O'Reilly Ignored DOJ Black Panther Report
By: Steve - April 1, 2011 - 8:30am
For months and months on end, O'Reilly and everyone at Fox have been saying the Obama DOJ was partisan in it's non-prosecution in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. They said Obama had the DOJ avoid the case because they are black, and so is Obama.
Even though the DOJ under Bush made the decision to not prosecute, because they could not find one person who said they were prevented or intimidated into not voting. So there was no case, and the Bush DOJ decided to not prosecute. And yet O'Reilly and all of Fox put a spin on it that was dishonest.
So the DOJ had an investigation, and guess what, they found no evidence of any partisan politics, or any misconduct. Now here is the kicker, the report came out 2 days ago on March 29th, and to this day O'Reilly has not said a word about it.
Because it proves he was wrong, and it also proves that all the partisan hacks at Fox were wrong. So not only does O'Reilly not spin the report, he did not mention it at all.
Here are the details of the report. In a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) on Tuesday, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Robin Ashton of the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility, wrote that her investigation found that in their handling of the voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party, senior career attorneys at DOJ "did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately."
The investigation also found "no evidence" that their decisions were improperly affected by political considerations or by the race of the defendants.
For nearly two years, the right wing has been obsessed with the decision by those senior career attorneys to drop civil charges against three defendants affiliated with the New Black Panther Party who allegedly intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.
This fixation became stronger last year, when two DOJ attorneys on the trial team who are linked the Bush administration's politicization of the DOJ claimed in media appearances and in testimony that the DOJ's actions were part of a pattern of racially-charged corruption at the department, in which lawyers there refused to protect white voters from intimidation by minorities.
These allegations received a steady airing on Fox News, but they simply never added up: There was no evidence that this was anything more than a disagreement between career attorneys on how to apply a rarely-used provision of the Voting Rights Act; the Obama DOJ did obtain an injunction against one of the defendants in the case; it also took action in another case to protect white voters from intimidation by black political leaders.
As the story dissolved, a broad and bipartisan group of media and political figures dismissed the supposed scandal, with the Republican vice-chair of the U. S. Civil Rights Commission condemning that partisan group's investigationas an attempt "to topple the administration."
From the OPR letter to Rep. Smith:
Based on the results of our investigation, we concluded that Department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately, in the exercise of their supervisory duties in connection with the dismissal of the three defendants in the NBPP case.
And the fact that O'Reilly ignored the entire report shows just how much of a partisan right-wing hack he is, because a real journalist would do a segment, or two, or three, on the report, then admit they were wrong. In fact, a real journalist would not have made the claims to begin with, especially when they had no evidence to back it up, because the investigation was not even done yet.
We found no evidence that the decision to dismiss the case against three of the four defendants was predicated on political considerations. We found that the decision by the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, a career Department employee, was made following appropriate consultations with, or notification to, career attorneys and supervisors, and Department leadership.
We found no evidence of improper political interference or influence from within or outside the Department in connection with the decision in the case.
In sum, we concluded that the decision to dismiss three of the four defendants and to seek more narrowly-tailored injunctive relief against King Samir Shabazz was predicated on a good faith assessment of the law and the facts of the case and had a reasonable basis.
We found no evidence that political considerations were a motivating factor in reaching the decision.
Finally, we found no evidence to support allegations (which were raised during the course of our investigation) that the decision makers, either in bringing or dismissing the claims, were influence by the race of the defendants, or any considerations other than an assessment of the evidence and the applicable law.
To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: www.oreilly-sucks.com
"Sign up with 70-667 for getting incredible online 646-205 courses exam and lsat exam guides. We also provide best mcat sample questions and gmat classes with guaranteed success.