Sep 242010
 
truth

In a very unusual move, University of Illinois trustees today denied giving emeritus status to controversial retired professor William Ayers.

The vote, at a U. of I. board meeting in Urbana, was unanimous and came after a passionate speech by board chair Christopher Kennedy, who invoked the 1968 assassination of his father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in saying that he was voting his “conscience.”

The other trustees, without comment, also voted against the appointment.

Ayers, the Vietnam War-era radical, had been an education faculty member at UIC since 1987. He retired effective Aug. 31 and then sought the emeritus faculty status, a largely honorific title that includes some benefits such as library privileges.

A co-founder of the Weather Underground anti-war group, Ayers was frequently in the media spotlight and, as such, was one of the university’s best known faculty members.

While trustees regularly vote on emeritus appointments, they rarely comment about them.

But in an emotional statement, Kennedy discussed his reasons for voting against Ayers’ request.


“I am guided by my conscience and one which has been formed by a series of experiences, many of which have been shared with the people of our country and mark each of us in a profound way,” Kennedy said.

He said he could not confer the title “to a man whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father.”

Kennedy was referring a 1974 book co-authored by Ayers, “Prairie Fire,” which was dedicated to a long list of people including Robert Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan and “all political prisoners in the U.S.”

Ayers became a controversial figure in Barack Obama’s presidential campaign because they worked on a school-reform initiative together, leading opponents to say Obama was linked to a “terrorist.”

UIC was forced to release more than 1,000 files detailing the activities of that group. The university also faced questions in 2001 after Ayers wrote in his memoir about helping with the non-fatal bombings of government buildings.

According to the UIC faculty handbook, the granting of emeritus status is “based on merit” and is “an extraordinary title that is given for extraordinary service.”


Kennedy said he hoped faculty, staff and Illinois residents “understand my motives and my reasoning” and concluded: “How could I do anything else?”

Ayers could not be reached for comment, and UIC School of Education Dean Vicki Chou did not return a call from the Tribune.

She told the Tribune last month that Ayers has “been really a very good colleague here” and “the good far outweighs any negative press.”

–Jodi S. Cohen

Share
Sep 242010
 

Sean Duffy for Congress

Share
Sep 242010
 

WOLF STATEMENT BEFORE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION HEARING ON DISMISSAL OF VOTER INTIMIDATION CASE AGAINST MEMBERS OF NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) today delivered the following statement (MUST read- Wolf puts the DOJ on notice! ) before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission at a hearing looking into the dismissal of a voter intimidation case involving members of the New Black Panther Party at a polling place in Philadelphia in November 2008:

Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I have several documents I would like to submit for the commission’s record as part of my testimony. (NOTE: Documents may be online at wolf.house.gov/oversight)

As the former chairman and current ranking member on the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, I am very familiar with the commission’s essential role in ensuring the integrity of our nation’s civil and voting rights laws.

As you well know, the commission has an important special statutory responsibility to ‘investigate voting rights deprivations and make appraisals of federal policies to enforce federal voting rights laws.’ Congress instilled this independent oversight responsibility of the commission in statute: ‘All Federal agencies shall fully cooperate with the commission to the end that it may effectively carry out its functions and duties.’ I would remind the Attorney General that this includes the commission’s authority to subpoena witnesses.

I appreciate your efforts to investigate this unexplained dismissal of the U.S. v. New Black Panther Party case, which has serious and dangerous consequences for future voter intimidation enforcement. I am a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act, which is why I was so deeply troubled by Justice’s questionable dismissal of such an important voter intimidation case in Philadelphia, where, it should be noted, I grew up and my father was a policeman.

My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. In 1981, I was the only member – Republican or Democrat – of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized then by the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, the state’s leading newspaper. I was criticized, too, in 2006, by another state newspaper when I supported the act’s reauthorization.

From the beginning, I have asked the question: why did the department dismiss this serious case? Look at the facts. If this is not a clear case of voter intimidation, I do not know what is. The public can view video of the incident as well as other examples of the party’s intimidation in a clip from National Geographic Channel documentary, titled ‘Coming to A Polling Place Near You.

My concerns have only been compounded over the last year in light of the department’s obstruction of oversight investigations by the Congress and this commission. The actions of the attorney general to allow the department’s obstruction of this commission’s investigation are puzzling. I believe he is undermining the federal oversight of the Justice Department.

