http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126645.html

Militant group Hezbollah is rapidly rearming and reinforcing positions in southern Lebanon in preparation for a new conflict with Israel, British newspaper the Observer reported on Sunday.

“Sure, we are rearming, we have even said that we have far more rockets and missiles than we did in 2006,” a Hezbollah commander told the Observer speaking on condition of anonymity.

The 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel began after Hezbollah militants launched a cross-border attack and kidnapped two Israel Defense Forces soldiers.
Advertisement

“We had to blow up or leave some of our bunkers and fighting positions, but we still have plenty of capabilities in the south,” the commander told the Observer. “We expect the Israelis to come soon, if not this winter, then they will wait until spring, when the ground isn’t too soft for their tanks.”

Israeli commandos on Wednesday seized a ship that defense officials said was carrying hundreds of tons of weapons from Iran bound for Hezbollah guerrillas – the largest arms shipment Israel has ever commandeered.

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah is expected to respond to the seizure of the arms shipment on Wednesday, but the group has thus far denied a link to the freighter.

The Observer report also quoted a military expert on Hezbollah, who believes the group to be preparing for war with Israel.

“It’s clear that Hezbollah no longer controls the border, due to the presence of UNIFIL [United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon] troops,” Andrew Exum, a military expert on Hezbollah at the Centre for New American Security, told the Guardian.

“They appear to be hardening the villages for this next round of fighting, while pushing their fixed positions north away from UNIFIL to protect the approaches to Beirut and the Bekaa Valley.”

Israeli military and intelligence analysts have said that a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would first require weakening Hezbollah’s capability to disrupt life in northern Israel with its rockets, according to the Observer report.

http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-report/would-gitmo-transfer-make-charleston-a-terrorist-target.html

South Carolina’s state government has learned that it will take an act of the U.S. Congress in order to stop the president from sending Guantanamo detainees to Charleston. Washington has been eyeing the U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig since President Barack Obama declared he would close the detention facility popularly known as Gitmo within one year of taking office.

On Monday, S.C. Lt. Governor Andre Bauer (R) requested the state take legal action to prevent a transfer to the Palmetto State. But Attorney General Henry McMaster (R) pointed out, “The U.S. Congress is the branch of government with the jurisdiction and the legal authority to stop the president from making unwise decisions that threaten the security of our nation.” Bauer and McMaster are among candidates seeking a nomination to run for governor on the GOP ticket.

Although the move is still considered to be tentative, Senator Jim DeMint (R) along with Congressmen Gresham Barrett, Joe Wilson, and Henry Brown have sent Obama a letter opposing the transfer to South Carolina. All 3 congressmen are Republicans.

In addition, the Rock Hill Herald reported Thursday that McMaster has called for an act of Congress to prevent a transfer to South Carolina, “or any other state on the American mainland.”

Just how “unwise” is the decision to move detainees who could be dangerous to our shores?

“There is no legitimate legal, intelligence, or military reason to bring the detainees here.” writes James Galyean (R), an Assistant U.S. Attorney and legal counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Galyean, who is now running for Congress in South Carolina, helped draft the language that kept alleged terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Gaylean is running for the seat Barrett has held.

In addition to Charleston’s classified naval engineering project, hundreds of millions of pounds of explosives, and reportedly nuclear weapons are housed at the facility. Galyean added, “There’s also a nuclear fuel transshipment facility and a jet fuel storage tank farm inside the fence. You could throw a rock from any of them and hit the brig.”

Barrett, who is campaigning for the GOP nomination to run for governor, pressed his fellow gubernatorial candidates to sign a letter to the president opposing the transfer of terrorists to Charleston. There are 10 gubernatorial candidates from both the Democrat and the Republican parties. South Carolina has a complicated primary process that one newspaper editor said, “sows confusion.”

Rather than unite behind the cause however, some candidates opted to criticise Barrett, saying he has not done enough to stop the transfer – despite three resolutions Barrett introduced to block the transfer. Only two of the other candidates signed the letter, and Democrat candidate Mullins McLeod went so far as to tell Barrett to “take your letter and shove it.” McLeod is a trial lawyer.

“No one wants suspected terrorists on our soil while they await their richly deserved punishment,” wrote McLeod. “But when the President asks us to do our part in the international war on terrorism, the only appropriate response from this or any state’s governor is ‘Yes, Sir, Mr. President.’”

McLeod’s current opinion stands in sharp contrast to Democrat actions and statements when President George W. Bush held office.

Should American citizens be placed in harm’s way in order to do what a politician perceives as “our part,” especially when there is no legitimate reason?

The fact that the Washington – and now a number of gubernatorial– candidates in South Carolina are willing to do exactly that may serve as one more in a long line of wake-up calls to “We the People.”

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

It was the latest in a series of “red flags” about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America’s largest military installation, on Thursday.

Hasan, armed with two handguns including a semi-automatic pistol, walked into a processing centre for soldiers deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, where he killed 13 and injured more than 30.

Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a “Muslim first and American second.”

One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.

