Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

joe

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

So much for "not politicizing the department of justice." Is there any rational explanation for this?

Surprise, surprise.

This is like Mississippi juries in the bad old days not convicting klam members for burning houses and lynching black people.

"Six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrellia top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.

President Obama needs to clear the air. As a former law professor who specialized in voting rights, he is aware of how important even-handed application of the law is to election integrity."

Interesting stuff.

From the article, it sounds wrong on its face.

In a state court, what's the normal procedure when a defendant fails to appear?

You move for default, default is entered, and the type of case determines what kind of post-judgment proceedings you would initiate to enforce the judgment.

Where's the defense of Holder's decision?

It's non-existent. Lefties think if they ignore this story, it will go away. Any real liberal would find this decision to be disgusting - if they aren't a hack.

If there's any errors in the story, I'd love to hear them, because from the looks of it.... WTF is he thinking?

Apparently the Obama team or the rest of the fellaters in the media have not yet released their talking points on this topic. Hence the absence of Dorky, Rogue, etc. from this thread. I'm sure the official spin, if ever released, will make the front page. Lord knows nobody in the mainstream media will demand an explanation.

I thought there was to be no political promotions outside a polling place.


I have no idea what Holder's reasoning is, and neither do you. But, of course, that doesn't stop you claiming the worst.

I've looked but find nothing on this yet from the JD. It may be that they are busy handling another story concerning torture today.

But look at it this way. Until they respond, Joe, you get to make up anything you like.

Tell me one thing I've made up, and I'll retract it. Until then, go back to fellating your master.

Starvis is waiting patiently by Andrew SullHIVan's side, just waiting for him to issue the spin.

Was that Michelle out in front of the polling place, or was it some other angry black man?


So much for "not politicizing the department of justice."
#1 | Posted by JOE at

You made this up, that the JD has been politicized by this action. You don't know that yet.

You can go back to your self-fellating, now.

From the admittedly little I know, I think the charge of "voter intimidation" was going too far. They were campaigning outside a polling place, which I think is just a minor violation. Charges should be filed, but the RIGHT CHARGES.

the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen

Wow, hyperbole much?

In Afghanistan they're cutting off the fingers of people who dared to vote.

That's voter intimidation.

See also: Jim Crow.

Actually, rethugs like Monica Goodling and Tim Griffin supressing hundreds of thousands of votes through the use of caging lists in 2004 was a far more egregious anti-democratic action than this moron in cammy-wear twirling a nightstick.

And nothing happened to those asswipes, of course, except one of them became Gonzo's Assistant and the other was in line to get a DOJ job as a reward.

The mob rule tactics of the astro-turfed right in the health care debate are a form of intimidation as well.

Do rtards call shenanigans on them?

Hell no.

Wrong is wrong but let's have some perspective here.

Wot these guys did was dumb, no doubt about it but it certainly aint a hanging offense as some on the right seem to think.

As opposed to the birther nonsense, the "death panel" crap and the "Obama's coming to take our guns" fear-mongering this "scandal" definitely has more weight, ...which is to say "some".

The optics are not good here.

Be Well.

"That's voter intimidation."

I'll take the word of a lefty civil rights lawyer who watched polls in Mississippi in the 60's to ensure blacks had the right to vote over some dumbfuck Canadian blogger.

Who the fuck is Bartle Bull, btw?

Never mind. Gots teh googlZ!

blogs.villagevoice.com

With more and more names added to the stunning list of prominent Republicans who have shunned John McCain and endorsed Barack Obama -- the most notable, of course, being former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- you knew there just had to be at least one Democrat out there crossing lines in the opposite direction.

And sure enough, news that a really major, big name from the left defecting at the last minute was announced this morning, and it's quickly making waves on the Internet. I'm talking of course, about McCain landing that major figure in Democratic politics, the inimitable...

Bartle Bull.

Who? Well, the National Review, at least, figures this is news, calling Bull a "lifelong activist and former Village Voice publisher."

Now do you see the earth-shaking ramifications? A former Voice publisher endorsing McCain! Dewey Defeats Truman, this thing ain't over!

Yes, it's true, Bull at one time did own part of this newspaper. Back about the time the Beatles were breaking up, Bull, through a company he co-owned with his business partner, Carter Burden, took over 80 percent of the Village Voice.

