Injustice: Tracking Bill Barr’s Misconduct as Attorney General
Updated November 30, 2020, to include additional items in the timeline
The Department of Justice, led by the attorney general, has a unique role in our government. The attorney general, as the nation’s top law enforcement official, is entrusted with ensuring that the department acts with impartiality and independence to uphold the rule of law. And although the attorney general is presidentially appointed and works within the executive branch, the Justice Department’s mandate is to treat the people of the United States, not the president, as its client. Inherent in the department’s and the attorney general’s responsibilities is also to act in accordance with reasonable checks and balances.
Under Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department has repeatedly strayed from its commitment to independence and the rule of law. Barr has demonstrated a disregard for these values, putting personal and political priorities first and undermining the constitutional separation of powers—in short, he has acted in a manner unbefitting the powerful position of attorney general.
Looking at Barr’s tenure since his February 2019 confirmation, we’ve identified a long string of actions that constitute serious misconduct, and may inflict lasting damage to the Justice Department. These actions generally fall into four key categories of misconduct that are antithetical to the department’s responsibilities to the public and to the Constitution. Namely, Barr has on numerous occasions interfered with impartial prosecutions, prioritized politics over justice, undermined the independent special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and hindered congressional oversight. Below, subject matter experts explain the significance of each theme in greater detail.
POGO has produced a timeline to provide a thorough look at the improper actions Barr has taken, their impact, and how they form an escalating pattern of undermining the Justice Department’s proper role in the executive branch. As Barr continues to oversee activities such as pending investigations that he has politicized, it is critical to examine the breadth of his misconduct thus far, and view any potentially improper actions he may take in the context of this pattern of wrongdoing.
A few notes on format and content: The timeline does not exclusively track Barr’s misconduct. In order to provide a more complete picture, it begins with a small set of relevant events prior to Barr’s appointment, and also tracks related developments, such as other officials’ responses to Barr’s actions; the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and other high-profile investigations; indictments, convictions, and sentences; and more. The timeline also includes a number of isolated acts of misconduct that may not be part of a series of actions, but are nonetheless necessary to highlight given their implications for critical issues such as civil rights and civil liberties.
Focused primarily on the four categories of misconduct discussed above, the timeline also tracks activities centered on five key areas and contexts in which many important interconnected events took place:
- The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. These entries are labeled “SDNY.”
- The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. These entries are labeled “DC U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
- The special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. These entries are labeled “Russia Investigation.”
- Efforts to delegitimize the investigation of Russian interference, and baseless claims that the Trump campaign was subject to unlawful surveillance. These entries are labeled “Spying Claims.”
- Interactions with Congress. These entries are labeled “Congress.”
Types of Misconduct
Undermining the Special Counsel
It is a fundamental tenet of the law, as Edward Coke put it almost 400 years ago, that “no man can be a judge in his own case.” All the more so when the man is president of the United States. And that is why having some independent investigative authority to stand as a bulwark against presidential criminality is important. The special counsel provisions that authorized Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump are a response to the age-old question: Who will watch the watchmen? How do we make sure that those who are responsible for leading us are not a threat to the citizens of the very union they are bound to protect? In an independent special counsel, our nation hoped it had found the answer.
—Paul Rosenzweig, Senior Fellow, R St. Institute, and former Senior Counsel, Whitewater Investigation
Prioritizing Politics over Justice
A fundamental premise of a fair justice system is that all Americans are treated equally. The Justice Department, which is charged with investigating and prosecuting federal crimes, can only be effective if it not only is perceived as conducting its work free of political influence, but actually conducts its work in a nonpartisan and independent manner. Although policy priorities may shift from administration to administration, a fundamental commitment to enforcing the law and protecting national security without regard to inappropriate political influence has traditionally been baked into the culture of the department. When public confidence begins to erode in the department's independent exercise of its substantial powers, public safety and national security are weakened, and our collective societal fabric begins to fray.
—Carrie Cordero, Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, and former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security
Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was also the chief prosecutor of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunals. Before these positions, he served as attorney general and spoke to a group of United States Attorneys about the discretion a prosecutor has over a person's "life, liberty and reputation." He deemed the power as good if used properly but if driven by improper motives, the prosecutor becomes "one of the worst". Having been a state, military, and federal prosecutor, I attest to the non-negotiable requirement that prosecutions must be based solely on the evidence and the law. Given the enormous power prosecutors wield, politics cannot play a part in charging decisions. Any deviation from this historical practice is anathema to the rule of law
—David Iglesias, Former United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico
Hindering Congressional Oversight
Checks and balances are the immune system of our democracy, vital to its functioning and survival. Our Constitution designed Congress to be a rigorous check on the executive – in creating laws that set the bounds of executive power, in passing a budget to fund what it can (and cannot) do, and in providing direct oversight over the executive and its officers. Ability to question officials, to obtain relevant documents, and to investigate without obstruction and delay are critical to Congress’ role. Efforts to undermine Congressional oversight are incompatible with a democratic society in which the executive is subject to checks, limits, and judgment by both the people and its coequal branches of government.
—Danielle Brian, Executive Director of the Project On Government Oversight
Timeline
-
Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to Federal Investigators
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI officials during their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The investigation is led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office. Flynn’s sentencing is later delayed as he cooperates with the special counsel’s office in its investigation, and then stops cooperating and tries to get the charges dismissed.
-
Turkish President Asks Trump to Intervene in Prosecution of a Turkish State-Owned Bank, Halkbank
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan states that he and U.S. President Donald Trump have been discussing a U.S. prosecution of Halkbank, a Turkish state-owned bank, for sanctions violations (Halkbank will also be charged with fraud at a later date). Erdoğan, who has criticized the prosecution, says that Trump responded that “he would instruct the relevant ministers immediately” regarding the case.
