Wow: Republican member claims Civil Rights Commission is out to get Holder on Black Panthers case

posted at 6:54 pm on July 16, 2010 by Allahpundit

It’s Abigail Thernstrom, who, as far as I know, is a well-respected scholar and sufficiently credible to be worthy of publication by the Manhattan Institute and National Review, among others. In fact, her last piece for NR warned conservatives that the Black Panthers case that Fox has been obsessing over is a silly bit of one-off nonsense with no larger significance for how the DOJ is prosecuting voting rights cases. (That’s not what J. Christian Adams says, of course.) What she didn’t claim in that piece is that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has been investigating Adams’s allegations and of which she’s the vice chair, might have a political agenda of its own in pushing this inquiry.

But she’s claiming it now.

“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers, this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

There’s nothing here to suggest that they don’t believe Adams’s claims on the merits, but any investigation that begins with a particular outcome in mind is obviously suspect. Pushback from her fellow committee members:

“Millions of people saw the clip on Fox News and YouTube,” said Todd Gaziano, a commissioner who has been the driving force behind the commission’s investigation. “Any reasonable American knows this is voter intimidation. And so the dismissal itself of an infamous case where there’s footage is more damaging to people’s perception of the rule of law than a dismissal when nobody’s paying attention.”

The commission chairman, Gerald Reynolds, said Thernstrom is attacking the commission out of pique dating back to a dispute about organizing a conference scheduled for this fall. “The allegation that there’s any interest in bringing down the Obama Administration is false – and it’s a lot more, it’s personal and petty.”

Really? Thernstrom cooked up a bombshell allegation about bias on the Commission (which, according to Politico, is nothing new under either Republican or Democratic administrations) out of simple pique about a conference? Given the scrutiny she’s going to get for making this accusation, I’m skeptical about that.

Exit question: How do we resolve this going forward? The DOJ’s civil-rights division and the Commission on Civil Rights now each have their integrity being questioned by people employed there currently or formerly. Time for a special prosecutor to resolve the facts, perhaps?

Update: At the very least, since Fox now owns this story, will Megyn Kelly have Thernstrom on next week?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Are we sure she’s a conservative? The more I’m hearing about this lady the more I think she’s a frummy.

MeatHeadinCA on July 16, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Their both Jews and “conservative,” could be a connection there.

True_King on July 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

What’s so wild about that notion? This seemingly minor case may have been quashed to cover up a much bigger voter-intimidation effort by the Obama campaign, and if Eric Holder went along with that, or looked the other way while others did the dirty work, he should be removed as Attorney General immediately. And if Holder sanctioned Julie Fernandes’ edict that the Voting Section will no longer prosecute cases against blacks or other racial minroties, he should be removed.

rockmom on July 16, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Their both Jews and “conservative,” could be a connection there.

True_King on July 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

The true colors of the True_King shine through.

thomasaur on July 16, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Dr Evil on July 16, 2010 at 8:23 PM

I hate to be goofy but how do you tell what the ranking is? And should we wait until Monday to see if it’s jumped up? After the Sunday talk shows.

Cindy Munford on July 16, 2010 at 8:31 PM

They really wouldn’t need a special prosecutor if DoJ would allow their subpoenaed employees to testify, which right now they are not.

So who’s more believable, someone who is willing to testify under oath, or a department that is refusing to allow its people to testify?

notropis on July 16, 2010 at 8:33 PM

So, this vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights seems to agree that it’s okay to deny voting rights by means of a direct threat of bodily harm… as long as the fellow doing the threatening is someone the commissioner wishes to see as a victim.

… and it doesn’t hurt that the commissioner sees the Attorney General as a downtrodden member of the victim class as well.

applebutter on July 16, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Dr Evil on July 16, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Sorry I forgot to say thank you. Thank you.

Cindy Munford on July 16, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Something odd here. Ms. Thernstrom is either not serious about voter intimidation in predominately Black districts, or this is personal and petty. Just a skim of her biography reveals she served a decade on the State Board of Ed for Massachusetts.:rollseyes: Her husband’s a Harvard Prof. I smell RINO.
Randy

williars on July 16, 2010 at 8:49 PM

bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president

I’m sorry, but what does this have to do with the merits of the case?

Only GOP bedwetters would worry about this.

faraway on July 16, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Only GOP bedwetters would worry about this.

faraway on July 16, 2010 at 8:49 PM

This place is brimming with ‘em.

thomasaur on July 16, 2010 at 8:58 PM

O’Reilly said talking to the Leader, was like talking to an empty parking lot…so they are a threat or are they are a joke?

