Tom Cotton Calls on Merrick Garland to Fire DOJ Civil Rights Chief Kristen Clarke for Perjury
“Garland must fire immediately Associate AG Clarke for committing a felony by lying to Congress during her confirmation hearing”
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) and several other Republican Senators are calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to fire Kristen Clarke, a high ranking official in the civil rights division, over charges that she perjured herself during the confirmation process.
During questioning, Cotton asked Clarke if she had ever been arrested. Although she claimed she hadn’t, she apparently was arrested in 2006 after allegedly attacking her husband with a knife.
NEW: @TomCottonAR calls on AG Garland to fire Kristen Clarke following our @DailySignal reporting:
“I call for Ms. Clarke’s immediate termination and removal from office.” pic.twitter.com/XbqUBp9OjO
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) July 12, 2024
The Daily Signal broke the story back in April:
EXCLUSIVE: DOJ’s Kristen Clarke Testified She Was Never Arrested. Court Records and Text Messages Indicate She Was.
Clarke was nominated by President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 7, 2021, and later confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 25, 2021, to lead the DOJ’s “crown jewel,” as former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. described the Civil Rights Division.
Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris celebrated Clarke as the first black woman to head the Civil Rights Division, promising she would focus on fighting voter suppression and hate crimes “across the country.”
During her confirmation, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked then-nominee Clarke: “Since becoming a legal adult, have you ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person?”
“No,” she responded, according to responses she submitted under oath to “Questions for the Record” from U.S. senators.
Messages as well as records obtained and authenticated by The Daily Signal indicate that Clarke may have been less than forthcoming with this statement.
Clarke’s ex-husband, Reginald Avery, alleged to the American Accountability Foundation’s Tom Jones in 2021 that Clarke attacked him with a knife, deeply slicing his finger to the bone, on the night of July 4, 2006, while they were married and living in Maryland.
According to messages and documents reviewed by The Daily Signal, police arrested Clarke that night.
Cotton appears to be taking this very seriously.
Again, from the Daily Signal:
Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton is calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to fire Kristen Clarke following The Daily Signal’s reporting on her arrest and subsequent expungement.
“I write regarding an act of perjury committed by Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,” he wrote in a letter first published by Breitbart News. “I call for Ms. Clarke’s immediate termination and removal from office.”
Cotton sourced The Daily Signal’s April 30 report revealing for the first time that Clarke hid her arrest for a domestic violence incident and its subsequent expungement from investigators when she was awaiting Senate confirmation to her high-ranking Justice Department post.
Attorney General Garland must fire immediately Associate AG Clarke for committing a felony by lying to Congress during her confirmation hearing. https://t.co/ACSFPTeBKp
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) July 12, 2024
Democrats went after people in the Trump administration for far less.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well he’s not going to do it, Cotton.
Now what are YOU going to do about it?
Oh that’s right. NOTHING.
Which is why Democrats are so comfortable doing crap like this. Because they know that Republicans won’t do anything but make some mean tweets and maybe send some angry letters.
What CAN he do about it other than send mean tweets and angry letters? Call a hearing, and dress her down, if she shows?
It’s up to the party in executive control to act on information like this, when it is exposed.
When in power, Republicans typically do act on these complaints, but when Dems are in power, they generally look the other way
They like to take advantage of impotent congressional judicial powers when it serves their purpose, and take advantage of Repub’s collective conscience when that serves their purpose.
The power of the purse is the only real weapon Congress has. Maybe reduce the DoJ budget in some painful way?
I am all for closing the Department of Just Us down.
The House should cut the DOJ’s budget. The DOJ is politicized and biased against conservatives and Republicans. Don’t finance the ropes they want to hang us with!
Are there enough Republican votes for that budget cut to override a presidential veto?
Congress does not take away money from agencies, it gives them money. If the President vetoed the budget bill providing funds for an agency, the budget for it would not revert to the previous figure, but become _zero_.
