DEAN ERWIN CHEMERINSKY: GARLAND’S FAILURES @ JUSTICE GO BEYOND IMMIGRATION! — Attempting To Cover Up Your Predecessor’s Dishonesty, Ethical Lapses, & Possible Criminal Misconduct Might Be Good Bureaucracy, But It’s Bad Government! — “[T]his action is completely contrary to the public interest: The Justice Department should not be shielding itself from scrutiny.”

Judge Merrick Garland
Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General —  Why is this guy . . .
Official White House Photo
Public Realm
Barr Departs
Covering up for this guy . . .    Lowering The Barr by Randall Enos, Easton, CT
Republished By License
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
Is what this guy wants to know! — Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
UC Berkeley Law
PHOTO: law.Berkeley.edu

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-05-27/justice-department-william-barr-mueller-memo

Dean Chemerinsky writes in the LA Times:

By ERWIN CHEMERINSKY

MAY 27, 2021 1:32 PM PT

The Biden administration is making a serious mistake in placing the self-interest of the Justice Department ahead of the people’s right to know if former Atty. Gen. William Barr acted to cover up Donald Trump’s possible engagement in obstruction of justice.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., in early May ordered the release of a crucial Justice Department memo that will shed light on Barr’s conduct and whether he acted inappropriately. Rather than comply with the judge’s command and disclose the document, the Biden Justice Department is appealing the order in an effort to keep the memo secret.

In March 2019, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III delivered his report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to then-Atty. Gen. Barr. While keeping the report secret, Barr sent a letter to congressional leaders purporting to “summarize the principal conclusions.” Barr said that Mueller “did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” and that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Trump then declared that he was fully exonerated.

Barr said that he had reached his conclusion “in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers.” A Freedom of Information Act request was filed by a watchdog group to obtain the OLC memo that purportedly was the basis for Barr’s judgment that the Mueller report exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice.

A reading of the Mueller report indicates that Barr’s statements were a gross mischaracterization of the evidence it presented. There was substantial evidence that Trump had engaged in obstruction of justice and Mueller said that he offered no conclusion only because Justice Department rules prevented indicting a sitting president.

Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson reviewed the OLC memo and concluded that there was no legal basis for withholding it from release. Indeed, she was sharply critical of the Justice Department’s arguments for secrecy. She said that the “affidavits” submitted in favor of withholding the document “are so inconsistent with evidence in the record, they are not worthy of credence.” She said that her review of the documents led her to conclude “that not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege.” She said that the agency’s “redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum.”

In plain English, she slammed the Justice Department for misleading the court in trying to keep the document secret.

This issue is central to a government operating under the rule of law: Did the attorney general act to deceive Congress and the American people to protect Trump from being seen as having engaged in obstruction of justice? The OLC memo is key to understanding what happened.

. . . .

***************

Read the full op-Ed at the link.

During his Senate confirmation hearings Judge Garland presented himself well and indicated a sound understanding of justice, the proper role of the Attorney General, and the public interest. However, that now appears to have been largely skillful misdirection.

Since actually being sworn in, Garland has, surprisingly and sadly, conducted business largely without regard to progressive values, expert advice, common sense, or the public interest.

How much sense does Garland’s latest attempt to cover up for the Trump regime make? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/29/trump-lafayette-square-protests-us-seeks-dismissal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

As many of us who served at the USDOJ over the years learned, leadership often has a tendency to confuse institutional protection, political agendas, and their own self-interest with advancing the public good, which is actually the AG’s sole job.

If there is one thing the DOJ has never wanted, under any Administration, it’s public scrutiny. That’s probably why it was so easy for the Trump Administration to get cooperation from career DOJ attorneys, who should have known better, for its corrupt policies.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-30-21

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments