We all remember the November 4, 2008 video memorializing two African Americans, festooned in black berets and long dark blue coats; you know, where one of the fellows accessorized with a black baton (and I am not referring to the kind wielded by drum majorettes). These gents were, I believe, menacing ("to act in a threatening manner"). (See http://www.merriam-webster.com/.) But watch the video and judge for yourself.
Perhaps you were not convinced; but the Justice Department was:
"The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and three of its members alleging that the defendants intimidated voters and those aiding them during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleges that, during the election, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were deployed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and that Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon." (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/January/09-crt-014.html)
According to the Justice Department release cited above, "section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 . . . prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against 'any person for voting or attempting to vote.'" During their investigation, career lawyers (as distinct from political appointees) for the Justice Department obtained an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a prominent 1960's civil rights activist who witnessed the incident and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" he had seen; and this was a man who was front and center during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi half a century ago. (See "Career Lawyers Overruled in Voting Case," Washington Times, May 29, 2009, at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1.)
And, according to J. Christian Adams, one of the Justice Department lawyers working on the case, the "security guards" greeted those trying to enter the polling place (frivolously to exercise their constitutional right to vote, no doubt) with the light-hearted quip, "You're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker" and politely welcomed the crackers with the ever-appreciated epithet, "white devils."
On April 20, 2009, Messrs. M.K.S. Shabazz, J. Jackson and S. Shabazz failed to show for trial and a default judgment was entered against them. Score one for justice!
Wait, I spoke too soon.
As the Washington Times article explains, Mr. Adams, Esq. and other Department of Justice career lawyers were on the verge of obtaining sanctions and injunctive relief against the whimsical, baton-wielding, racial-slur-slinging, white-voter-menacing madcaps, when their superiors "ordered them to reverse course." It is worth mentioning that the superiors in question were not career Justice Department lawyers, but political invitees of Barack Obama. It is no less worth mentioning that a spokesman for the political invitees "confirmed that the Justice Department had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and ["]winning["][!] an order against the third that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections." In point of fact, the injunction that the vigilant and valiant political invitees "won" applied only to polling places in Philadelphia and for only a couple of years. Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!
In fairness, I must include an explanation from Alejandro Miyar, a Justice Department spokesman: "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on [please try not to laugh - after all, you did see the video] a careful assessment of the facts and the law." (Emphasis added.) As Mr. Miyar's statement is lawyerspeak and, as, in a happy fiat of fate, I too am a lawyer, permit me to translate: "They didn't do it and even if they did, it wasn't against the law." I'll give you a few more minutes to stop laughing and to compose yourself.
The only remaining piece to this labyrinthine puzzle is who, exactly, were these shadowy political invitees who stopped the wheels of justice, dead in their tracks?
I have an idea! Let's ask our friend and Justice Department tour guide, former Justice Department career lawyer (he resigned in equal measures of protest and disgust after this incident) J. Christian Adams. In a June 30, 2010 article on http://www.foxnews.com/, Mr. Adams places the blame (or credit, depending on your definition of "a careful assessment of the facts and the law") squarely on the ever-so-slightly-sloping shoulders of Eric Holder, Esq., also known as "Mr. Attorney General of the United States." (See http://foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political.)
To be sure, it is not clear whether Mr. Holder himself gave the "going-out-of-business, all-convictions-must-go!" directive; what is clear is that Mr. Holder was informed before the directive was issued and he did nothing to prevent it.
But again the better angel of fairness persuades me to include this stirring rebuttal from Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, included in the Fox News article just cited: "It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case. . . ." "Good faith disagreement" is lawyerspeak for reasonable disagreements between lawyers where, for example, the facts, the law, or both are evenly balanced in both directions or are ambiguous enough to be susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.
You've seen the video and you've read the Voting Rights statute; you tell me: Is there room for any reasonable disagreement?
