Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) elaborated on allegations made in a recently released House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report against Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez Monday on FNC.
The report alleges Perez as Assistant Attorney General engaged in a quid pro quo with the city of St. Paul, Minn. in which Perez arranged to have a potential $200 million lawsuit against the city dropped in exchange for St. Paul agreeing to settle a separate lawsuit (Magner v. Gallagher) to spare the Obama Administration “disparate impact” housing policy further legal challenge:
JENNA LEE: […] Congressman your critics say that these claims are dubious, that they are part of a broader political campaign to undermine the legal safeguards against the discrimination that Mr. Perez was protecting. Your response?
DARRELL ISSA: Unfortunately that is exactly the question that should be asked. Why wouldn’t you want the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision as to a civil rights claim? Also, why won’t this president who signed a new strength in whistle-blower statute want a whistle-blower backed up? The $200 million is not the principle here. The principle here is whistle-blowers come forward, they do so to our benefit, “qui tam cases” as they’re called, are about recovering money that the federal government gets cheated out of that’s why our committee is so involved in it. From a standpoint of civil justice, Senator Grassley and Chairman Goodlatte are involved in the whole question of “what was Mr. Perez’s constitutional duty?” He had a constitutional duty to support and defend. He also had limited role in that he went outside his role to strike this secret deal, flew to Minnesota to strike a secret deal, and now on one hand they were saying there was nothing wrong with the deal, and then they are trying to say there was no deal. Clearly [there] was a deal.