-
Trump Tells Erdoğan He’ll Help Limit Prosecution of Halkbank
During the G-20 summit, Trump meets with Erdoğan to discuss the prosecution of Halkbank, which the Justice Department’s Southern District of New York office was overseeing. John Bolton, who was Trump’s national security adviser at the time, writes in his 2020 memoir, “Trump then told Erdoğan he would take care of things, explaining that the Southern District prosecutors were not his people, but were Obama people, a problem that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people.” Bolton adds, “Trump rolled on, claiming he didn’t want anything bad to happen to Erdoğan or Turkey.” At this point the Southern District of New York office is led by Geoffrey Berman.
-
Flynn Reiterates Guilty Plea
During a sentencing hearing, Flynn reiterates his plea of guilty for lying to federal investigators. Flynn’s attorney states, “General Flynn has been, I think, clear from the beginning and will be clear again to you today that he fully accepts responsibility, stands by his guilty plea, which was made based on knowing and willful conduct.”
-
Barr Confirmed as Attorney General
-
Barr Orders Antitrust Investigations of Cannabis Industry Despite Career Officials’ Advice
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
The recently confirmed attorney general meets with the leadership of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division to discuss mergers within the cannabis industry. Barr rejects career staff’s arguments that the merger did not raise significant antitrust issues, and ordered additional investigative activity. For the next several months, at Barr’s direction, the Antitrust Division continues investigating cannabis companies.
Flash forward: In testimony provided the following year, career Justice Department employee and whistleblower John Elias will explain, “The rationale for doing so centered not on an antitrust analysis, but because he did not like the nature of their underlying business.” According to Elias, “career staff was not permitted to take customary fact-finding steps. For example, staff was instructed not to conduct interviews of customers or competitors—a necessary step in any bona fide antitrust investigation.”
-
Barr Mischaracterizes the Mueller Report’s Findings
Type of Misconduct: Undermining the Special Counsel; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Barr announces he has received the special counsel’s report on Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and on the Trump administration’s efforts to inhibit investigations of Russian interference. In a publicly released, four-page letter, Barr offers what he describes as “the principal conclusions” of the 400-page report.
Flash forward: Weeks will pass before Mueller’s full report is publicly released as it undergoes declassification review. Barr’s letter will be revealed not only to have omitted basic context and detail, but to have used quotes in a manner that contradicts their real meaning in the report. Thus Barr’s letter sows significant confusion about the special counsel’s findings and conclusions, and effectively undermines a basic goal of the independent investigation: increasing public knowledge about Russian interference and Trump’s response to it.
-
Mueller Expresses Concerns over Barr’s Characterization, and Requests Release of Report’s Executive Summary
Type of Misconduct: Undermining the Special Counsel
Mueller sends a letter to Barr—which was not released publicly until April 30, 2019—stating that Barr’s publicly released summary letter “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of [the special counsel’s] work and conclusions.” Mueller writes that Barr’s statements had created “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.” Mueller also requests that the introduction and executive summary of the report be released, and notes that his office provided them to Barr with redactions that would preclude the need to delay their release due to any classification concerns. Although Mueller writes that the release of the executive summary his office included with the report would “alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen,” the attorney general takes no action in response, allowing confusion and error regarding the special counsel’s conclusions to persist.
-
Trump Tells Turkish President that Barr and Mnuchin Will Resolve the Halkbank Prosecution
According to sources cited in a Bloomberg article, Trump tells the president of Turkey that he has assigned Barr and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to resolve the prosecution of Turkish state-owned bank Halkbank. That prosecution was under the jurisdiction of attorneys for the Southern District of New York.
-
Barr Makes False Statements to House of Representatives on Mueller Investigation
Type of Misconduct: Undermining the Special Counsel; Hindering Congressional Oversight
During a House Appropriations Committee hearing, Representative Charlie Crist (D-FL) notes that members of Mueller’s team have expressed frustration that Barr’s letter “does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings,” and asks if Barr understands what this statement was referring to. In response to Crist’s question, Barr falsely says he did not know what the complaints were referring to, and gives the misleading impression that he was not aware of concerns raised by the special counsel’s office, or the remedies—specifically release of the report’s executive summary—that Mueller’s team wanted Barr to implement.
-
Barr Makes False Statements to Senate on Mueller Investigation
Type of Misconduct: Undermining the Special Counsel; Hindering Congressional Oversight
During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asks Barr whether Mueller supports the conclusion Barr made in his summary letter. Again, rather than acknowledging that Mueller had expressed concerns to him about the accuracy of Barr’s portrayal of “key findings of the report” and its conclusions, the attorney general falsely states that he does not know whether Mueller supports his conclusions.
-
Barr Makes False Statement to Senate on Political “Spying”
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Hindering Congressional Oversight; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During the same April 10 Senate hearing, during questioning about allegations that the Obama Justice Department authorized surveillance of the 2016 Trump campaign, Barr states that “spying did occur.” Barr proceeds to give contradictory answers on what he means by “spying.” He first follows up on his spying claim by stating “the question is whether it was predicated”—meaning whether it was legally authorized surveillance. Yet later in the hearing, when asked to clarify what he means by “spying,” he states that spying is “unauthorized surveillance.” (Barr would later contradict himself again, stating in an interview, “There is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law and properly predicated. … It’s a perfectly good English word, I will continue to use it.”) Regardless of how the term “spying” is interpreted, the damage was done: Barr’s baseless claim seems to have permanently muddied the waters on what type of surveillance actually occurred.
Flash forward: Although a Justice Department inspector general investigation—released in December 2019—would later find serious flaws in the department’s applications for warrants to surveil former Trump campaign staffer Carter Page, there is no evidence of there ever having been any unauthorized government surveillance of the Trump campaign or people working for the campaign. (Note that surveillance of Page began several months after he left the campaign.) Neither the inspector general, the special counsel’s team, nor the Senate Intelligence Committee found any evidence that could reasonably support Barr’s claims.
