DOJ Warns Efforts to Stop 2016 Voter Fraud Could 'Violate' Federal Law

a reply to: Greggers

" What do you think Trump meant when he suggested that HIS SUPPORTERS (who are mostly white) should go into "those neighborhoods" to monitor the polls? This is dog whistle for "If you show up and harass people at the polls, we can suppress voter turnout in traditionally Dem neighborhoods."

That is your Personal take on it , sounds a " Tad " Implied Racism to me . A Better Idea would be to have the Local Off Duty Police Officers be Poll Watchers , they Don't Intimidate Anybody Nowadays ....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: WilburnRoach


Voter intimidation is illegal, that is the message put out.

poll watchers are not intimidation

They are setting a tone for the watchers so they do not become overzealous.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Greggers

" What do you think Trump meant when he suggested that HIS SUPPORTERS (who are mostly white) should go into "those neighborhoods" to monitor the polls? This is dog whistle for "If you show up and harass people at the polls, we can suppress voter turnout in traditionally Dem neighborhoods."

That is your Personal take on it , sounds a " Tad " Implied Racism to me . A Better Idea would be to have the Local Off Duty Police Officers be Poll Watchers , they Don't Intimidate Anybody Nowadays ....

What else could Trump have meant by that? Knowing Trump, he meant just what it sounds like.

a reply to: reldra

had a vid of reported voter intimidation earlier in this thread
how did the doj do with that case?

but if they were not scared of the election results they wouldnt have put out this notice

a reply to: reldra

they dont get to set a tone
the state law does

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

had a vid of reported voter intimidation earlier in this thread
how did the doj do with that case?

but if they were not scared of the election results they wouldnt have put out this notice

The one with the odd 'security' guys? One guy was removed. The news guy said there was no report of anyone not being allowed to vote. I have no idea what was done with that further. I am guessing the University of PA student, who noted he had a Poll Watcher ID, reported it.


It's been a crazy election season. The tone of the press release was watch and let vote-- don't break any rules.

Reading WikiLeaks is illegal, now poll watching is illegal

a reply to: shooterbrody

I found the doj video and statement issued, does this jive with breitbart spinning the story like they did?

As Americans across the country prepare to vote, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch discusses that the Department of Justice will dispatch federal monitors to polling places around the country. Just as they do during every election, these officials will gather information on numerous aspects of local election procedures, including whether voters are treated differently depending on their race or color; whether jurisdictions are adequately serving individuals with disabilities; whether jurisdictions are complying with the provisional ballot requirements of the Help America Vote Act; and whether jurisdictions are complying with the Voting Rights Act's requirement to provide bilingual election materials and assistance in areas of need. Attorney General Lynch also urged all eligible Americans—regardless of party affiliation or political views—to exercise their right to vote.

Department of Justice

Its not what is stated from breitbart, they made it up and you believe them...

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

they dont get to set a tone
the state law does

Yes they do. You can look up what the DOJ does and does not do in regard to elections.

from the press release:

AUSA Hannigan has been appointed to serve as the District Election Officer for the District of Delaware, and in that capacity is responsible for overseeing the District’s handling of complaints of election fraud and voting rights abuses in consultation with Justice Department Headquarters in Washington.

If you know anything about history, the Federal government has had to step in, especially in certain states, to handle voter suppression. Many times.

a reply to: reldra

hahahaha
yeah the black panther party is odd security guys
nice spin
holder dropped the charges cause you know the doj sets the tone

bs

its an effort to supress poll watchers
people who volunteer and are well aware of their state rules

dbl post

originally posted by: shooterbrody
dbl post

Can you provide a link as to why the charges where dropped, or did you read it on breitbart as well?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: reldra

hahahaha
yeah the black panther party is odd security guys
nice spin
holder dropped the charges cause you know the doj sets the tone

bs

its an effort to supress poll watchers
people who volunteer and are well aware of their state rules

Meaning I don't know how else to describe them. Historically, Black Panthers would be there to make sure Black people were not intimidated from voting. Only 1 was removed by police, possibly the local BOE was allowing one there?

The news was there and a Poll watcher and the police. What are you complaining about?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

its an effort to supress poll watchers
people who volunteer and are well aware of their state rules

No they do this every year.

a reply to: WilburnRoach

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
cnn for you no less

a reply to: WilburnRoach

so you will provide the press release from the doj last year?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: WilburnRoach

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
cnn for you no less

Charges were dropped against 2. There is an injunction against the third one, who is also kicked out of the Black Panthers.

originally posted by: Profusion

A U.S. Department of Justice press release warns individuals who may serve as poll watchers hoping to prevent voter fraud could violate voter intimidation laws.
SOURCE

Anything could violate one of the milllions of laws Americans are expected to follow. I don't know what to make of this. Is it a harmless statement of the obvious or a malicious attempt at thwarting ordinary people's efforts to stop vote fraud? A lot of people are outraged because they think it's the latter.

I need more information to be clear. For instance, everyone knows that crossing the street in the wrong circumstances can be illegal. Some people would say an organization like the DOJ could only have ulterior motives for mentioning that in a context such as what the article linked above describes. I'm not sure about that.

Sounds like Bill Clinton needs to have a "special on an air plane meeting" with the DOJ to make it clear what will happen in the future.

a reply to: reldra

so what they did was ok?
but they didnt volunteer apply and be appointed like those the press resease was aimed at correct?

originally posted by: ssenerawa
Reading WikiLeaks is illegal, now poll watching is illegal

No, poll watching is not illegal. You should really read parts of a thread before you answer it.