The Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division is an extremely powerful position within the Department of Justice. Deciding what cases to prosecute concerning the safety and personal liberties of United States citizens comes with a lot of discretion. It requires both the highest levels of honesty and integrity.
And then there's the Biden administration's choice for this highly sensitive position: Kristen Clarke.
We've written often about Clarke here at Twitchy, and none of it good. She, of course, believes that men belong in women's prisons, where they also have a right to 'gender-affirming care;' she is the person who decided that the DOJ should prosecute pro-lifers like Mark Houck and try to give them more than 10 years in prison for ... praying and singing and defending themselves; she is a 'Defund The Police' advocate; and she supports anti-white, racist professors. Hell, this woman even called a law that protects Down Syndrome babies from being aborted 'draconian.'
Par for the course for a Biden appointee.
But what really sets me off with Clarke is that, well, she is just a liar. I wrote previously about how she blatantly lied to Congress about Missouri v. Biden, saying that she wasn't familiar with the landmark case (yeah, right).
Recommended
It turns out, she has a long and undistinguished history of lying under oath, including at her confirmation hearing. About her own criminal history.
Seems pretty disqualifying, no?
NEW: DOJ's Kristen Clarke testified during her confirmation hearings that she was never arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime. I've obtained messages and records indicating Clarke may have been...less than forthcoming with this statement.https://t.co/Wxcusa4yXU
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 30, 2024
Mary Margaret Olohan at The Daily Signal published this comprehensive and damning report about Clarke's lies earlier this week and the lapdog press has been in damage control mode ever since. I'll get to that later, but first, let's take a look at how Olohan has the goods on Clarke.
When Clarke was being confirmed, she was asked about ever being arrested by Senator Tom Cotton. Here is her response:
During her confirmation, @TomCottonAR, 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?”
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 30, 2024
“No,” she responded, according to responses she submitted under oath to “Questions for… pic.twitter.com/Iv1BUPI8ba
Welp. Turns out that wasn't true. Police records indicate that Clarke has indeed been arrested. And get this: it was for violently assaulting her ex-husband WITH A KNIFE.
Avery ultimately said that Clarke attacked him with a knife, deeply slicing his finger to the bone, on the night of July 4, 2006. According to messages and documents reviewed by The Daily Signal, police arrested Clarke that night.
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 30, 2024
Court records obtained by The Daily Signal show that a criminal case against Clarke was initiated in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County, but on Oct. 17, 2006, the Maryland state attorney entered a request of “nolle prosequi” in the case, which effectively… pic.twitter.com/oqKSfAFJpb
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 30, 2024
All of this is well documented and Clarke's ex-husband confirmed the facts of the case.
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.
Clarke was not prosecuted for the assault because Avery declined to press charges (he admits to his infidelity and that he was an active part of the argument that led to her slicing his hand). She was definitely arrested and booked that night though.
But this is where the story gets a little more complicated. Clarke can't necessarily be charged with perjury (like Biden's corrupt DOJ would ever do that anyway) because she had her record about the incident expunged.
At the same time, as a nominee for Assistant U.S. Attorney General, Clarke required a security clearance. For this, the Center for Presidential Transition is quite clear:
According to the Center for Presidential Transition, every person hired for a federal job is asked to complete a background check, and nominees are asked to complete either a 'Questionnaire for National Security Positions,' the SF-86, or a 'Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions,' an SF 85P.
The SF-86, for example, specifically says that applicants must report information 'regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed.'
Did Clarke lie on this form too? Or did she admit the arrest on the form and it was hidden from Congress? Either way, she has an obligation here. And she ignored it because, in true 'rules for thee, but not for me' Democrat fashion, it's (D)ifferent when they do it.
I have some experience with this. Yes, Twitchy readers, I have to confess that I was once arrested in my dumb and youthful '20s (sorry, you don't get all the juicy details, but I can confirm that I never attacked anyone with a knife). Like Clarke, I was able to get the arrest expunged from my records.
Years later, I was working at a job that required a security clearance. I consulted with an attorney about whether I needed to disclose my arrest and his response was, 'Abso-freaking-lutely, you do.' (I may be paraphrasing.) The attorney told me that an expunged arrest would likely not deny me the clearance, but the government would probably find out about it anyway (if they didn't know already), and hiding that arrest would be much more of a threat -- perhaps even prosecutable -- than just copping to it. So, I told my interviewer about the arrest, my application went through, and I got my clearance.
