Sunday, February 16, 2020

Worst Attorney General In History?

>

AG Bill Barr by Nancy Ohanian

When Bernie and Elizabeth and a handful of other senators called on Barr to resign as Attorney General last week, people rolled their eyes. But this morning over a thousand former Department of Justice employees signed this letter demanding exactly the same thing. Trump and Barr have politicized the Just Department unlike any other pair of crooks have done in history. And Barr is a worse AG than Jeff Sessions, Harry Daugherty, John Ashcroft, John Mitchell or even A. Mitchell Palmer.
We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.

As former DOJ officials, we each proudly took an oath to support and defend our Constitution and faithfully execute the duties of our offices. The very first of these duties is to apply the law equally to all Americans. This obligation flows directly from the Constitution, and it is embedded in countless rules and laws governing the conduct of DOJ lawyers. The Justice Manual-- the DOJ’s rulebook for its lawyers-- states that “the rule of law depends on the evenhanded administration of justice”; that the Department’s legal decisions “must be impartial and insulated from political influence”; and that the Department’s prosecutorial powers, in particular, must be “exercised free from partisan consideration.”

All DOJ lawyers are well-versed in these rules, regulations, and constitutional commands. They stand for the proposition that political interference in the conduct of a criminal prosecution is anathema to the Department’s core mission and to its sacred obligation to ensure equal justice under the law.

And yet, President Trump and Attorney General Barr have openly and repeatedly flouted this fundamental principle, most recently in connection with the sentencing of President Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone, who was convicted of serious crimes. The Department has a long-standing practice in which political appointees set broad policies that line prosecutors apply to individual cases. That practice exists to animate the constitutional principles regarding the even-handed application of the law. Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case. It is even more outrageous for the Attorney General to intervene as he did here-- after the President publicly condemned the sentencing recommendation that line prosecutors had already filed in court.

Such behavior is a grave threat to the fair administration of justice. In this nation, we are all equal before the law. A person should not be given special treatment in a criminal prosecution because they are a close political ally of the President. Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.

We welcome Attorney General Barr’s belated acknowledgment that the DOJ’s law enforcement decisions must be independent of politics; that it is wrong for the President to interfere in specific enforcement matters, either to punish his opponents or to help his friends; and that the President’s public comments on DOJ matters have gravely damaged the Department’s credibility. But Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign. But because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.

For these reasons, we support and commend the four career prosecutors who upheld their oaths and stood up for the Department’s independence by withdrawing from the Stone case and/or resigning from the Department. Our simple message to them is that we-- and millions of other Americans-- stand with them. And we call on every DOJ employee to follow their heroic example and be prepared to report future abuses to the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and Congress; to refuse to carry out directives that are inconsistent with their oaths of office; to withdraw from cases that involve such directives or other misconduct; and, if necessary, to resign and report publicly-- in a manner consistent with professional ethics-- to the American people the reasons for their resignation. We likewise call on the other branches of government to protect from retaliation those employees who uphold their oaths in the face of unlawful directives. The rule of law and the survival of our Republic demand nothing less.


These professionals didn't buy into the transparent kabuki-theater Barr and Trump staged last week-- Barr fake-scolding Trump for not letting him do his job. He's very much doing his job: being Trump's Roy Cohn, which is what he was hired to be. And that's the problem for the Department of Justice and for the American people.





Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

At 1:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can we call it a three-way tie with John Mitchell and Harry Daugherty?

 
At 2:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the courts weren't already corrupted (a process begun under Reagan, aided and abetted frequently by the Democrats), maybe the opinions of former DOJ employees might carry some water. It's WAY too late for them to have spoken up. That should have happened during the confirmation hearings for Barr. They were the dog which didn't bark.

We are literally down to worrying about which side the military is going to take. It looks to me like too many of the officer corps are behind Trump. Then what will the enlisted ranks do? That one of the larger donation groups behind Sanders is the enlisted ranks, but will they refuse to obey unlawful orders?

Since there is no law anymore, it would boil down to the individual moral standards. With this as the only defense against what was once illegal behavior, that doesn't give me much solace.

It's thus only a matter of time before Might Makes Reich in AmeriKKKa.

 
At 3:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

reluctantly nodding in agreement with 2:00.

In my lifetime, it's hard to choose between Ashcroft, alberto gonzalez (articles of impeachment proffered by Rep. Kucinich but smothered by Pelosi), holder and barr.

note the dots connecting all of the latest ones. it's a trend, ain't it.

sessions and Mitchell get honorary mention status only because the DOJ seemed to survive both of them without collapsing. The whole DOJ has now collapsed under the tonnage of trump/barr.

Pelosi could strip the entire cost of the DOJ from the upcoming budget and I doubt anyone would notice. And trump would sign it because he could give that amount back to billionaires in another tax cut.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home