Transparency - Not!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

You often (more than not) cherry picking information, treat allegations as facts and ignore other facts that are counter to your predispose position.

Facts are facts. They stand alone. I have sited three cases where this DOJ has corrupted it authority and gone outside the law. All I can hope for it that Holder goes down in flames and Obama is a one term president.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Facts are facts. They stand alone. I have sited three cases where this DOJ has corrupted it authority and gone outside the law. All I can hope for it that Holder goes down in flames and Obama is a one term president.

I agree. Facts are facts and you chose them selectively.

The fact is that it was the Bush AG who charged the city of Dayton with employment discrimination and it was a federal court that imposed the settlement lowering the testing standards. I still dont understand how that makes Holder, the current AG, a racist. In fact, if he didnt enforce the cout order, that would be acting outside the law.

And in the Philly voter intimidation case, you misrepresented the facts. There was not one voter who filed a complaint of intimidation, with the sole testimony coming from a Republican video person on site and a Republican attorney who was not on site. Yet you claim that the DoJ had a strong case that voters were intimidated. Which is not true and why the Bush DoJ ultimately chose not to seek a criminal charge and chose to pursue a civil suit instead. Holder also sought a civil injuntion against the one person carrying the club and dropped the charge against the one who was legally present as a poll watcher certified by the city. In fact, there is nothing outside the law about Holder's action.

Facts are facts but you cant simply ignore the facts you dont like.

IMO, you ignored what I think objective oberservers would consider highly relevant and pertinant facts.

[DanaC]

Facts are facts? lol Maybe if you were prsenting 'facts' rather than selecting the opinions of some which (as has been pointed out) don;t tally with the opinions of others in the same article.

[classicman]

Just to be Fair & Balanced - the Fox version (notice the differing) headlines



ETA - I have no sound on my computer here at work, so I don't know what the audio on either video is.


Figured that I'd post these so everyone can see what the conversation is about.

Personally, I would be more than a little concerned about the guy wielding a nightstick. Enough to leave and go to another place? If I could, sure. I don't know how that works though.
Were laws broken? Somehow the answer is no. Either way I don't think its proper for a man to be wielding a weapon outside a polling place, unless you are a police officer.

[Fair&Balanced]

I actually posted the first video earlier and asked Mercenary to explain how it met the law's criteria for voter intimidation.

And what Fox and others never showed was the second video that shows the cops confroting the two NBP party members; one of whom (w/o the nightstick) was an official poll watcher authorized by the city, a fact neglected to be reported by Fox et al.

Originally Posted by classicman

Were laws broken? Somehow the answer is no. Either way I don't think its proper for a man to be wielding a weapon outside a polling place, unless you are a police officer.

The Voting Rights Act is pretty specific as to what constitutes voter intimidation, which is why neither the Bush D0J nor the current DoJ pursued criminal charges and why both sought civil injunctions against the guy with the night stick.

[classicman]

The description from from wiki

During the 2008 presidential election, poll watchers found two New Black Panther militia members shouting racial slurs outside a polling place in Philadelphia.[23] One of the two was a credentialed poll watcher, while the other was a New Black Panther member who had brought a police-style nightstick baton. A University of Pennsylvania student, Stephen Robert Morse, was hired by the local Republican Party on behalf of the John McCain presidential campaign to film the incident.[24] His video aired on several news outlets throughout the country. Republican poll watcher Chris Hill stated that voters had been complaining about intimidation, while the District Attorney's office stated that they had not been contacted by any voters.[25] The New Black Panther with the nightstick was escorted away by the police.[26][27]

On January 7, 2009, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil suit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 over the incident at the Philadelphia polling place. The suit accused members King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of being outside a polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and said "that Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon.[28] The suit sought an injunction preventing further violations of the Voting Rights Act. After the defendants did not appear for court, a default judgment was entered.[citation needed] On May 29, 2009, the Department of Justice requested and received an injunction against the member who had carried the nightstick, but against the advice of prosecutors who had worked on the case, department superiors ordered the suit dropped against the remaining members. On July 6, 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testified before the Commission on Civil Rights and alleged that the case was dropped because the Justice Department did not want to protect the civil rights of white people.[29] Former Civil Rights Division Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates testified on September 24, 2010, that the case was dismissed because of "deep seated hostility to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities." [30] Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican-appointed vice chairwoman of the Commission who has "recently voted consistently with the Democrats" on the Commission,[31] dismissed Adam's allegations and said the Department's resources were better spent elsewhere, given that the evidence did not meet the "very high" legal standards to support voter intimidation: "After months of hearing, testimony and investigation, no one has produced any actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots."[32]

