Freedom Line Blog

Wow, the new information on apparent Labor Secretary nominee Thomas Perez is coming fast and, uh, furious, today. The new IG report, referred to in the post below, includes this conclusion about Perez’ truthfulness under oath:

we found that

Perez’s testimony did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of

political appointees in NBPP decision-making. In particular, Perez’s

characterizations omitted that Associate Attorney General Perrelli and Deputy

Associate Attorney General Hirsch were involved in consultations about the

decision, as shown in testimony and contemporaneous e-mails. Specifically,

they set clear outer limits on what King and Rosenbaum could decide on the

NBPP matter (including prohibiting them from dismissing the case in its

entirety) without seeking additional approval from the Office of the Associate

Attorney General. In addition, Perrelli and Hirsch advised against a course of

action that Acting DAAG Rosenbaum said he was considering – namely,

submitting an amended complaint to address certain factual assertions – and

Hirsch edited the motion papers to be submitted to the court.

we found that Perez’s testimony did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees in NBPP decision-making. In particular, Perez’s characterizations omitted that Associate Attorney General Perrelli and Deputy Associate Attorney General Hirsch were involved in consultations about the decision, as shown in testimony and contemporaneous e-mails. Specifically, they set clear outer limits on what King and Rosenbaum could decide on the NBPP matter (including prohibiting them from dismissing the case in its entirety) without seeking additional approval from the Office of the Associate Attorney General. In addition, Perrelli and Hirsch advised against a course of action that Acting DAAG Rosenbaum said he was considering – namely, submitting an amended complaint to address certain factual assertions – and Hirsch edited the motion papers to be submitted to the court.

….[AND]

In his OIG interview, Perez said he did not believe that these incidents constituted political appointees being “involved” in the decision. We believe that these facts evidence “involvement” in the decision by political appointees within the ordinary meaning of that word, and that Perez’s acknowledgment, in his statements on behalf of the Department, that political appointees were briefed on and could have overruled this decision did not capture the full extent of that involvement.