Another, Dr Val Finnell, who took a course with him in 2007 at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, did complain about Hasan’s “anti-American rants.” He said: “The system is not doing what it’s supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out. I really questioned his loyalty.”

Selena Coppa, an activist for Iraq Veterans Against the War, said: “This man was a psychiatrist and was working with other psychiatrists every day and they failed to notice how deeply disturbed someone right in their midst was.”

One of Hasan’s neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: “I’m going to do good work for God” before leaving for the base.

A civilian police officer who shot him, bringing the rampage to an end, said Hasan appeared “calm” during the massacre, hiding behind a telephone pole and shooting fellow soldiers in the back as they tried to get away.

“He was firing at people as they were trying to run and hide, said Sgt Mark Todd. “Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn’t hear him say a word, he just turned and fired.”

Hasan flinched after he was shot and slid down against the pole still clutching his gun, which had a laser sight on it. The officer kicked away the weapon and handcuffed him.

He said: “The guy was breathing, his eyes were blinking. I could tell that he was fading out and he didn’t say anything. He was just kind of blinking.”

Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security, said there had been “strong warning signs” that Hasan was an “Islamist extremist”.

The committee would ask “whether the Army missed warning signs that should have led them to essentially discharge him, he said. He added: “The US

Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone.”

But General George Casey, the Army’s Chief of Staff, said it was “speculation” that military authorities failed to pick up on warning signs. “I don’t want to say that we missed it,” he said.

Asked if military authorities had missed warning signs Gen Casey, the Army’s Chief of Staff, added: “We have to go back and look at ourselves ,and ask ourselves the hard questions. Are we doing the right things? We will learn from this.

“It’s too early to draw conclusions but we will ask ourselves the hard questions about what we are doing and the changes we should make as a result of this.”

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the man suspected of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood military base in Texas, is awake and talking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6531938/Fort-Hood-shooting-suspect-awake-and-talking.html

Hasan, who was shot four times, had been in a coma, and in a stable but critical condition, but was taken off a ventilator over the weekend.

He is now talking to doctors at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas.

FBI agents and military investigators are waiting at the hospital to interview him.

Maria Gellegos, a spokesman for the hospital, said: “He is talking. He is conversing with the medical staff.”

Dewey Mitchell, another spokesman at the hospital, said: “I am not sure how much he is talking. There is some communication going on.”

Brooke Medical Center is about 150 miles south-west of Fort Hood.

Hasan was moved there for his own safety after initially being treated at Fort Hood.

On Thursday, he allegedly opened fire at a processing centre at the base, killing 13 and wounding up to 42.

The shooting spree ended when two civilian police officers shot Hasan.

For hours after the attack, military authorities believed that Hasan was dead, but later realised he had survived.

There have been unconfirmed reports that the army psychiatrist will be left paralysed by his injuries.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/michigan.fbi.arrests/

Detroit, Michigan (CNN) — Six men appeared in federal court Thursday, a day after they were arrested in raids targeting an African-American Muslim group that the FBI said sought to establish an Islamic state in the United States.

Luqman Ameen Abdullah, the alleged leader of the African-American Muslim converts, was fatally shot during one of Wednesday’s raids in the Detroit area after he fired at law enforcement agents who were trying to arrest him and four other suspects. An FBI dog was also killed.

Authorities say Abdullah was the imam at a Detroit mosque where he preached offensive jihad, including violence against the U.S. government and law enforcement. A criminal complaint states that he repeatedly told three confidential informants he would never be taken alive, saying “If they’re coming to get me, I’ll just strap a bomb on and blow up everybody.”

Abdullah was one of 11 men charged Tuesday with conspiracy to commit federal crimes, including theft from interstate shipments, mail fraud to obtain the proceeds of arson, illegal possession and sale of firearms, and tampering with motor vehicle identification numbers, the FBI said in a news release.

Eight suspects were in custody, including one man already in prison on an unrelated charge and another man who was arrested on Wednesday and added to the charging sheet, U.S. Attorney spokeswoman Susan Plochinski said Thursday. An additional suspect was taken into custody in Canada on Thursday, an FBI statement said. Two men remain at large.

Mujahid Carswell, aka Mujahid Abdullah, was taken into custody in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, by Canadian authorities Thursday afternoon, the FBI said. According to the federal criminal complaint, Carswell, 30, is the eldest son of Abdullah, who was killed in the raid Wednesday. Canadian Border Patrol is holding him on immigration violations, the FBI said.

Of the six suspects who appeared Thursday afternoon in court, Abdullah Beard was ordered held without bail; and Muhammad Abdul Salaam’s bail decision was delayed, as was that for Gary Laverne Porter, a 38-year teacher who was arrested at an area school.

Ali Abdul Raqib was given a $10,000 unsecured bond; Abdul Saboor was given a $100,000 bond, despite a prosecution request that he be held without bond.

Another man, Acie Pusha, who was arrested Wednesday, was described by the prosecutor as “minimally involved” and given a $10,000 bond.