Dr Evil on July 16, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Do you know how many low-grade idiots are in prison for assaulting and killing people?

It doesn’t have to be either/or.

Merovign on July 16, 2010 at 9:01 PM

If the case has been settled then why doesn’t the DOJ come out with an official statement on it.

d1carter on July 16, 2010 at 9:04 PM

The fact she’s a “well respected scholar” means she’s a kiss ass liberal in GOP drag. What’s one off about tossing a case that’s already won?

One off in that it’s totally unprecedented!

Obama and Holder are racists on a mission to get even. They justify their racism with anti-imperialist nonsense but it’s racism nonetheless.

rcl on July 16, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Abigail Thernstrom[1], a political scientist, is a former Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, a member of the Massachusetts Board of Education, and vice chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. She received her Ph.D. from the Department of Government, Harvard University, in 1975.

That’s all I needed to know.

TheBigOldDog on July 16, 2010 at 9:43 PM

What is missing in this brouhaha is that the lawyers making the charges against the Holder DoJ have had plenty of years of successful litigation on behalf of minorities.

onlineanalyst on July 16, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Needless to say, Republican my arse:

Thernstrom and her husband, Harvard historian Stephan Thernstrom, are the co-authors of America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (Simon & Schuster), which the New York Times Book Review, in its annual end-of-the-year issue, named as one of the notable books of 1997.

She serves on several boards, including the Center for Equal Opportunity[2] and the Institute for Justice. From 1992 to 1997 she was a member of the Aspen Institute’s Domestic Strategy Group.

President Bill Clinton chose her as one of three authors to participate in his first “town meeting” on race in Akron, Ohio, on December 3, 1997, and she was part of a small group that met with the President again in the Oval Office on December 19.

TheBigOldDog on July 16, 2010 at 9:45 PM

2 minutes of research would have been warranted before taking an angle in this post…Old Spice could have waited.

TheBigOldDog on July 16, 2010 at 9:46 PM

The woman is not a Republican, she’s a race hustler:

Thernstrom is the author of Voting Rights—and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections (AEI Press, June 2009). She is the co-author, with her husband, Harvard historian Stephan Thernstrom, of No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning (Simon & Schuster, October 2003), which has been awarded the 2007 Fordham Foundation prize for “for distinguished scholarship,” and was named by both the Los Angeles Times and the American School Board Journal as one of the best books of 2003.

They also collaborated on America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (Simon & Schuster), which the New York Times Book Review, in its annual end-of-the-year issue, named as one of the notable books of 1997.

Thernstrom’s 1987 work, Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights (Harvard University Press) won four awards, including the American Bar Association’s Certificate of Merit, and the Anisfield-Wolf prize for the best book on race and ethnicity. It was named the best policy studies book of that year by the Policy Studies Organization (an affiliate of the American Political Science Association), and won the Benchmark Book Award from the Center for Judicial Studies. Along with her husband, she also won the 2004 Peter Shaw Memorial Award given by National Association of Scholars.

With two co-authors, she submitted an amicus brief in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle, challenging the constitutionality of Seattle’s racial balancing plan; she also submitted an amicus brief in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey, challenging the continued constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Her frequent media appearances have included Fox News Sunday, Good Morning America, and This Week with George Stephanopoulos. For some years, she was a stringer for The Economist, and continues to write for a variety of journals and newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the (London) Times Literary Supplement.

She serves on several boards, including the Institute for Justice, and from 1992 to 1997 was a member of the Aspen Institute’s Domestic Strategy Group.

For more biographical information, see http://www.thernstrom.com

TheBigOldDog on July 16, 2010 at 9:53 PM

The New Black Panther incident is clearly intimidation, there’s no question of that. The real problem with the idiot Holder is that he is giving a green light to those from any far-left organization that might be thinking of doing the same this November. He has sent a message without any leaving a trail, -”go ahead, we won’t prosecute you if you are black.”

That’s a dangerous policy and it is very close to incitement. The liberals sneer that the NBP “only has eight members”. If Holder’s irresponsible actions loose the SEIU thugs on our voting process, it could be a messy November.

slickwillie2001 on July 16, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Their both Jews and “conservative,” could be a connection there.

