Transparency - Not!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's almost never fair game to call racism.

Anytime the Chief DOJ favors one race over another he needs to be called out on it. The Demoncratic supporters are just sticking their head in the sand as they try to make excuses for his bad behavior. I will continue to draw attention to his racism.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Anytime the Chief DOJ favors one race over another he needs to be called out on it. The Demoncratic supporters are just sticking their head in the sand as they try to make excuses for his bad behavior. I will continue to draw attention to his racism.

When the current AG files the same civil injunction as was the final proposal of his predecessor as in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and

When the current AG is simply implementing and enforcing a settlement initiated by his predecessor and imposed by the courts and agreed to by the city, as in Dayton discrimination case...

One is left to wonder who is sticking his head in the sand.

[DanaC]

Yep, well, anybody with any sense can see...anti-white racism is clearly the big problem for the US.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

When the current AG files the same civil injunction as was the final proposal of his predecessor as in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and

When the current AG is simply implementing and enforcing a settlement initiated by his predecessor and imposed by the courts and agreed to by the city, as in Dayton discrimination case...

One is left to wonder who is sticking his head in the sand.

Anyone who supports that fool Holder is sticking their head in the sand. Now you want to spin it as "simply doing what his predecessor did" is pure political spin. You can't spin the deliberate racism of the current DOJ.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yep, well, anybody with any sense can see...anti-white racism is clearly the big problem for the US.

It should have nothing to do with color. That is the point.

[TheMercenary]

SO, first these people are hired to do the right thing and now they are lying under oath to a Congressional inquiry? I don't think so....

To the contrary, two Justice Department lawyers have sworn under oath that Justice's Civil Rights Division exhibits a pervasive hostility against race-neutral enforcement of the law. They independently cited multiple examples of this hostility, an attitude supported by Obama appointees. Four more former department officials - two in sworn affidavits - confirmed the bias. The same thing was told to The Washington Post last autumn by three current Justice lawyers and corroborated by other officials to The Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...obe-282218736/

[TheMercenary]

Judicial Watch is exposing the emptiness of open-government promises by President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. These Democrats have stiffed the legal public-interest group’s Freedom of Information requests related to the Justice Department’s dismissal of a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. Judicial Watch’s Dec. 7 filings reveal the false basis for the administration’s novel claims of “privilege” against disclosure.

Judicial Watch says Justice has withheld “approximately 80 documents in their entirety.” The department claims many are protected by the “deliberative process privilege.” That exemption from disclosure is intended to provide for what the administration calls “a more fulsome decision-making process” without fear of staffers being embarrassed by suggestions they made merely to examine all sides of an issue.

Courts long have established that this privilege applies only to memorandums that are “pre-decisional.” Once a decision has been made and enacted, the deliberative process has ended. Many of the unreleased documents were created after Justice ended the Black Panther case and thus clearly were not part of the deliberative process. Judicial Watch bolsters its common-sense argument by citing the Supreme Court precedent in NLRB v. Sears (1975): “Communications made after the decision and designed to explain it are not privileged.” Case closed.

The disputed documents remain important for understanding how the Black Panther case was bungled and also for examination of the more serious issue of whether Mr. Holder’s team as a matter of policy shows a “hostility to race-neutral enforcement” of the laws. On another level, what’s highly disturbing is what Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton calls the Obama administration’s “contemptuous attitude” toward the public’s legal rights to government transparency. Claiming pre-decisional privilege for actions taken after a case is over is contemptuous of the public’s right to know.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder repeatedly have promised what the president called “an unmatched level of transparency, participation and accountability across the entire administration.” Mr. Holder likewise advertised “a presumption of disclosure to all FOIA requests.” That Holder quote is from March 15. The next day, Associated Press ran a story that the liberal Huffington Post headlined “Obama’s broken promise: Federal agencies not more transparent under Obama administration.” By August, the left-leaning Sunlight Foundation headlined a report saying the White House “Abandons commitment to transparency.” On Dec. 8, Sunlight Executive Director Ellen S. Miller concluded, “Simply put, the president’s commitment to transparency is not yet living up to its full potential.”

On matters large and small - from the dismissal of inspectors general to the identities of Justice Department lawyers who represented suspected terrorist detainees and to the myriad issues stemming from the Black Panther investigation - this administration has turned Nixonian stonewalling into a political fortress of obfuscation. Federal District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who is overseeing the Judicial Watch case, shouldn’t allow it. The judge should personally examine the documents in question and release those for which the privilege claims are spurious.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lack-panthers/

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yep, well, anybody with any sense can see...anti-white racism is clearly the big problem for the US.

Extremism relies on spreading ignorance and intolerance. That is what we have seen here with the baseless charge of racism given the misrepresentation of the two cases in question - the New Black Panther Party and Dayton. One can disagree with the DoJ actions, but to characterize it as racism is extreme.

The questions remains whether it is out of ignorance or intolerance.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

One can disagree with the DoJ actions, but to characterize it as racism is extreme.

Blatant abuse of power to promote and support the actions of one race over others. Pretty clear to me.

[DanaC]

Was it to promote and support the actions of one race over another, or was it to promote and support the actions of one group over another?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Was it to promote and support the actions of one race over another, or was it to promote and support the actions of one group over another?

In the case of the Dayton officers it was to promote and support the actions of one group over another, based purely on race, not merit.

In the case of the New Black Panthers it was a violation of laws which prevent voter intimidation, in this case white people trying to vote at a generally black dominated area, and not different than the KKK keeping blacks away from voting booths in the South during segregation.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

In the case of the Dayton officers it was to promote and support the actions of one group over another, based purely on race, not merit.

In the case of the New Black Panthers it was a violation of laws which prevent voter intimidation, in this case white people trying to vote at a generally black dominated area, and not different than the KKK keeping blacks away from voting booths in the South during segregation.

In the case of Dayton, it was enforcing a court-ordered settlement. One can disagree with the law and claim that law is racist but an AG who simply enforces the law is just doing what the court and the law required.

In the case of the NBP voter intimidation, the evidence did meet the standards of the law, given that no voters claimed they were intimidated, thus a lesser civil injunction was applied. Again, acting by the requirements of the law.

added:

Given that Bush's AG Mukasey initiated the employment discrimination case against Dayton and who agreed with the career attorneys over the objection of the Republican appointees in the DoJ in not having the evidence to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act for a criminal prosecution in the NBP case, wouldnt that make him the racist?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

In the case of Dayton, it was enforcing a court-ordered settlement. One can disagree with the law and claim that law is racist but an AG who simply enforces the law is just doing what the court and the law required.

Racism never the less. It was done because of race and standards were lowered. It ignored merit. That is racism.

In the case of the NBP voter intimidation, the evidence did meet the standards of the law, given that no voters claimed they were intimidated, thus a lesser civil injunction was applied. Again, acting by the requirements of the law.

Holder and the DOJ illegally withheld documents pertinent to the case. The case was dropped because of the new prevailing attitude that cases not involving "minority" cases were not going to be followed, racism.

Do they pay you to be a shill for the Obama Administration?

[DanaC]

Do you have any proof of this new prevailing attitude?

because it really sounds like you're the one being racist right now.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Racism never the less. It was done because of race and standards were lowered. It ignored merit. That is racism.

That is the law. Some might suggest it is racist, I would disagree.

But under your standards, why is Bush's AG Mukasey not the racist, given that he was the one who initiated the employment discrimination case against Dayton, not Holder, and he, not Holder, was the one who agreed to the settlement that lowered the testing standards?

Holder was enforcing the court order as required by the law.