Federal Court: Political appointees to DOJ interfered in New Black Panthers case

I’m sure the mainstream media will be all over this in 3, 2, …

Increasing attention is being paid to irregularities at the polls, and the legitimacy of efforts to minimize them.  A federal judge just issued a ruling that will become part of this debate.  As reported by Conn Carroll of the Washington ExaminerU.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton “held today that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.”

[…]

Watchdog group Judicial Watch followed the normal course of action for asking tough questions of Obama’s wonderfully “transparent” administration, suing the Justice Department to enforce a Freedom of Information Act request for documents concerning the New Black Panthers case.  Judicial Watch won, and then sued for attorney’s fees.  The Justice Department defended itself by insisting the documents procured by Judicial Watch didn’t prove there was any political interference in the NBPP case, so they shouldn’t be liable for the plaintiff’s legal fees.

Judge Walton’s ruling disagreed with the DOJ defense, saying, “The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”

Worse still, did a DOJ official lie under oath?  Hans von Spakovsky digs deeper (via Clayton Cramer):

In a little noted decision on July 23, a federal district court judge concluded that internal DOJ documents about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case “contradict Assistant Attorney General [Thomas] Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in” the decision to dismiss the case.

In other words, the sworn testimony of Perez, the Obama political appointee who heads the Civil Rights Division, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was apparently false.

[…]

But what is most disturbing about this court order is that it strongly suggests that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez essentially lied in sworn testimony. At a hearing before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14, 2010, Perez was asked by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow whether “any political leadership [was] involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case?” Perez’s answer, on page 79 of the transcript of that hearing is an uncategorical “No.” When the statements of Perez are compared to the documents that Judicial Watch forced DOJ to release in the FOIA lawsuit, Judge Walton was polite when he said they are contradictory and “cast doubt on the accuracy” of Perez’s account.

A less diplomatic judge might have said that Perez testified falsely in his hearing testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights. In other words, he may have committed perjury if he knew his statements were false when uttered.

The Commission on Civil Rights repeatedly asked Attorney General Holder to appoint a special counsel to investigate the handling of the NPBB case by the Department and the refusal of Perez to comply with lawful documents requests and subpoenas served on DOJ by the Commission. When will the Attorney General do so, and when will he ask for an investigation of this possible perjury by Perez?

Where is the investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) of whether Perez violated his ethical and professional obligations as a DOJ attorney? Will the DOJ Inspector General open an investigation of the possible violation by Perez of 18 U.S.C. §1621, which outlaws presenting false statements under oath in official federal proceedings? Or will they all respectively yawn and ignore this?

Imagine if a conservative political appointee at DOJ had just been cited in a federal court decision as having apparently testified falsely under oath. Not only would it be a top headline at The New York Times and The Washington Post, but the IG and OPR would be rushing to investigate. All of which is a sad commentary on the liberal bias not just of the media, but of too many of the offices and officials within the Justice Department who are supposed to administer justice in an objective, non-political and impartial manner.

Move along here, nothing to see …..

Shorter Nancy Pelosi: “Republican Jews are just in it for the money.”

**Posted by Phineas

But you Jews are very smart!

Wow. In an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), dismissed growing concerns among Jews about President Obama’s lack of support for Israel and a growing number supporting Mitt Romney with the following statement of tolerance:

Pelosi made the comments in response to whether Jewish voters would support President Barack Obama in the presidential election later this year.

“I think [Obama] will” win the Jewish vote, Pelosi said, when pressed on the subject. “I think that he will, because the fact is when the facts get out. You know, as many of the Republicans are using Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.”

The interviewer then added, “That’s why some of the Republican Jewish supporters are really active.”

Pelosi responded, “Well, that’s how they’re being exploited. And they’re smart people.

In other words, Jews supporting the Republicans this year don’t really give a tinker’s cuss about Israel, they’re just being… greedy. She might as well have added:

“And they’re sharp dressers and good dancers, but I wouldn’t want my sister marrying one.”

Nah. No stereotyping here. Not from a progressive. They’re just too open-minded for that.

The unnamed editor at Twitchy.com is spot-on. This is just one example of the Left’s corporatist, racialist obsession with identity politics:

Ms. Pelosi, like her fellow travelers, believes that everyone should be packaged up into little identity group boxes. And then blindly follow along with whatever their Democrat masters tell them to do, and think. They know best, you see. All “you people” should just think alike! It’s the same thing Senator Boxer (D-Calif.) did when she was flabbergasted that a black man disagreed with the NAACP. And when Harry Reid (D-Utah) sneered, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.

They are the racists, the sexists and the bigots, because they believe that some people aren’t individuals and cannot think for themselves. In Nancy Pelosi’s case, she also adds vile anti-Semitism to the mix. All “those people” care about is money.

Standard question: Can you imagine the reaction if a Republican had said what Nancy said?

UPDATE: Twitchy.com later corrected their post to show that Harry Reid is from Nevada, not Utah. (Thanks to Yvonne in the comments for pointing that out, so I could pass it to Twitchy.)

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Obama hates missile defense, except when he’s trying to buy votes

**Posted by Phineas

Mitt Romney is on an overseas trip to Great Britain, Israel, and Poland. Worried about the Jewish vote at home because of his noted lack of support for Israel and wanting to steal a bit of the limelight from Romney, President Obama signed a bill giving Israel $70,000,000 for their (very promising) Iron Dome short-range missile defense system. What’s notable about that, you ask?

It’s all about the pandering, baby.

via Moe Lane

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

“President Gutsy Call” turns out to be President “Valerie, May I?”

**Posted by Phineas

Wuss-in-Chief

Even Jimmy Carter wasn’t this much of a wimp:

At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to an explosive new book scheduled for release August 21. The Daily Caller has seen a portion of the chapter in which the stunning revelation appears.

In ”Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,“ Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

Okay, while the usual caveats about unnamed sources apply, this just nauseates me. The man simply does not get his role. Message to “President” Obama: you are the Commander in Chief. You are in charge of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Osama bin Laden massacred nearly 3,000 of our people in an act of jihad — war. When you have him in the crosshairs, you whack him; you do not go running to your political nursemaid to see if it’s a good idea.

And who the Hell is Valerie Jarrett, a corrupt slum lord, that she should have what appears to be a deciding voice on military operations?

Next time, President Obama Short Pants, just let Jarrett handle the press conferences. She’s clearly the one in charge.

Bah.

PS: And yet CBS and Newsweek can call Mitt Romney a wimp? Yeah, that’ll hold up.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)