Which he sold 4 years later and never took an active interest in.

Lol!

Former VV publisher and activist?

A lefty sez the National Rtard?

Too, too funneh.

Be Well.

Rather than defend Holder's actions, the dumbfuck from Canada is content to shoot the messenger. Ignore the video of blacks dressed in military garb intimidating voters with a nightstick - it never happened because you found a website critical of Bartle Bull.

They were campaigning outside a polling place

Has this been proved?

They were outside a polling place, yes.

But campaigning?

Were they wearing "Vote Obama or Die" buttons?

Did they try to sway voters?

Were they telling people not to vote?

Or were they just being counter productive morons with a racist chip on their shoulders?

Be Well.

Ignore the video of blacks dressed in military garb intimidating voters with a nightstick

Are you a fucking whackjob, Joe?

It's impossible to ignore that video.

FOX put it on a loop and then stuck it on heavy rotation for most of election day in a deliberate and obvious ploy to awaken racist sentiments.

Spud at the time sed wot these guys were doing was dumb but that FOX making it into their lead story on election day were even worse.

Spud still holds that belief, btw.

This faux outrage from the right is nothing if not amusing.

It's just another molehill they're trying to make into yet another mountain.

It's the mote in Obama's eye they whine about ceaselessly while ignoring the beam in their own.

Spud sez GL wit dat.

Run with it.

Knock yerself out.

Be Well.

"This faux outrage from the right is nothing if not amusing."

I don't consider a story about the overruling of six DOJ lawyers' desire to pursue the case "faux" outrage. If you do, then you're a hack.

That freak from Canada isn't doing us any favors in the deflection department. Fuck, 15 minutes until school lets out, and then we'll be rid of him for an hour or so. Thank god for latch key kids. Anyway, then all we have to do is wait until Andrew SullHIVan tells us how to respond.
-Lefties

Spud at the time sed wot these guys were doing was dumb but that FOX making it into their lead story on election day were even worse.


Spud still holds that belief, btw.

Jesus F-ing Christ.

On election day 2004, we heard countless 'stories' from anonymous sources citing unsubstantiated instances of voter intimidation and it was all over the news cycle.

In '08, we have video evidence of blatant voter intimidation by Black Panther members and Spud accuses FOX News as the racists for showing the footage?

That is some seriously fucked up "logic".

Why is it difficult for so many lefties to call out black racists for what they are? Why do so many lefties actually label whites as racists for pointing out cases of blacks blatatnly engaging in racist acts?

In '08, we have video evidence of blatant voter intimidation by Black Panther members and Spud accuses FOX News as the racists for showing the footage?

Blatent voter intimidation?

www.youtube.com

Blatent racism more like.

Be Well.

Interesting. So standing in front of the door of a polling place holding a nightstick and saying "you're going to be ruled by the black man now, cracker" does not constitute "intimidation?" How retarded are you?

Only to a person already scared of blackmen is that intimidation.


Only to a person already scared of blackmen is that intimidation.

#28 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-08-25 03:19 PM | Reply


Are you freaking crazy? Anyone not intimidated by a man in paramilitary garb, waving a baton in front of a polling place is packing heat or crazy.

all we have to do is wait until Andrew SullHIVan tells us how to respond.

Actually, unlike the right the left have a tendency to make up their own minds.

Know that may be a bit of a scary concept to a ditto-headed sheep like yerself, Airhead, but do grasp it.

The nightstick twirling moron was told by police that he couldn't stand outside the polling place and he left.

The other dumbass got involved in a dumb and dumber interview with FOX which made both of their mental inadequacies readily apparent.

Voter intimidation involves denying a vote, suppressing a vote, using force to coerce a vote or threatening retaliation for voting a certain way.

These rebels w/o a clue did none of that.

Ergo these charges deserved to be dropped without clogging up the courts any further.

The only blame Obama deserves here is for not calling this guy a jackass at the time.

Spud still holds that FOX were the bigger assholes here.

Be Well.

Are you freaking crazy? Anyone not intimidated by a man in paramilitary garb, waving a baton in front of a polling place is packing heat or crazy.

But those mulletted, mouth breathing, wife beater-wearing, inbred SOB's showing up outside town hall meetings with firearms are cool right?