For nearly a year, I have been urging the department to release all the documents surrounding this case and to make a genuine attempt to answer the questions asked by members of Congress and this Commission. My requests have been rebuffed at each turn. Earlier this year, I introduced a Resolution of Inquiry that would have compelled the Attorney General to release all requested documents to the Congress. It was defeated in a party-line vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

I have urged the department’s Inspector General, Glenn Fine, on multiple occasions to open an investigation into whether improper political influence contributed to the dismissal of this case. Unfortunately, Mr. Fine continues to maintain willful ignorance, which I believe is an unacceptable abdication of his responsibilities as Inspector General. Mr. Fine’s lack of action, I believe, deserves the scrutiny of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. I will be requesting that the council investigate his failure with regard to this matter.

What should be bipartisan support for robust voting rights enforcement has become a shameful example of the types of partisan obstruction that undermine our nation’s civil rights laws. Last summer, The Washington Times reported that the department’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed over the objections of career attorneys on the trial team, as well as the chief of the division’s Appellate Division.

According to the Appellate Division memos first disclosed in the Times article, Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said that ‘the appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment’ and that Justice had made a ‘reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants.’

Flynn’s opinion was shared by a second Appellate Division official, Marie K. McElderry, who stated, ‘The governments predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote.’

Given these troubling disclosures, I have repeatedly called on the attorney general to re-file this civil suit and allow a ruling from the judge based on the merits of the case, not political expediency. The career trial team should be allowed to bring the case again – per the guidance I obtained from the Congressional Research Service’s American Law Division in its July 30 memo – to allow our nation’s justice system to work as it was intended: impartially and without bias.

Sources within the department stated that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, a political appointee, in conjunction with the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Ms. Loretta King, and her deputy, Mr. Steve Rosenbaum, overruled the career attorneys in the Voting Rights section. Earlier this week, the department finally acknowledged that the Attorney General was made aware – on multiple occasions – of the steps being taken to dismiss this case.

Why would the department’s political leadership overrule the unanimous opinion of the career attorneys on the trial team and the appellate division?

Why would the department’s political leadership not seek a default judgment to secure the maximum enforcement of the Voting Rights Act?

The Justice Department is responsible for the vigorous enforcement of civil rights statute. It is my understanding that the career attorneys who originally brought this case continue to stand by its merit. The politicization of the Justice Department against career employees is absolutely wrong and both the Congress and this commission ought to get to the bottom of this.

I want to leave you with one last thought. It is my understanding that the career Voting Section chief, Chris Coates, offered a vigorous defense of the New Black Panther Party case at his going-away luncheon earlier this year. According to one report, ‘At the end [of the luncheon in his honor], the attendees were startled when Coates pulled out a binder and began reciting a written defense of his decision to file’ the New Black Panther case. Coates reportedly stated: ‘I did my best to enforce all of our voting statutes for all Americans, and I leave here with my soul rested that I did the right thing to the best of my ability.’

Although the Attorney General will not allow the career attorneys to testify before this commission, I believe this anecdote helps to convey the ardent opposition of the department’s career attorneys to the dismissal of this voting rights case. I again call on the Attorney General to comply with the commission’s subpoenas and allow the career attorneys to testify.

This commission and the American people should be insulted that the Attorney General would only agree to allow Tom Perez, a political appointee who wasn’t even employed at the department at the time of the dismissal, to testify.

“I believe – and I believe the American would agree – that it is imperative that we protect the right of every American to vote, a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy.

The career attorneys and Appellate Division within the department sought to demonstrate the federal government’s commitment to protecting this right by vigorously prosecuting any individual or group that seeks to undermine this right.

The American people deserve the kind of impartial leadership at the Justice Department that will allow this case to go forward again – not the kind of political leadership that has tilted the scales of justice.

Thank you again for your commitment to voting rights enforcement and I would be happy to answer any questions.

~RELATED:

Election Journal Complete coverage of the NBPP case

PDF Chris Coates Testimony

Share
Sep 242010
 


Share
Sep 242010
 


Share
Sep 242010
 
upsidedownflag

David Green, University Administrator and member of the University of Illinois Institute of Government — Public Affairs

Oh, you ignorant Americans with your venal patriotic chants of “USA, USA” at sporting events. Your bellicosity isn’t patriotism, it’s propaganda and lowly militarism… so says David Green, University Administrator and member of the University of Illinois Institute of Government & Public Affairs.

