It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs...
Ford’s grant will enable The Post to create four newsroom positions focused on covering local, state, and federal governments. The foundation expects to renew the one-year grant for two more years.
Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
I dont think i have ever seen a president with so much distrust from the people,
But, it doesnt seem like the information that is against him adds to anything convicting..
hmmm.. he seems to have an immunity...
1. Public Benefit
In assessing “the public benefit derived from the case,” Tax Analysts v. DOJ, 965 F.2d 1092, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 601-02,
the Court must consider “both the effect of the litigation for which fees are requested and the potential public value of the information sought,” Davy, 550 F.3d at 1159. While “the release of any government document benefits the public by increasing its knowledge of its government,”
the Circuit has “held that Congress did not have this broadly defined benefit in mind when it amended FOIA to authorize attorneys’ fees for those who substantially prevailed under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).” Cotton v. Heyman, 63 F.3d 1115, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted and emphasis added). Instead,
“[t]he public-benefit prong ‘speaks for an award of [attorney’s fees] where the complainant’s victory is likely to add to the fund of information that citizens may use in making vital political choices.’” Id. (citation omitted). “The only way to comport with this directive is to evaluate the specific documents at issue in the case at hand.”
The New Black Panthers case revolves around members of the racist group who were caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling station during the 2008 elections in Philadelphia. The Justice Department initially charged the four New Black Panthers in the case. But after Obama shaped the Justice Department with his appointees, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissing the charges against three of the New Black Panthers while a fourth received a restraining order.
$1,216.20 in fees and $350 in costs. Accordingly, Judicial Watch’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part.
But according to evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch this week, this is yet another Obama administration falsehood.
On September 21, we released a Pdf - draft Vaughn index prepared by the DOJ that shows that the two top political appointees at the DOJ were involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP).
The index, which we acquired pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, describes documents the government is withholding from the public. Among those documents are internal DOJ emails regarding the Black Panther case between the highest political appointees inside the DOJ, including former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden and the Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the second and third ranking officials at the DOJ.
Can you imagine if they managed to get a hold of Fast and Furious docs? OMG.
From what I hear- they have to get permission from the candidates to post this story anyways.
On Washington journalism
I make this commitment to our readers, and to our citizens: McClatchy journalists will report fairly and independently. We will not make deals with those in power, regardless of party or philosophy.
By James Asher McClatchy Newspapers
Published: July 26, 2012 at 12:39 p.m. PDT — Updated: July 26, 2012 at 4:21 p.m. PDT
WASHINGTON — It’s been an interesting few days in Washington.
On July 15, The New York Times reported that journalists in this town were allowing government sources to alter quotes in exchange for interviews. As Washington Bureau Chief for McClatchy, I banned the practice for our reporters on July 20. National Journal and Bloomberg followed suit. But we’re waiting on The Washington Post and The Times.
Sadly, letting the government sanitize quotes is just one of many dirty secrets of Washington journalism.
Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Libertygal
Great Thread that belongs at the top of the heap for the week.
This is Breitbart's lead story for the day
Heads need to roll in regards to this well evidenced case. We had video of these thugs wielding weapons in front of the polling place for God's sake.
The ignorance of the law by the Obama Administration must END!!!
Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by Common Good
You're Absolutely Correct,,,,,, The question is though,,,,,, Are they Embarrassed enough Yet!