Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

Straw man

Feel free to provide a credible source that proves the judge said that.

I swear many neo-cons will believe anything put in front of them so long as it conforms to their worldview. Facts and logic don't matter to them.

 

That you read the entire ruling and your unsupported statement that the OP misrepresented it.

Let's see you make your case it did, quote from the ruling that refutes the OP.

 

You have the link, prove your assertions.

 

I'll take that as an admission of your defeat

 

Your link doesn't prove the judge said that.

I'm asserting nothing other than the lack of proof, the burden of which is on you.

 

I LINKED TO THE COURT RULING THAT THE JUDGE WROTE.

You claim that the OP mistates what he wrote.........PROVE IT.

It is YOUR assertion that the ruling is being misrepresented, I suggest you read the ruling before you make such statements of fact.

 

the OP makes up a quote (the examiner, not the PF poster)...and you want me to produce another quote that proves the 1st one is made up?

lmao is this a joke?

 

lmao prove a statement is not found in the report

ok, the report says you must be joking to make such a ludicrious suggestion.

prove it doesnt....

 

So you can't prove the OP misstates or misrepresents what the judge stated and in fact states it quite accurately. OK.

 

Wow this certainly hit the right-wing disinformation sources flying. It's hard to find a credible link when a story makes it onto the right-wing mailing/posting lists.

This was a FOIA case. The conclusion:

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Judicial Watch is both eligible for and entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, but that its requested award must be reduced to an amount that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained in this case—namely, $1,216.20 in fees and $350 in costs. Accordingly, Judicial Watch’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2012.5
REGGIE B. WALTON
United States District Judge


The thread title is a complete lie and it's no shocker that the right-wing blogosphere is racing to repeat the lie as many times as possible. After all, they have to keep their sheeple sheared...

 

What report, I linked you to the judges ruling.

So make your case the judge did not rule as the OP and Judicial Watch stated. Refute them.

 

ah pretending I said soemthing else now.

show me where the judge mentions interference or stop playing games and defending something you know to be false

 

yes, I can. read the link you posted and look for the word interfered.

when you see "zero results" you have proof

 

Keep trying to provide cover, you are only making yourself look foolish. LIke I told you before, when someone who has no authority to butt into a case, that is called interfering. Try doing that to someone getting arrested and you'll get an obstruction charge. Do you know what that means? That means INTERFERING!

 

What quote are you asserting they made up?

 

Yes because the DOJ refused to release the emails claiming they did not add to or effect the claim JW was making, that there was interference from political appointees and that they did not refute the testimony of Perez that there was none. The judge said they did and therefore JW is entitled to be reimbursed for it's cost in suing to get the documents.

 

He cites the emails of them doing so. Political appointees are to have no contact or inquiry into ongoing investigations, that is interfering.

Judicial Watch responds by highlighting documents disclosed during this litigation that it claims have “substantial public value.” Pl.’s Reply at 4 (citation and alteration omitted). A press release submitted with Judicial Watch’s reply brief explains the purported significance of these documents:
Judicial Watch . . . has obtained documents from the Obama [DOJ] that provide new evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP). These new documents, which include internal DOJ email correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision. . . .
The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. For example, in one April 30, 2009, email from Hirsch to Perrelli, with the subject title “Fw: New Black Panther Party Update,” Hirsch writes:
Tom,
I need to discuss this with you tomorrow morning. I’ll send you another email on this shortly.
If you want to discuss it this evening, please let me know which number to call and when.
Pl.’s Reply, Bekesha Decl., Ex. B (November 8, 2010 Press Release); see Pl.’s Mem., Bekesha Decl., Ex. A, Doc. 101 (April 30, 2009 email from Sam Hirsch to Thomas Perrelli). Another email disclosed by the DOJ during this litigation contained the subject line “Re: New Black Panther Party: Background,” Pl.’s Mem., Bekesha Decl., Ex. A, Doc. 118 (April 30, 2009 email from Sam Hirsch to Steven Rosenbaum), and was sent from “political appointee Sam Hirsch . . . to Steven Rosenbaum (then-Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights in charge of voting rights) thanking Rosenbaum for ‘doing everything you’re doing to make sure that this case is properly resolved,’” Pl.’s Reply, Bekesha Decl., Ex. B (November 8, 2010 Press Release). And a Vaughn index submitted by the DOJ with its motion for summary judgment revealed that Associate Attorney General Perrelli exchanged several emails with lower-level attorneys at the DOJ regarding the New Black Panther Party case on May 14 and 15, 2009. See Def.’s MSJ Mem., Declaration of Vanessa R. Brinkmann, Ex. J (Index of OIP Withholdings) at 1-2. Notably, May 15, 2009, is the date that the DOJ dismissed claims against three of the defendants in the New Black Panther Party case. See Judicial Watch, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 207.
The Court finds that the foregoing emails added, at least to some degree, “‘to the fund of information that citizens may use in making vital political choices.’” Cotton, 63 F.3d at 1120 (citation omitted). 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.

 

Lmao mindless babble that doesn't turn confer into interfere

 

Only in your mind. Not my problem you're not that smart of a thinker.