Green’s poisoned pen letter to American patriots was published by the Daily Illini, an “independent newspaper” at the U of I, and features every manner of attack on America.

Green’s vituperation covers the gamut of anti-Americanism: America is “imperialist,” she is unconcerned over the deaths of Muslims, America is”nativist,” and patriots are prone to “obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk” chants. In other words all that is wrong with the world is evinced in the United States of America.

The professor’s screed was short, but filled with hate for America:

The vast majority of 9/11 observances in this country cannot be seen as politically neutral events. Implicit in their nature are the notions that lives lost at the World Trade Center are more valuable than lives lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere; that the motives of the 9/11 attackers had nothing to do with genuine grievances in the Islamic world regarding American imperialism; and that the U.S. has been justified in the subsequent killing of hundreds of thousands in so-called retaliation.

The observance at Saturday’s football game was no different. A moment of silence was followed by a military airplane flyover; in between, Block-I students chanted “USA, USA.” This was neither patriotism nor remembrance in any justifiable sense, but politicization, militarism, propaganda and bellicosity. The University is a public institution that encompasses the political views of all, not just the most (falsely) “patriotic.” Athletic planners should cease such exploitation for political purposes. They might at least consider how most Muslim students, American or otherwise, would respond to this nativist display; or better, Muslims and others that live their lives under the threat of our planes, drones and soldiers.

The overwhelmingly white, privileged, Block-I students should be ashamed of their obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk chant, while poverty-drafted members of their cohort fight and die in illegal and immoral wars for the control of oil. University administrators need to eliminate from all events such “patriotic” observances, which in this country cannot be separated from implicit justifications for state-sponsored killing.

Looking at the comments section finds very little support for this anti-American and not everyone at the Daily Illini are in love with this hater as an October 11 entry from 2005 shows.

But this isn’t the first time that Green went down the path of hate for the west. Green has penned many antiAmerican, anti-Jewish screeds over the last decade. In 2005, for instance, Green wrote a review of one of Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein’s books that proved that Green is a supporter of Palestine Liberation Organization and is critical of the so-called Holocaust industry.

Like a well-worn hat, Green tries on the old claim that the American’s actions at abu Ghraib and “Israeli torture” are materially the same as the Nazi-generated Holocaust. In his review Green intimates that Israel perpetrates “criminal behavior” that is little different than Hitler’s.

In March Green wrote a screed on the supposed iron-fisted Israel Lobby where he also says that the U.S. is motivated solely by imperialism in its war on terror.

Green is also a member of the Champaign/Urbana chapter of Anti-War, Anti-Racism Effort and is known as a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace which absorbed Not In My Name, the latter formerly based in Chicago.

It is infuriating that this man makes his living feeding off the taxpayers of the state of Illinois. According to the CollegiateTimes website, Green’s 2009 salary was $36,388 of Illinois tax dollars. This is the sort of anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-western “academic” that infests the American university system from north to south and east to west. These people are living off the taxpayers and spreading their hate every single day.

If you would like to contact Green and let him know how you feel, his office phone number is (217) 333-3231 Email him

Warner Todd Huston CFP

Share
Sep 242010
 

Security experts want a new dividing line between “moderate” and “radical” Islam delineated not by violence but by a willingness to hold the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land in America.

The new “Team B II report” (Shariah: The Threat to America) just out from a respected group of national security professionals details the threat America faces from Islamic shariah law, an ideology using a stealth approach called “civilization jihad” to subvert the Constitution.

The report explains the scope and breadth of an infiltration of America’s government and by the Muslim Brotherhood—a worldwide jihadist entity using violent and non-violent means to force the supremacy of Islamic shariah law. Shariah is the Muslim legal-political-military doctrine.

“What we’re suggesting is that the dividing line here is not terrorism. The dividing line here is shariah,” Andrew C. McCarthy, former chief assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York recently told HUMAN EVENTS. “Shariah is the Islamic political and legal framework. There are some in the Islamic world who want to take it the way that we take religion in the West, that is that it’s a private matter that isn’t imposed as an institutional, legal, political matter on the rest of society.”