-
Mueller Report Released
Nearly a full month after Barr releases his summary letter, the Justice Department releases a full version of the special counsel’s report to the public, although it includes redactions for matters such as ongoing prosecutions. Contrary to Barr’s framing, the report is not an exoneration. The report states, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” While the investigation did not find elements of criminal conspiracy with Russian agents in election interference, the report shows significant interactions between Russian government affiliated entities and the Trump campaign, efforts to reap Russian aid in the election, and numerous acts that could constitute obstruction of justice, including multiple acts by Trump himself.
-
Justice Department Blocks Congress from Reviewing Full Mueller Report
Type of Misconduct: Undermining the Special Counsel; Hindering Congressional Oversight
The House Judiciary Committee subpoenas Barr to compel him to provide the full, unredacted Mueller report, including grand jury materials related to the investigation. The Justice Department refuses, beginning a standoff with the committee and denying Congress access to relevant information as it continues to review Mueller’s investigation and findings. The department and the committee will fight through litigation over the next year; the issue is still pending in court.
-
Mueller Letter to Barr Publicly Disclosed
The Washington Post publishes Mueller’s March 27 letter to Barr, making public the extent of Mueller’s concerns, and showing the misleading nature of Barr’s statements to Congress earlier that month.
-
Barr Refuses to Testify Before the House of Representatives
Type of Misconduct: Hindering Congressional Oversight
Although Barr agrees to appear before the Republican-led Senate to discuss the Mueller report—and had appeared before the House just weeks before—he refuses to testify before the Democratic-held House. Barr states that his refusal is based on House members’ plans to use staff members for questions related to the Mueller investigation, a technique that is used infrequently but is by no means without precedent. Barr’s refusal leaves the House unable to question him on many issues, including the Mueller report, the nature of Barr’s summary and his motives for releasing it ahead of the report itself, and his false statements in previous testimony.
-
Barr Makes False Statements to Senate About Mueller Investigation
Type of Misconduct: Undermining the Special Counsel; Hindering Congressional Oversight; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr makes several false and misleading statements about the Mueller report.
First, in reference to the May 2017 firing of FBI Director James Comey, when asked whether he believes Comey’s conduct regarding the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was improper, Barr responds, “Yes. I said so at the time.” Although Barr may have later come to disapprove of Comey’s conduct, he certainly did not say so at the time: In an October 2016 op-ed titled, “James Comey Did The Right Thing,” Barr defended Comey’s decision to publicly discuss the investigation of Clinton, saying that criticism of him “is absurd” and there is “nothing wrong” with what he did. Barr also tells senators that Trump relied on then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s critique of Comey’s conduct as the basis for the firing. But Trump had in fact publicly acknowledged that “regardless of the recommendation I was going to fire Comey” because he was frustrated with the Russia investigation.
Second, Barr states that Trump “fully cooperated” with Mueller’s team and that Mueller never sought or pushed for testimony beyond a written inquiry to the White House. This directly conflicts with the special counsel’s report, which states that Mueller wanted to conduct an in-person interview, and “sought for more than a year” to do so, but only opted not to further pursue it because doing so would likely have led to a court battle that would have delayed and hurt the investigation. Additionally, the Mueller report documents numerous acts of obstruction by Trump; even if these actions do not rise to criminal conduct, it is impossible to reconcile these efforts to hamper the investigation with Barr’s claim that the president “fully cooperated.”
-
Barr Appoints John Durham to Investigate the Origins of the Investigation of Russian Election Interference
Although the Justice Department’s inspector general had already begun a review, Barr assigns John H. Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Barr has already falsely alleged that the government spied on the Trump campaign during that investigation and has asserted that the alleged spying was improperly motivated, raising the concern that his motive in assigning Durham is to advance a false political narrative rather than uncover criminal activity.
-
Barr Repeats False Claim about Politically Motivated “Spying”
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During an interview with CBS, Barr reiterates his baseless claim that the government spied on the Trump campaign. Though it is Justice Department protocol not to comment on ongoing investigations, Barr also discusses details of the Durham probe.
-
House Holds Barr in Contempt
The House of Representatives votes 230-198 to hold Barr in contempt for his refusal to respond to subpoenas for documents regarding the administration’s attempts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The Supreme Court had recently held that the administration’s rushed efforts to add a citizenship question were unlawful.
-
Assistant Attorney General Confirms Antitrust Investigations Are Motivated by Barr’s Dislike of Cannabis Companies
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During an Antitrust Division all-staff meeting, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim responds to concerns about investigations of cannabis companies that did not appear to raise antitrust concerns by acknowledging that the investigations were motivated by Barr’s dislike of the cannabis industry. Justice Department whistleblower John Elias will describe this meeting in testimony to Congress the following year.
-
Barr Leads Effort Abroad in Search of Information on Origins of Russia Investigation
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions
Barr, joined by John Durham, travels to Italy for an unusual meeting with Italian intelligence officials in an attempt to gather information related to the origins of the U.S. government’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which Durham is investigating. The Italian prime minister later states that his government possessed no information relevant to Barr’s efforts.
-
Giuliani Associates Parnas and Fruman Indicted
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York office indicts Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, on charges of attempting to funnel illegal contributions to a committee supporting Trump’s reelection. Parnas and Fruman worked with Giuliani to have Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, removed from her post and to get Ukraine to provide political support to Trump. The Southern District of New York office is also investigating Giuliani for his work with Parnas and Fruman.
-
SDNY Issues New Indictment of Halkbank, Despite Barr’s Efforts
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York proceeds with a new, superseding indictment of Halkbank, charging it with bank fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and defrauding the United States. A source tells CNN that Barr had previously “spearheaded an effort ... to negotiate a settlement with the bank that would have allowed it to sidestep an indictment.”
