In the latest sordid chapter of the manufactured New Black Panther Party "scandal," Commissioner Todd Gaziano is circulating two draft letters among commissioners addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder. Ryan J Reilly has them both: One comes right up to the line of accusing Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez of perjury based on the testimony of former Voting Section Chief Chris Coates. Coates, if you remember, is the guy who defended Bush-era Civil Rights Division Head Bradley Schlozman's race-tinged and illegal efforts to purge the Civil Rights Division of liberals as "diversifying" the division.
The other letter accuses the division of "a culture of hostility" to "race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws." Both of these accusations are coming from conservative former employees of the division hired or promoted during an era of conservative politicization.
Naturally, the conservative cheering section at the Washington Times is rubbing its hands together:
What the letters do not say explicitly, but what is well worth noting, is that not even the broad (and, arguably, broadly spurious) "privilege" claims of DoJ with regard to deliberations about the Black Panther case can possibly cover statements reportedly made by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes to the effect that the Obama DoJ would no longer enforce particular portions of laws it doesn't like or would not enforce laws in certain circumstances based on race. None of these statements was reportedly made during deliberations on any particular case, and thus all of them should be fair game for Commission and congressional investigators to pursue. Ms. Fernandes' statements reportedly were made in meetings in front of large numbers of staff, so investigators by right and reason should be able to ask a number of staffers who were present if they can back up the sworn testimony of Mr. Adams and Mr. Coates about those statements.
Sure. Unacknowledged by both Gaziano and the Times, however, is that there are some pretty important discrepancies between Coates and Adams' own testimonies. Adams testified that the racial overtones of Fernandes' statement were "implied," saying that she said "traditional civil rights work," and "everybody knows what that means, and helping minorities, helping litigating on their behalf." Coates testified that her statement explicitly said they wouldn't go after minorities. The Obama-era Voting Section has, in fact, intervened on behalf of white people.
Likewise regarding Coates' testimony that he personally told Perez that the NBPP case was narrowed because of racial bias in the division. In his testimony, Adams characterized the meeting in his testimony as merely "a comprehensive review of the merits of the case."
Now, is it possible that Adams didn't remember some of the most salient details of these events that, in Coates' retelling, are far more explicit and inflammatory? Sure. But Coates may also be exaggerating, and clearly, neither Gazianio nor the Washington Times is too interested in reconciling the discrepancies. That might interfere with their attempts to "topple the Obama administration."