True_King on July 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

As were my parents-though no quotes were needed around conservative.
I’m probably reading this the wrong way, but your point is…?

annoyinglittletwerp on July 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM

The true colors of the True_King shine through.

thomasaur on July 16, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Ah-so I was reading it right.
Thanks Thomasaur.

annoyinglittletwerp on July 16, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Good grief! Frum and Noonan have been published in the National Review. Every publication is entitled to some lapse of judgment.

onlineanalyst on July 16, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Exit question: How do we resolve this going forward? The DOJ’s civil-rights division and the Commission on Civil Rights now each have their integrity being questioned by people employed there currently or formerly.

Who cares if commissioners have agendas if there is hard evidence of crime? All I care about is a video of a polling place, and a pack of witnesses to voter intimidation

This lady can toss all the sleazeballs she wants, but unless she can discredit the evidence, she too has an agenda.

Time for a special prosecutor to resolve the facts, perhaps?

Yeah, appointed by Obama? To investigate whether the WH intervended in a Civil Rights case? Obama might like that. His guy could take the investigation past the election

entagor on July 16, 2010 at 10:33 PM

And it should bring Obama down!

… of course, silly me, I thought being a flamming commie would disqualify one from running for president in the first place.

bitsy on July 16, 2010 at 10:44 PM

http://www.thernstrom.com

Still on vacation AP?

This case was dropped after they plead guilty! Of course Holder and the DOJ should be investigated. This woman is not a conservative. She reminds me of the liberated Catholic that thinks abortion is just fine

Vince on July 16, 2010 at 10:59 PM

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president”

She is probably right. DOJ has stonewalled the Civil Rights Commission so far and I don’t expect that to change any time soon. So their efforts are a “wild notion.”
On the other hand, if November brings a change in leadership on Capitol Hill, all bets are off. Holder will be gone before the summer next year, but not by the hand of the Civil Rights Commission.

J_Crater on July 16, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Folks, they ain’t all in the Democratic Party. There are tons of progressive Republicans and there’s no way to stop them from their choice of political party.

I think they call it “infiltration” and they’ve been doing it since probably the 1920s or ’30s. Just so happened that the Democratic Party was the one they managed to have taken over-the Republican Party is next. That’s why they’re so upset about the Tea Party movement as it is strongly Conservative and will probably get non-progressives elected into Congress.

Also, how else do you think an outfit like the Annenberg foundation could dole out millions to the likes of Bill Ayers and Barack Obama back in the ’80s?

Many of these people aren’t what they would have us believe. But, I think if we looked closely at the GOP big shots we’d see they rarely, if ever say anything ideologically conservative.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 17, 2010 at 12:39 AM

Are we sure she’s a conservative? The more I’m hearing about this lady the more I think she’s a frummy.

MeatHeadinCA on July 16, 2010 at 7:05 PM

The only thing I’ve been able to find out about her that she’s shown a “conservative” bend towards is education. Everything else I’ve found out about her says “liberal”.

ButterflyDragon on July 17, 2010 at 1:21 AM

I don’t give a good goddamn who says what about this; the fact that is relevant is that if our voting system is compromised, so is our Republic.

Anyone trying to relegate this story to the back burner should have their motives and/or judgment questioned.

hillbillyjim on July 17, 2010 at 1:31 AM

This is what is wrong with our country… this is easy and we make it too hard with legal bs… this was voter intimidation… period, thus they are not punished? Seriously how hard is this?

This is why people are getting so pissy in this country, we take something so obvious and say that dropping this is what the govt can legally do so that is ok… NO NO NO. Not right to do this, not right for whites, blacks, purple people, aliens, I don’t give a flying crap… It is wrong and that is why people are mad.

We need to get back to basics in this country, don’t spend money we don’t have, treat everyone the same, quit with the social engineering, etc. keep us safe and leave the rest alone…

momof2 on July 17, 2010 at 2:05 AM

momof2 on July 17, 2010 at 2:05 AM

Well said.

Wrong is wrong; it doesn’t need a brand name. It is just wrong.

Period.

If our votes are not allowed to be cast freely and without harassment and/or intimidation, then we no longer have the country that our founders so bravely gave us. This is elementary.

hillbillyjim on July 17, 2010 at 2:21 AM

So this story basically disappears now. This is the out the MSM was looking for. No coverage will ensue and this gross violation of the Voting Rights Act will become (maybe) a footnote in history. Well done Ms. Thernstrom.

WarEagle01 on July 17, 2010 at 8:31 AM

Dr Evil on July 16, 2010 at 8:23 PM

I hate to be goofy but how do you tell what the ranking is? And should we wait until Monday to see if it’s jumped up? After the Sunday talk shows.

Cindy Munford on July 16, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Cindy scroll down the left side to Product Details that’s where the rankings are located.


Product Details

* Paperback: 250 pages
* Publisher: AEI Press; 1 edition (July 25, 2009)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 0844742724
* ISBN-13: 978-0844742724
* Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 1 inches
* Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
* Average Customer Review: No customer reviews yet. Be the first.
* Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #529,533 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Dr Evil on July 17, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Do you know how many low-grade idiots are in prison for assaulting and killing people?

It doesn’t have to be either/or.

Merovign on July 16, 2010 at 9:01 PM

That’s correct, low grade idiots so why make a fine distinction because they gave their club a well known iconic name like: The New Black Panthers, made up of very few – who are salivating from the attention. Wouldn’t it be better not to give them the notoriety they are craving? (RATINGS?) The names Crypts and Bloods were already taken, and those groups are much larger, and actually do present a real threat to the public just in the size of their numbers- and their violent history.

As far as getting killed – these people are fools. Real criminals don’t want you to know they exist…it makes it harder to perpetrate crimes after you have been the subject of a “Factor” segment.

Dr Evil on July 17, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Their both Jews and “conservative,” could be a connection there.
True_King on July 16, 2010 at 8:27

The Jewish conspiracy strikes again?
/sigh
Go away

Irritable Pundit on July 17, 2010 at 9:26 AM

The only thing I’ve been able to find out about her that she’s shown a “conservative” bend towards is education. Everything else I’ve found out about her says “liberal”.

ButterflyDragon on July 17, 2010 at 1:21 AM

Yeah, I watched this video of her getting giddy over Clyburn and Obama while standing in front of the AEI backdrop. On some issues she might be more conservative, but I think she’s an old timey academic egghead who just sees everything in terms of race, and thinks whites can’t be discriminated against and blacks can’t be racist. Heck, for all I know, she may be a “Republican” as a legacy of the old civil rights days when she was protesting Woolworths, and Democrats were filibustering the Civil Rights Act and filled out the ranks of the KKK.

forest on July 17, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Remember Watergate?? Nobody wanted to bring about the downfall of a president then did they? Yep all good Americans protecting the constitution, You bet’chem Red Rider!

Herb on July 17, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Dr Evil on July 17, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Thank you again.

Cindy Munford on July 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Update: At the very least, since Fox now owns this story, will Megyn Kelly have Thernstrom on next week?

That would be the fair and balanced thing to do but it would confuse the message.

lexhamfox on July 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Exit question: How do we resolve this going forward? The DOJ’s civil-rights division and the Commission on Civil Rights now each have their integrity being questioned by people employed there currently or formerly. Time for a special prosecutor to resolve the facts, perhaps?

Good idea, Allah! I’ll call up John Boehner and Mitch McConnell today, and suggest that. They’ll have a pow-wow with Pelosi and Reid, and get that done just after the first scheduled game of pond hockey on the Styx River.

Update: At the very least, since Fox now owns this story, will Megyn Kelly have Thernstrom on next week?

I honestly doubt Thernstrom — who looks and sounds like she belongs in Del Boca Vista, FL hanging with Morty Seinfeld and Jack Klompus — has the guts or the energy to be interviewed on FNC about this. More likely, she will be welcomed on one of the MSM Sunday shows to prove this is just One Of Those Fox Stories, and there’s nothing to see here, move along, everybody.

However, if she agrees to be on FNC, I would like to see her go head-to-head with Peter Kirsanow, the first G.W. Bush appointee to the Commission, a black man who also contributes to National Review and whose conservative credentials are unquestionable. Kirsanow’s appointment swung the Commission’s D/R balance from 5/3 to 4/4. He became heroic in my view after I watched him suffer the unimaginable indignity of not having his physical presence at his first meeting recognized by the Commission’s combative ultraleftist chair(wo)man Mary Frances Berry, who sued to keep a termed-out Democrat in the seat to which Kirsanow was appointed. Berry would not even acknowledge Kirsanow by name, referring to him as “some member of the audience.”

C-SPAN video of that meeting can be seen here. The sparks fly at the 30 minute mark as Berry uses rules of order like a hammer on the head of Republican Commissioner Jennifer Braceras, and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso (dumped by popular vote in the election that purged Jerry Brown’s appointees) throws a hissy fit.

