Well, the results are in, and the DNC has chosen its new leader. In the proxy battle between the Sandernistas and the Clintonites, Democratic National Committee voted Clintonite favorite Tom Perez the choice to be the next chairman. Perez received 235 votes, only 17 more than the necessary 218 majority.
The Sandernistas choice was the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel Rep. Keith Ellison, who has strong ties to Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organizations, and had the endorsement of the party’s far-left wing typified by Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer among others.
Schumer’s endorsement was very strange. The New York senator had the guts to stand up to his party’s anti-Israel hatred — reinforced by eight years of Barack Obama — but somehow lost his cojones when it was time to stand up to the terrorist-appeasing Ellison and company.
Loud protests rang through the hall after the announcement of Perez’ win was made, with shouts of Party for the people, not big money!” But anyone who believes that the Democrats dodged a bullet by choosing Perez over Ellison is wrong. Perez, who served as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under Obama, has many of he same issues as Hillary Clinton when it comes to email, ethics, honesty, and a belief that only Caucasians can commit race crimes.
The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, along with the minority staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, launched an investigation. They found Mr. Perez had tried to cover up the quid pro quo and ‘likely violated both the spirit and letter of the Federal Records Act’ by using his personal email accounts to conduct official government business. The House subpoenaed his emails.
All told, Perez violated the Federal Records Act 34 times while working for the Department of Justice:
What’s more, in a letter sent to Mr. Issa Wednesday, Peter J. Kadzik, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs at Justice, responded to the subpoena and admitted Mr. Perez violated the Federal Records Act (which requires that federal business is archived) at least 34 times. The letter also suggested Mr. Perez used his personal email account almost 1,200 times for official government business.”
Perez even had a Clintonesque excuse when questioned by Congress about his unlawful email practices, claiming he did not have “any recollection” of sending over a thousand emails from his personal account:
In a March 22 interview with congressional investigators, Perez was asked whether he had ever conducted official business from his personal email account. Perez said: ‘I don’t have any recollection of having communicated via personal email on this matter.’
Even when Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) requested that Perez turn over the work emails sent from his personal account, Perez stonewalled Congress.
But this wasn’t Perez’s first case of blatant dishonesty before a congressional panel. In 2013, he proudly testified at his Senate confirmation hearing that his grandfather had been thrown out of the Dominican Republic for speaking out against dictator Rafael Trujillo for his brutal massacre of thousands of Haitians in 1937. In fact, his grandfather “had left the Dominican Republic about two years earlier, according to State Department memos and media accounts at the time.”
There’s more: Shortly after Barack Obama’s 2008 election as president, Perez was instrumental in getting the Justice Department to drop a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers that had already been won.
According to Christian Adams, who resigned from the department’s Voting Rights Division and went public with the story of the “hows and whys” the Black Panther case was dropped, the decision to drop the case was based on race and Perez lied about it in his congressional testimony.
Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ’s skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the “facts and law” did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls…..
Adams places the blame for the dismissal of the case on racism.
…[T]he dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against non white defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it “payback time.” Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.
Cross-posted at The Lid