The FBI criminal complaint says the group held target practice in a mosque basement, blowing holes in concrete walls. It includes references to possible attacks on the government, including Detroit’s federal building and the FBI. There is also discussion about causing trouble at the 2006 Super Bowl in Detroit.

But the men were not arrested for any of that. Two law enforcement sources said the information about possible attacks was included in the charging document to add “context for the crimes they’re charged with, the purpose of the group.”

“They had to earn money for their mosque and the Ummah,” one of the sources said. “And the purpose of Ummah was to set up a separatist state.”

Ummah refers to the nationwide group to which the suspects belonged, according to the complaint. It’s a group made up of mostly African-American members, including some who converted to Islam while in prison.

Ummah is led by Jamil Abdullah al-Amin — formerly known as H. Rap Brown — a 1960s radical and former member of the Black Panthers who once said “violence was as American as cherry pie.” He is serving a life sentence in Colorado’s Supermax prison for killing two Georgia police officers.

Andrew Arena, the FBI special agent in charge of the investigation, contacted local imams and civil rights leaders in Detroit during Wednesday’s operation “to bridge any gaps that could possible come over this,” FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold said.

“He’d rather they hear it from him,” she added. “We have a good relationship with the community and we want to keep it that way.”

In the 43-page criminal complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan and unsealed Wednesday, authorities said the arrests were made based on information gleaned from confidential sources identified only as S-1, S-2 and S-3.

“S-1 heard Abdullah encourage his followers to ‘pick up guns and do something’ rather than try to achieve their goals through peaceful means,” the complaint said.

S-2 recorded a conversation on December 12, 2007, in which Abdullah said, “I got some soldiers with me, so it’s not like I, I don’t have, you know, nothing. Brothers that I know would, you know, if I say ‘Let’s go, we going to go and do something,’ they would do it,” the complaint said.

S-3 said that, on March 21, 2008, Luqman Abdullah told him “that the FBI is the enemy of Islam,” the complaint said.

The other men charged were identified as:

• Mohammad Abdul Bassir, aka Franklin D. Roosevelt Williams. He is serving a prison term at Ojibway Correctional Facility in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
• Mujahid Carswell.
• Mohammad Philistine.
• Yassir Ali Khan.
• Adam Hussain Ibraheem.

Acie Pusha was arrested on Wednesday and added to the charging sheet, Plochinski said Thursday. She would not provide details about the charges against Pusha.

The two charged but still at large are Philistine, also known as Mohammad Alsahi, a 33-year-old resident of Ontario; and Khan, 30, who is believed to be a resident of Ontario and Warren, Michigan.

All of the defendants “are members of a group that is alleged to have engaged in violent activity over a period of many years, and known to be armed,” the FBI said.

The complaint was filed by the FBI’s counter-terrorism squad in the Eastern District of Michigan.

CNN’s Susan Candiotti, Carol Cratty and Ross Levitt contributed to this story.

Louisiana’s Attorney General announces that ACORN embezzled $5 million rather than the $1 million previously reported.

Source: Times-Picayune

Louisiana’s attorney general has broadened the scope of an investigation of ACORN to include a possible embezzlement of $5 million a decade ago within the community organization, five times more than previously reported.

ACORN Chief Executive Officer Bertha Lewis said the new reported amount is “completely false.”

Attorney General Buddy Caldwell has been conducting an investigation of ACORN since June. He issued subpoenas in August seeking documents related to former ACORN International President Wade Rathke and his brother Dale Rathke, who kept the group’s books. Those subpoenas were focused on possible ACORN violations for non-payment of employee withholding taxes, obstructing justice and violating the Employee Retirement Security Act. No charges have been made.

The attorney general had inquired in June into an alleged embezzlement within ACORN that happened 10 years ago. The group last year dealt with an internal dispute and a lawsuit involving accusations that Dale Rathke made nearly $1 million in improper credit card charges in 1999 and 2000. The brother and a donor repaid the money.

Caldwell said last month that the statute of limitations presented obstacles to prosecutors taking action on the embezzlement, and that his investigation was not focused on that issue. The subpoena issued Monday changed the tone of the investigation and put a new emphasis on the embezzlement issue.

“Current high-ranking members of ACORN have publicly acknowledged that embezzlement did in fact occur, but the exact amount of the embezzlement was unknown until it was recently acknowledged in a board of directors meeting on Oct. 17, 2008, by Bertha Lewis and Liz Wolf that an internal review had determined that the amount embezzled was $5 million, ” the new subpoena says.

The subpoena says, “It is still unclear if some of the monies embezzled are from state, federal or private funds.”

The subpoena requests documents from Citizens Consulting Inc., a financial arm of ACORN, and from various accounting and legal consultants in New Orleans. Investigators are trying to verify the issues raised in the subpoena.

“We’re going to follow the evidence where it leads us and try to do the right thing,” said David Caldwell, head of the attorney general’s public corruption and special prosecutions divisions. “We are actively investigating the case, whatever the outcome might be. This is something we are devoting our full attention to.”