[classicman]

I got all that F&B. Lets look at it a little more realistically. If my daughter was going there to vote and these guys were out front shouting racial slurs and brandishing a nightstick... I can tell you with virtual certainty that she would not vote.
I also doubt very highly that she would call the DA. Nor do I think she is in the minority (no pun intended)

[Fair&Balanced]

I got a laugh out of the last line of the Wiki:

Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican-appointed vice chairwoman of the Commission who has "recently voted consistently with the Democrats" on the Commission, dismissed Adam's allegations and said the Department's resources were better spent elsewhere, given that the evidence did not meet the "very high" legal standards to support voter intimidation: "After months of hearing, testimony and investigation, no one has produced any actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots."

Thompson, the very conservative Vice Chair voted with the Democrats on the Commission once before and that translates to "consistently"?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

I got all that F&B. Lets look at it a little more realistically. If my daughter was going there to vote and these guys were out front shouting racial slurs and brandishing a nightstick... I can tell you with virtual certainty that she would not vote.
I also doubt very highly that she would call the DA. Nor do I think she is in the minority (no pun intended)

Shouting racial slurs? I missed that in the video.

Was he holding the nightstick in a threatening manner?

Or was the Republican video guy making more out of it than accutually occured, particularly given the second with the cops on the scene that the right seems to ignore.

[Undertoad]

an official poll watcher authorized by the city, a fact neglected to be reported by Fox et al.

FYI in PA a poll watcher oversees the vote count at the end of the voting day. It's not an appointed or paid position, merely a notice that it's OK for them to be there and watch the count.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

FYI the job of a poll watcher is to oversee the count at the end of the day, not to actually watch the polling place.

Not in my experience.

The role is partisan by its very nature, but requires approval by the election board and it is to watch over the election process on behalf of a candidate or party.

[Fair&Balanced]

Quite frankly, the only race issue I am beginning to see here is something approaching racial stereotyping (scary black men).

But to be clear, I am not suggesting the Republican videographer or anyone in this discussion is racist.

[Undertoad]

Sorry for my late edit. I am talking about what a poll watcher is in Pennsylvania. The poll watcher's duty starts when the poll closes. You are there to watch the count.

I could show you the relevant statute, as I have read it. I have known and worked with many poll watchers my whole life, starting from when I was just a lad. I have run candidacies at every level in this state. My ex was Inspector of Elections for a decade.

These days the count pretty much consists of pressing a button and printing out the numbers from each machine.

[Fair&Balanced]

I know it varies by state as do the laws regarding electioneering outside a polling station or even videotaping outside a polling station.

But I still havent seen any evidence of voter intimidation as defined under the Voting Rights Act, just allegations.

So I am still trying to understand how Holder filing a civil injuntion against the guy with a nightstick is racist.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I agree. Facts are facts and you chose them selectively.

The fact is that it was the Bush AG who charged the city of Dayton with employment discrimination and it was a federal court that imposed the settlement lowering the testing standards. I still dont understand how that makes Holder, the current AG, a racist. In fact, if he didnt enforce the cout order, that would be acting outside the law.

And in the Philly voter intimidation case, you misrepresented the facts. There was not one voter who filed a complaint of intimidation, with the sole testimony coming from a Republican video person on site and a Republican attorney who was not on site. Yet you claim that the DoJ had a strong case that voters were intimidated. Which is not true and why the Bush DoJ ultimately chose not to seek a criminal charge and chose to pursue a civil suit instead. Holder also sought a civil injuntion against the one person carrying the club and dropped the charge against the one who was legally present as a poll watcher certified by the city. In fact, there is nothing outside the law about Holder's action.

Facts are facts but you cant simply ignore the facts you dont like.

IMO, you ignored what I think objective oberservers would consider highly relevant and pertinant facts.

I choose to believe those on the inside who experienced the actions at the DOJ, you choose to ignore them as not relevant. What else is new. It is your job to defend this Administration. Their word trumps your opinion.