Texas Governor Rick Perry on why he’s not surprised at attorney general’s comments.
~Can anyone tell me why HE makes my skin crawl?
Rep. Steve Cohen on why Obama administration is pushing for moratorium on drilling in Gulf.
~No respect for Federal Court when it rules against them. Haven’t we seen enough of this people?!
Did White House Pull Plug on New Black Panther Case?
Former DOJ official shares new evidence in decision to drop voter intimidation case
Published on January 22, 2010 by Hans von Spakovsky(~former FEC Commissioner)–Heritage Foundation
The more the Obama administration fights the subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil rights and denies congressmen’s requests for answers concerning the inexplicable dismissal of the voter-intimidation case in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), the more reasonable people wonder what the administration has to hide. And so it is appropriate now to ask: What did the White House know and when did it know it?
Perhaps the single most important question that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House are refusing to answer in the growing scandal (for the stonewalling and subpoena violations make it a scandal) is which political appointees were involved in the obviously wrongful decision to dismiss the lawsuit — a civil suit filed under the Voting rights Act of 1965. Newly released White House visitor records present strong circumstantial evidence of White House involvement in what should have been an independent and impartial law-enforcement decision.
On December 30 — a time of year when most people’s attention is not on the news — the administration released the latest list of White House visitors. Going through the list takes quite a while, but doing so reveals some rather startling “coincidences” — meetings between Justice Department political appointees known to be involved in the dismissal and a White House deputy counsel that coincide with key dates in the New Black Panther saga. Some of the meetings appear to have followed a regular schedule. Others were set up on short notice and break from the pattern in unusual ways, particularly as they are matched up against some known or reported facts in the NBPP litigation.
* But who exactly was involved? The Washington Times reported that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the No. 3 official at Justice, “was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint.” The DOJ has not denied this, (~ BUT it is silent on it) but it also won’t say if Perrelli was the highest official involved. (~He is the # 3 at the DOJ)
* Loretta King, the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, was also involved in ordering the career Voting Section lawyers to dismiss the suit and was in communication with Perrelli. So what else can we piece together?
* The newly released White House records show a series of meetings between Perrelli and the then White House deputy counsel, Cassandra Butts, some also involving Spencer Overton, the deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of legal Policy at the Justice Department. All of these Obama political appointees were actively involved with voting issues in their previous jobs.
~NOTE: Perrelli was extensively involved in some of the Democratic Party’s biggest redistricting fights as a private attorney. Butts used to work at the NAACP legal Defense Fund and has described herself as being “as close to Barack as anyone in law school.” When Butts was at the Center for American Progress, she complained on CAP’s blog about John Ashcroft allowing conservative views to influence decisions in the Civil rights Division and specifically the Voting Section.
* On April 17, the judge in Philadelphia took notice of the failure of the NBPP defendants to answer the lawsuit by issuing an order giving Justice until May 1 to file its request for a default judgment. On May 1, however, Perrelli met in the West Wing with Butts and Overton at 2 p.m.; later that same day, the trial team on the NBPP case suddenly filed a request for an extension of time — instead of a motion for default — telling the court that it needed additional time to draft an “appropriate” default judgment order.
* Right after May 1, there was a request from higher-ups for a second, very extensive case memorandum, which was given to Loretta King on May 6 by the trial team. Later that day, at 4:30 p.m., Perrelli met with Butts and another, unnamed White House official.
* The NBPP story broke on the front page of the Washington Times on May 29. The reporters had earlier called DOJ officials to get the department’s position, and no doubt the reporters have a record of when they called for comment. Two days before the story broke, when Justice likely knew it was coming, Perrelli was once again at the White House — but this time he was meeting with Gregory Craig, who was then President Obama’s White House counsel, and another unnamed White House official.
* Finally, on July 30, although the Justice Department had all along been asserting that career lawyers had made all the decisions in this case, the Washington Times ran a story revealing that Perrelli was “ultimately consulted and approved” the decision to reverse course and drop the lawsuit. The White House records show that an appointment was made that very day for a meeting between Perrelli and Cassandra Butts; the meeting took place the next afternoon. The records also show Perrelli meeting with Catherine Whitney, executive assistant to Gregory Craig, on July 24 and 27, at the same time, almost certainly, that Washington Times reporters were calling the DOJ as they were preparing the July 30 story.
~In conclusion–Did White House officials order Perrelli to dismiss this case? If so, which officials? These questions may help explain why the Justice Department has refused to provide almost any information about this case, despite clear law that it must “cooperate fully” with the Commission on Civil Rights. The department is even asserting privileges that do not exist in response to the commission’s subpoenas, such as the need to protect against disclosures that would “undermine its ability to carry out its mission.”
