Wehrwolfen
Senior Member
- May 22, 2012
- 2,750
- 340
- 48
By Quin Hillyer
3.19.13
Thomas Perez is a multiple prevaricator.
When the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (henceforth DoJ) last week issued a report blistering DoJs Civil Rights Division, much attention focused on the IGs recognition that division chief Perez, under oath, had not reflect[ed] the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees in the now-infamous 2009 decision to dismiss voter-intimidation cases against several New Black Panthers in Philadelphia.
While this aspect of Perezs dishonesty deserves all the attention it can garner (also deserving attention is the extreme dubiousness of the IGs assertion that Perezs lies about political-appointee interference were not intentional), it is far from the only example, from that very same testimony, of Perez pushing stories that were flagrantly false.
Perez came awfully close to perjury, and some might argue that he committed it, when discussing the far more important, broader issue that was the main focus of the IG report. (It boggles belief, by the way, that the IG never even discussed this untruth, considering that it so directly involved the larger substance of his report.) That broader issue was the question, fairly definitively answered in the affirmative by the IG, of whether the Civil Rights Division is a hotbed of hostility against the very idea of race-neutral enforcement of civil rights and voting rights laws.
When testifying under oath on May 14, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Perez in effect denied that any such hostility existed. We dont have people of that ilk in the Division, he said. The question, he said, is moot. Again and again, under questioning by Commissioner Todd Gaziano, Perez said that if such an attitude existed, he would put a stop to it, and he indicated that such a practice was completely alien to his experience with and knowledge of his divisions practices.
This was no small matter. It encompassed almost the entirety of Gazianos initial questioning of Perez, taking up a significant portion of the hearing.
Yet on the very day before acting dumbfounded by the accusation of race-based enforcement of the laws, Perez had hosted a lengthy meeting during which this very subject was broached in great detail. As whistleblower J. Christian Adams recounted in his meticulously reported book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, At the meeting, [fellow whistleblower Christopher] Coates explained via speakerphone from South Carolina the long and detailed history of hostility toward race-neutral law enforcement inside the Civil Rights Division. Included in this history were the accounts, later confirmed to the IG by more than a dozen people inside DoJ, about how Obama political appointee Julie Fernandes had twice made statements in open meetings to the effect that certain parts of laws were not to be enforced at all, and others were not to be enforced against black perpetrators.
Essentially, wrote Adams, Perez was arguing that he had never heard anyone at the Civil Rights Division ever mention hostility toward race-neutral law enforcement, something Coates had warned him about just before his testimony. And, as we now know from the IG report (and from similar reporting even by the Washington Post), that attitude was so pervasive within the division that no sentient being could possibly escape it.
Moreover, that very subject had already been the focus of reporting stemming from the New Black Panther case since the previous summer, and had been repeatedly and extensively discussed in media accounts leading up to Perezs testimony. It was at the very heart of the Commissions entire investigation into the New Black Panther case and surrounding controversies. Perez knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these accusations of race-based enforcement and certainly of attitudinal hostility against race-neutral enforcement were rampant. He indicated in his testimony that he would not put up with any such nonsense. Yet, as is clear from the IG report, these exact attitudes were widespread within his division, which he had now led for some five solid months.
In short, he deliberately misled Commissioner Gaziano when he played dumb about the existence of this problem within his department if, that is, he was even being honest when he said such an attitude would be a problem in the first place. After all, with regard at least to Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act which specifically involves voting rights Perez himself told the IG that he thought Section 5 was not intended to protect white people. This is from the report:
Perez also told the OIG that he believed interpreting the retrogressive-effect prong of the analysis to cover White citizens would be inconsistent with the history of and intent behind Section 5, which he stated was enacted to remedy the specific problem of discrimination against racial minorities. In his February 2011 letter, Perez noted that the Division has always understood the term minority to mean not numerical minority, but rather an identifiable and specially disadvantaged group.
Compare that statement with Perezs statement under oath to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Gaziano asked this direct question: Do you agree that the voting rights laws should always be enforced in a race-neutral manner? Perezs clear, unambiguous answer: Yes, sir.
So, which is it? That yes, sir directly contradicts what he told the IG. Was that definitive statement under oath a lie or was he instead lying to the IG? Logic says it must be one or the other.
Likewise, when asked this Wouldnt you want to clarify to all of the people who may have heard it that that is not the policy of the Department and that you would not tolerate that kind of a policy? Perez again answered: Yes, sir. Yet there is no indication in the IG report that Perez, either before or after this hearing, made any concerted effort (other than a random statement or two) to ensure that these sorts of race-based enforcement choices were no longer made.