“There is a vast swath of the Islamic world that rejects that and takes it as a divine mission to impose shariah whether that’s done by terrorism or whether it’s done by more sophisticated means,” said McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted Omar Abdel-Rahman the blind sheikh who first tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. “Shariah is the focal point that we need to look at, and shariah is extremely important because it is antithetical in very core ways to American values, stating with the fundamental premise of the United States, which is that the governed have a right to make laws for themselves and make choices for themselves irrespective of any religious component. So that’s the dividing line.”


Ground Zero mosque would-be imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a supporter of an America that is “shariah compliant.”

From the report:

Key Tenets of Shariah


The following are some of the most important—and, particularly for Western non-Muslims, deeply problematic—tenets of shariah, arranged in alphabetical order. The citations (in full in the linked report, edited here for length) for these findings are drawn from the Koran, schools of Islam and other recognized sources are offered as illustrative examples of the basis for such practices under shariah.

1. Abrogation (‘Al-mansukh wa al-nasikh’ in Arabic—the abrogated and the abrogating): Verses that come later in the Koran, chronologically, supersede, or abrogate, the earlier ones. In effect, this results in the more moderate verses of the Meccan period being abrogated by the later, violent, Medinan period.

2. Adultery (‘Zina’ in Arabic): Unlawful intercourse is a capital crime under shariah, punishable by lashing and stoning to death.

3. Apostasy (‘Irtidad’ or ‘Ridda’ in Arabic): The established ruling of shariah is that apostates are to be killed wherever they may be found.

4. Democracy & Islam: Any system of man-made law is considered illicit under Islamic law, for whose adherents Allah already has provided the only law permitted, shariah. Islam and democracy can never co-exist in harmony.

5. Female Genital Mutilation.

6. Gender Inequality: Shariah explicitly relegates women to a status inferior to men.

• Testimony of a woman before a judge is worth half that of a man.

• Women are to receive just one half the inheritance of a male.

• Muslim men are given permission by Allah in the Koran to beat their wives.

• Muslim men are given permission by Allah to commit marital rape, as they please.

• Muslim men are permitted to marry up to four wives and to keep concubines in any number.

• Muslim women may marry only one Muslim man and are forbidden from marrying a non-Muslim.

• A woman may not travel outside the home without the permission of her male guardian and must be accompanied by a male family member if she does so.

• Under shariah, to bring a claim of rape, a Muslim woman must present four male Muslim witnesses in good standing. Islam thus places the burden of avoiding illicit sexual encounters entirely on the woman. In effect, under shariah, women who bring a claim of rape without being able to produce the requisite four male Muslim witnesses are admitting to having had illicit sex. If she or the man is married, this amounts to an admission of adultery.

• A Muslim woman who divorces and remarries loses custody of children from a prior marriage.

7. ‘Honor’ Killing (a.k.a. Muslim family executions): A Muslim parent faces no legal penalty under Islamic law for killing his child or grandchild.

8. Hudud Punishments: The plural of hadd, is “a fixed penalty prescribed as a right of Allah. Because hudud penalties belong to Allah, Islamic law does not permit them to be waived or commuted.”

• “Shariah stipulates these punishments and methods of execution such as amputation, crucifixion, flogging, and stoning, for offenses such as adultery, homosexuality, killing without right, theft, and ‘spreading mischief in the land’ because these punishments were mandated by the Qur’an or Sunnah.” (Islamic Hudood Laws in Pakistan, Edn 1996, 5.)

9. Islamic Supremacism: belief that Islam is superior to every other culture, faith, government, and society and that it is ordained by Allah to conquer and dominate them.

10. Jew Hatred: Anti-Semitism is intrinsic to shariah and is based on the genocidal behavior of Mohammed himself in wiping out the entire Jewish population of the Arabian Peninsula.

11. Jihad: Jihad is warfare to spread Islam.

12. Lying/Taqiyya: It is permissible for a Muslim to lie, especially to non-Muslims, to safeguard himself personally or to protect Islam.

13. Slander/Blasphemy: In shariah, slander means anything that might offend a Muslim.

14. Underage Marriage: Islamic doctrine permits the marriage of pre-pubescent girls. There is no minimum age for a marriage contract and consummation may take place when the girl is age eight or nine.

15. Zakat: the obligation for Muslims to pay zakat arises out of Koran Verse 9:60 and is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Zakat may be given only to Muslims, never to non-Muslims. What amounts to a mandatory tax is required to be given to those engaged in jihad which is among the authorized recipients.