L.N. Smithee on July 17, 2010 at 11:43 AM

There are two things that will come of this and they are, 1. The MSM will finally cover the NBPP voter intimidation case and 2. We will finally learn that almost anyone from academia will eventually become a liberal no matter their background. Holder is a slimy political hack and he proved it under Clinton. The trouble that we have is that other political hacks like Hatch and the the R’s on the judicial committee are RINOs and don’t see anything wrong with Holder. They not only approved of him but endorsed him for AGOTUS!

inspectorudy on July 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Wow: Republican member claims Civil Rights Commission is out to get Holder on Black Panthers case

We don’t even need one Progressive party, let alone two. I wish we could redraw the boundaries between the parties; with Progressives firmly entrenched in centers of power for both parties we really only have one.

FloatingRock on July 17, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Due to good sleuthing by HA posters, we now know there is nothing conservative about Mrs. Thernstrom.
Thanks, guys.

Extrafishy on July 17, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Thank you again.

Cindy Munford on July 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

You’re Welcome Cindy

Dr Evil on July 17, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Really? Thernstrom cooked up a bombshell allegation about bias on the Commission (which, according to Politico, is nothing new under either Republican or Democratic administrations) out of simple pique about a conference? Given the scrutiny she’s going to get for making this accusation, I’m skeptical about that.

I’m not. This is how people who’ve been in positions of power for lengthy periods think – typically, not beyond their own interests. They don’t think or see beyond the sphere they travel in. That there may be consequences never occurs to them until they’re called on it. Then, the old “I misspoke” card gets played.

n0doz on July 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM

It’s an important story and will define the DOJ under Obama. Fox should cover it.

Now, Meghan Kelly should try a bit of objectivity.

AnninCA on July 17, 2010 at 2:18 PM

It’s nothing new for National Review to feature such writers. Think of Peggy Noonan, David Frum, and the co-host with Client #9 on CNN.

Captain America on July 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Now, Meghan Kelly should try a bit of objectivity.

AnninCA on July 17, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Once again, the Sage of HA has spoken.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on July 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Now,Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #549,304 in Books.

Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #529,533 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Dr Evil on July 17, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Falling fast.

Jeff2161 on July 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM

It’s an important story and will define the DOJ under Obama. Fox should cover it.

Now, Meghan Kelly should try a bit of objectivity.

AnninCA on July 17, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Like her counterparts on CNN and MS-DNC, right?

Oh, the colours, the colours…

Del Dolemonte on July 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Jeff2161 on July 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM

When I checked it earlier it was at 531,255. Let’s see if she gets any time on TV.

Cindy Munford on July 17, 2010 at 5:05 PM

That’s correct, low grade idiots so why make a fine distinction because they gave their club a well known iconic name like: The New Black Panthers, made up of very few – who are salivating from the attention. Wouldn’t it be better not to give them the notoriety they are craving? (RATINGS?) The names Crypts and Bloods were already taken, and those groups are much larger, and actually do present a real threat to the public just in the size of their numbers- and their violent history.

As far as getting killed – these people are fools. Real criminals don’t want you to know they exist…it makes it harder to perpetrate crimes after you have been the subject of a “Factor” segment.

Dr Evil on July 17, 2010 at 8:53 AM

1) They need to be prosecuted, and the DOJ’s malfeasance exposed; both because of what they DID and because of the consequences if we DON’T. I doubt you favor generally giving people a pass for crimes because it means giving them attention.

2) You seem to have some very odd ideas about the minds of criminals – here’s a few tips: criminals generally don’t think very far ahead as to consequences, every criminal is an individual, some want anonymity, some want attention, and it’s a bit odd to refer to someone as an idiot in one paragraph and minimize their threat in the next on the assumption that they’ll act rationally.

Merovign on July 17, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Update: At the very least, since Fox now owns this story, will Megyn Kelly have Thernstrom on next week?

That would be the fair and balanced thing to do but it would confuse the message.

lexhamfox on July 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Kelly has already asked Thernstrom to come on the show.

Merovign on July 17, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Kelly has already asked Thernstrom to come on the show.

Merovign on July 17, 2010 at 5:55 PM

This ought to be good! Do you think she will go on Kelly’s show?

PS..I say she will not.

Dire Straits on July 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM

She won’t go on… She can’t answer the basic question of “So, do you think this is voter intimidation?”

