- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,024
- 2,190
"Citing a series of emails between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
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 DOJs dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perezs testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision."
"J. Christian Adams worked in the DoJs Civil Rights Division at that time, and has been arguing all along that the NBPP dismissal was a political decision from the Obama administration, not a legal decision by career attorneys. The Obama administration has repeatedly denied this, going so far as to offer testimony, in the judges words, that political appointees werent involved in that decision. The judges use of the word testimony strongly suggests that the information was given under oath by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the head of the CRD. If that testimony came under oath and e-mails prove it false, Perez may have to answer for perjury. Even if it didnt come under oath but as a representation made to the court, Perez or whoever made that representation on his behalf could face charges of obstruction of justice.
Judge Walton has some significant experience in this regard. Readers may or may not recall that Walton presided over the trial of Scooter Libby who got convicted of obstruction of justice for offering false information to federal investigators. He also presided over the Roger Clemens trials for perjury and obstruction of justice, the first of which ended in a mistrial and the second in acquittal. The connection to the Libby case is rather interesting, and if this case gets that far, Perez and his associates might have some uncomfortable days ahead."
Ruh roh.
Did the DoJ lie about political interference in the New Black Panther Party dismissal? « Hot Air
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 DOJs dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perezs testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision."
"J. Christian Adams worked in the DoJs Civil Rights Division at that time, and has been arguing all along that the NBPP dismissal was a political decision from the Obama administration, not a legal decision by career attorneys. The Obama administration has repeatedly denied this, going so far as to offer testimony, in the judges words, that political appointees werent involved in that decision. The judges use of the word testimony strongly suggests that the information was given under oath by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the head of the CRD. If that testimony came under oath and e-mails prove it false, Perez may have to answer for perjury. Even if it didnt come under oath but as a representation made to the court, Perez or whoever made that representation on his behalf could face charges of obstruction of justice.
Judge Walton has some significant experience in this regard. Readers may or may not recall that Walton presided over the trial of Scooter Libby who got convicted of obstruction of justice for offering false information to federal investigators. He also presided over the Roger Clemens trials for perjury and obstruction of justice, the first of which ended in a mistrial and the second in acquittal. The connection to the Libby case is rather interesting, and if this case gets that far, Perez and his associates might have some uncomfortable days ahead."
Ruh roh.
Did the DoJ lie about political interference in the New Black Panther Party dismissal? « Hot Air
