Tom Perez, the brand new DNC chair, has a lengthy history of racism consistent with Democratic party ideals, the public has been left to discover, as new facts about the DNC chair come to light.
According to the Department of Justice’s inspector general, Perez has shown some extreme views on race in the law. The Free Beacon reports, “CRT AAG Perez stated that interpreting Section 5’s retrogressive-effects standard to not cover White citizens was consistent with the Division’s longstanding practice, as well as case law interpreting the provision and the intent behind its enactment… Perez noted that the Division has always understood the term ‘minority’ to mean not numerical minority but rather ‘an identifiable and specially disadvantaged group.”
Perez has also come under fire for dropping charges against violent Black Panther party members intimidating voters at a polling site. He has also abandoned a case of whistleblowing that cost the taxpayers millions, using a private email server to escape accountability, and continually misleads congress.
The Free Beacon has more:
In 2008, two men from the New Black Panther Party, one brandishing a nightstick, stood in front of a polling place in Philadelphia and became aggressive when a video tracker asked them what they were doing. The Department of Justice had a straightforward case against the two, according to former attorney J. Christian Adams, until Perez, then head of the agency’s Civil Rights Division, intervened. Adams resigned in protest after the charges were dropped. He called Perez the “most extreme cabinet nominee” he had ever seen.
Perez Doesn’t Think White People Are Protected Under the Voting Rights Act
An investigation into the Civil Rights Division by the Department of Justice’s inspector general revealed extreme views held by Perez. He told investigators that white people were not entitled to protection under the Voting Rights Act.
Perez Abandoned a Whistleblower Lawsuit That Cost Taxpayers Millions
The House Oversight Committee found that Perez engaged in a quid pro quo that cost taxpayers $200 million in order to prevent a discrimination case from reaching the Supreme Court.
Perez pressured underlings to cover up the deal by omitting any mention of the reasons behind the decision. “Mr. Perez inappropriately used a whistleblower as a bargaining chip,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the committee chairman. Issa said the deal was “arranged to ensure an ideological pet policy of the Obama Administration would avoid Supreme Court scrutiny.”
He Used a Private Email Address to Dodge Accountability
Perez would be a fitting running mate for Clinton given his use of private email to dodge accountability laws and his refusal to surrender potentially damaging material to the public.
He Continues to Ignore and Mislead Congress
Perez has insisted that the Labor Department is not legislating from the executive branch or coordinating with other labor regulators to push workplace rules that crack down on franchising. However, Perez came under fire when congressional investigators discovered coordination after uncovering files from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—records that did not turn up in Perez’s submission to the committee.