Wade Rathke, who was in Bangkok, Thailand, on Monday, referred questions to ACORN officials. Lewis said she would comment further after she and ACORN attorneys had a chance to review the subpoena.

ACORN board member Vanessa Gueringer, chairwoman of the Lower 9th Ward Chapter, said she had not seen the subpoena but that the accusation about the larger embezzlement was untrue.

“I believe it is another lie, another witch hunt, ” Gueringer said.

ACORN, which provides counseling on housing and other assistance to low and moderate income families, has been reeling from national negative publicity in recent weeks. Actions have been taken on the federal level and by many states, including Louisiana, to end public contracts with the group.

Details on the American Private Police Force

American Police Force (APF)

Facts:

- APF was incorporated in California in March, soon after Hardin leaders desperately announced that the empty jail could be used for Guantanamo Bay terrorism detainees.
- APF claims to be a private security company, but does not show up in existing government contract databases.
- APF claims to have “rapid response units awaiting our orders worldwide” and that it can field a battalion-sized team of special forces soldiers “within 72 hours.”
- APF says they have between 16 and 28 people in the U.S. and 1,600 contractors worldwide.
- Defense Department, State Department, and security industry representatives say they have never heard of APF.
- APF does not show up in federal government contractor databases.
- APF’s logo is a Serbian coat of arms.
- APF’s Washington DC office is a ‘virtual’ office building
- A spokeswoman for the building said American Police Force never completed its application to use the address.
- Also in the building is the  Uighur American Association
- 22 Uighurs were detained in Guantanamo, having been trained in al Qaeda terrorist camps

- APF plans to operate a training facility for military and law enforcement in addition to the jail.
- APF announced that they would begin construction of their training facility last week, and that the facility would be ready this fall.
- Two weeks after city officials claimed to have signed an operating agreement with the city, the agreement was yet to be signed.
- The training facility will cost $17 million and cover 5,000 to 10,000 acres
- Hardin officials say that Montana prevented its efforts to find prisoners, but Montana Department of Corrections is not involved.

COMMANDEERING JURISDICTION
APF officials arrived in town on three Mercedes Benz SUVs bearing Hardin Police Dept. markings.
- Hardin has not had a police force in 30 years.
- The Big Horn sheriff’s office has jurisdiction
- No contract has been signed with APF – and the contract is only supposed to cover the jail
- When asked how this happened, Two Rivers Authority (TRA) vice president Al Peterson answered: “I have no idea. I really don’t because that’s not been a part of any of the discussions we’ve had with any of them.”
- Peterson continued: “That was never in the contract to begin with. I think it was on a wish list of what Captain Michael wanted to do here.”

“CAPTAIN HILTON A/K/A”…

- “Captain Michael Hilton”, who was the apparent spokesman of APF is from Montenegro (former Yugoslavia republic)
- “Hilton” has multiple aliases such as Miodrag Dokovich, Michael Hamilton, Hristian Djokich and Michael Djokovich
- Court documents show Hilton has outstanding judgments against him in three civil cases totaling more than $1.1 million.
- No one that knows “Hilton” has heard of his military expertise, or his advisory role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

ATTORNEY
- APF’s attorney is Maziar Mafi, an Iranian-American
- Filed petition to the White House in 1999 seeking to waive fingerprinting for the Iranian soccer team upon arrival to the US
- Called APF a fledgling spin-off of a major security firm founded in 1984. But Mafi declined to name the parent firm or provide details on how the company will finance its jail operations.
- Hired only a month ago

JOBS
- APF said that 80% of the employees 200 positions would be local hires
- Did not host a job fair that they promised (rescheduled for October)
- The only local hire has been Becky Shay, a reporter from the Billings Gazette who had been covering the APF story.
- Despite a pledge for transparency, Shay avoided answering questions regarding where APF was getting their money.
- APF also offered a job to Kerri Smith (a candidate for mayor) if she loses the race.
- Kerri’s husband is Greg Smith, the executive director for TRA who helped craft the deal to bring American Police Force to Hardin.
- Kerri Smith said of the mystery and lack of answers: “Don’t panic, just go with the flow and everything will be fine.”
- Greg Smith was placed on paid leave an no one – ot even his wife – will explain why.

They are hoping to sign the contract by Friday night (2 October).

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department approved the decision to reverse course and drop the case against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters during last November’s election. Justice Dept. officials refuse to answer why the case was dismissed and have prevented members of Congress from interviewing the lawyers who brought the charges.

Source: Washington Times

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election, according to interviews.

The department’s career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of its members after the government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the men.

Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.

The delay was ordered by then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli concerns about the case during one of their regular review meetings, according to the interviews.

Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.

She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.

Questions about how high inside the department the decision to drop the case went have persisted in Congress and in the media for weeks.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The Washington Times that the department has an “ongoing obligation to be sure the claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law. She said that after a “thorough review of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined the “facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants.

“As a result, the department dismissed those claims, she said. “We are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote.

