Despicable Ds: Obama's DOJ Attempts to Screw Overseas Soldiers Out Of Their Vote
I'm shocked, shocked to discover that a progressive-led government would seek to disenfranchise the military servicemen that they so clearly despise:
I'm sure the fact that soldiers tend to vote a bit more conservatively has nothing to do with this, at all.
The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act. The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ's alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers' ballots will arrive too late to be counted.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM
Comments
1
J. Christian Adams said that? Why, the last time I heard, he was mad that the DOJ dropped criminal charges against two guys looking intimidating outside a majority-black Philadelphia voting precinct.
I'm sure the fact that black people tend to vote a bit more liberally had nothing to do with this, at all.
I'm sure the fact that black people tend to vote a bit more liberally had nothing to do with this, at all.
Posted by: Evan at July 28, 2010 11:40 AM (LPjQW)
2
That's not a bad catch, Evan. Of course we tend to credit that which supports our already held views and discount that which up-ends it, but as you certainly know, Adams' testimony is not all there is to those charges, and that was at least given under oath. The purposeful disenfranchisement of the military is at least as old as Gore's disgraceful treason in Florida and is far older, if you want to investigate it. Whatever. If you want to dismiss anyone who ever voted Republican as a liar, a shill, a paid hack for RJReynolds, that is cool. But of course others make similar judgements about the political Left, of which you are obviously a member. I know I do. The sooner the average Joe or average Hoe learns that everything from the Left is a lie the better they will get on and the more that simple, helpful policy will spread. Certainly your side, the side of commie treason would hope for a similar effect. The contest will be settled as more evidence accumulate on either side. How is that going? We shall see.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 28, 2010 03:14 PM (DhVz1)
3
However, allowing felons and dead people to vote in Minnesota is AOK.
Posted by: DennistheMenace at July 28, 2010 03:26 PM (WhTC6)
4
It was Bush's DOJ that dropped criminal voter suppression against the NBPP guys, in January of 2009. I think they did the right thing, since it doesn't appear there is evidence of any organized effort beyond the couple guys on video, and there were no voter complaints. Unfortunately it's difficult to write a law that catches the New Black Panthers and doesn't catch a suspicious-looking-but-innocuous group of anti-racist skinheads just hanging out near a polling place in a black neighborhood.
If there is an effort in the DOJ to suppress military votes from overseas, I want to know about it and I want something done about it. I am disinclined to trust Mr Adams at his word, however, because he has spent a ton of time and effort braying over nothing and trying to make political hay against the Obama administration.
The MN senatorial election was probably the most closely watched since Florida 2000, and the investigation and litigation concluded that Al Franken won. I'd like to know why felons who have completed their sentences should not be allowed to vote, though.
If there is an effort in the DOJ to suppress military votes from overseas, I want to know about it and I want something done about it. I am disinclined to trust Mr Adams at his word, however, because he has spent a ton of time and effort braying over nothing and trying to make political hay against the Obama administration.
The MN senatorial election was probably the most closely watched since Florida 2000, and the investigation and litigation concluded that Al Franken won. I'd like to know why felons who have completed their sentences should not be allowed to vote, though.
Posted by: Evan at July 28, 2010 06:24 PM (LPjQW)
5
Evan, your talking points were discredited the day they were belched out by Serwer.
Obama dropped the civil charges against the NBPers ***AFTER*** they had already won a default judgment against them, but ***BEFORE*** sentencing.
The case had already been brought.
The case had already been won.
And then Obama's DOJ let them go free.
Bleat all you want about Boooooooooooooooosh! if that's what turns you on, but realize that your bleating doesn't prevent the American people from noticing the widespread corruption in the Obama/Holder DOJ.
Obama dropped the civil charges against the NBPers ***AFTER*** they had already won a default judgment against them, but ***BEFORE*** sentencing.
The case had already been brought.
The case had already been won.
And then Obama's DOJ let them go free.
Bleat all you want about Boooooooooooooooosh! if that's what turns you on, but realize that your bleating doesn't prevent the American people from noticing the widespread corruption in the Obama/Holder DOJ.
Posted by: Hussein at July 28, 2010 06:33 PM (cGoAK)
6
Upon further reading, the sentencing in the civil action was pursued for the guy with the nightstick, and not pursued for several other defendants. Sorry, I was wrong about that.
But "let them go free" is a bit of a stretch, since it was a civil court. They weren't facing jail time; the one with the nightstick is barred from further violations of the Voting Rights act. I presume that in the event he is found to have violated that, he will be subject to criminal charges.
I fail to see how dropping charges in a pretty borderline case of voter suppression is evidence of widespread corruption in the DOJ. I guess I haven't seen the other evidence because they haven't posted it on Media Matters yet, and that's the only place I get any news.
But "let them go free" is a bit of a stretch, since it was a civil court. They weren't facing jail time; the one with the nightstick is barred from further violations of the Voting Rights act. I presume that in the event he is found to have violated that, he will be subject to criminal charges.
I fail to see how dropping charges in a pretty borderline case of voter suppression is evidence of widespread corruption in the DOJ. I guess I haven't seen the other evidence because they haven't posted it on Media Matters yet, and that's the only place I get any news.
Posted by: Evan at July 28, 2010 08:05 PM (LPjQW)
7
That what Spencer Ackerman told you to say, Evan?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 28, 2010 11:43 PM (ea0Dz)
8
Yeah, right after I gave him a handjob.
Why can't I come here and engage in a discussion without being accused of being a liberal automaton incapable of rational thought? I try to give the conservative commenters the benefit of the doubt. I even admitted I was wrong about something!
Why can't I come here and engage in a discussion without being accused of being a liberal automaton incapable of rational thought? I try to give the conservative commenters the benefit of the doubt. I even admitted I was wrong about something!
Posted by: Evan at July 29, 2010 11:19 AM (LPjQW)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.008 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0058 seconds, 16 records returned.
Page size 9 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.