Khun Joe on July 17, 2010 at 9:12 PM

You know, by this definition, the Watergate break-in was a minor screw-up by some bumbling political operatives. We managed to made hay out of that, didn’t we? Two guys hanging in front of a polling place with bats telling people where to go or what to do, isn’t something that happens without a certain degree of confidence that they would get away with it.

Get serious.

manwithblackhat on July 17, 2010 at 9:18 PM

This ought to be good! Do you think she will go on Kelly’s show?

PS..I say she will not.

Dire Straits on July 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Not in a million years. Of Sundays. Easter Sundays.

Merovign on July 17, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Did voter intimidation occur, or no? Were laws broken, or no? If the evidence indicates in the affirmative, the case should be prosecuted. Period. It makes no difference what color the alleged perps’ skin is, or how isolated the occurrence may be.

tgharris on July 16, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Thank you. Finally someone who can cut through the BS to the meat. The video shows intimidation. Bartle Bull says it was intimidation. All the rest of this is distraction and obfuscation. The perps should have been prosecuted and if found guilty had justice meted out. End of story.

Greyledge Gal on July 17, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Exit question: How do we resolve this going forward?

Well, Thernstrom certainly has a good reputation in the past. But let’s face it. The New Black Panther Party engaged in fairly obvious voter intimidation, and to not follow up by investigating would be the suspicious action.

Why would the burden of proof be on the other members of the Civil Rights Commission to explain why they are doing their jobs?

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 17, 2010 at 11:55 PM

It’s obvious the case dismissal was racially biased.

This woman is an impostor.

scotash on July 18, 2010 at 3:29 AM

If it is such a “wild notion” just let the lawyers testify.

aikidoka on July 18, 2010 at 9:28 AM

A Republican RINO is as reliable as a bluedog demonrat. They say what is in their best interests and in the long run the best interests of the people be damned. No news here.

volsense on July 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM

…since Fox now owns this story, will Megyn Kelly have Thernstrom on next week?

I’d like to see that. I’ve been reading/admiring Thernstrom for a long time. Her position now is puzzling.

But regardless, the bottom line is the tape clearly shows illegal voter intimidation, and DoJ is accountable for its prosecution.

petefrt on July 18, 2010 at 10:09 AM

It’s Abigail Thernstrom, who, as far as I know, is a well-respected scholar and sufficiently credible to be worthy of publication by the Manhattan Institute and National Review, among others.

The woman is not a Republican, she’s a race hustler:
TheBigOldDog on July 16, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Leave it to AllahPundit to obligingly up her credentials as a ‘Conservative’…er… Republican who is “well-respected”! Who made him the conferring of all things Conservative? At best she may have registered as a Republican. That doesn’t mean she supports a “Conservative” agenda and holds to “Conservative” beliefs. But her background makes her EXACTLY what TheBigOldDog said, a hustler using her position of power to undermine the institution of hustling based on race, color, or creed. That would make her pondscum in my book! Making money off of perpetuity people’s beliefs that they can’t get ahead because they’re victims that need to “THEIR” distinctive help is worse than a snake oil salesman and a street-wise con-artist. She couldn’t get lower on the totem poll and that does’t make her “well-respected”.

Sultry Beauty on July 18, 2010 at 1:45 PM

At the very least, since Fox now owns this story, will Megyn Kelly have Thernstrom on next week?

Naked attempt to seek retribution against MK for her attack on his unrequited love, KP. But not completely pathetic, and interview I would love to see, only if balanced by rebuttal from Gerald Reynolds.

Could be great theater.

Jaibones on July 18, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Yeah, sure, okay etc. Now get Holder out of there any way it can be done and fast.

jeanie on July 18, 2010 at 10:51 PM

This is surely off the radar screen now…but this is significant:

JOHN adds: I think it is significant that the case had already been won–the defendants had defaulted–when Holder directed that the proceeding be dismissed. So his act had nothing to do with enforcement priorities; rather, it was a politically or ideologically motivated intervention on behalf of the New Black Panther Party.

I don’t really know what her motives are…but she doesn’t address that fact at all. And it is a huge omission on her part.

AUINSC on July 18, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Their both Jews and “conservative,” could be a connection there.

True_King on July 16, 2010 at 8:27

You are both stupid and bigoted. Could be a connection there, too.

Anyway, don’t be silly. They aren’t Jews, they’re “Joooos”.

RINO in Name Only on July 19, 2010 at 2:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2