Giuliani blames Obama for Ferguson shootings, other unrest

[sirineou]

Ps: I am glad to hear that the only thing you can find fault with my replies are the smiles:

You mean other than the fact that your comrade falsely claimed that the "BUSH White House dropped criminal charges", when none were ever filed and you backed him up on it?

Comrade??

The Bush administration instructed the justice dept not to pursue criminal charges, they were told to drop it.

are you now going to hung your hat on semantics instead of substance?

such strategy only highlites the weakness of your argument.

[Publicus]

Ps: I am glad to hear that the only thing you can find fault with my replies are the smiles:

You mean other than the fact that your comrade falsely claimed that the "BUSH White House dropped criminal charges", when none were ever filed and you backed him up on it?

Comrade??

The Bush administration instructed the justice dept not to pursue criminal charges, they were told to drop it.

are you now going to hung your hat on semantics instead of substance?

such strategy only highlites the weakness of your argument.

Best to ignore grouches, especially those who are unforgiving to an apology offered regardless of whether it might be needed or desired. It turns out that rigid and blind ideologues take no prisoners.

Bush DoJ started a criminal investigation of specific charges it identified to pursue, then DoJ dropped it when it found out the charges do not apply and could not hold up in court. Dropped it, tossed it, chucked it, quit.....unless one is a lawyer there are a lot of ways to say it.

Rote and self-righteous ideologues can't be gracious when they're losing the war.

So I do mean ignore, as I myself am seriously considering it at this point.

An OTT grump.

[sdanielmcev]

Ps: I am glad to hear that the only thing you can find fault with my replies are the smiles:

You mean other than the fact that your comrade falsely claimed that the "BUSH White House dropped criminal charges", when none were ever filed and you backed him up on it?

Comrade??

The Bush administration instructed the justice dept not to pursue criminal charges, they were told to drop it.

are you now going to hung your hat on semantics instead of substance?

such strategy only highlites the weakness of your argument.

Best to ignore grouches, especially those who are unforgiving to an apology offered regardless of whether it might be needed or desired. It turns out that rigid and blind ideologues take no prisoners.

Bush DoJ started a criminal investigation of specific charges it identified to pursue, then DoJ dropped it when it found out the charges do not apply and could not hold up in court. Dropped it, tossed it, chucked it, quit.....unless one is a lawyer there are a lot of ways to say it.

Rote and self-righteous ideologues can't be gracious when they're losing the war.

So I do mean ignore, as I myself am seriously considering it at this point.

An OTT grump.

Rote and self-righteous ideologues. You finally looked in the mirror,huh?

[Ulysses G.]

Ps: I am glad to hear that the only thing you can find fault with my replies are the smiles:

You mean other than the fact that your comrade falsely claimed that the "BUSH White House dropped criminal charges", when none were ever filed and you backed him up on it?

Comrade??

The Bush administration instructed the justice dept not to pursue criminal charges, they were told to drop it.

are you now going to hung your hat on semantics instead of substance?

A lie is a LIE, no matter how much you want to spin your way out of it. Your comrade falsely claimed that the "BUSH White House dropped criminal charges", when none were ever filed. The Bush administration decided to file civil charges and the Obama administration dropped them.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

In January 2009, the Bush administration filed civil charges against the four defendants under the Voting Rights Act. The case was pending when the Obama administration took over the DOJ.

A judicial hearing was held on the charges in April 2009 yet none of the defendants appeared for the hearing, ignoring the subpoenas.

The government would have won a Default judgement against the defendants but the DOJ chose not to pursue the matter further and dropped the case at the instruction of DOJ attorney Loretta King, an Obama apointee.

There is quite an extensive write up in Wikipedia on this case. It is worth reading if one is not afraid of the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not being big on Wikipedia, since it can be edited, I further found this information concerning the Obama administration's political involvement in the NBPP case and the dropping of charges:

Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

CONN CARROLL • | JULY 30, 2012 | 12:00 AM

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.

The article went on to provide the Judge's opinion which said, in part...

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. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-court-finds-obama-appointees-interfered-with-new-black-panther-prosecution/article/2503500

Enjoy the read.

Edit in: Who is Loretta King, you ask?

Read this and find out where she is coming from.

http://news.yahoo.com/critics-contend-assistant-attorney-general-loretta-king-guided-20110320-224405-251.html

Edited March 16, 2015 by chuckd