Investigate Kristen Clarke
She lied to Congress. That's a felony
Yesterday, I wrote about the Department of Justice’s consent decree with the city of Minneapolis. I argued that the decree will handcuff the police force’s ability to thwart crime in that city.
The consent decree is the work of Kristen Clarke, the Biden administration’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The phrase “white supremacist” is sometimes hurled at conservatives who oppose racial preferences and DEI. This amounts to infantile name-calling.
Clarke, by contrast, was an unabashed black supremacist during her student days. She claimed that blacks are inherently superior to whites.
Clarke may have moved past such nonsense. I hope she has. But can you imagine someone who, as a college student, claimed whites are inherently superior to blacks being confirmed as the head of the DOJ’s civil rights division? I can’t.
In the process of being confirmed for that job, Clarke lied under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee. When Sen. Tom Cotton asked her whether she “had ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person,” Clarke answered “No.”
But Clarke has since admitted that in 2006, she was arrested for attacking and injuring her then-husband with a knife. It has also come to light that shortly before the full Senate voted on Clarke’s nomination, she contacted the victim in an attempt to cover up her arrest and her lie.
Though Clarke’s overt racism may be in the distant past, her lying to Congress is not. She should be held accountable for it.
Lying under oath is perjury, of course. In addition, it’s a crime to “knowingly and willfully” give “materially” false statements to Congress, even if not under oath. That crime is punishable by up to five years in prison.
Clarke is likely guilty of both crimes. The “knowingly and willfully” element can probably be established by the fact that Clarke contacted the victim of her assault, her ex-husband, hoping to cover up the fact of her arrest. She knew she had lied and wanted her victim to help her get away with it.
MAGA world is talking about prosecuting the likes of Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, and Liz Cheney. There’s no apparent basis for prosecuting any of them.
Instead of rummaging through the federal code in the hope of concocting charges against any of these three for the purpose of revenge, the Trump DOJ should immediately open an investigation of Clarke. If, as seems likely, she’s found to have violated the law, she should be prosecuted.
Congress’ ability to get honest answers from witnesses will be impaired if Clarke is able to get away with her bald-faced lie. And no one is above the law.
I agree there should be no prosecutions arising out of the 1/6 hearings, but I think it would be appropriate for Congress to investigate, for example, whether, as charged, Liz Cheney improperly influenced a witness, and whether the Committee deep-sixed some of its records, improperly claimed Trump didn't authorize use of the DC National Guard, failed to explore the role of the mayor and the speaker of the house in the matter, and generally gave kangaroo courts a good name. Jim Dueholm.
Is there an element mandating prosecution for crimes such as the perjury described above? The discretion allowed as to whether or not to prosecute shouldnt be. Make it mandatory upon discovery of the alleged perjury; jail all who defy congressional subpoenas, equally. I agree that trying to make a case against Garland et al is a waste of time, resources and money. Plus it would confirm biases re Trump and his anticipated actions. Instead dig through and prosecute each and every instance like the above, and similar situations. As a parent my word is mud the very first time I don't proceed with a threatened consequence. We need to make the laws bare the teeth they were given and use them, even handedly, so that things that should have meaning and gravitas, do. This should be non - partisan of course and maybe it would go a ways towards restoring some respect for our institutions.