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.Β A federal judge just issued a ruling that will become part of this debate.Β As reported by Conn Carroll of theΒ Washington Examiner,Β U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton βheld today that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justiceβs prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.β
[…]
Watchdog group Judicial Watch followed the normal course of action for asking tough questions of Obamaβs wonderfully βtransparentβ administration, suing the Justice Department to enforce a Freedom of Information Act request for documents concerning the New Black Panthers case.Β Judicial Watch won, and then sued for attorneyβs fees.Β The Justice Department defended itself by insisting the documents procured by Judicial Watch didnβt prove there was any political interference in the NBPP case, so they shouldnβt be liable for the plaintiffβs legal fees.
Judge Waltonβs ruling disagreed with the DOJ defense, saying, βThe 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 DOJβs dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perezβs testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.β
Worse still, did a DOJ official lie under oath? Β Hans von SpakovskyΒ digs deeper (via Clayton Cramer):
In a littleΒ noted decisionΒ on July 23, a federal district court judge concluded that internal DOJ documents about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case βcontradict Assistant Attorney General [Thomas] Perezβs testimony that political leadership was not involved inβ 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 βany political leadership [was] involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case?β Perezβs answer, on page 79 of the transcript of that hearing is an uncategorical βNo.β 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 βcast doubt on the accuracyβ of Perezβs 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 Departmentβs 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. Β§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 atΒ TheΒ New York TimesΒ andΒ 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 …..