Replies

Check out the recent tweets from US Civil Rights Commissioner Michael Yaki.

Yakiblog

* Name Michael Yaki
* Location San Francisco
* Web http://www.sfgate...
* Bio US Civil Rights Commissioner, Gov’t Affairs Consultant, Political Commentator, Life Observer and bad golfer

1. @AdamSerwer we can discuss how badly DoJ played this — hide head in the sand is NOT a strategy. But fact is, this is disgruntled Bushies 12 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to AdamSerwer

2. @AdamSerwer what are they saying (and I don’t count Fox). 24 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to AdamSerwer

3. also at #usccr hearing on #newblackpanther, evidence shows that lawsuit was rush job to stick it to Obama before he took office about 2 hours ago via web

4. At #usccr #newblackpanther hearing, “revelation” is that #chriscoates - supposed career guy — is acolyte of #schlozman and #vonspakovsky about 2 hours ago via web

5. Predictable. Go on #FoxNews and get slew of hate emails. The anonymous ones are the best — cowards!!!! about 2 hours ago via web

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL YAKI,
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS,
BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
MARCH 17, 2005

http://www.usccr.gov/congress/050317/050317my.pdf

I am hoping the Commission will investigate the collateral damage to civil rights as a result of the Patriot Act, which is up for reauthorization this year. The Voting Rights Act comes up for reauthorization in 2007, and rather than have talking heads trade insults on its continued vitality, we need to take a fact-based look at disenfranchisement issues in all communities of our country. And there are many issues relating to educational and economic equality for minorities, women and the disabled, and other communities that I believe still need to be addressed.

There are issues that some Commissioners will agree with, and others in which we will disagree. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions from the same set of facts and circumstances, but it requires resources to access those facts and circumstances.

Commissioner Yaki decries “zealous pursuit of a partisan and ideological agenda” in scheduling of Adams’ testimony

July 07, 2010

Michael Yaki, a Democratic member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, has released a statement criticizing the “far-right majority” on the Commission for scheduling the testimony of right-wing activist J. Christian Adams at a time when commissioners critical of the manufactured controversy surrounding the New Black Panthers Party case — including Republican vice chairwoman Abigail Thernstrom — could not attend. Yaki called the investigation into the case “shallow, expensive, and partisan” and “reminiscent of an inquisition, a star chamber, and a witch hunt.”

Yesterday, Thernstrom encouraged readers to “forget about the New Black Panther Party case,” which she called “small potatoes, commenting that “too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.” Yet right-wing media continue to promote the phony allegations.

Read Commissioner Yaki’s full statement:

Rather than engage in even a pretense of even-handedness, the Commission’s far-right majority chose to ignore the fact that none of the three Commissioners who objected to the date of the hearing — Commissioners Yaki, Arlan Melendez, and Abigail Thernstrom — could attend. The Commission Chair, the General Counsel, and the witness could not find a convenient time nor bother to solicit our availability (after a holiday weekend, no less) prior to scheduling this hearing. The fact that this hearing is being held without either Democratic Commissioners Yaki and Melendez, despite our prior practice of always seeking to accommodate the scheduling concerns of all Commissioners, underscores the fact that this is another page in the Whitewateresque drama convened by the ultra-conservative right-wing of the Commission. In blatant disregard of the bipartisan charge of this Commission, the majority carries on without semblance of fairness in their zealous pursuit of a partisan and ideological agenda.

There exists ample evidence of voter intimidation that was swept under the rug by prior Administrations. However, the Commissioners in attendance continue to show that voter intimidation is not their real concern. Instead, they misrepresent the present facts, engage in sweeping generalizations, and have seen fit to ignore anything that might veer from their predetermined outcome. By catering to the schedule and personal views of Mr. Adams, this Commission seeks to elevate one person’s account of a single incident into a generalized attack on the Administration’s voter protection policy. Regarding Mr. Adams’s schedule, it should be noted that he seems to have plenty of time to speak to every conservative media outlet in the country, but — according to our General Counsel — he had only had one day available between July 6th and 16th to appear before the Commission.

The plain truth is that two individuals engaged in a few hours of activity which, on its face, could possibly be construed as voter intimidation. One of them carried a nightstick. However, no witnesses saw them accost any voters. No witnesses saw them verbally or physically threaten any voters. On the other hand, if we are to conclude that “outfits” and demeanor can alone be intimidating, why did the Justice Department fail to take action against individuals in Arizona who not only displayed guns and home-made badges, but also accosted Latino voters? Why didn’t the Justice Department investigate individuals and campaign committees in New Mexico and Pennsylvania who targeted minority and elderly voters with “official” statements and threats about their voting status that were legally and factually incorrect? These are the real questions on voter intimidation that the Commissioners here today have chosen to ignore time and again.

This investigation, such as it is, has been incredibly shallow, expensive, and partisan. There exist serious issues today involving discrimination and racism in this country that the Commission’s far-right majority has ignored in its quixotic pursuit of a conspiracy and a policy that do not exist. These proceedings are reminiscent of an inquisition, a star chamber, and a witch hunt. They are not worthy of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

http://tinyurl.com/25uownd

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights Meeting Turns Into Brawl Over DOJ Black Panthers Case

August 13th, 2010

“The simplest thing in the world to do for the Department of Justice, in terms of putting this to bed, is to turn to Mr. Coates and instruct him to go testify,” Reynolds said. “He will either refute the statements made by Mr. Adams on this point, or he will confirm them.”

Gaziano agreed, saying commissioners “have sworn testimony” from Adams, “and the Department has still neither admitted, denied or commented on that statement.”

But Yaki said suggestions that Adams’ “sworn testimony” amounts to evidence are “a farce” and “a joke,” calling Adams’ testimony “not credible to say the least.”

“There was sworn testimony by one individual, who’s no longer an employee, about a statement by another individual who said he heard it from a third individual,” Yaki said.

In a letter sent to the commission on Wednesday, Perez, who testified before the commission in May, said the Justice Department “is firmly committed to the evenhanded application of the law, without regard to the race of the victims or perpetrators of unlawful behavior.”

“Any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue,” Perez wrote, pointing to “our ongoing work in Mississippi,” where the Justice Department recently filed a motion to stop Democratic officials from discriminating against white voters.

Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, a Republican, said Perez’s letter “gave us the back of the hand,” and Gaziano said Perez “continues to refuse to allow Chris Coates to testify when it’s clear that he would have relevant and material evidence to present.”

But Yaki insisted that the letter offers “proof” that “all this blowing smoke is just that.”

“It shows actual actions by the Department of Justice that completely bely the claims made by [Adams],” he said. “The letter states very clearly that … [when an] African-American was doing all these pretty awful things to suppress the white vote, the Department of Justice got involved.”

In addition, Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican Vice-Chair of the commission who has been an outspoken critic of the New Black Panther case investigation, said there “can be perfectly legitimate internal reasons” for the Justice Department’s refusal to comply with the commission’s subpoena.

“If Republicans were running the Justice Department, I think that for reasons of internal management to the department they would undoubtedly handle this in the same way that Perez is,” Thernstrom said. “It seems to me we’re talking about how Washington works. … We are not uniquely victimized here.”

Gaziano called that a “strange notion” disputed by history, and he offered a motion urging Congress to amend the law creating the commission or write new laws to clarify what can be done if the Justice Department has a “conflict of interest.” The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 3.

The commission is currently working on a report about its investigation into the New Black Panthers case.

http://tinyurl.com/29jbrwt