Its back--DOJ inplicted in NBP - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#31 09-25-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

It's front page, above the fold in today's Washington Post.

Here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092406342.html?wprss=rss_print

Sounds like a reasonable summary of this "news story."

MS Fowler · #32 09-25-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I don't understand why you accept that testimony as the truth and reject the denials. What makes this man the source of all truth?Two problems here. First, do you know for certain that has never happened? If so, perhaps you could direct us to the source of your comprehensive knowledge of voting rights cases handled by the Civil Rights Division. Second, as far as I know, there is no evidence that the NBP guys intimidated any white voters. Perhaps there were some white voters who stayed away when they saw the intimidating black guys in front of the polling place and that might explain the lack of evidence. For a prosecutor, though, the reason for a lack of evidence doesn't matter. If you don't have the evidence, you don't bring the case.

Looking just at the NBP case, you have a two guys dressed up to look tough. One has a weapon. The other doesn't. The police make the armed guy leave. The unarmed guy gets to stay, in part because he was a registered Democratic party poll watcher. His offense, it seems, is to be present at a voting place wearing scary looking clothes. Based on that, you find the case so outrageous, and the evidence so overwhelming, that you know for certain that the DOJ had no reason other than race for scaling back its demands in the case. Sorry if I am not convinced, either way.

How do I know the DOJ had a good case? They WON!!!
They had judgments against the defendants which they stopped.
I take the fact that they judge in the case sided with the prosecution as evidence that the case was strong. The DOJ dropped it AFTER they had already won.

Honus · #33 09-25-2010, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

How do I know the DOJ had a good case? They WON!!!

They won a default judgment. That does not prove that they had a good case. It only proves that the defendants didn't show up.

Quote:

They had judgments against the defendants which they stopped.

They dropped some parties and kept other parties in.

Quote:

I take the fact that they judge in the case sided with the prosecution as evidence that the case was strong.

Bad assumption in a default judgment situation. I am not aware of any evidentiary hearings in the case. Are you?

Quote:

The DOJ dropped it AFTER they had already won.

The DOJ didn't drop the case. They asked the court to impose remedies less stringent than those originally sought. So far, we have two DOJ lawyers who believe that decision was motivated by race and a bunch of people who say it wasn't. I'm just not seeing the open and shut case you describe.

#34 09-25-2010, 06:02 PM

Just maybe, the DOJ was aware enough to understand that they would look like a bunch of time wasting idiots if they pursued a Voting Rights case against a couple of nutty black guys in the 21st century. That judgment call appears to be correct.

MS Fowler · #35 09-25-2010, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Just maybe, the DOJ was aware enough to understand that they would look like a bunch of time wasting idiots if they pursued a Voting Rights case against a couple of nutty black guys in the 21st century. That judgment call appears to be correct.

Would it still be the correct judgment if the races were reversed, and it was a couple of white militia types?

Honus · #36 09-25-2010, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Would it still be the correct judgment if the races were reversed, and it was a couple of white militia types?

Probably, but that's not really the point, IMHO. The point is that we don't know nearly enough to be able to second guess the people who made the decision.

#37 09-25-2010, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Would it still be the correct judgment if the races were reversed, and it was a couple of white militia types?

Two comments:

1. This is not a symmetrical situation (yet), as much as we would like to think otherwise. Those laws were specifically passed in response to systematic discrimination against minorities. Applying them to this case does not seem appropriate to me, it seems to trivialize the original intent of the laws. If I found myself on that jury, I would be embarrassed at how it was being applied. I do understand that the law is "colorblind" but I do think there is room for judgement in these types of cases.

2. If the situation was reversed and a couple of white skinheads were intimidating black voters, it still might not be appropriate to prosecute under Voting Rights laws. That is not the same as an organized effort by the local KKK chapter to affect black voter turnout, it's just a couple of punks acting like a couple of punks (who should be detained/arrested for being a couple of punks and removed from the area). I just don't believe those laws were intended to address these types of "minor" situations. Unfortunately, stuff like this happens away from polling places every day in every city in the US.

MS Fowler · #38 09-26-2010, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Two comments:

1. This is not a symmetrical situation (yet), as much as we would like to think otherwise. Those laws were specifically passed in response to systematic discrimination against minorities. Applying them to this case does not seem appropriate to me, it seems to trivialize the original intent of the laws. If I found myself on that jury, I would be embarrassed at how it was being applied. I do understand that the law is "colorblind" but I do think there is room for judgement in these types of cases.

2. If the situation was reversed and a couple of white skinheads were intimidating black voters, it still might not be appropriate to prosecute under Voting Rights laws. That is not the same as an organized effort by the local KKK chapter to affect black voter turnout, it's just a couple of punks acting like a couple of punks (who should be detained/arrested for being a couple of punks and removed from the area). I just don't believe those laws were intended to address these types of "minor" situations. Unfortunately, stuff like this happens away from polling places every day in every city in the US.

You are much more generous in your willingness to accept the "official" story than I am. Perhaps that makes you a better person.
Remember, what brought down Nixon was not some bungled robbery of campaign information that he didn't really need. It was the cover-up.
After all the denials that this decision not to prosecute was made by lower officials, what do you make of the now large number of emails from DOJ. even going to the White House?

I am not going to live or die on this story. Its an obvious ( to me) case of politicians controlling stuff they should not. It will be resolved, or it won't. If repubs win a majority in the House, they might have an investigation---or they won't. Life will go on. I just continue to have less faith in my government that I did before.

Honus · #39 09-26-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

...I just continue to have less faith in my government that I did before.

Over this? Even if we accept Coates's version, this pales in comparison to the politicization of the DOJ, especially the Civil Rights Division, under Ashcroft and Gonzales. Even if the NBP case was a step in the wrong direction, which I doubt, the trend at DOJ is overwhelmingly positive.

#40 09-26-2010, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You are much more generous in your willingness to accept the "official" story than I am. Perhaps that makes you a better person.
Remember, what brought down Nixon was not some bungled robbery of campaign information that he didn't really need. It was the cover-up.
After all the denials that this decision not to prosecute was made by lower officials, what do you make of the now large number of emails from DOJ. even going to the White House?

I am not going to live or die on this story. Its an obvious ( to me) case of politicians controlling stuff they should not. It will be resolved, or it won't. If repubs win a majority in the House, they might have an investigation---or they won't. Life will go on. I just continue to have less faith in my government that I did before.

IMO, even the worst case scenario is trivial. We are talking about the DOJ not pursuing a very minor case from 2 years ago to the maximum extent possible. This wouldn't be worth a cover-up, but I'm sure the republicans would launch an investigation if they had the majority; which speaks to my lack of faith in government. If the DOJ management did direct them to drop it, it was probably the correct call to avoid wasting resources on an unimportant case. In my experience, the "lower officials" sometimes lack the big picture, especially when they are closely involved; that's why they have managers.

MTI · #41 09-26-2010, 01:44 PM

Is the clock ticking on the opposition party's call for a special prosecutor to investigate?