Yep. It’s past time for Congress to get the attention of the Executive Branch. Refuse to move the budget authorization for any Department or Agency who pulls crap like this or refuses to answer questions or show up in response to a subpoena. Point blank tell them exactly what the consequences will be then do it. Hold firm and flip the impetus onto the Executive Branch to relieve the impasse. This should hold equally true for Congress as an institution not just for the current circumstances or applied by a GoP HoR to a d/prog Admin. The imperial executive crap must end.
Would that be considered a revenue bill? (I’m asking because I don’t know.) If so, it would need to originate in the house, not in the senate.
Because all of them know that when Trump was President he had the entire Senate and House majorities with Republicans on his side, but because he was such a polarized President that everyone hated and didn’t trust, he could not even pass conservative legislation. The same will happen if he is re-elected.
Smokin’ hot take, bonehead.
Trump’s been inside your empty skull for so long you should have him charged for squatting.
Well, they’ve charged him with just about everything else, up to and including suspicion of mopery.
There is nothing they can do. Of course, a new AG under a new President opens all sorts of new opportunities.
What is he supposed to do, in your view? I’m pretty sure that the legislative branch has no enforcement power, remember? And being in the Senate, he can’t even initiate an impeachment.
So what would you have him do? Take a cane to Merrick Garland? Pull out a Bowie from under his coat tails and a tank member the other party, as in pre-Civil War days?
— Black
— Female
— Incompetent
= Meaning, she’s there until Biden leaves
As for Tom Cotton (who’s doing the right thing) – Nice try. Too bad the GOP as a group is unwilling to be more confrontational.
Do liars lie?
Yes
Should liars be fired?
Yes
But can they be fired?
Only in certain cases. For exceptions see list above by fscarn.
They probably will. And then reinstall Matt Colangelo.
She had every right to answer the way she did her record was exposed look it up
Expunged
“Charges against Clarke were dropped, and more than a year later, she filed paperwork that would wipe the arrest from her record.
Clarke asserted that since the arrest was expunged, she wasn’t required to disclose it to lawmakers.”
“When given the option to speak about such traumatic incidents in my life, I have chosen not to,” the Biden administration official said. “I didn’t believe during my confirmation process and I don’t believe now that I was obligated to share a fully expunged matter from my past.”
https://nypost.com/2024/05/02/us-news/doj-official-kristen-clarke-admits-to-falsely-testifying-to-senate-that-she-had-never-been-arrested/
I have mixed feelings. I can understand her belief that “expunged” included the record of the arrest, and I don’t think the incident in itself should be disqualifying.
However, I AM a bit disappointed that someone who is being nominated for a senior position in the DOJ didn’t prepare properly for her testimony. She should have discussed this with her attorney before hand. Somehow one would think that some knowledge of the law or the knowledge to seek professional assistance in matters of law would be useful in senior DOJ job.
But she brings other assets to the table, from looking at her.
In any case, it’s moot:
“
Clarke does not appear to have any intention to resign.
The truthful answer under oath is ‘yes, but that arrest was layer expunged’. Can’t expunge a record of something that didn’t happen and the arrest happened so…she chose to mislead instead offering all the facts. Lies by omission are still lies.
If I was in a position to block DoJ funding until she was fired or chose to resign I would do it. A dozen Senators is enough to hold the floor for a speaking filibuster, just gain recognition and refuse to relent. Block everything else…it is a totally workable option.. but is very unlikely.
Yep. I saw servicemember get busted for false enlistment for doing exactly what she did.
“The question asked “have you ever been arrested”, not whether you were charged, convicted, or cleared and the record expunged.”
Saying no to that because you were a juvenile and the records were “sealed” is a false official statement. Period.
The question was whether she had ever been arrested. The correct and truthful answer was “yes” and then she could have explained that the charge was expunged. But the fact was that she had been arrested and the disposition of the case did not alter that fact.
Disclosure is required for a federal law-enforcement position, such as with the FBI, as well as positions with some other federal government agencies.