While the Obama administration has vowed a new era of openness, department officials have refused to answer questions from Republican members of Congress on why the case was dismissed, claiming the information was “privileged, according to congressional correspondence with the department.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee who has raised questions about the case, said he also was prevented from interviewing the front-line lawyers who brought the charges.

“Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case? Mr. Wolf asked. “There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven.”

Ms. Schmaler said the department has tried to cooperate with Congress. “The Department responded to an earlier letter from Congressman Wolf in an effort to address his questions. Following that letter, the Department agreed to a meeting with Congressman Wolf and career attorneys, in which they made a good-faith effort to respond to his inquiries about this case. We will continue to try to clear up any confusion Congressman Wolf has about this case.

Ms. King and a deputy are expected to travel to Capitol Hill on Thursday to meet behind closed doors with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the panel, to discuss continuing concerns about the case.

The department also has yet to provide any records sought by The Times under a Freedom of Information Act request filed in May seeking documents detailing the decision process. Department officials also declined to answer whether any outside groups had raised concerns about the case or pressured the department to drop it.

Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department and shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She said, however, her organization was “not involved in the decision to dismiss the civil complaint.

She said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has consistently argued that the department should bring more voter intimidation cases, adding that it was “disconcerting that it did not do so.

Mr. Perrelli, a prominent private practice attorney, served previously as a counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration and was an Obama supporter who raised more than $500,000 for the Democrat candidate in the 2008 elections. He authorized a delay to give department officials more time to decide what to do, said officials familiar with the case but not authorized to discuss it publicly. He eventually approved the decision to drop charges against three of the four defendants, they said.

At issue was what, if any, punishment to seek against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) and three of its members accused in a Jan. 7 civil complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black dress shirts and black jackets with military-style markings, were charged in a civil complaint with intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place, including brandishing a 2-foot-long nightstick and issuing racial threats and racial insults. Authorities said a third NBPP member “managed, directed and endorsed the behavior.

None of the NBPP members responded to the charges or made any appearance in court.

“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process, said Grace Chung Becker, a Bush administration political appointee who was the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights at the time the case was filed. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.

Mrs. Becker, now on a leave of absence from government work, said she personally reviewed the NBPP complaint and approved its filing in federal court. She said the complaint had been the subject of numerous reviews and discussions with the career lawyers, and she agreed with their assessment to file the case.

Mrs. Becker said Ms. King was overseeing other cases at the time and was not involved in the decision to file the original complaint.

A Justice Department memo shows that career lawyers in the case decided as early as Dec. 22 to seek a complaint against the NBPP; its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident; Minister King Samir Shabazz, a resident of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter who was accused of wielding the nightstick; and Jerry Jackson, a resident of Philadelphia and a NBPP member.

“We believe the deployment of uniformed members of a well-known group with an extremely hostile racial agenda, combined with the brandishing of a weapon at the entrance to a polling place, constitutes a violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits types of intimidation, threats and coercion, the memo said.

The memo, sent to Mrs. Becker, was signed by Christopher Coates, chief of the Voting Section; Robert Popper, deputy chief of the section; J. Christian Adams, trial attorney and lead lawyer in the case; and Spencer R. Fisher, law clerk. None of the four has made themselves available for comment.

Members of Congress continue to ask questions about the case.

“If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable? Mr. Wolf asked.

Mr. Smith also complained that a July 13 response by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to concerns the congressman had about the Philadelphia incident did not alleviate his concerns.

“The administration still has failed to explain why it did not pursue an obvious case of voter intimidation. Refusal to address these concerns only confirms politicization of the issue and does not reflect well on the Justice Department, Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Smith asked the department’s Office on Inspector General to investigate the matter, and the request was referred to the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

Lawmakers aren’t alone in the concerns.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a June 16 letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it “great confusion, since the NBPP members were “caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.

“Though it had basically won the case, the [Civil Rights Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges , the letter said. “The division’s public rationale would send the wrong message entirely — that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them.

The dispute over the case and the reversal of career line attorneys highlights sensitivities that have remained inside the department since Bush administration political appointees ignored or reversed their career counterparts on some issues and some U.S. attorneys were fired for what Congress concluded were political reasons.

Mr. Weich, in his letter to the congressman, sought to dispel any notion that politics was involved. He argued that the department dropped charges against three of the four defendants “because the facts and the law did not support pursuing them. He said the decision was made after a “careful and through review of the matter by Ms. King. He said:

• While the NBPP made statements and posted notice that more than 300 of its members would be deployed at polling places throughout the United States during the Nov. 4 elections, the statement and posting did not say any of them would display a weapon or otherwise break the law.

• While the complaint charged that the NBPP and Mr. Zulu Shabazz endorsed the activities at the polling places, the evidence was “equivocal since both later disavowed what happened in Philadelphia and suspended that city’s chapter after the incident.

• The charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped because police who responded to the polling place ordered Mr. Samir Shabazz to leave but allowed Mr. Jackson to stay. He also noted that the department approved “appropriately tailored injunctive relief against Mr. Samir Shabazz for his use of the nightstick.

