Posted by Tina
Several high profile conservative bloggers have been the victim of a dangerous and frightening criminal hoax called “swatting” where the perpetrator makes a call to local police and pretends to be his victim (the blogger). He tells police that he has just killed his wife and gives the blogger’s name and address. Moments later the police show up at the unsuspecting victims door in full swat mode, push through the door with weapons drawn. After a lot of noise and rough treatment they eventually drag the guy out of his house in cuffs. Curious neighbors come out to point and whisper, the guy’s wife and kids are frightened to death and it’s all very funny, right? Well, to the idiot that is perpetrating these crimes I suppose it is but not to the victims, local police or
Senator Chambliss who has written Eric Holder to ask for an official investigation:
“Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels… Regardless of any potential political differences that may exist, threats and intimidation have no place in our national political discourse. Those who choose to enter into that political discourse should not have to worry about potential threats to their or their family’s safety.”
This crime is happening all across the country but apparently a particular swatter is targeting right wing bloggers because they have blogged about his criminal activities. I won’t put the name on this blog for obvious reasons but you can read more
here.
Some states are writing legislation to make this practice a federal crime. Let’s hope Eric Holder finds it worthy of his attention.
Doubt it. He’s too busy stonewalling the F&F investigation or suing states for voter ID issues or threatening states for purging their out-of-date voter rolls. And then there’s AZ 1070 and Obamacare at the Supreme Court. And all those poll watchers he sent to WI . ..
Besides, he thinks voter intimidation is OK since he dismissed the Black Panther issue.
It’s a really busy time these days for the clown AG & the Department of Jerks . . . . .
This would mean investigating Obama. I am betting it wont happen.
Next question, will Holder investigate the death threats to Scott Walker? Again this would mean investigating Obama so I am again going to say no.
Holder is a worthless lap dog for Obama. I have zero confidence in his abilities. He makes Janet Reno look extremely competent.
That is a sick, disgusting tactic. I hope they catch the bastard. And I think that, given that this is an issue of our national political discourse, it would be appropriate for Holder to get involved and investigate.
Toby, why would either of the cases you mention involve “investigating Obama?” Are you suggesting that the president should be viewed as a suspect?
J Soden, I think you may be misinformed on the Black Panther case. This article might give you some more background on the subject.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/
“We’re fact-checking the claim that the Obama administration made the call not to pursue a criminal civil rights case against the New Black Panther Party, because we think the answer puts the entire issue into a clearer context…
…On Jan. 7, 2009, the Bush Administration Justice Department announced that it filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members. Specifically, they were alleged to have violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against “any person for voting or attempting to vote.” The aims of the lawsuit were fairly limited: “The Department seeks an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations.” In other words, the aim was to make sure they didn’t do something similar again in the future. This section of the law does not subject violators to criminal penalties (fines or jail time, for example).
The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, which handles all racially motivated voter intimidation offenses, determined that “the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes,” according to testimony provided by Thomas E. Perez , Assistant Attorney General, on May 14, 2010. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler confirmed to PolitiFact that that determination not to file criminal charges was made prior to the filing of the civil case.
In other words, the decision not to pursue criminal charges was made by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division prior to the Obama administration…
…The Justice Department, did, however, follow through with its case against King Samir Shabazz, concluding that his display of a nightstick at the polling place “supported the allegation of voter intimidation.” The Department asked for, and got, an injunction prohibiting Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012.
Some may say the government was too lenient, that the case should not have been dropped against the three other defendants, or that the injunction against Shabazz should have extended nationwide — not just in Philadelphia — and for a much longer time (not just until 2012). Those decisions were made during the Obama administration.
But the pundits have often blurred the distinction between the civil and criminal cases. O’Reilly and other Fox commentators have confused the issue by suggesting Holder and the Obama administration made the call not to pursue more serious charges against the New Black Panther Party members. Perez stated that the Civil Rights Division decided pre-Obama not to pursue more serious, criminal charges. So when O’Reilly brings on legal analysts who paint it as an outrage that the Justice Department did not pursue a criminal case, and the only person condemned by O’Reilly is Holder for not “representing the United States in a fair and balanced way,” that’s misleading and misplaced. We think it’s fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. We rate O’Reilly’s statement False.
Chris I believe our card carrying socialist president is a despicable human being capable of any and all criminal activities. Chris, I also believe you would turn a blind eye to any and all actions taken by Obama.
Uh … how is this a diabolical phenom of “the left”, when the nutcase (singular) who’s doing it has been identified and will probably, eventually, be prosecuted?
You are (still) such paranoid puppies, I can’t believe it.
Chris: “O’Reilly and other Fox commentators have confused the issue by suggesting Holder and the Obama administration made the call not to pursue more serious charges against the New Black Panther Party members.”
Maybe they weren’t blurring the lines. Maybe they were discussing the case based on testimony:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/
It should be noted that when Bill Clinton was elected one of the first things he did was fire 98 prosecutors. GWB removed only 8.
http://www.mrc.org/node/34099
It’s quite possible the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was made up of Clinton appointees under Bush. It’s not far fetched to believe that since Obama was elected the department was working under the presumption (or knowledge) nthat Obama did not want the case prosecuted.