Morris falsely accuses Obama of "not prosecuting the Panthers," claims this "makes him not post-racial"
July 21, 2010 10:30 pm ET
From the July 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
















It was almost as if the Dick went a bit off script for a second. Funny because the Dick is usually such a reliable lap dog.
From: Roger Ailes
Subject : Today's News.
The Breitbart thing blew up in our faces, so no more Breitbart.
Use the Blank Panther story. It's better than the Breitbart thing, it has 2 BIG BLACK SCARY men in it.
Only an idiot would prosecute when there is almost no chance of conviction.
BTW, your facts are incorrect. The Bush DOJ determined there was no evidence of voter intimidation so no criminal charges were filed . . . they did file civil cases asking for injunctions. None of the parties made appearances on their own behalf . . . the decision was made to take a default judgment against the guy with a stick and the other two, which really weren't supportable by evidence, were dropped. An injunction was entered against the guy with a stick.
My suggestion? Turn off Fox/hate talk radio . . . they're lying to you and laughing at you for believing their crap. Oh, and they don't represent conservative values, either.
You're talking about Shabazz and his activities. He left when told to and an injunction was properly issued against him. Without the existence of one single voter complaint or one single voter willing to testify to intimidation, there was no further legal case to be made against him. Yes, he's racist and thuggish, but those aren't crimes in themselves and he could only be penalized on his actions, which he was.
However, my post had to do with Little Dickie's comments about prosecuting the NBPP. There is no evidence that Shabazz was acting in any way as an agent for the NBPP. This didn't happen anywhere else, which would have been necessary if they wanted to influence the election. The party condemned Shabazz's actions and repudiated him. Shabazz never stated he was acting as an agent for the NBPP. Regardless of any radical statements that Shabazz or any other party member might have ever said, prosecution would require illegal actions by the party and there weren't any in this case.
It's apparent that you're the one with tunnel vision in this case and unable to think outside your narrow agenda. Put yourself in the position of a prosecutor looking for evidence of significant wrongdoing and the ability to prove it in court. They got Shabazz for as much as they could and they had nothing with which to go after the NBPP.
I love when you guys accidentally tip your hand like this.
I saw Fran Tarkenton waxing philosophical last night . . . he's retired pro football player with a computer software business now. How do either of those things make him an expert on politics and economics.