+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited (/showthread.php?tid=139657)
Pages:
1
2
Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - swampy - 08-02-2012
Quote...
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/federal-court-finds-obama-appointees-interfered-with-new-black-panther-prosecution/article/2503500?custom_click=rss
Did DOJ really think they could fly under the radar on this one?
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - cbelt3 - 08-02-2012
Oops. Executive in DOJ actions. That's gotten lots of presidents in trouble in the past.
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - Ted King - 08-02-2012
The court ruling says nothing about "interference", it talks about "conferring". The conferring might have been interference but there is nothing in the article to support that - that seems to be an unnecessarily provocative word choice on the part of the author.
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - August West - 08-02-2012
Opinion wrote:
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
Judge's actual words wrote:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
The ruling was in regard to paying the lawyer's fees of the organization bringing suit, not in regard to the original conduct. The judge is agreeing that original case was not entirely frivolous. I am not expert in the original case, however, this ruling does not make anyone more knowledgeable of it. The opinion writer's topic sentence is typical of opinion, i.e. we know everyone has one.
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - swampy - 08-02-2012
Perez testifies, under oath, that no one talked about the case prior to DOJs decision to drop the case. This judge held that the evidence shows there was conversation (emails etc) by administration officials before the decision. The conversations took place among political people NOT DOJ staff.
Ther is so muc perjury and skullduggery going on in DOJ it is frightening.
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - August West - 08-02-2012
swampy wrote:
Ther is so muc perjury and skullduggery going on in DOJ it is frightening.
You have not demonstrated one iota of your allegations with your posting.
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - Black - 08-02-2012
There is so much fright it is frightening.
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - $tevie - 08-02-2012
swampy wrote: The conversations took place among political people NOT DOJ staff.
I'm confused. What's the problem then?
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - Uncle Wig - 08-03-2012
I think it's about time for some snark...
Re: Black Panthers intimidation case revisited - RgrF - 08-03-2012
It's a dispute about legal fees, not about undue influence from third parties (in this case the DOJ). It's also a Washington Examiner article.
More election year FUD.