~NOTE: Another timeline is listed below from Washington Times…
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department. First Appeared in National Review Online
White House Visitor Logs: Part 2
MOST FREQUENT COMBINATIONS
We can also look at the most frequently occurring visitor/visitee combinations in order to establish any recurring patterns. They are as follows:
39 Lee Sachs and Diana Farrell
31 Richard F. Davis and Astri Kimball
22 Lee Sachs and Larry Summers
14 Jeanne Lambrew and Phil Schiliro
10 Jeanne Lambrew and Nancy Deparle
8 Thomas Perelli and Cassandra Butts
New Black Panther Party: Will Justice Department Investigate Julie Fernandes? Posted July 9th, 2010 in Rule of Law
On May 14th, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a hearing to investigate the Justice Department’s decision to completely drop charges against the New Black Panther Party and two of its members for alleged voter intimidation in violation of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. The remaining defendant who wielded a billyclub at the polls on election day 2008 got a proverbial wink and a slap on the wrist that he shouldn’t do it again …at least not in the City of Philadelphia … for a few more years. The crux of the Commission’s investigation centers on why the Obama administration decided to drop and reduce the charges after the Bush administration had already won a default judgment against the defendants. During the hearing, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez and Commissioner Todd Gaziano (who is also a colleague at Heritage) had the following exchange:
The more the Obama administration fights the subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and denies congressmen’s requests for answers concerning the inexplicable dismissal of the voter-intimidation case in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), the more reasonable people wonder what the administration has to hide. And so it is appropriate now to ask: What did the White House know and when did it know it?
EDITORIAL: Annotated Panther timeline –By THE WASHINGTON TIMES January 19, 2010
The question all along, just as it had been with the Bush Justice Department, has been whether the Obama Justice Department interfered with ongoing investigations for political reasons, and whether that interference came from the White House itself. The Washington Times superimposed the known timeline of decisions on the Black Panther case with White House visitor logs. Here’s what we found:
* March 12, 2009: The Senate confirms Thomas J. Perrelli as associate attorney general of the United States. He does not visit the White House during the next 11 days.
* March 23: Pursuant to the court’s notice, the lawyer team on the case (Christopher Coates, Robert Popper, J. Christian Adams and Spencer R. Fisher) presents its draft motion for “Request for Entry of Default” to the acting division chiefs (Loretta King and/or Steven H. Rosenbaum).
* March 24:Mr. Perrelli sets up a White House visit with White House Associate Counsel Susan Davies. The meeting occurs the following day.
* Late March: Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, reportedly asked department officials to drop the case. It is unusual for the department to share its deliberations with outside groups that are not part of the case – especially when the department later claims attorney-client confidentiality as a reason for not discussing its decision-making, even after the fact, with Congress or an independent government commission.
* April 8:Mr. Perrelli and fellow Justice Department political appointee Spencer Overton again meet with Ms. Butts at the White House. Mr. Overton is the author of “Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression,” which criticizes Republican efforts at “ballot security.” Mr. Overton is a noted critic of requiring voters to show identification at the polls.
* April 22:Mr. Perrelli again meets with Ms. Butts.
* By or on April 28: Still apparently unaware that Ms. King and Messrs. Perrelli and Rosenbaum may want to spike the case, the Coates team lays out the case for a broad injunction against all four defendants.
* April 29:Mr. Perrelli again meets with Ms. Butts in the White House.
* May 1:Mr. Perrelli and Mr. Overton again visit Ms. Butts in the White House around noon. By 4 p.m., Ms. King has surprised the Coates team by ordering them, with Mr. Perrelli’s approval, to seek an extension of time to file the motion with the court.
* First week of May:Arguments go back and forth between the Coates team and the politicized supervisors.
* May 6:Mr. Perrelli again visits Ms. Butts, along with an unnamed White House official, in the White House. Who was the unnamed official?
* May 13 (a key date): Mr. Perrelli again meets with Ms. Butts and another unnamed White House official. Again, who was the unnamed official?
May 13, evening:Ms. King and Mr. Rosenbaum argue late into the evening, quite contentiously, with the Coates team about whether to pursue the case.
* May 14:Mr. Perrelli sets up a meeting for May 18 with White House Domestic Policy Adviser Melody Barnes. Arguments within Justice Department continue to rage.
* Late May:Inquiries start coming from the press and Congress about the dismissal of the cases.
* May 27:Mr. Perrelli meets at the White House with White House Counsel Gregory Craig.
After that flurry of meetings – 10 White House conclaves in two months – and with the cases now killed, Mr. Perrelli stops meeting at the White House so frequently. In the next two months, he visits only five times, two of those not with a lawyer but with Mr. Craig’s executive assistant, Catherine Whitney. On July 30, when The Washington Times first reported his involvement with the decision to drop the case, Mr. Perrelli called to set up another appointment with Ms. Butts for the following day. We have no record of Mr. Perrelli again visiting top White House lawyers after that.