The injunction prohibits Mr. Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place through Nov. 15, 2012, and Ms. Schmaler said the department “will fully enforce the terms of that injunction.

On its Web page, the NBPP said the Philadelphia chapter was suspended from operations and would not be recognized until further notice. It said the organization did not condone or promote the carrying of nightsticks or any kind of weapon at any polling place.

“We are intelligent enough to understand that a polling place is a sensitive site and all actions must be carried out in a civilized and lawful manner, it said.

Witnesses who supported the Justice Department case said they were surprised by the reversal.

Stephen R. Morse, a blogger hired by Republicans to be at the polls and who videotaped the confrontation, said the NBPP members blatantly used racial insults on would-be voters and other poll watchers, telling one man, “Cracker, you about to be ruled by a black man.

Mr. Morse, a University of Pennsylvania student, said he was “outraged that the complaint was dismissed, saying he hoped Democrats would join Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf in attempting to ensure that the incident “doesn’t become a partisan issue, but rather an issue of right vs. wrong.

Chris Hill, national director of operations for a Gathering of Eagles, an organization dedicated to the support of U.S. troops, said the NBPP members visibly intimidated voters with racial slurs as they tried to enter the building.

Mr. Hill, a U.S. Army veteran who also served as a Philadelphia poll watcher for Republicans, said several voters at the location said they were afraid. He said the NBPP members tried to deny him access to the poll although he was a certified poll watcher, telling him, “White power don’t rule here.

A Justice Department memo also says that a black couple, Larry and Angela Counts, both Republican poll watchers, told authorities they were scared, worried about their safety and concerned about leaving the polling place at the end of the day because of the actions of the NBPP members. Mrs. Counts said she wondered whether someone might “bomb the place and Mr. Counts said the NBPP members called him a “race traitor, the memo said.

U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia entered default judgments against the NBPP members April 2 after ordering them to plead or otherwise defend themselves. They refused to appear in court or file motions in answer to the government’s complaint. Two weeks later, the judge ordered the Justice Department to file its motions for default judgments by May 1 a ruling that showed the government had won its case. The men also have not returned calls from The Times seeking comment.

On May 1, Justice sought an extension of time and during the tumultuous two weeks that followed the career front-line lawyers tried to persuade their bosses to proceed with the case.

The matter was even referred to the Appellate Division for a second opinion, an unusual event for a case that hadn’t even reached the appeals process.

Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment unless the department had evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by the government.

She said the complaint was aimed at preventing the “paramilitary style intimidation of voters at polling places elsewhere and Justice could make a “reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants and probably should. She noted that the complaint’s purpose was to “prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters while leaving open “ample opportunity for political expression.

An accompanying memo by Appellate Section lawyer Marie K. McElderry said the charges not only included bringing the weapon to the polling place, but creating an intimidating atmosphere by the uniforms, the military-type stance and the threatening language used. She said the complaint appeared to be “sufficient to support the injunctions sought by the career lawyers.

“The government’s predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote, she said.

The front-line lawyers, however, lost the argument and were ordered to drop the case.

Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist who also was a poll watcher in Philadelphia, said after the complaint was dropped, he called Mr. Adams to find out why. He said he was told the decision “came as a surprise to all of us and that the career lawyers working on the case feared that the failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act “would embolden other abuses in the future.

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department approved the decision to reverse course and drop the case against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters during last November’s election. Justice Dept. officials refuse to answer why the case was dismissed and have prevented members of Congress from interviewing the lawyers who brought the charges.

Source: Washington Times

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election, according to interviews.

The department’s career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of its members after the government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the men.

Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.

The delay was ordered by then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli concerns about the case during one of their regular review meetings, according to the interviews.

Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.

She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.

Questions about how high inside the department the decision to drop the case went have persisted in Congress and in the media for weeks.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The Washington Times that the department has an “ongoing obligation to be sure the claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law. She said that after a “thorough review of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined the “facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants.

“As a result, the department dismissed those claims, she said. “We are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote.

While the Obama administration has vowed a new era of openness, department officials have refused to answer questions from Republican members of Congress on why the case was dismissed, claiming the information was “privileged, according to congressional correspondence with the department.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee who has raised questions about the case, said he also was prevented from interviewing the front-line lawyers who brought the charges.

“Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case? Mr. Wolf asked. “There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven.”

Ms. Schmaler said the department has tried to cooperate with Congress. “The Department responded to an earlier letter from Congressman Wolf in an effort to address his questions. Following that letter, the Department agreed to a meeting with Congressman Wolf and career attorneys, in which they made a good-faith effort to respond to his inquiries about this case. We will continue to try to clear up any confusion Congressman Wolf has about this case.

Ms. King and a deputy are expected to travel to Capitol Hill on Thursday to meet behind closed doors with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the panel, to discuss continuing concerns about the case.

The department also has yet to provide any records sought by The Times under a Freedom of Information Act request filed in May seeking documents detailing the decision process. Department officials also declined to answer whether any outside groups had raised concerns about the case or pressured the department to drop it.

Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department and shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She said, however, her organization was “not involved in the decision to dismiss the civil complaint.

She said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has consistently argued that the department should bring more voter intimidation cases, adding that it was “disconcerting that it did not do so.

Mr. Perrelli, a prominent private practice attorney, served previously as a counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration and was an Obama supporter who raised more than $500,000 for the Democrat candidate in the 2008 elections. He authorized a delay to give department officials more time to decide what to do, said officials familiar with the case but not authorized to discuss it publicly. He eventually approved the decision to drop charges against three of the four defendants, they said.

At issue was what, if any, punishment to seek against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) and three of its members accused in a Jan. 7 civil complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black dress shirts and black jackets with military-style markings, were charged in a civil complaint with intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place, including brandishing a 2-foot-long nightstick and issuing racial threats and racial insults. Authorities said a third NBPP member “managed, directed and endorsed the behavior.

None of the NBPP members responded to the charges or made any appearance in court.

“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process, said Grace Chung Becker, a Bush administration political appointee who was the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights at the time the case was filed. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.

Mrs. Becker, now on a leave of absence from government work, said she personally reviewed the NBPP complaint and approved its filing in federal court. She said the complaint had been the subject of numerous reviews and discussions with the career lawyers, and she agreed with their assessment to file the case.

Mrs. Becker said Ms. King was overseeing other cases at the time and was not involved in the decision to file the original complaint.

A Justice Department memo shows that career lawyers in the case decided as early as Dec. 22 to seek a complaint against the NBPP; its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident; Minister King Samir Shabazz, a resident of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter who was accused of wielding the nightstick; and Jerry Jackson, a resident of Philadelphia and a NBPP member.

“We believe the deployment of uniformed members of a well-known group with an extremely hostile racial agenda, combined with the brandishing of a weapon at the entrance to a polling place, constitutes a violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits types of intimidation, threats and coercion, the memo said.

The memo, sent to Mrs. Becker, was signed by Christopher Coates, chief of the Voting Section; Robert Popper, deputy chief of the section; J. Christian Adams, trial attorney and lead lawyer in the case; and Spencer R. Fisher, law clerk. None of the four has made themselves available for comment.

Members of Congress continue to ask questions about the case.

“If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable? Mr. Wolf asked.

Mr. Smith also complained that a July 13 response by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to concerns the congressman had about the Philadelphia incident did not alleviate his concerns.

“The administration still has failed to explain why it did not pursue an obvious case of voter intimidation. Refusal to address these concerns only confirms politicization of the issue and does not reflect well on the Justice Department, Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Smith asked the department’s Office on Inspector General to investigate the matter, and the request was referred to the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

Lawmakers aren’t alone in the concerns.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a June 16 letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it “great confusion, since the NBPP members were “caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.

“Though it had basically won the case, the [Civil Rights Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges , the letter said. “The division’s public rationale would send the wrong message entirely — that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them.

The dispute over the case and the reversal of career line attorneys highlights sensitivities that have remained inside the department since Bush administration political appointees ignored or reversed their career counterparts on some issues and some U.S. attorneys were fired for what Congress concluded were political reasons.

Mr. Weich, in his letter to the congressman, sought to dispel any notion that politics was involved. He argued that the department dropped charges against three of the four defendants “because the facts and the law did not support pursuing them. He said the decision was made after a “careful and through review of the matter by Ms. King. He said:

• While the NBPP made statements and posted notice that more than 300 of its members would be deployed at polling places throughout the United States during the Nov. 4 elections, the statement and posting did not say any of them would display a weapon or otherwise break the law.

• While the complaint charged that the NBPP and Mr. Zulu Shabazz endorsed the activities at the polling places, the evidence was “equivocal since both later disavowed what happened in Philadelphia and suspended that city’s chapter after the incident.

• The charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped because police who responded to the polling place ordered Mr. Samir Shabazz to leave but allowed Mr. Jackson to stay. He also noted that the department approved “appropriately tailored injunctive relief against Mr. Samir Shabazz for his use of the nightstick.

The injunction prohibits Mr. Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place through Nov. 15, 2012, and Ms. Schmaler said the department “will fully enforce the terms of that injunction.

On its Web page, the NBPP said the Philadelphia chapter was suspended from operations and would not be recognized until further notice. It said the organization did not condone or promote the carrying of nightsticks or any kind of weapon at any polling place.

“We are intelligent enough to understand that a polling place is a sensitive site and all actions must be carried out in a civilized and lawful manner, it said.

Witnesses who supported the Justice Department case said they were surprised by the reversal.

Stephen R. Morse, a blogger hired by Republicans to be at the polls and who videotaped the confrontation, said the NBPP members blatantly used racial insults on would-be voters and other poll watchers, telling one man, “Cracker, you about to be ruled by a black man.

Mr. Morse, a University of Pennsylvania student, said he was “outraged that the complaint was dismissed, saying he hoped Democrats would join Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf in attempting to ensure that the incident “doesn’t become a partisan issue, but rather an issue of right vs. wrong.