-
Federal District Court Rules Justice Department Must Give Congress Full Mueller Report
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rules that the Justice Department must give Congress access to the full unredacted Mueller report and grand jury materials from the investigation. The department will appeal.
-
Roger Stone Found Guilty of Obstructing Congress, Perjury, and Witness Tampering
Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone is convicted in federal court on seven felony counts, including obstructing Congress, lying to investigators while under oath, and witness tampering. Stone had acted as a middle man between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, attempting to maximize the impact of Wikileaks’ release of emails hacked by Russia. The charges stem from Stone’s unlawful efforts to impede investigations by Mueller and Congress seeking to uncover Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
-
Inspector General Releases Report on FISA Surveillance
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz releases a long-awaited report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. The report concludes that while the original surveillance of Page—which began in October 2016, about a month after his tenure with the campaign ended—was justified, the FBI’s applications to renew the warrant were predicated on several significant errors and omissions. Notably, the report also concludes that the investigations of Page and of Russian interference more generally were properly predicated, and that there was no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced the investigations, debunking a long-running accusation by both Trump and Barr.
-
Barr Makes False Statements About Inspector General Report on FISA Surveillance
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Immediately following the release of the inspector general report, Barr issues a statement with numerous false statements that contradict the report’s conclusions. Barr states that “the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions,” despite the report’s determination that the investigations were properly predicated and surveillance was not directed at individuals while they were serving as campaign officials. Barr also claims “surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration,” despite the fact that there is no evidence that any members of the administration were ever targeted for surveillance.
-
Barr Makes More False Statements About Inspector General Report
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During a media interview, Barr continues to undermine the inspector general’s findings. Barr baselessly claims the investigation into Russian interference was based on political bias, and falsely states that Horowitz “hasn’t decided the issue of improper motive.” In reality, the report clearly states there was no evidence of political bias or improper motive driving either the launch of the investigation, or its examination of certain Trump campaign affiliates. Barr also says the Trump campaign “was clearly spied upon,” despite the report demonstrating and plainly stating that the FBI surveilled Page only after he left the campaign, and that the surveillance was legally authorized.
In the same interview, Barr again egregiously mischaracterizes the Mueller investigation’s findings, claiming, “There was and never has been any evidence of collusion,” and that the “case collapsed after the election.” Here, Barr ignores the dozens of prosecutions conducted by the special counsel’s team, as well as significant evidence of collusion demonstrated in the Mueller report and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report.
-
DC Federal District Judge Rejects Flynn’s Claims of Prosecutorial Misconduct
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issues a ruling that strongly rejects Flynn’s numerous claims that prosecutors hid evidence from him and interfered in his defense. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators in December 2017, and reiterated his guilty plea to the court in December 2018.
-
House of Representatives Impeaches Trump
The House of Representatives impeaches Trump for abuse of power and obstruction (by a vote of 230-197 on the former charge and 229-198 on the latter) based on his efforts to pressure Ukraine to provide political aid, and his refusal to cooperate with the House’s impeachment investigation.
-
Justice Department Attorneys Recommend Six-Month Sentence for Flynn
Department of Justice attorneys submit a recommendation to the judge overseeing Flynn’s case, that Flynn be sentenced to up to six months in prison for lying to federal prosecutors.
-
Flynn Asks to Withdraw Guilty Plea
-
Barr Installs Timothy Shea as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
Barr names Timothy Shea—who had previously served as a counselor to Barr—as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department’s largest U.S. attorney office. That office has jurisdiction over the Flynn and Stone prosecutions, and was also responsible for the decision not to indict former FBI acting Director Andrew McCabe, which Trump had frequently criticized publicly. The position had become became vacant when Trump nominated U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie Liu for an undersecretary position at the Treasury Department.
Flash forward to mid-February: Less than two weeks after Liu steps down from her U.S. attorney position, Trump will revoke her nomination for the Treasury post, citing her “handling of the politically sensitive cases.”
-
Senate Asks Barr for Information on Halkbank Prosecution, Receives No Reply
Type of Misconduct: Hindering Congressional Oversight
Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden sends a letter to Barr asking for information on the Halkbank prosecution, what directives Barr had received from Trump on the issue, and what actions Barr had taken regarding the case. Barr does not reply.
-
Barr Gives Himself Control Over All Investigations of Political Candidates and Parties
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Barr announces a new policy rule requiring the FBI and all other parts of the Justice Department to notify and obtain written approval from Barr before undertaking an investigation into presidential or vice-presidential candidates. This effectively gives him veto authority over any potential future inquiry into Trump’s conduct. The policy also requires senior approval (such as from a division chief) in order to investigate Senate or House candidates or their campaigns, and even to open an inquiry related to illegal contributions by foreign nationals to campaigns. Barr defends the policy as a way to promote impartiality, stating, “we must investigate and prosecute those matters with sensitivity and care to ensure that the department’s actions do not unnecessarily advantage or disadvantage any candidate or political party.” Previous department policy had pursued the same goal without giving so much decision-making power exclusively to the attorney general.
-
Senate Acquits Trump of Impeachment Charges
The Senate acquits Trump of both abuse of power and obstruction of justice, by a 48-52 vote and a 47-53 vote, respectively.
-
Prosecutors Submit Stone Sentencing Recommendations
-
Trump Attacks Stone Sentencing Recommendation
In a 2:00 a.m. tweet, Trump blasts the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone as a “a horrible and very unfair situation,” adding, “Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!” The tweet provokes speculation that the president might plan to pardon Stone.
-
Justice Department Abruptly Changes Stone Sentencing Recommendation
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Undermining the Special Counsel; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Hours after the president’s tweet, the Justice Department submits a new memo to the U.S. District Court in Washington, undermining the recommendation its attorneys had submitted the day before. The new submission, signed only by newly installed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea, offers no recommended sentence, but says that the recommendations the attorneys had submitted “could be considered excessive and unwarranted.” It is “virtually unprecedented” for the new sentencing recommendation to include no line attorneys, according to testimony one of the prosecutors in the case would later provide.