In short, almost all of Mr. Perrelli’s key White House meetings coincide almost perfectly with key decisions and developments in the New Black Panther Party case. Yet the Justice Department continues to insist that there was no political interference involved in the decision – despite the lengthy political ties between New Black Panther Jerry Jackson and the Democratic Party, the long-standing personal ties between the key Justice Department officials and President Obama, and the long-simmering ideological dispute within the Justice Department about whether the department should indeed aggressively fight for civil rights protections for white voters, or just for minorities.
NOTE: I had to include this as relevant…~JP
“ACORN is a symbol of just how vulnerable our election system is to fraud,” Wall Street Journal columnist and leading expert on voter fraud John Fund said Monday at The Heritage Foundation.
Fund, whose revised book Stealing Elections covers voter registration shenanigans by ACORN and similar groups, told the audience in Lehrman Auditorium that disasters loom if this fraud go unchecked.
As is noted, this version was updated in 1990, which is just two years before Obama began to work for them via Project Vote and as a trainer for the “power” seminars.
In 1994, lawyer Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School then fresh from his Project Vote! experience, represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank case, in which ACORN pressed for Citibank to make more loans to marginally qualified African-American applicants “in a race neutral way.”
After obtaining a settlement in the Citibank litigation, ACORN used its subsidiary organization ACORN Housing, a nationwide organization with offices in more than 30 U.S. cities, to push the group’s radical agenda to get subprime home buyers mortgages under the most favorable terms possible.
The Obama File ACORN:
Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum 12/07 as Senator, Obama CAUGHT Saying ACORN WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTAL AGENDA :
(forum exclusively for thousands of community organizers including Gamaliel and ACORN people)
Obama said ACORN and friends, responsible for voting fraud and the subprime crisis, are going to be shaping policy for an obama presidency
Democratic governors expressed “grave” concerns to White House officials this weekend about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, warning it could cost the party in crucial elections this fall, The New York Times reported late Sunday.
The closed-door meeting took place at the National Governors Association in Boston on Saturday, according to two unnamed governors who spoke to the Times.
“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs, and all of a sudden we have immigration going on,'” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, was quoted as saying. “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”
The Arizona law, which is facing a U.S. Justice Department challenge, requires police to question people about their immigration status while enforcing other laws if there’s reason to suspect someone is in the country illegally.
“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat, was quoted by the Times as saying. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met privately with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the immigration bill into law last month, for a half-hour on Sunday.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s party could lose its House majority in this fall’s elections, his spokesman said Sunday, perhaps trying to jolt Democratic voters with the specter of GOP lawmakers rolling back White House policies.
“I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that,” press secretary Robert Gibbs told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Democrats now hold a 255-178 edge in the House, with two vacancies in the 435-member chamber. Anywhere from 40 to perhaps 60 House seats could be competitive by the fall. Republicans would need to take back about 40 seats to slip into the majority, placing the current GOP leader, Ohio Rep. John Boehner, in line to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as speaker.
Those House Democrats who won election for the first time in 2008 in conservative leaning districts as part of the Obama wave are particularly vulnerable this fall, given that the president is not on the ballot.
Gibbs said retaining House control would depend on strong campaigns by Democrats. “I think we have to take the issues to them,” he said, adding that the primary argument would be how Republicans would govern as the majority party.
His remarks could be intended to light a fire under Democrats who are dispirited after about 18 months of Obama’s presidency and motivate them to work hard to maintain their majorities in both the House and Senate. The party in power typically loses seats in the first midterm elections under a president, and Democrats are defending a slew of districts they picked up in 2006 and 2008.
The White House also could be working to lower expectations in case Democrats do lose the House majority.
Gibbs hit again on points that Obama has touched on in recent fundraising appearances: Texas Rep. Joe Barton’s apology to BP for being pushed to set up a $20 billion fund for damages from the Gulf oil spill and Boehner’s remark that suggested the effort to regulate Wall Street in the wake of the financial meltdown was tantamount to “killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.”
“I think that’s a perfect window not into what people are thinking but the way they would govern,” Gibbs said. “Joe Barton, John Boehner, those are the types of things you’ll hear a lot I think from both the president and from local candidates about what you’ll get if the Republicans were to gain control.”
Debate over radical idea to seal leaking oil well
The deadly twin bombings in Uganda’s capital may have been the “Plan B” for terrorists looking to make a strike on the World Cup but unable to penetrate South Africa’s security, a terror analyst who had earlier warned Congress about such an attack told FoxNews.com.
The Al Qaeda-linked Somali group al-Shabab on Monday claimed responsibility for the attack, which left dozens dead including at least one American. It marks the first time the militant group — which is labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department — has struck outside Somalia.
The attack targeted spectators watching the final match of the World Cup and effectively made the small African country the latest front in the ever-expanding terrorist battlefield.