Frugal Café Blog Zone

Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on July 5, 2010

More information on the troubling dismissal of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case in Philadelphia…

The video below is a FOX News exclusive interview with a former Department of Justice attorney who clearly and succinctly details what happened from his perspective and his involvement in the Black Panthers case. Lawlessness gone rampant.

Quote: “If this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will.”

Click here, here, and here for my previous posts on this developing story.

Kudos to the courage of former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams for coming forward about what is happening in the Obama administration.

The Department of Justice’s response to this interview and to the abrupt dismissal of the Black Panthers case was, “the facts don’t support the claims.”

FOX News Exclusive: Former DOJ Attorney J. Christian Adams Interview with Megyn Kelly | July 2010

A few portions of the transcript of this interview:

KELLY: Ok, and what was basically the heart of the case against them.

ADAMS: Yeah, this 1965 Voting Rights Act protects voters from voter intimidation. You’re supposed to be able to go vote without somebody with a weapon shouting racial slurs at you like these folks were doing in Philadelphia.

KELLY: What were they saying?

ADAMS: Well, they said, “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker”. They called people “white devils”. They menaced, they tapped their baton. They tried to stop people from entering the polls.

KELLY: Is there any question in your mind that that violates the law?

ADAMS: No, nor anybody that worked on the case. It’s the easiest case I ever had at the Justice Department. It doesn’t get any easier than this. If this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will.

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.

ADAMS: That’s right – Bartle Bull; he’s a long-time Robert F. Kennedy civil rights activist, worked in Mississippi in the ’60s. He said it was the worst case of voter intimidation he has ever seen in his 40 years of practicing civil rights laws.

KELLY: So it was clear to you a case needed to be brought.

ADAMS: Slam dunk. I mean, nobody thought there was any doubt that this was the clearest case of voter intimidation that I’ve seen since I’ve been practicing law.

[...]

ADAMS: Well, you know the Department has said that the facts and the law don’t support going forward on the case. Now, obviously that’s false. Anyone with eyes can see that the facts and the law would support this case. Uh, there’s video. Take for example Jerry Jackson; he’s the tall Black Panther. He’s also a Democratic elected official from the city of Philadelphia.

KELLY: The one without the baton.

ADAMS: That’s right. There is sworn testimony in front of the Civil Rights Commission that Jackson tried to stop people from going into the polls. Witnesses testified that he tried to block them from entering the polls, yet they dismissed the case against him.

KELLY: So, but what was the reason? That’s what I’m trying to get at. You, the trial attorneys, the career lawyers at DOJ said we have a victory. We think this case has merit. And you were told what?

ADAMS: Dismiss the case. That the facts and the law don’t support this. I can’t explain it.

KELLY: What was really going on?

ADAMS: Well, I mean, there is a pervasive hostility to bringing these sorts of civil rights cases. I’ve worked on other ones at the Justice Department. I’ve worked on cases in Mississippi. I’ve represented both black victims of racial discrimination and Hispanic victims and in this case a white victim of racial discrimination. There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases.

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?

ADAMS: Well, particularly in voting. In voting that will be the case over the next few years, there’s no doubt about it.

KELLY: There isn’t?

ADAMS: 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. And that other attorneys gave instructions that the voting section would not be pursuing these sorts of cases.

KELLY: Who specifically has issued that mandate?

ADAMS: Well, you know, there’s some things I’m not going to reveal as far as who they are. They know 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. If a U.S. attorney wants to do it, that’s up to them, but it’s not going to happen out of the civil rights division.

More good reading… HillBuzz: QUESTION: Could the Black Panther case FINALLY draw attention to the voting rights violations the Obama campaign actively engaged in?

Categories: Entertainment, Celebrities, Government, Law & Constitution, Race Issues, Social and Political Climate, Videos, Audio Files
Tags: America, attorney general, Attorney General Eric Holder, Attorney General Holder, Bartle Bull, Black Panthers, civil rights, Department of Justice, DOJ, election day, Eric Holder, investigation, J. Christian Adams, Jerry Jackson, King Samir Shabazz, Malik Shabazz, Megyn Kelly, Minister King Samir Shabazz, NBPP, New Black Panther Party, New Black Panthers, Philadelphia, political, politics, radical, radicalism, video, voter intimidation, voting, voting poll, YouTube