-
All Prosecutors in Stone Case Resign
Refusing to support what they view as a politically motivated action, all four of the line prosecutors in the Stone case—Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Jonathan Kravis, Adam Jed, and Michael Marando—resign from the case in protest. Zelinsky and Kravis also resign from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Trump attacks the prosecutors on Twitter, and falsely describes the prosecution as “an investigation that was illegal.”
-
Barr Appoints Outside Prosecutor to Review Flynn Case
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Undermining the Special Counsel; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Barr appoints Jeff Jensen, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, as an outside prosecutor to review the prosecution of Michael Flynn, an unusual step given that the prosecution is ongoing and no evidence of misconduct or impropriety has been shown.
-
Stone Sentenced to 40 Months in Prison; Judge Defends Initial Sentencing Recommendation
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentences Roger Stone to 40 months in prison. Although Jackson’s sentence was significantly less than the original sentencing recommendation by prosecutors who worked for the special counsel, she defends the legitimacy of their recommendations, stating, “The government’s initial memorandum was thorough, well researched, and supported. It was true to the record. It was in accordance with the law and with DOJ policy, and it was submitted with the same level of even handed judgment and professionalism that they exhibited throughout the trial. Any suggestion that the prosecutors in this case did anything untoward, unethical, or improper is incorrect.”
-
DC Federal Court Ruling Criticizes Barr’s Summary of Mueller Report as Misleading
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton issues a ruling in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case in which a reporter and nonprofit organization are seeking the unredacted Mueller report, ruling that independent review of the report’s contents is required in the ongoing proceedings. Walton bases his ruling on the court’s conclusion that Barr was dishonest in his depiction of the report, potentially for nefarious reasons. Walton writes, “The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary.”
-
Appeals Court Rules Justice Department Must Give Congress Full Mueller Report
Type of Misconduct: Undermining the Special Counsel; Hindering Congressional Oversight
Almost a year after the Mueller report was completed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirms the lower court’s ruling that the Justice Department must give Congress access to the unredacted report and grand jury materials from the investigation. However, the department will appeal the ruling, continuing to keep congressional access limited.
-
Barr Makes More False Statements to the Media Disproven by Inspector General Report on FISA Surveillance
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics Over Justice
During a Fox News interview, Barr falsely states that the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was started “without any basis” and was politically motivated. The inspector general’s report had disproven both claims several months earlier. Barr also discusses the Durham investigation, though it is Justice Department policy not to comment on ongoing investigations.
-
Interim U.S. Attorney Drops Flynn Prosecution
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Undermining the Special Counsel; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Timothy Shea, Barr’s handpicked interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, files a motion to drop the prosecution of Michael Flynn. The motion is signed only by Shea, and not joined by any line attorney involved in the case. The decision to drop the case—after Flynn had twice pleaded guilty, and absent any evidence of impropriety by investigators or prosecutors—is met with harsh criticism from former prosecutors and legal experts, who called it unprecedented and indefensible. Defending the decision, Barr falsely states that there was no counterintelligence purpose for the FBI to interview Flynn, which the inspector general’s December 2019 report refuted.
-
Lead Prosecutor in Flynn Case Withdraws
After Shea drops the Flynn prosecution, Brandon Van Grack, the lead attorney in the Flynn prosecution who had worked on the case for over two years, withdraws from the case.
-
Former Stone Prosecutor Says Justice Department Put Politics First
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Undermining the Special Counsel; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
In his first public statement since resigning from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Jonathan Kravis, a prosecutor in the Stone case, writes in an op-ed that, “The department’s conduct in the Stone and Flynn cases will do lasting damage to the institution.” Kravis also writes that the department’s actions in those cases “put political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law.” Kravis continues, “In both cases, the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law.” Kravis also notes that the original sentencing recommendation for Stone followed department guidelines, and that in all other situations “the Justice Department staunchly defends sentences within the guidelines range, particularly for defendants (such as Stone) who are convicted at trial, and especially for defendants (such as Stone) who repeatedly demonstrate disrespect for the judicial system.” Kravis describes Barr’s role in both the Stone and Flynn cases as intended to chill impartial prosecutions, stating, “It sends an unmistakable message to prosecutors and agents—if the president demands, we will throw you under the bus.”
-
Judge in Flynn Case Orders Independent Review of Motion to Drop Charges
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issues an order to appoint retired judge John Gleeson as an amicus curiae, or“friend of the court,” to review the Justice Department’s motion to drop the charges against Flynn.
-
Supreme Court Pauses Order to Provide Full Mueller Report to Congress
The Supreme Court pauses the DC Circuit Court of Appeals’ order to release the full Mueller report and grand jury materials to Congress pending its own review of the case, which will occur in the fall. This means that even if the Supreme Court eventually agrees with the district court and the appeals court that the Justice Department must provide Congress with the full report, it is possible that this session of Congress will end before lawmakers finally have access to it.
-
Barr Again Refuses to Testify Before the House
Type of Misconduct: Hindering Congressional Oversight
Barr again refuses to testify before the House, citing restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This leaves congressional overseers unable to question Barr about his conduct regarding the Flynn prosecution, the Stone sentencing, politicization of the inspector general’s report, and the ongoing Durham investigation, as well as general questions about the Mueller report. The House has not had the opportunity to directly question Barr on the special counsel’s report since Mueller’s letter raising concerns with the attorney general’s conduct was made public more than a year earlier. The House Judiciary Committee responds to Barr’s refusal by threatening to cut funding for the attorney general’s office.
