Spencer Hsu, reporting for the Washington Post, reminds us that the government usually succeeds when it tries to blow off Freedom of Information Act requests, unless a judge thinks it’s lying its ass off.
Judges typically give the government the benefit of the doubt when officials handling the release of information under the Freedom of Information Act evaluate whether some records should be withheld based on the law’s exemptions, such as for internal deliberations. But that is not the case when judges find evidence of bad faith.
The Department of Justice was slapped across it’s face for its dishonesty on Monday when U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson determined that former Attorney General William Barr had been untruthful when he described why “President Donald Trump should not be charged with obstructing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation.”
This follows a similar determination by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton in March of last year:
“The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” he wrote, adding, “These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility.”
If you read my extensive coverage of the Mueller investigation and its aftermath, none of this will come as a surprise, but I think it’s important to remember that we still have a Justice Department, even if it’s under new management. They should take Judge Jackson’s rebuke as a mark against them. In other words, they have some atoning to do.
The immediate issue is the release of an Office of Legal Counsel memo from 2019 that purportedly presented the DOJ’s rationale for not charging then-president Donald Trump with obstruction of justice.
Jackson wrote in a blistering opinion after viewing the memo and other evidence that the department’s claims “are so inconsistent with evidence in the record, they are not worthy of credence.”
In a 35-page opinion ordering the memo’s release in a public records lawsuit, Jackson called suspicions that Barr and department lawyers had been “disingenuous” in withholding the document “well-founded,” saying the department had sought to “obfuscate” its true purpose of justifying a decision that had already been made.
“The review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,” Jackson wrote.
The question of whether Trump should be charged is still hanging out there. The way the question was handled under Barr’s leadership has left a stain on the reputation of the Department of Justice, and the best way to repair the damage is to revisit the question honestly and then act accordingly.
They should also take a look at whether or not Barr lied to Congress about the decision-making process. Judge Jackson clearly believes he did. She gave the Department until May 17 to either release the memo or appeal her ruling. It goes without saying that there should be no appeal.
The need for accountability has never been greater, and the last thing the current DOJ should do is cover up the crimes of the prior DOJ.
This fruit is hanging as low as can be. We’re not talking about charging Barr with a crime. We’re not talking about charging the former president with a crime. Just releasing the damn report. Seems a no-brainer. If it doesn’t happen, our system of justice is even more fucked then we obviously are.
Shit, after watching these fucks kiss each other’s asses and Putin’s ring these past years I think they should both be charged and add in the insurrection just for shits and grins. They need to defend their obstruction and so too does that ass Rosenstein.
I agree, but I worry that they will be able to successfully defend their obstruction. I want it to be a slam dunk when Trump is finally dragged into court. I would prefer that the first criminal case be a set of brand new charges built on a paper trail like a tax evasion, bank fraud or money laundering case.
I definitely want him fitted for an orange jump suit but anything that scares this bastard I would count as a plus.
I like that idea, too. A trial would scare him shitless. Teehee. But a trial without a conviction will make him and his cult stronger. That scares me shitless.
I think this is a really interesting story. Judge Jackson knows as much as anyone except Mueller about this case. She knows a lot more than we do and we all know enough to think Trump did everything he could to obstruct Mueller. Jackson clearly thinks he should have been charged.
(Unlike Parallax, I don’t think Barr even committed a crime, but I do think we are talking about charging Trump for obstruction of justice.)
If DOJ does appeal Jackson’s ruling it will be because Merrick Garland does not really want to charge Trump given all the circumstances. If he lets Jackson release the memo – which apparently makes it clear to everyone that Barr did not consider the case at all – Garland will be forced to consider it himself.
There is ample evidence that the right thing to do is to launch a prosecution. But that prosecution is certain to be perceived as partisan at a time when Garland is doing eveything he can to re-establish the reputation of the DOJ as a politically neutral institution. And ample evidence or not, the entire Russian investigation has been so muddied with bullshit over the past five years, there is no guarantee they could find a jury that would vote unanimously to convict.
I think Garland has been hoping this issue would stay under the radar for a while. He probably thinks Cyrus Vance is developing the better – at least an untainted – set of charges to lay on Trump. Judge Jackson has different ideas and she decided to put Garland on the spot. I hope Merrick bites the bullet, but I won’t be surprised if the DOJ appeals just to buy some time.