FOX News has been ginning up a story about the hate group the "New Black Panthers" from the election on November 4th as some sort of 'angry black man' intimidation tactic that made Obama win the presidency. I covered that story and it was
July 13, 2010

FOX News has been ginning up a story about the hate group the "New Black Panthers" from the election on November 4th as some sort of 'angry black man' intimidation tactic that made Obama win the presidency. I covered that story and it was thoroughly debunked. Just watch the obvious middle aged teabagger woman asking Rep. Brad Sherman if Eric Holder is refusing to prosecute black people in the country over white people.

Woman:...and the latest news that the DOJ's new policy is that they are not going to prosecute cases with black defendants where the plaintiffs are white?

Shouldn't Kelly be upset by the woman who asked this question? It's so insane, but no...she's an obvious FOX watcher and gets her opinions from FOX and talk radio. So they attack Sherman. FOX is actively creating hate based on race in our country again and this clip is a great illustration of that point except instead of using code words, they are screaming about it on our airwaves.

This exchange between Megyn Kelly and the conservative Democrat pundit, Kirsten Powers is a prime example of their bias. Look how outraged Kelly is at Kirsten for disagreeing with her basic premise. Did somebody get murdered at the PA. polling station? Oh, right. A couple of black guys are scaring FOX Nation.

Kelly: We have a DOJ whistleblower alleging there is a discriminatory policy at the DOJ voting rights section and no one seems to give a darn.

Powers: Well, I’m sorry you can actually put me in the same category of people who don’t really give a darn because I looked at the video. The guy wasn’t really intimidating people. They were walking past him and voting so I don’t really understand how he’s being intimidated. Second of all, what the Congressman should have said..

Kelly: With respect — you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.

Powers: Well, I think I do, Megyn.

Kelly: Well, I don't think you do. Unlike you Kirsten, I have read the testimony that was given before the U.S. commission. Have you?

Powers: The Department of Justice has gotten an injunction against them. What more do you want them to do?

Kelly: Have you read the testimony?

Powers: I talked to the Department of Justice at length about this.

Kelly: Have you read the testimony?

Powers: Megyn, it doesn’t matter, they got an injunction against him.

Kelly: No you haven't

Powers: No! but they got

You don’t know what you are talking about. you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Powers: Yes I do.

Kelly: You cannot debate.


Powers: Megyn, why won't you won’t answer my question?

Kelly: What's your question?

Powers: I do care. They GOT an injunction against him. What more do you want them to do?

Kelly: I'll tell you. I'll tell you, because you clearly don't know the facts of this case.

I actually do know..

Kelly: Let me finish!

Megyn goes on to outline the case against another name FOX loves to repeat: Shabazz...continuing fight..

Kelly: So Don't tell me that they did all they could and don't tell me...

Powers: Megyn, I'm curious to know if you were just as outraged when the Bush administration downgraded all their investigations?

Kelly: Sorry?

Powers: Were you?

Kelly: Oh, back to Bush...

Powers: Were you upset and outraged by the discrimination there when they weren't pursuing cases?

Kelly: Yes! (Sure Megyn, you just expressed them to yourself in a tiny cafe in Soho drinking a latte)

More fighting...

Kelly: Unlike you, I have read the testimony...

Powers: I didn't say it wasn't voter intimidation, you're putting words in my mouth.

Kelly: let 'em finish.

Powers: You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it wasn't voter intimidation.

Kelly: Don't make me cut your mic. Don't make me cut your mic.

Powers: Go ahead and cut my mic...

They kept fighting from there until Megyn threatens to cut off Kirsten's mic. The whistle blower in this case is a right wing loon activist named J. Christian Adams that was still working for the DOJ and as the evidence explains, he's a typical movement conservative hack that is causing this country so much harm.

Reality: Adams' accusations don't stand up to the facts

  • Adams is a long-time right-wing activist, who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed, served as a Bush poll watcher in Florida 2004, and reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight "racially tinged battles over voting rights";
  • Adams was hired to the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Department of Justice Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys -- the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman";
  • Adams has admitted that he does not have first-hand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations;
  • The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;
  • The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;
  • The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;
  • No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;
  • The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has called that investigation "very small potatoes" full of "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges," and said it has not "served the interests of the commission"; she further said that DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

And let's get honest. It didn't matter how Sherman answered the question. As we saw with the HCR town halls, the tea partiers would yell and shout just to obstruct the entire event.

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.