-
Barr Involved in Decision to Tear-Gas and Clear Peaceful Protesters from Lafayette Park
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice
U.S. Park Police tear-gas and violently remove peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square Park next to the White House, allowing Trump to do a photo-op at the nearby St John’s Episcopal Church. Barr joined the photo, and appears to have been involved in the decision to clear protestors from the square. Forcibly clearing out protestors in this manner is a gross violation of First Amendment rights. Prior to the police action, according to a Justice Department official and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Barr had ordered that the protesters be cleared. Barr denies he ordered the police action, stating, “I’m not involved in giving tactical commands like that,” but does not dispute his role in the plan to forcibly clear the park.
-
Barr Comments on Pending Durham Investigation
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During a Fox News interview, Barr yet again discusses the Durham investigation—again contravening department protocol not to comment on ongoing investigations—stating that subjects of the investigation include public figures, and that the investigation’s findings to date are “very troubling.”
-
Court-Appointed Amicus Condemns Motion to Drop Flynn Case as Politically Motivated
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Undermining the Special Counsel; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Former federal judge John Gleeson, the amicusappointed to review the Justice Department’s motion to drop the Flynn case, submits a brief harshly criticizing the motion and recommending that the court deny it. Gleeson writes, “the Government’s statement of reasons for seeking dismissal is pretextual. The Government’s ostensible grounds for seeking dismissal are conclusively disproven by its own briefs filed earlier in this very proceeding. They contradict and ignore this Court’s prior orders.” Gleeson continues, “They are riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact.” Gleeson describes the motion as an “unconvincing effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump.”
-
Justice Department Office Says Barr Can Launch Pretextual Investigations
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
In response to a whistleblower complaint regarding the Justice Department’s antitrust investigations of the cannabis industry, the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility issues a memo which concludes that launching and conducting an investigation out of malicious motives such as animus against the subject of the investigation “would not have violated any relevant laws, regulations, rules, policies, or guidelines.” This effectively gives Barr authority to launch pretextual investigations for personal or political reasons. The whistleblower complaint, filed by career Justice Department employee John Elias, alleges that the department’s investigation of the cannabis industry was motivated by Barr’s dislike of the industry, rather than any real antitrust concerns.
-
Barr Falsely Announces U.S. Attorney for SDNY Has Resigned, Moves to Bypass Berman’s Deputy
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Barr issues a statement claiming that Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has resigned and that Craig Carpenito, the top federal prosecutor for New Jersey, would step in as Berman’s replacement. Berman responds that he has not resigned and does not intend to leave the position until the Senate confirms a nominee to take his place. In announcing that Carpenito would be the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Barr attempts to bypass Berman’s deputy, Audrey Strauss. Berman later states, “the appointment of Craig Carpenito as acting U.S. attorney, or anyone from outside of the office, would have been unprecedented, unnecessary, and unexplained” and “would cause a disruption and delay in our investigations.”
-
Barr Informs Berman He’s Fired, but Allows Berman’s Deputy to Take Over
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Barr sends Berman a letter stating that Trump has fired Berman, at Barr’s request. Barr writes that in refusing to resign, Berman has “chosen public spectacle over public service.” Trump states that he was “not involved” in the decision to fire Berman. However, Barr abandons his efforts to install Carpenito as acting U.S. attorney; his letter also states, “By operation of law, the Deputy United States Attorney, Audrey Strauss, will become the Acting United States Attorney.”
Berman later states that Barr backing down from his earlier attempt to appoint his own handpicked successor and bypass Berman’s deputy was “a critical concession,” and that he was only comfortable leaving his position with Strauss taking over the role. Berman also states that if Barr had continued his attempt to bypass Strauss, “I would have litigated my removal and maintained that the firing by the President was null and void. … Because to do otherwise would have threatened with delay and disruption the ongoing investigations of the office.”
-
House Prepares to Subpoena Barr
In response to Barr’s repeated refusal to testify on the Justice Department’s conduct over the past year, the House Judiciary Committee announces that it is preparing to issue a subpoena to compel Barr to appear and answer members’ questions.
-
Former Stone Prosecutor Alleges Justice Department Played Politics in Sentencing
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Undermining the Special Counsel; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, former Stone prosecutor Aaron S.J. Zelinsky testifies, “Our team was being pressured by the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office [Timothy Shea] not to seek all of the Guidelines enhancements that applied to Stone—that is, to provide an inaccurate Guidelines calculation that would result in a lower sentencing range.” Zelinsky states that the Justice Department’s motives were political: “I was explicitly told that the motivation for changing the sentencing memo was political, and because the U.S. Attorney [Shea] was ‘afraid of the President.’” Finally, Zelinsky states that he and the other prosecutors were personally threatened, and explicitly told “that we could ‘lose our jobs’ if we did not toe the line.”
-
Berman Tells Congress Barr Offered Him New Jobs to Entice Him to Leave
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Ousted U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on his office’s investigations and his firing. Berman states that Barr offered him several positions as an “enticement” to resign as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and that “he wanted me to resign to take a position. I assume you could call that a quid pro quo. You resign and you get this, that would mean quid pro quo.”
Berman also states he asked Barr why he was being removed before Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton—who was going to be nominated to succeed him—was confirmed, and that Barr said it was “to get Clayton in the job.” Berman also states that Barr never told him of his plans to make Carpenito acting U.S. attorney, or why he did not intend to follow standard procedure and have Berman’s deputy take on that role.
-
“When people resist law enforcement, they’re not peaceful”
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During a long-awaited hearing with the House Judiciary Committee, Barr responds to questions regarding law enforcement’s mistreatment of protesters throughout the country by stating, “When people resist law enforcement, they’re not peaceful.” With that statement, Barr is rejecting the concept of civil disobedience—which has been critical to American civil rights efforts, from women’s suffrage to the Civil Rights Movement to recent protests against police brutality—and appears to demonstrate a belief that any refusal to obey law enforcement orders is inherently violent and subject to use of force. Given his role leading federal law enforcement, this is a dangerous and extreme view.
