From the Washington Examiner.
First, recall the details of the incident that got the New Black Panthers into trouble:
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.
Now here’s the latest:
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
[...]Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
The radical activist group ACORN “works” for the Democratic Party and deliberately promotes election fraud, ACORN employees told FBI investigators, according to an FBI document dump Wednesday.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, are FBI investigators’ reports related to the 2007 investigation and arrest of eight St. Louis, Mo., workers from ACORN’s Project Vote affiliate for violation of election laws. All eight employees involved in the scandal later pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud.
Project Vote is ACORN’s voter registration arm. Project Vote continues to operate despite the reported dissolution of the national structure of ACORN.
The handwritten reports by FBI agents show that ACORN employees reported numerous irregularities in the nonprofit group’s business practices.
Why should we be surprised that the Obama administration would turn a blind eye to this New Black Panther incident?
- Obama administration sues Florida for purging non-citizens from voter rolls
- College student discovers election fraud in Indiana’s 2008 primary
- Is it “racial discrimination” to ask someone for a photo ID before they vote?
- Civil rights commission finds that Obama administration has racist double standard
- Homeland Security Secreary Janet Napolitano to counter global warming threat
- How many ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud this year?
- Democrats and pro-abortion groups target pro-lifers in FBI and DOJ training
- Is Obama’s Department of Justice enabling voter registration fraud?
- Department of Justice won’t purge dead or ineligible voters from roll
- ACORN employees, voter fraud and the Democrats
- Obama’s attorney general has his head in the sand on national security
- Obama administration investigates Wisconsin pro-lifers
- Democrats will push amnesty to give 12-20 million illegal aliens citizenship
- Has political correctness made the FBI impotent against real terrorist threats?