bartle Bull describes the egregious behavior in which armed men appeared at a polling place. Bull explains he "never encountered or heard of" such blatant physical intimidation at the polls in his many years as a civil rights advocate.
Neither the New Black Panther Party nor any of the individual defendants responded to the suit. The federal judge therefore ordered the Civil Rights Division to file a default judgment. However, without providing any grounds for doing so the Division moved to dismiss the complaint - in essence forfeiting the case.
The Washington Times report explains that the injunction was obtained to prevent further intimidation. However, the career attorneys were prevented from proceeding further..."
The career prosecutors at Justice had a default judgment against the New Black Panther Party in hand and Obama's political hatchetmen at the department put the kibosh on the whole thing.
Evidently, voter intimidation is fine - when the other side is being intimidated. And don't be fooled by the "New" Black Panther Party. It's as thuggish as the old one.
Rubin obtained a letter from Rep. Lamar Smith that asks DOJ some penetrating questions:
For example, why did the Civil Rights Division voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit that it had effectively already won, against defendants who were physically threatening voters? Is the Division concerned that this dismissal will encourage the New Black Panther Party, or other groups, to intimidate voters? Why did the Division seek such limited relief against a defendant who was actually carrying and brandishing a weapon at a polling station on Election Day? What role did the change of administration play in the unusual resolution of voluntarily dismissing a case on which the Division had already prevailed?
The answers should be very revealing.