• According to shariah, there are eight categories of recipients for Zakat: The poor; Those short of money; Zakat workers (those whose job it is to collect the zakat); Those whose hearts are to be reconciled; Those purchasing their freedom; Those in debt; Those fighting for Allah (Jihad); Travelers needing money (‘Umdat al-Salik, h8.7-h8.18)

• “It is not permissible to give Zakat to a non-Muslim.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, h8.24)

* NOTE: Connie was one of the BEST Freepers I knew…

Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS’ Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.

Share
Sep 242010
 

Share
Sep 242010
 
bible


In a dramatic development that could shake the political leadership of the Justice Department, career lawyer Christopher Coates has sent a letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights offering to testify Friday on matters related to the controversial New Black Panthers voter-intimidation case.

Ten months ago, Coates, the award-winning former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, was subpoenaed by the Commission to testify about the case. He was subsequently instructed by DOJ officials to ignore the subpoena. Within the past hour, commissioners were informed that Chairman Gerald Reynolds had spoken with Coates and that the chairman would reconvene the Commission’s ongoing hearing on Friday at 9:30 a.m. to hear Coates’s testimony.

The Civil Rights Commission has sought to obtain Coates’ testimony on Justice’s dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. In a recent request to Justice, the Commission agreed to limit initial questioning of Coates to accusations made by former career lawyer J. Christian Adams about statements and other actions by Julie Fernandes, an Obama administration political appointee, if DOJ produced Coates.

The DOJ refused.

Adams testified that Fernandes, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division in charge of voting matters, told Voting Section leadership that the Obama administration would not file election-related cases against minority defendants — no matter the alleged violation of law.

Adams also testified that Fernandes said Justice would not enforce the provisions of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Section 8 requires states to clean up voter registration lists on a regular basis by removing the names of ineligible voters who have died or moved away.

On Election Day 2008, two uniformed members of the New Black Panther Party — one wielding a club — were caught on video as they appeared to harass voters outside a Philadelphia polling place. The Voting Rights Section filed a civil lawsuit that the defendants did not answer, placing them in default.

However, the Justice Department dismissed virtually the entire case despite the objections of career attorneys.

Watch PJM for more on this remarkable news as it develops.

It is about to get harder for both the Obama administration and the mainstream media to downplay the New Black Panther party scandal.

The mainstream media did their best to ignore this blatant case of voter intimidation by two New Black Panther party members at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008. Though the threatening behavior was captured on videotape, Obama political appointees dismissed the case on the eve of a default judgment. When in early June a key trial team member, Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, resigned and then testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the media grudgingly reported on his testimony.

But, despite Adams’s testimony that the case was indicative of a widespread aversion in the Voting Section to colorblind enforcement of the civil rights laws, the media framed the story as an isolated case unworthy of continuing coverage. After all, just one witness was claiming that this was the mindset in the Justice Department. And besides, the head of the Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez, had testified before both Congress and the commission that the case was legally and factually defective. He had also insisted there was no opposition in the department to enforcing civil rights laws against minority defendants.


In fact, there is ample evidence, including Justice Department emails obtained by The Weekly Standard, that Perez testified untruthfully. There is every reason to believe, moreover, that if allowed to testify, several other Justice Department attorneys would substantiate Adams’s allegations and contradict Perez’s sworn testimony. Not to mention that the department itself acknowledged last week that the matter of biased enforcement of voting laws requires investigation.

Until now, the Justice Department has refused to allow its lawyers to testify. On April 21, Jody Hunt, director of federal programs, whose office oversees the department’s dealings with other branches of government, emailed Adams’s attorney. Hunt explained:


On behalf of the Department of Justice, I have communicated to the Commission that your client has not been authorized to give testimony at the hearing. Indeed, as I understand it, your client has not been scheduled by the Commission to provide testimony at the hearing. The Commission has accepted the Department’s offer to hear testimony from Tom Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, at a separate hearing to be scheduled in May.

Department sources say that members of the trial team objected strongly and raised their objections with Hunt in writing. On May 11, for example, Adams emailed Hunt. He challenged the basis for the department’s refusal to allow his testimony, referring to his attorney’s legal citations. He then implored the department to change its position:


I would ask you to reconsider this decision and authorize at least one of the individuals who had factual and legal familiarity with the case to provide information to the Commission, whether me, former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates, Deputy Chief Robert Popper, Attorney Spencer Fisher, or all four of us.