Why didn't Clarke do the same?
The nonprofit law firm Maryland Legal Aid notes that it is probably prudent to disclose expungement records when applying for certain types of jobs that require a security clearance, such as government or military jobs, since these types of employers are still going to be able to see the criminal charges in a person’s background.
Mark Robbins, who served as general counsel of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under former Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, believes that a DOJ nominee should indeed disclose an expunged arrest when specifically asked.
Clarke did not need to disclose her arrest in a public confirmation hearing. She could have informed the Senate Judiciary Committee privately, they would have met with her privately where she could explain, and that would (in all likelihood) be that. Olohan explains in her report how the Senate has done this with other nominees in the past to avoid political embarrassment.
Instead, she just chose to lie. Because the rules don't apply to her. As the saying goes, 'The coverup is always worse than the crime.' That seems to apply here as well.
Of course, when The Daily Signal tried to reach out to Clarke when assembling this report, they got dismissed by the Biden White House.
Biden White House responds by mocking Daily Signal instead of acknowledging the story.
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) May 1, 2024
Still waiting, @AndrewJBates46! pic.twitter.com/1Lt2G1JCfh
But here's the best part. The story came out and immediately, the media flaks who carry water for Team Biden dutifully changed the subject completely.
Yesterday, CNN came out with their OWN report. Except this one glosses over Clarke's lies. All of a sudden, she is now 'an abused wife' (though she has never claimed this in the past).
NEW: Clarke confirms that she did not disclose her expungement and accuses her ex-husband of abuse to CNN: “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://t.co/UTHw5zQYDw
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) May 1, 2024
Clarke’s now-expunged arrest, which reportedly occurred during a domestic dispute, quickly became a cause célèbre among right-wing media and lawmakers who claim she lied during her 2021 Senate confirmation hearing, with some calling for her resignation.
“Nearly 2 decades ago, I was subjected to years-long abuse and domestic violence at the hands of my ex-husband,” Clarke wrote in the statement on Wednesday.
Ahh, it's the old 'Republicans POUNCE' tactic. They love that one, don't they? And, if Clarke was indeed a long-suffering victim of domestic violence, why is the first time we hear about it conveniently released just as she is caught lying?
Senator Mike Lee, for one, wasn't buying it.
Domestic abuse is never okay.
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) May 1, 2024
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said “no” when asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee whether she had ever been arrested for a violent crime.
That wasn’t true.https://t.co/wgiDFIhBoC
UPDATE: @BasedMikeLee: “Kristen Clarke is in charge of enforcing civil rights laws...She lied under oath during her confirmation proceedings, and should resign.”https://t.co/Zn10gtGWsz
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) May 1, 2024
'Kristen Clarke is in charge of enforcing civil rights laws,' Lee said in a statement posted to X on Tuesday evening. 'She enforces those laws aggressively against anyone who sneezes near an abortion clinic. And not at all against those who vandalize churches. She lied under oath during her confirmation proceedings, and should resign.'
'She lied under oath to mask her arrest for committing a violent crime, yet she zealously prosecutes peaceful pro-life protesters,' the senator added.
This, of course, allowed the media -- like Glenn Thrush of The New York Times -- to change the focus from Clarke to Lee himself.
Clarke said she was subjected to years of abuse by her ex-husband — and her arrest for slashing his finger was expunged…
— Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) May 1, 2024
She said she’s still ‘terrorized and traumatized’
The senator, who initially presented this incident without that context now makes this statement —> https://t.co/r6uuTTxxTv
Yes, that's right. Senator Lee is the problem here, not Clarke and her lying. Funny how Clarke was able to hide her 'terror and trauma' for 15 years, isn't it? Until it could be used as a political weapon, that is.
There is not a single senator, not even Lee or Cotton, who would not have given her a pass if she was indeed 'terrorized and traumatized' and explained that to them privately.
But nope. They are running their playbook down to the letter. And it is just as despicable as it is every other time they've done it.
What will be the outcome of all of this? Clarke will not resign on her own, nor will she be pressured to step down by the Biden administration. Of course, she won't. After all, she's doing what they want her to do: selectively enforce the law against the administration's political enemies.
It was a really nice system of equal justice under the law we once had in America. We kind of miss it.
The late, great George Carlin once said, 'It's a BIG club. And you ain't in it.'
The Biden administration -- and their top civil rights cop Kristen Clarke -- have made that patently clear to all of us.
