It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Judicial Watch has been confident for some time that the evidence shows that political appointees at the Holder Department of Justice (DOJ) were involved in the decision to abandon the DOJ’s own voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. And we’ve also been concerned that at least one high ranking DOJ official lied about it under oath.
In a major victory for Judicial Watch, a federal court seems to agree with our analysis of this continuing scandal.
The ruling came courtesy of Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to Judicial Watch’s effort to obtain attorney’s fees from the DOJ for stonewalling the release of documents pertaining to the Black Panther scandal.
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.
Hans von Spakovsky, a former DOJ official now with the Heritage Foundation, has been following this issue closely and writes:
Where is the investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) of whether Perez violated his ethical and professional obligations as a DOJ attorney? Will the DOJ inspector general open an investigation of the possible violation by Perez of 18 U.S.C. §1621, which outlaws presenting false statements under oath in official federal proceedings? Or will they all respectively yawn and ignore this?
So the Black Panther scandal, which we were told was managed by low level DOJ officials, might just go all the way to the very top.
Expect the news regarding this case to continue to reverberate. The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama DOJ is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth. And it shows that we can’t trust the Obama DOJ to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.
We intend to continue to push for accountability. Perez, who gave the false testimony, is a leading leftist at the DOJ who has taken the lead in the attacks on Arizona’s immigration enforcement measures; attacks on election integrity measures such as voter ID; and the shakedown of financial institutions over dubious discriminatory lending allegations. (You can go to agency’s Internet site to get the full breadth of Perez’s hard Left agenda.)
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by korathin
Dear korathin,
I'm not sure I agree that I have that particular problem. Some people's (and I don't mean just Obama supporters) are motivated by pure self interest, fear, habit, lack of correct information, or social pressure. I care about all opinions until I find they are irrational, even then "the heart has it's reasons," and I try to empathisize with those.
Yes, I believe that Obama supporters are wrong, and that he is bad for the country, but why should they listen to my opinions if I won't listen to theirs?
Besides, if Obama's supporters were to fall into the categories you've mentioned, I don't see how he could have gotten a majority of the votes.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by korathin
Dear korathin,
I'm not sure I agree that I have that particular problem. Some people's (and I don't mean just Obama supporters) are motivated by pure self interest, fear, habit, lack of correct information, or social pressure. I care about all opinions until I find they are irrational, even then "the heart has it's reasons," and I try to empathisize with those.
Yes, I believe that Obama supporters are wrong, and that he is bad for the country, but why should they listen to my opinions if I won't listen to theirs?
Originally posted by charles1952
Besides, if Obama's supporters were to fall into the categories you've mentioned, I don't see how he could have gotten a majority of the votes.
Originally posted by Diisenchanted
reply to post by jibeho
My question is . Is there any reason to hope that they will actually do any thing about this?
Originally posted by groingrinder
Hooray for this decision. But do not expect much to come of it. Life goes on as usual in DC. Criminal gangsters in both political parties have a firm hold over their respective brainwashed supporters and are not about to give up their turf. The New Black Panthers are right at home in their role as the poll enforcement arm of the criminal Democrat party.
Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. It is a filthy currency tarnished by greed and corruption that will no longer purchase honest representation for the American voter and taxpayer.
. . .
Every election cycle we have to choose between the lying, thieving, whore mongering Democrat or the lying, thieving, whore mongering Republican.
After every election the headlines scream "REPUBLICANS WIN!" or they scream "DEMOCRATS WIN!". But they never, never, never scream "AMERICANS WIN!". Why is that? It is because when Democrats and Republicans win, Americans get screwed.
The only way Americans are ever going to have an honest government is to quit electing Democrats and Republicans.