New black panther party intimidating voters abledating wordpress com
Pat Toomey (R-PA) said he and “most” of his colleagues in the Senate did not expect President Donald Trump to win the election, so they did not have On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,” Governor Terry Mc Auliffe (D-VA) declined to name a single leader of the Democratic Party.Mc Auliffe said that there are “many leaders of the Democratic Party.” When pressed for a name, Mc Auliffe said he wouldn’t, Wednesday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh reacted to the controversies surrounding cable news channel CNN, which has taken an adversarial role in its coverage of President Donald Trump.For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, describes the Black Panthers as a “virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers.” Led by Shabazz, the Black Panthers violated the section of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against any person for voting or attempting to vote, according to the complaint filed by the feds in 2009 in U. But a few months later the Obama DOJ quietly dropped the charges and it all disappeared like a bad dream.Judicial Watch investigated and after suing the DOJ, obtained explosive documents that show Obama political appointees were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers.He was jailed and slapped with charges of illegal gun possession and illegally wearing body armor.This is the same thug who says black people should create militias to exterminate whites, skin them alive, pour acid on them, sick pit bulls on them, bust their heads with rocks and even raid nurseries to “kill everything white in sight.” The same newspaper quotes the Black Panther leader, a Philly street preacher, on a black-power radio show: “I would love nothing more than to come home with a cracker’s head in my book bag.” The news article points out that “such sentiment hasn’t gotten him arrested.” But Shabazz did get charged for violating federal law during the 2008 presidential election when he and his Black Panther posse blocked a polling station in Philadelphia, clad in paramilitary outfits and brandishing weapons."We saw testimony that the voters said they turned around and said they would came back; we don't know if they ever came back." Fund said there was a pattern of "consistent politicization" in the Justice Department, listing examples of Voting Rights Act decisions in the South."North Carolina is predominantly African-American," Fund said, "and voted to have non-partisan elections.
Christian Adams, said there’s a pervasive and open hostility towards equal enforcement of the law in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.
The New Black Panther Party was a defendant and the head of it was a defendant. KELLY: Ok, and what was basically the heart of the case against them. KELLY: Is there any question in your mind that that violates the law. It’s the easiest case I ever had at the Justice Department. If this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will. KELLY: Do you believe that the DOJ has a policy now of not pursuing cases if the defendant is black and the victim is white? In voting that will be the case over the next few years, there’s no doubt about it. ADAM: None, I mean, instructions were, if you had all the attorneys that worked on this case I am quite sure that they would say the exact same thing. attorney wants to do it, that’s up to them, but it’s not going to happen out of the civil rights division. Is it somebody or is it several people in positions of power? On all three of those they flunked the test on the Black Panther dismissal. Loretta King and Rosen- this guy Steve Rosenbaum, right? KELLY: Now, I want to get to what was said to Congress. KELLY: So what — do you know the explanation from Rosenbaum from this other woman Loretta King as to why they hadn’t bothered to read the briefs at the DOJ on this case and why it should go forward?
ADAMS: Yeah, this 1965 Voting Rights Act protects voters from voter intimidation. KELLY: And you had, you had not just that video tape, which we’ve all now seen, but you had witness testimony from some credible witnesses who were there. And what was your understanding based on those discussions about their reasons. And that other attorneys gave instructions that the voting section would not be pursuing these sorts of cases. ADAMS: Well, you know, there’s some things I’m not going to reveal as far as who they are. They’ve said that if somebody wants to bring these kind of cases that’s not going to be done out of the civil rights division. And what was said to the US Commission on Civil Rights in a minute, but I want to ask you: when you were arguing, when the career, when the trial attorneys were trying to convince these two political attorneys to let the case go forward, you’d already won, saying don’t reverse our victory essentially. And these lawyers would later testify, the political lawyers would later come out and say that they reviewed all the evidence, the Department of Justice has said they looked at all the evidence and they made a decision based on that evidence the case couldn’t go forward. ADAMS: Uh, they will probably deny that they didn’t read it, but you can’t explain something like that.
CHRISTIAN ADAMS, FORMER JUSTIC DEPARTMENT LAWYER: Well, people were standing in front of the polls with weapons in Philadelphia on the day that President Obama was elected in 2008.
The Justice Department brought a case in January under the voter intimidation statutes against the New Black Panther Party, the individuals who organized the deployment and the folks with the weapons in Philadelphia at the polls. ADAMS: Well, I mean, there is a pervasive hostility to bringing these sorts of civil rights cases. Under the vacancy reform act they were serving a political capacity.
Search for new black panther party intimidating voters:
Adams is that a high-ranking political appointee in the Department of Justice explicitly told the entire Voting Section “that this administration would not be enforcing Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act.” The purpose of Section 8 of the NVRA is to ensure that persons ineligible to vote are not permitted to vote.