Impeachable Offense? Possible Perjury In Black Panther Case

Just days after Impeach Obama Campaign’s Floyd Brown made an impassioned plea for the new Congress to impeach Barack Obama, it appears he may have fresh reasons to proceed. A former Obama Justice Department official has stated officials in his department “lied” about the decision to dismiss the DoJ’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, occasionally “under oath.”

J. Christian Adams, who quit the Obama administration in disgust, writes on Pajamas Media that new documents blow the Black Panther case wide open.

Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, testified under oath before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14 that the decision was simply “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.” He testified there had been no “political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.”

New documents obtained by Judicial Watch make that testimony seem false and potentially illegal.

Although the DoJ has refused to release any of the full documents requested under a Freedom of Information Act request, the organization won disclosure of the Vaughan Index, which describes some of the documents withheld. They reveal Sam Hirsch, a Deputy Associate Attorney General and, yes, a political appointee, was heavily involved in dismissing the case against the Black Panthers. He sent no fewer than 58 e-mails about the case.

He and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum exchanged at least 13 e-mails, including eight e-mail volleys the day before the DoJ precipitously dismissed an open-and-shut case.

The logs refer to these as “deliberations” — all involving political appointees put in place by Barack Obama, not “career people.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton agrees with Adams the documents could expose illegal behavior on the part of the Obama administration. “These documents show the Obama Justice Department’s decision to drop the Black Panther case was certainly political and potentially corrupt,” he said.

In Adams’ view, the logs show Rosenbaum shopping the idea of dismissing the case before a number of non-political, career DoJ employees, but none would sign off on the idea. Adams writes, “The logs reveal a full court press to find someone, anyone, willing to provide a death blow to the case with the imprimatur of the civil service.”

One of the parties, Sam Hirsch, has a history of extreme partisan activity on behalf of the Democratic Party, often working to Balkanize the nation along racial lines for his candidates’ political gain.

Obama’s Partisan, Tribal, Open Borders Man

Sam Hirsch served as associate editor of the Election Law Journal. Before joining the DoJ, he worked for the firm Jenner & Block. Hirsch represented Pennsylvania Democrats in a lawsuit filed after the state’s Republican leadership carried out redistricting in the year 2000. (He lost at the Supreme Court). He represented Texas Democrats in 2003 in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. LULAC (which now largely represents non-citizens) and the Democrats sued the Lone Star State over the Republican redistricting plan. Hirsch lost at the Supreme Court, 7-2.

Anti-Voter Fraud Activist

He represented Indiana Democrats in 2007 against an anti-voter fraud bill. The Hoosier law required voters to present a photo ID before voting. Hirsch and his fellow plaintiffs argued this “would burden voting by a group of eligible voters who lack the requisite identification…primarily elderly, disabled, poor and minority voters.” He was remarkably open that he pursued the case “Because these voters tend to support Democratic candidates…the new law would primarily harm Democrats.” (Not to mention non-citizens, impostors, and the dead, who are also a heavy Democratic constituency.)

Again, he lost at the Supreme Court level, 6-3.

Throughout, he was motivated by concern that democratically enacted redistricting laws and fair elections would harm his party. In March 2003, Hirsch hysterically worried the 2000 electoral map “may well conspire to keep Republicans in the majority and Democrats in the minority for the next five Congresses.” (Democrats came back into power three years later.)

He once drafted his own proposed state amendment for redistricting (gerrymandering). In the preface, he wrote, “Some believe the object of reform is to remove politics from the districting process altogether…[T]his model amendment is premised on precisely the opposite assumption.”

He often theorized how best to maximize Democratic voter turnout. In one of his landmark writings, he suggested a new form of racial gerrymandering. Offering the voting equivalent of racial busing, he suggested “minority-preferred black or Latino candidates would be safer in the primary, and safer overall, if if their districts contained more white Republican voters and fewer white Democratic voters.” He proposed creating districts that were “30% to 40% minority and 55% to 60% Democratic.” As a result, more minorities would be elected to Congress — and more Republican votes would be suppressed.

Racial balkanization appears to be a pastime of his. He favored the Akaka bill, a race-based bill to grant native Hawaiians tribal rule (and a large chunk of 1.8 million acres of federal land under dispute), having testified on its behalf in August 2009.

This history — of frequently being wrong on the facts and the law but pushing racial division for political expediency — shows perfectly why he belongs in the Obama administration.

Impeachable Offense?

Adams notes Perez’s statements, insisting Hirsch and Rosenbaum (“political leadership”) were not involved, are not only proven false but may be grounds for perjury or corruption. The question arises: What role did the Obama administration play in his testimony? Did Eric Holder, or the president himself, instruct him to testify as he did? Perez would have likely known he was misleading the Civil Rights Commission, but Holder — or the president — surely would have known.

If the president was involved in suborning perjury, or instructing a subordinate employee to lie under oath, that rises to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors and is grounds for impeachment.

These explosive documents have opened the case afresh, exposing the thuggish and lawless modus operandi of this administration. It also points the way to the one constitutional remedy left to us by our Founding Fathers.