Chris Hill, national director of operations for a Gathering of Eagles, an organization dedicated to the support of U.S. troops, said the NBPP members visibly intimidated voters with racial slurs as they tried to enter the building.

Mr. Hill, a U.S. Army veteran who also served as a Philadelphia poll watcher for Republicans, said several voters at the location said they were afraid. He said the NBPP members tried to deny him access to the poll although he was a certified poll watcher, telling him, “White power don’t rule here.

A Justice Department memo also says that a black couple, Larry and Angela Counts, both Republican poll watchers, told authorities they were scared, worried about their safety and concerned about leaving the polling place at the end of the day because of the actions of the NBPP members. Mrs. Counts said she wondered whether someone might “bomb the place and Mr. Counts said the NBPP members called him a “race traitor, the memo said.

U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia entered default judgments against the NBPP members April 2 after ordering them to plead or otherwise defend themselves. They refused to appear in court or file motions in answer to the government’s complaint. Two weeks later, the judge ordered the Justice Department to file its motions for default judgments by May 1 a ruling that showed the government had won its case. The men also have not returned calls from The Times seeking comment.

On May 1, Justice sought an extension of time and during the tumultuous two weeks that followed the career front-line lawyers tried to persuade their bosses to proceed with the case.

The matter was even referred to the Appellate Division for a second opinion, an unusual event for a case that hadn’t even reached the appeals process.

Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment unless the department had evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by the government.

She said the complaint was aimed at preventing the “paramilitary style intimidation of voters at polling places elsewhere and Justice could make a “reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants and probably should. She noted that the complaint’s purpose was to “prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters while leaving open “ample opportunity for political expression.

An accompanying memo by Appellate Section lawyer Marie K. McElderry said the charges not only included bringing the weapon to the polling place, but creating an intimidating atmosphere by the uniforms, the military-type stance and the threatening language used. She said the complaint appeared to be “sufficient to support the injunctions sought by the career lawyers.

“The government’s predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote, she said.

The front-line lawyers, however, lost the argument and were ordered to drop the case.

Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist who also was a poll watcher in Philadelphia, said after the complaint was dropped, he called Mr. Adams to find out why. He said he was told the decision “came as a surprise to all of us and that the career lawyers working on the case feared that the failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act “would embolden other abuses in the future.

After calling for hearings into ACORN, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers backs off  after saying it was cancelled by the “powers that be.”

Source: Washington Times via Newsmax

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying “powers that be” put the kibosh on the idea.

Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style “protection” racket.

“The powers that be decided against it,” Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.

The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass.

Conyers spokesman Jonathan Godfrey said late Thursday, several hours after the first request for comment, that the chairman had been referring to himself as “the powers that be.”

Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, whose testimony about ACORN at a March 19 hearing on voting issues prompted Mr. Conyers to call for a probe, said she was perplexed by Mr. Conyers’ explanation for his change of heart.

“If the chair of the Judiciary Committee cannot hold a hearing if he wants to, [then] who are the powers that he is beholden to?” she said. “Is it the leadership, is it the White House, is it contributors? Who is ‘the power’?”

The comment spurred similar questions by House Republicans, who asked whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was involved in blocking the probe.

“Chairman Conyers has a responsibility to explain who is blocking this investigation, and why. Is it Speaker Pelosi? Others in the Democratic leadership? Who in Congress is covering up ACORN’s corruption?” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, ranking Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, said the chairman should be calling the shots.

Mr. Conyers, who heard the allegations against ACORN, was sufficiently impressed to realize a future hearing was needed to thoroughly investigate the matter,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that people who didn’t hear the testimony are making the decisions. The Democratic leadership should step up to disclose who instructed Mr. Conyers to drop his plan.”

The office of Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers’ comments.

Capitol Hill had bristled at the prospect of hearings because it threatened to rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between President Obama’s campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote.

The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into suspected voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada.

ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.

The group’s leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe.

The group did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.

Ms. Heidelbaugh, who spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year to stop ACORN’s Pennsylvania voter-registration drive, testified in March that the nonprofit group was violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat’s maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.

ACORN also provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the “muscle for the money” program, said Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

Mr. Conyers, a fierce partisan known for his drive to continue investigating President George W. Bush’s administration, had been an unlikely champion for opponents of ACORN.

Before calling for the probe, he frequently defended ACORN. In October, he condemned an FBI voter-fraud investigation targeting the group, questioning whether it was politically motivated to hamper a voter-registration likely to turn out supporters for Mr. Obama’s candidacy.

But in March, Mr. Conyers dismissed the argument made by fellow Democrats that accusations of voter fraud and other crimes should be explored by prosecutors and decided in court, not by lawmakers in Congress.

“That’s our jurisdiction, the Department of Justice,” Mr. Conyers said in March. “That’s what we handle voter fraud. Unless that’s been taken out of my jurisdiction and I didn’t know it.”