[snip]
Read more:
The American Spectator : The Labor Nominee?s Other Lies
3.19.13
The astonishing mendaciousness of Thomas Perez.
Thomas Perez is a multiple prevaricator.
When the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (henceforth DoJ) last week issued a report blistering DoJs Civil Rights Division, much attention focused on the IGs recognition that division chief Perez, under oath, had not reflect[ed] the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees in the now-infamous 2009 decision to dismiss voter-intimidation cases against several New Black Panthers in Philadelphia.
While this aspect of Perezs dishonesty deserves all the attention it can garner (also deserving attention is the extreme dubiousness of the IGs assertion that Perezs lies about political-appointee interference were not intentional), it is far from the only example, from that very same testimony, of Perez pushing stories that were flagrantly false.
Perez came awfully close to perjury, and some might argue that he committed it, when discussing the far more important, broader issue that was the main focus of the IG report. (It boggles belief, by the way, that the IG never even discussed this untruth, considering that it so directly involved the larger substance of his report.) That broader issue was the question, fairly definitively answered in the affirmative by the IG, of whether the Civil Rights Division is a hotbed of hostility against the very idea of race-neutral enforcement of civil rights and voting rights laws.
When testifying under oath on May 14, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Perez in effect denied that any such hostility existed. We dont have people of that ilk in the Division, he said. The question, he said, is moot. Again and again, under questioning by Commissioner Todd Gaziano, Perez said that if such an attitude existed, he would put a stop to it, and he indicated that such a practice was completely alien to his experience with and knowledge of his divisions practices.
This was no small matter. It encompassed almost the entirety of Gazianos initial questioning of Perez, taking up a significant portion of the hearing.
Yet on the very day before acting dumbfounded by the accusation of race-based enforcement of the laws, Perez had hosted a lengthy meeting during which this very subject was broached in great detail. As whistleblower J. Christian Adams recounted in his meticulously reported book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, At the meeting, [fellow whistleblower Christopher] Coates explained via speakerphone from South Carolina the long and detailed history of hostility toward race-neutral law enforcement inside the Civil Rights Division. Included in this history were the accounts, later confirmed to the IG by more than a dozen people inside DoJ, about how Obama political appointee Julie Fernandes had twice made statements in open meetings to the effect that certain parts of laws were not to be enforced at all, and others were not to be enforced against black perpetrators.
Essentially, wrote Adams, Perez was arguing that he had never heard anyone at the Civil Rights Division ever mention hostility toward race-neutral law enforcement, something Coates had warned him about just before his testimony. And, as we now know from the IG report (and from similar reporting even by the Washington Post), that attitude was so pervasive within the division that no sentient being could possibly escape it.
Moreover, that very subject had already been the focus of reporting stemming from the New Black Panther case since the previous summer, and had been repeatedly and extensively discussed in media accounts leading up to Perezs testimony. It was at the very heart of the Commissions entire investigation into the New Black Panther case and surrounding controversies. Perez knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these accusations of race-based enforcement and certainly of attitudinal hostility against race-neutral enforcement were rampant. He indicated in his testimony that he would not put up with any such nonsense. Yet, as is clear from the IG report, these exact attitudes were widespread within his division, which he had now led for some five solid months.
In short, he deliberately misled Commissioner Gaziano when he played dumb about the existence of this problem within his department if, that is, he was even being honest when he said such an attitude would be a problem in the first place. After all, with regard at least to Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act which specifically involves voting rights Perez himself told the IG that he thought Section 5 was not intended to protect white people. This is from the report:
Perez also told the OIG that he believed interpreting the retrogressive-effect prong of the analysis to cover White citizens would be inconsistent with the history of and intent behind Section 5, which he stated was enacted to remedy the specific problem of discrimination against racial minorities. In his February 2011 letter, Perez noted that the Division has always understood the term minority to mean not numerical minority, but rather an identifiable and specially disadvantaged group.
Compare that statement with Perezs statement under oath to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Gaziano asked this direct question: Do you agree that the voting rights laws should always be enforced in a race-neutral manner? Perezs clear, unambiguous answer: Yes, sir.
So, which is it? That yes, sir directly contradicts what he told the IG. Was that definitive statement under oath a lie or was he instead lying to the IG? Logic says it must be one or the other.
Likewise, when asked this Wouldnt you want to clarify to all of the people who may have heard it that that is not the policy of the Department and that you would not tolerate that kind of a policy? Perez again answered: Yes, sir. Yet there is no indication in the IG report that Perez, either before or after this hearing, made any concerted effort (other than a random statement or two) to ensure that these sorts of race-based enforcement choices were no longer made.
[snip]
Read more:
The American Spectator : The Labor Nominee?s Other Lies