Other positions may also require disclosure, such as applying for a state-issued professional license; applying for a school-related job; buying a firearm, or applying for a concealed carry permit; and applying for public office.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/when-must-you-disclose-an-expungement/
Not sure if her position is included, but likely. She should have disclosed the expungement.
Thanks for the link.
Very informative.
Someone would have to disclose this on thier security clearance. I think the SF 86 form even says to do. It if expunged.
Report her perjury to all of the jurisdictions where she has a law license.
When I received a Top Secret they were very clear. Arrested meant arrested no matter if it was dropped, expunged or whatever. You then had the opportunity to explain. She should have answered yes to both then provided her expunged record. However, before the hearing when she was making the rounds she could have brought it up and explained it in private then Senators would told her it would be a problem and let her withdraw quietly. She lied. Case closed
It was expunged, but the fed never gives up a document once it’s in their possession. They really don’t care if the state expunged the record. When you are testifying before congress and they ask if you’ve been arrested, don’t lie.
She was not asked if she had a record, she was asked, “Since becoming a legal adult, have you ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person?” The answer to that question is “Yes,” and “Yes.”
Read the article. Learn what “expungement” means.
The conviction was expunged, so I guess that gives her and Garland wiggle room. They can say she technically didn’t lie because the records were expunged.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the conviction is expunged, but not the arrest. Cotton didn’t ask if she had ever been convicted. She could truthfully answer no because the conviction was expunged.
But as I understand it, the conviction gets expunged, not the arrest. She was still arrested. Am I right?
Yeah, what pray tell was ‘expunged’? The arrest. Were you ever arrested (?) is a simple question and any answer she gave other than ‘yes’ or ‘yes but it was later expunged’ was untruthful.
attacked husband!!!
she is a hero
only if she had cutoff his feminist most wanted part..the p n
she would have been enshrined in lefty hof
and along these same lines
and before they hide THIS STORY:
TRANS MURDERS MOM AND MOMS BF
B/C THEY DIDNT APPROVE OF HER TRANSING
nd was ‘not vey accepting of her gender transition,’ according to the arrest affidavit.
Julia Grace Egler, 16, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder after she admitted to killing the couple seconds after they arrived home, police said.
YES A DIRECT CONNECTION TO THIS WHOLE DEI LEFTY TAKEOVER OF AMERICA
If it’s a felony why not call for her prosecution? More evidence government employees get held to a different standard than everyone else.
Not gonna happen. They never go after fellow communists for this sort of thing. Of course, Cotton won’t do anything about it, but even if he makes a formal complaint, DOJ still won’t do a damn thing about it.
Communists have their own analog of Islam’s “taqiyya.” It’s their duty to lie to advance the party, just as it is a Muslim’s duty to lie when it advances Islam.
Seriously, under our current political dispensation, it is functionally not possible to charge any Leftist candidate, official, or nominee with perjury. The Left will not allow it, and anyone not one the Left today is intimidated enough that they will do functionally nothing, It is part of our multiple “rules of law”.
Subotai Bahadur
edit: “anyone not on the Left today”.
Subotai Bahadur
She should have just explained that it was the “one free first-offense felony” that AOC says everyone on their side gets.
Too true.
In Massachusetts the law dealing with expungement is clear regarding statements made regarding potential employment. The applicant can deny the existence of the incident and that statement will, by law, be deemed truthful. An employer that otherwise discovers the real world falsity of this and acts upon it is subject to criminal penalties.
You stole my thunder friend. That is exactly correct. Expunged means what it says, it requires a court order from the presiding judge ( if available) or another judge. The record is expunged from all computer systems and the records are sealed or destroyed. Depending on the particular State. Tempest in a tea pot. But have at fellas, just another fundraising e-mail going out tonight. I do like Sen Cotton, but like so many it’s just theater. FJB
And that would be definitive if any of this had taken place under Massachusetts law. But Massachusetts isn’t even involved (it was Maryland) and federal law had jurisdiction of this interrogation. I may as well argue from a Mexican jail that I had a perfect right to have ammunition on my person under US law,