Adams specifically warned Hunt of the danger to the department in allowing an attorney unfamiliar with the New Black Panther party case, Perez, to testify instead of the attorneys who had the most direct knowledge of the case:

The first reason that the decision should be reconsidered is that there is the risk that inaccurate statements will be made about the case. I do not suggest that the scheduled witness will knowingly make false statements. Rather, my concern is that the scheduled witness did not participate in the case whatsoever, and will instead rely on characterizations of the facts and law provided by other Department employees, which I have reason to believe may be wildly inaccurate at best. Over the last several months, unattributed statements about the case by Department officials have been cited in media reports that are demonstrably false. Because the statements are never attributed, it is impossible to know whether these are people entirely unfamiliar with the matter, or are individuals upon whom the scheduled witness will rely. If the latter, there is a genuine risk that the scheduled witness will unknowingly provide inaccurate and incorrect testimony about the case. This could result in an extremely embarrassing situation for both the witness and the Department.  .  .  .  If the scheduled witness were to testify that there was no evidence, or insufficient or inadmissible evidence, to support agency liability [the legal theory for holding the New Black Panther Party and its head responsible], such testimony could prove to be grossly inaccurate.

He also warned Hunt:


Commanding our silence has created an inference that the attorneys who brought the case pursed a meritless action. Indeed, any future statements that the case did not have factual and legal merit would reinforce this false inference. For example, there was testimony to the House Judiciary Committee [by Perez] that “Rule 11 [prohibiting frivolous actions] required” the dismissal of the action. Not only is this statement inaccurate, but it also calls into question the ethics of the attorneys who approved and brought the case. I can attest that my three colleagues were thoughtful, diligent, hard working, and beyond reproach throughout this case. Their experience with the Voting Rights Act is unmatched in any other part of the Department. Indeed, I would submit Christopher Coates and Robert Popper have far more experience in litigating voting law combined than just about any pair of Department attorneys you could produce.

To put it bluntly, Adams was warning the Department that Perez had already testified inaccurately before Congress and that allowing him to do so again would be an intentional attempt to mislead the civil rights commission.

Shortly thereafter Adams received a call from the Voting Section head, Chris Herren. Herren said he understood Adams wanted to meet with Perez. Adams said he had not asked for a meeting. Herren repeated, “You said you wanted to meet with Perez.” Adams reiterated that he had not. It became obvious, however, that Perez wanted to meet with him.

Hunt arranged a meeting on Tuesday, May 12, three days before Perez was to testify before the civil rights commission. Adams, Popper, Perez, Hunt, and two other department attorneys met in the 5th floor conference room in the Main Justice Department building. Coates joined them by speaker phone.

Coates, Popper, and Adams spoke for approximately 45 minutes. Coates informed Perez that the case had been dismissed because of hostility to equal enforcement of the civil rights laws. Popper went next, explaining how solid the case was. He became animated and lashed out at Perez for testifying that the attorneys had violated Rule 11—that is, committed an ethical violation. Adams spoke last, making the case that the 14th Amendment required equal enforcement of the civil rights laws and that it was dangerous for the department and the country to go down the road of unequal enforcement of the law.

During the meeting Perez said nothing. Was he taking the information to heart so he could investigate the serious allegations or simply, like an attorney in an explosive case, taking the deposition of the most powerful witnesses to see how effective they were and what damage they could do?


The answer became clear that Friday when Perez testified before the civil rights commission. He reiterated his view that the case was legally and factually deficient. Perhaps wary of Popper’s reaction, he avoided restating that the trial team had acted contrary to Rule 11.

~In Conclusion:

In any event, despite the Obama team’s best efforts to stonewall and the mainstream media’s indifference to an abuse of power in a Democratic administration, the notion that the New Black Panther party case is “no big deal” is crumbling. We know that a high ranking political appointee presented misleading testimony under oath and that multiple witnesses would testify to the Obama administration’s hostility to the equal enforcement of our civil rights laws. Now an internal investigation is exploring those issues. In a Republican administration that would be front-page news.


~read the last page…

~RELATED:

ACORN And Soros Tied To Ongoing Increase In MASSIVE Vote Fraud

Share