Another Justice lie: Caught again
A federal court at last has confirmed what most suspected all along: Political appointees were involved in the Obama Justice Department's puzzling dismissal of a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.
The role of politics in Justice's decision-making was widely questioned after the case was cut loose despite video evidence showing a party member brandishing a nightstick outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.
Judicial Watch sought answers, filing a Freedom of Information Act request for relevant documents. The Justice Department ignored it. The legal watchdog group then filed a lawsuit to obtain the records.
In a ruling awarding some litigation fees and costs sought by Judicial Watch, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia noted that the group was right about politics' role — and deception by a senior Justice official:
“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 ... (its) dismissal ... which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General (Thomas) Perez's testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”
And that confirms, too, the emptiness of “transparency” boasts by this administration, which instead obfuscates, deceives and politicizes whenever it thinks doing so can advance its perverted agenda.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.