-
Barr Announces Plans to Release Durham Investigation Findings Prior to Election
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Barr indicates he plans to release the findings of the Durham investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation before the 2020 election. Barr argues that doing so even on the eve of the election is appropriate because the investigation does not target a candidate or campaign. However, legal experts and former Justice Department officials maintain that moving forward with an investigation that could impact an election is improper and goes against longstanding department policy. These arguments that the policy should be applied more broadly than just to candidates in fact echo comments Barr has made in the past.
-
DC Circuit Agrees to Conduct Full Review on Flynn Case
The DC Circuit Court agrees to conduct an en banc review (meaning with all judges on the court hearing and ruling on the case) of whether U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan should be required to uphold the Justice Department’s motion to drop the charges against Michael Flynn.
-
Trump Presses Barr for Politically Advantageous Outcome in Durham Investigation
During a Fox News interview, Trump states that “Bill Barr can go down as the greatest attorney general in the history of our country, or he can go down as an average guy,” depending on the outcome of the Durham investigation. Trump falsely states, “They spied on my campaign,” referring to the FBI, and baselessly accuses former President Barack Obama and other officials of committing treason.
-
Barr Comments on the Ongoing Durham Investigation, Again
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics Over Justice
During a Fox News interview, Barr again discusses the Durham investigation into the origins of the Russia probe—despite Justice Department protocol not to comment on ongoing investigations—and promises a development in the near future.
-
FBI Attorney Pleads Guilty to Hiding FISA Misrepresentations
A former FBI attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleads guilty to making false statements about his actions altering an email to support efforts to renew the FISA warrant against former Trump campaign official Carter Page. The fact that this altered email potentially affected the FISA Court’s decision to renew its warrant to surveil Page was first disclosed in the December 2019 inspector general report. The plea marks the first conviction stemming from the Durham investigation into the origins of the Russian interference probe.
-
SDNY Indicts Steve Bannon
The U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York—now led by acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss—indicts Steve Bannon, former Trump campaign chair and White House senior advisor, for defrauding donors while managing an online fundraising campaign.
-
DC Circuit Rejects Claim that Flynn Case Must Be Immediately Dismissed
In an 8-2 ruling, the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is not required to immediately dismiss the Flynn prosecution, as argued both by Flynn’s attorneys and the Justice Department. Sullivan was still reviewing the case after his appointed amicus concluded that the Justice Department’s actions were “based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump,” and recommended that Sullivan not allow the case to be dismissed.
-
Barr Makes False Statements on Ongoing Civil Rights Investigation and Voter Fraud
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics over Justice
During an interview on CNN, Barr makes numerous false statements. First, he comments on the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, despite the fact that the Department of Justice has an active civil rights investigation into the matter and department protocol is not to comment on ongoing investigations. Barr claims that Blake was “armed” when interacting with police, a claim that is not supported by evidence, and has been explicitly refuted by Blake’s attorney.
Second, Barr argues that mail-in voting is vulnerable to fraud by referring to a Texas case where, he claims, an individual fraudulently submitted 1,700 ballots for a single candidate. The prosecutor in the case confirms to the Washington Post that Barr’s description is “not what happened at all,” and the facts of the case reflect that there was no large-scale voter fraud. The Justice Department later states that Barr received a memo with inaccurate information about the case.
-
White House Leadership Comments on Potential Findings of Durham Investigation
Type of Misconduct: Interfering With Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics Over Justice
Although the White House should play no role in ongoing investigations, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows states that he has reviewed documents related to the Durham investigation. Meadows also claims specific public figures committed criminal conduct related to the investigation, stating, “the Peter Strzoks, the Andy McCabes, the James Comeys, and even others in the administration previously are in real trouble because of their willingness to participate in an unlawful act.” The accusation is not only at odds with the Justice Department’s policy against commenting on ongoing investigations, but appears to rely on investigative documents that Meadows should not have access to in the course of his duties as chief of staff.
-
Justice Department Intervenes in Civil Suit Against Trump
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice
The Justice Department moves to intervene in a civil suit filed against the president. Writer E. Jean Carroll, who has alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, is suing Trump for defamation over his comments accusing Carroll of lying about the assault. While Barr describes the Justice Department’s move as “normal,” the department in fact only takes over the defense of government officials in civil suits when a case centers on conduct undertaken in the course of a government role. Contrary to Barr’s claim, the department’s action is highly unusual, since the suit relates to private conduct, disconnected from government activity.
-
Top Aide in Durham Investigation Resigns Over Concerns of Political Motives
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice
Nora Dannehy, a federal prosecutor and top aide in the Durham investigation into the origins of the Russian interference investigation, resigns from the Justice Department. Her departure is reportedly due to concerns that Durham is being pressured to produce results from his investigation before the election for political reasons, including the potential release of an interim report that describes the investigation prior to the investigation’s completion.
-
Barr Is Said to Have Pushed for Sedition Charges for Protesters and Prosecution for Seattle Mayor
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics Over Justice
According to federal prosecutors, Barr instructed Justice Department officials to consider the unusual action of charging violent protesters with sedition. Such a charge would involve prosecuting individuals for engaging in a plot or conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government. Justice Department officials also claim that Barr pushed prosecutors in the Civil Rights Division to examine whether they could charge the mayor of Seattle for allowing a “police-free protest zone” to exist. A Justice Department spokesperson denies the claim regarding the mayor, but does not explicitly deny the proposal of sedition charges.
-
Barr Claims Attorney General Should Personally Intervene in Prosecutions
Type of Misconduct: Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions; Prioritizing Politics Over Justice
During an incendiary speech, Barr attacks career prosecutors at the Justice Department, as well as the general notion of prosecutorial independence.
