Obama/Holder caught lying about New Black Panther voter intimidation case!

During the November 2008 presidential elections between Obama and John McCain, two members of the hate group New Black Panthers Party were filmed outside a Philadelphia voting booth intimidating voters and poll watchers while brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder reversed course and dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.(1)

In December 2009, Civil Rights Division attorney Christopher Coates stepped down as chief of the voting division because he objected to Holder dropping the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.[2] Coates testified before the United States Civil Rights Commission(3) and the Commission's report found "a cover-up of a possible racial double standard in law enforcement in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice." The report detailed "a year of DOJ’s intransigence and baseless refusals to comply with our subpoenas," that "the Department of Justice is unquestionably hostile to any serious investigation of these allegations."(4)

Another attorney on the case, Christian Adams, resigned in May 2010 in protest over the racism in Holder’s Justice Department.(5)

Watchdog group Judicial Watch sued the Justice Department to enforce a Freedom of Information Act request for documents concerning the New Black Panthers case.  Judicial Watch won, and then sued for attorney’s fees.  The Justice Department defended itself by insisting the documents procured by Judicial Watch didn’t prove there was any political interference in the Black Panther case, so they shouldn’t be liable for the plaintiff’s legal fees.(1)

Judge Walton’s ruling disagreed with the DOJ defense, saying, “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 the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”(1)
Judicial Watch was therefore “both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.”