Hans A. von Spakovsky reports over at PJ Media on apparent perjury by a Justice Department career lawyer. He describes an attempted cover up during an investigation by the DoJ Inspector General into illegal leaks of confidential documents to the Washington Post concerning a Texas reapportionment case.
Von Spakovsky reports that the lawyer, whose reasoning in the Texas case was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court in LULAC v. Perry, has not been disciplined but has been assigned to the current review of Texas reapportionment based on the 2010 census.
Eric Holder must think that her “state of mind” was OK when she lied under oath to the IG investigators.
Von Spakovsky sums up:
And who was the civil rights analyst whose name was on the “rambling, barely coherent memo” leaked to the Washington Post? It was Stephanie Celandine Gyamfi. For the Voting Section chief to assign this admitted perjurer to review Texas’s 2011 decennial redistricting submission is a serious affront to justice. It should greatly concern Texas authorities, who have a right to expect an objective, impartial, nonpolitical, and nonideological review of their plan. An admitted criminal who harmed Texas before should not sit in judgment of the state’s current redistricting plan.
Then again, why should we be surprised? Look at how Eric Holder and his Department have mishandled the investigation into Operation Fast & Furious and repeatedly misled Congress. Holder told Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI.) that whether you are lying or misleading Congress “has to do with your state of mind.” Perhaps Holder believes that perjury is now passé, or at least that a DOJ employee does not have the requisite “state of mind” when the ideological cause is deemed righteous enough. But when zealots like Ms. Gyamfi, for whom the truth is no obstacle to the pursuit of partisan gains, are allowed to control the levers of justice, we all suffer.
Read the whole thing.
UPDATE—Tina Korbe posts on the DoJ’s assertion that the AG wasn’t playing the race card when he said,
Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few—the “more extreme segment”—were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
I wonder what state of mind one must be in to believe that isn’t a racially-based remark.
UPDATE 2—Ed Morrissey adds:
Assuming that the story is true, this still leaves Holder in the hot seat. If Gyamfi somehow avoided the technical commission of perjury (and there are many technical details involved), she still would have committed obstruction of justice.