Lawls.

So standing in front of the door of a polling place holding a nightstick and saying "you're going to be ruled by the black man now, cracker" does not constitute "intimidation?"

It doesn't constitute "voter intimidation", dimbulb.

Aint you been listening to Spud at all?

Dang, thought you was supposed to be some type of lawyer or sommat.

^_^

Be Well.

Voter intimidation involves denying a vote, suppressing a vote, using force to coerce a vote or threatening retaliation for voting a certain way.

You don't get to make up definitions to suit your needs.

If even one voter was too frightened to enter the polling station because these guys were standing their in the manner that they did, that constitutes the intimidation.


These rebels w/o a clue did none of that.

Your ability to defend the indefensible is mind-boggling.


But those mulletted, mouth breathing, wife beater-wearing, inbred SOB's showing up outside town hall meetings with firearms are cool right?

None of this is cool. However, the only pic I've seen of someone packing heat was a black man - which certainly doesn't fit your stereotypical bullshit, now does it?


It doesn't constitute "voter intimidation", dimbulb.

The fuck it doesn't.

The definition you gave was for voter suppression. The part in bold is the only part of the definition where you even remotely come close to meeting the definition for voter intimidation.





So, threatening someone with a nightstick isn't voter intimidation, but asking them to provide a picture ID is?

You libs are hilarious..

Dropping this prosecution cannot be justified.. it makes any claim to taking a high road by Holder on the "lets embarrass Bush even if it destroys the country" special prosecutor even more of a joke than we already knew it was. Face it, the guy is a political hack, whose primary claim to fame was talking Bill Clinton into pardoning Mark Rich. Something that stank to high heaven of corruption, and which the Bush admin wisely decided not to pursue in the interest of avoiding a banana republic.

The democratic leadership, including the white house, is completely immoral.

"Voter intimidation involves denying a vote, suppressing a vote, using force to coerce a vote or threatening retaliation for voting a certain way."

Wrong. The applicable federal statute, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states that "No person...shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce...any person for voting or attempting to vote."

According to the complaint, Defendant Shabazz brandished a deadly weapon 8 feet from the entrance, pointed the weapon at individuals, and menacingly tapped it in his other hand and elsewhere. Both defendants made statements containing racial threats and insults at both black and white individuals attempting to vote. They both made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements and movements directed at individuals present to aid voters. The Defendants never appeared or answered the complaint.

If you don't think said conduct fits the statute, you're a fucking idiot. You don't need to be a lawyer to figure this one out.

Joe,

I beat ya to it!

Although, I didn't actually quote the statute.

Why either of you guys read, let alone respond to that freak with anything other than pedo taunts is a mystery to me.

Obama's justice department is practicing racism plain and clear on this one.

It is a known fact that your messiah is a racist.

"You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

Only to a person already scared of blackmen is that intimidation.


#28 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-08-25 03:19 PM | Reply


gotta call you on this one bro..
not true...


and of course he doesnt have time for this...it takes a lot of time to put the whole country at serious risk so you can strike back at bush and cheney.........

and BARRY STILL thinks he is remaining above it all by the left still trying to tell us he doesnt have a say in the cia investigation.......

and if he really doesnt..then WHO"S REALLY RUNNING the country

HINT...george soros?


Only to a person already scared of blackmen is that intimidation.


#28 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-08-25 03:19 PM | Reply



gotta call you on this one bro..
not true...

I don't agree. From the limited information I have on what they did, they were campaigning outside a polling place, which is illegal, but were not intimidating voters.

#41 | Posted by kanrei

WHAT??? Caring weapons and calling people inflammatory names is not intimidation?

#41 | Posted by kanrei

White guilt, I love it.

" From the limited information I have on what they did, they were campaigning outside a polling place, which is illegal, but were not intimidating voters."

Uhh. Here's what the Complaint said they did:

Defendant Shabazz brandished a deadly weapon 8 feet from the entrance, pointed the weapon at individuals, and menacingly tapped it in his other hand and elsewhere. Both defendants made statements containing racial threats and insults at both black and white individuals attempting to vote. They both made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements and movements directed at individuals present to aid voters. The Defendants never appeared or answered the complaint.
If that sounds like mere "campaigning" to you, then there is something wrong with your brain.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable