Newscorruptobamaadministration

Sat Feb 3, 2018, 07:17 PM

Want to know what happened to the DOJ? J. Christian Adams told us

It Started with this Turd




Eric Holder's Department of Justice does not have a race neutral approach to protecting the civil rights of citizens of the United States. Apparently if you're black, you have a right to retribution against whites through voting. The recently resigned DOJ attorney speaks for the first time here. His name is J. Christian Adams. This article at PJM is worth reading in its entirety. It's pretty shocking, actually. He discusses the dismissal of the New Black Panthers' case in Philadelphia and the abominable Ike Brown case in Mississippi and other corrupt events in this country. The attitude is one of protection for some races, but not for others, which will lead to a general lack of confidence in the rule of law in this country.

But I believe the best explanation for the corrupt dismissal of the case is the profound hostility by the Obama Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department towards a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws.
This hostility was — and is — on open display within the Department of Justice.
Example after example exists where this dirty little secret manifested itself within the Department and affected Department policy.

Attorney General Holder and his political appointees have traveled the country claiming that they have “reopened” the Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division is “back in business,” they announce, without a sniff of media scrutiny. In time, statistics and other information will present truth to this lie, as the Bush Civil Rights Division had a more robust civil rights agenda than the Obama Civil Rights Division. During the Bush years, the Civil Rights Division brought more cases in many areas of the law, particularly voting rights.

UPDATE: He's written for the Washington Times also:

Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.

7 replies, 444 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Want to know what happened to the DOJ? J. Christian Adams told us (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Feb 2018 OP
def_con5 Feb 2018 #1
rahtruelies Feb 2018 #2
oflguy Feb 2018 #3
Letmypeoplevote Feb 2018 #4
Gunslinger201 Feb 2018 #5
Letmypeoplevote Feb 2018 #6
Gunslinger201 Feb 2018 #7

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Sat Feb 3, 2018, 07:25 PM

1. Similar to what I believe happened to Trump

They are just evening out the scales. Time to make up for all the bad things white men have done to women. After all, it was her turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Sat Feb 3, 2018, 07:28 PM

2. Fire anyone at DOJ who came in from 2008 thru early 2017 and re-vette those brought in

during 2017

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Sat Feb 3, 2018, 09:00 PM

3. Obama couldn't do ANYTHING right

Everything he touched turned to shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Feb 5, 2018, 11:34 AM

4. Adams was illegally hired by the bushies

J. Christian Adams was hired illegally by the bushies in the bush DOJ and after leaving the DOJ has been opining on issues for conservatives. Adams was the idiot who pushed the New Black Panther silliness and Adams has been advising James O'Keefe on Texas election law to some really amusing results.

Adams latest stupidity and evidence of legal incompetence is his opinion that Democrats should not vote in the open primary run off in Mississippi in the race between the tea party idiot and Thad Cochran. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/18/Top-Ex-DOJ-Attorney-It-s-Illegal-For-Democrats-To-Vote-In-Mississippi-s-GOP-Primary-Runoff Like all of Christian Adam's legal conclusions, this claim is also wrong.

This is from Prof. Hasen's blog on election law. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62528

Here’s what Adams does not tell you in the piece: Judge Pepper’s opinion in Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F.Supp.2d 641 (N.D. Miss. 2007) was reversed and remanded in an opinion by Judge Edith Jones for a unanimous 5th Circuit, 529 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2008). In the course of holding that the state Democratic Party lacked standing and that the case was not appropriate for federal court review, Judge Jones rejected the analysis of Judge Pepper, and explained how MS Code 23-15-575 had been interpreted by the Mississippi Attorney General:

In June 2003, the Mississippi State Democratic Party and Mississippi State Democratic Party Executive Committee (collectively “MSDP”) asked the state attorney general (“AG”) how the party could enforce § 23–15–575, which it had not done before. The MSDP wanted to curtail alleged “party raiding” and crossover voting “whereby voters in sympathy with one party designate themselves as voters of another party so as to influence or determine the results of the other party’s primary.”2 This practice is forbidden by the plain language of § 23–15–575. The AG responded with an opinion (“Cole Opinion”) stating that a party may challenge a voter in a primary only in accordance with Miss.Code Ann. § 23–15–579, which outlines strict procedures for challenging a voter. The AG stated further that a voter may be challenged only for the reasons listed in Miss.Code Ann. § 23–15–571.3 See 2003 WL 21962318 (Miss. A.G. Op. No. 2003–0316 July 21, 2003). According to the AG:

e find nothing that would allow a poll worker, poll watcher or another voter to ask a voter if he or she intends to support the nominees of the party once the voter presents himself or herself to vote. Challenges may be made … for the reason that the voter does not intend to support the nominees of the party per Section 23–15–575 …

If a challenge of a voter is properly initiated in strict accordance with Section 23–15–579 and the voter then openly declares that he or she does not intend to support the nominees of the party, the poll workers could find the challenge to be well taken and mark the ballot “challenged” or “rejected” consistent with the provisions of said statute. On the other hand, if the voter openly declares his or her intent to support the nominees, then a challenge is not proper under Section 23–15–575.
….
e have previously opined that absent an obvious factual situation such as an independent candidate attempting to vote in a party’s primary, the stated intent of the voter is controlling…. No past action by a voter can form the basis of a valid challenge under Section 23–15–571(3)(g) and Section 23–15–575.
Id.
(FN 3 read: 3

Section 23–15–571 states that “ person offering to vote may be challenged upon the following grounds”:
(a) That he is not a registered voter in the precinct;
(b) That he is not the registered voter under whose name he has applied to vote;
(c) That he has already voted in the election;
(d) That he is not a resident in the precinct where he is registered;
(e) That he has illegally registered to vote;
(f) That he has removed his ballot from the polling place; or
(g) That he is otherwise disqualified by law.)
In other words, the state law has been interpreted by the state attorney general so that poll workers may not challenge a voter, despite that voters past history of voting for Democrats unless the voter comes in and “openly declares that he or she does not intend to support the nominees of the party.”
It sure seems that the Breitbart story should have mentioned the appeal, and vacating of Judge Pepper’s opinion, as well as the AG opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 5, 2018, 11:42 AM

5. New Black Panther Case was not Silly



The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 5, 2018, 11:52 AM

6. In the real world it was

Omly idiots who watched fox believed in the ignorant RWNJ conspiracy theory

Thank you for the laughs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 5, 2018, 11:53 AM

7. Enjoy Trumps second term

You can pretend that isn’t happening too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newscorruptobamaadministration