Barr disparages the practice of giving responsibility to line prosecutors and argues they are not accountable to the public or Congress, and that the only way to ensure responsible conduct in prosecutions is for him to step into cases. But his claim regarding the absence of congressional oversight has been repeatedly disproven. And his framing of career officials as unrestrained by any accountability measures ignores the basic fact that the Justice Department’s own rules, policies, and guidelines serve to set proper boundaries for line prosecutors’ conduct, including requiring that they approach their prosecutions and work in a consistent and ethical manner. It’s also worth noting that, to date, Barr’s interventions to overrule line prosecutors appear to have solely focused on partisan politics and favoring the president’s allies.
Most troublingly, Barr claims that the executive retains practically unfettered power in how it targets individuals for prosecution, limited only by “other provisions of the Constitution.” This ideology would make it acceptable for the federal government to pursue prosecutions driven by political or corrupt motives. But Barr maintains deploying such unconstrained discretion regardless of motive is not without meaningful checks, because “the elected President can fire senior DOJ officials at will and the elected Congress can summon them to explain their decisions to the people’s representatives and to the public.” Barr tops it off with the declaration that “the public’s only tool to hold the government accountable is an election.”
-
Barr Makes More False Mail-In Ballot Fraud Claims
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics Over Justice
Barr continues making false allegations that mail-in ballots are not secure and are highly vulnerable to fraud. Barr’s willingness to make statements aimed at discrediting mail-in voting come as he shows a lack of basic knowledge about how it works—including fraud-prevention measures such as cross-checks with registration rolls and use of unique identifiers on each ballot. He has also demonstrated ignorance of basic details of election law, such as the fact that the president cannot delay elections and that individuals cannot vote twice.
-
Barr Brings Information on Ongoing Voter Fraud Investigation to Trump
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice; Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions
Barr personally provides Trump with information on an active and ongoing investigation in Pennsylvania regarding a set of nine discarded ballots, which the president promptly uses to make unsubstantiated claims that the election is tainted by mass fraud. Barr’s actions are both highly irregular in that the Justice Department generally refrains from discussing ongoing investigations with the White House, and may have run afoul of Barr’s own guidelines regarding politically sensitive investigations. Several days later, state investigators report that the nine ballots appear to have been discarded in error, rather than as an act of deliberate vote tampering.
-
Justice Department Alumni Blast Barr’s Conduct
A group of 1,600 former Justice Department employees write an open letter accusing Barr of improperly using his office to help Trump’s reelection effort. The former employees’ concerns include Barr’s erroneous criticisms of mail-in ballots and his baseless fraud allegations, as well as his treatment of the special counsel investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election.
-
Unmasking Probe Reveals No Misconduct
A probe on unmasking—a practice of unveiling the identities of U.S. persons whose names had originally been redacted in intelligence reports so staff can better analyze the information—commissioned by Barr concludes that Obama administration officials engaged in no misconduct or impropriety while unmasking individuals, including Trump campaign affiliates, to examine Russian election interference efforts. The investigation’s conclusions deal another blow to long-running “spying” conspiracy theories that Barr has repeatedly given credence to and amplified.
-
Justice Department Pushes for Dismissal of Personal Lawsuit Against Trump
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice
The Department of Justice continues its efforts to block E. Jean Carroll’s personal libel suit against Trump, in which she alleges he sexually assaulted her and then lied in a statement denying it occurred. Under Barr, the department argued in court that Trump’s denial was an official act taken as president, and therefore the lawsuit should be dropped.
-
Trump Calls on Barr to Prosecute Political Rival
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice; Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions
Trump calls on Barr to take investigative action against his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. This is the latest in a series of demands from Trump, on the eve of the presidential election, that Barr use the Justice Department against political rivals. Although Barr does not comply, he also takes no steps to refute or condemn the president’s authoritarian-style demands to subvert the democratic process.
-
Court Rejects Justice Department’s Effort to Stop Personal Lawsuit Against Trump
A federal judge issues a ruling rejecting Barr and the Justice Department’s claims that E. Jean Carroll's personal libel suit against Trump concerned his conduct as president and must be dismissed. The court disagreed with the extreme claim that Trump’s statements regarding an alleged sexual assault were an official act, stating in its ruling, “President Trump’s allegedly defamatory statements concerning Ms. Carroll would not have been within the scope of his employment.” The court also emphasized that the Justice Department’s claim was not only an improper effort to defend Trump’s personal conduct, but would have far-reaching implications such that “virtually everything the president does is within the public interest by virtue of his office.”
-
Barr Upends Justice Department Election Rules to Rush Review of Voter Fraud Claims
Type of Misconduct: Prioritizing Politics over Justice; Interfering with Impartial Prosecutions
In another major change to longstanding Justice Department rules on activities connected to elections, Barr pushes officials to begin immediate review of “substantial allegations” of voting “irregularities.” Previous policy—which Barr’s directive altered—consistently tasked department officials with pursuing such investigations only after election results are certified. Barr offers no justification for making this last-minute change to department procedures, and appears to have done so solely to support Trump’s baseless assertion of mass fraud as he refuses to acknowledge his electoral defeat.
Within hours of Barr’s order, Richard Pilger resigns in protest from his post as director of the Justice Department’s Election Crimes Branch. Federal prosecutors across the country also criticize Barr’s actions, which they describe as unnecessary and driven by politics.
-
Government Officials Reveal Investigation into Barr’s Client Was Shelved After His Nomination
It is reported that a week after Barr was nominated to be attorney general, government officials were ordered to halt an investigation into the company Caterpillar—a client of Barr’s—focused on over $2 billion in unpaid taxes. There does not appear to be any explanation for the case having been halted. The order was issued by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; the Justice Department stated that Barr recused himself from investigations relating to Caterpillar when he was confirmed as attorney general.
The Constitution Project seeks to safeguard our constitutional rights when the government exercises power in the name of national security and domestic policing, including ensuring our institutions serve as a check on that power.