This just goes to show what a poor grasp you have on the issue. What this whole thread is about are civil suits for injunctions that were dropped, nothing criminal was ever at issue.
The very fact you claim he "got off easy" by having his life probed illegally by Obama supporters for simply disagreeing with Obama on camera tells us all we need to know about how you really feel about him and your inability to understand how going after him was completely unjustified by the far left.All i'm saying is in the grand scheme of partisan politics, Joe got off pretty damn easy. Book deal, speeches, conventions...yea i'd say he's done alright for himself.
Last edited by texmaster; 07-11-10 at 02:45 PM.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.
Maybe you could explain your point a little better, delta? I don't want to attack your point if you're essentially agreeing with me. I don't think what these New Black Panthers did was right, far from it. But the fact remains that no criminal charges were ever sought against them. That isn't the Justice Department's job anyway, that would have been up to the local sheriff to pursue criminal charges. Here, the feds were only seeking a restraining order (i.e. injunction) to keep the Black Panthers away from the polling places. They got on restraining order. The rest they didn't have enough evidence.Originally Posted by WSJ
Just because a defendant doesn't show up for the court date and is in default doesn't mean you automatically get an injunction, plaintiff (here the Justice Dept.) still has to show cause for the injunction. They had an reasonable decision that they didn't have the evidence to show cause, and there could have been any number of reasons for this. Apparently one of the Panthers lived in that very building. It'd be hard to show cause for an injunction to keep a guy away from his own building just because he was standing outside of it wearing paramilitary fatigues. Keep in mind only one guy was carrying a weapon, a billyclub IIRC, and I'd bet dollars to donuts he's the Shabazz that they got the injunction against.
This is a complete nonissue, that's why the only media outlets carrying it have been Fox News and WSJ. This so-called whistleblower is just trying to make a career for himself as a blogger, and he's probably already got a book deal out of it. It's just a bunch of spin. This was a reasonable decision.