Barr Increasingly Appears Focused on Undermining Mueller InquiryWASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr testified before Congress last spring that "it's time for everybody to move on" from the special counsel investigation into whether Donald Trump associates conspired with Russia's 2016 election interference.Nearly a year later, however, it is clear that Barr has not moved on from the investigation at all. Rather, he increasingly appears to be chiseling away at it.The attorney general's handling of the results of the Russia inquiry came under fire when a federal judge questioned this week whether Barr had sought to create a "one-sided narrative" clearing Trump of misconduct. The judge said Barr displayed a "lack of candor" in remarks that helped shape the public view of the special counsel's report before it was released in April.In fact, Barr's comments then were but the first in a series of actions in which he cast doubt not just on the findings of the inquiry by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and some of the resulting prosecutions, but on its very premise. In the process, Barr demoralized some of the department's rank and file and lent credence to Republican politicians who seek to elevate the Mueller investigation into an election-year political issue — including Trump."I'm deeply troubled by what I've been seeing with Barr's stewardship of the Justice Department," said Nancy Baker, a scholar of attorneys general who studied Barr's first stint in the post under President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. At the very least, she said, he has created the appearance that he does not "respect the long-standing norms of departmental independence."Some of Barr's defenders insist that he is suffering from a situation beyond his control: namely, a president whose running commentary on criminal cases he has an interest in has sowed suspicion about the attorney general's motives. In a ruling Thursday in a Freedom of Information Act case over the Mueller report, Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District for the District of Columbia questioned whether Barr had redacted portions of the Mueller report in order to protect the president.The department's spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said Friday that "the court's assertions were contrary to the facts" and that Mueller's team helped the attorney general decide what information should be kept out of public view.Nonetheless, the judge's criticism reinforced the impression that Barr has been on a mission to undercut the Mueller inquiry. In ever stronger terms, Barr has implied that Mueller was appointed in 2017 only because FBI officials rushed without reason to escalate their suspicions about the Trump campaign into a full-blown investigation.The Justice Department's own inspector general rejected that premise late last year, finding that the bureau's decision was justified by the facts. But Barr has assigned a federal prosecutor to investigate the matter further and has suggested that the inquiry might conclude that the FBI acted in bad faith. Investigators are also said to be examining the intelligence agencies' assessment that President Vladimir Putin of Russia interfered in the American presidential race on behalf of Trump.Last month, Barr appointed another outside prosecutor to review a case that Mueller brought against the president's former national security adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI. And in a second case that the Mueller team brought against Roger Stone, Trump's longtime friend, the attorney general overruled career prosecutors to seek a more lenient prison sentence, triggering a chain of events that the federal judge overseeing the case called "unprecedented."In those and other instances, Barr has never mentioned Mueller by name. But he has increasingly sided with the view of Trump and his allies that the special counsel's inquiry was baseless. As Barr put it succinctly in a December interview with NBC News, "Our nation was turned on its head for three years, I think, based on a completely bogus narrative."He has implicitly criticized both John Brennan, the CIA director under President Barack Obama, and James Comey, who Trump fired as FBI director in 2017, for actions related to the Russia inquiry. Noting that Brennan twice warned the Russian government not to interfere in the 2016 election, Barr said it was "inexplicable" no one warned the Trump campaign that the Russians had targeted it.He also said Comey refused to take the necessary security clearance steps that would have enabled him to cooperate fully with Michael Horowitz, the department's inspector general, in his review of aspects of the Russia investigation. But he noted that John Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut who is separately investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry, has the power to compel testimony. "A decision has to be made about motivations," he said.The president's allies are eager to draw Barr more publicly to their side. At an expected upcoming oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who chairs the panel, is likely to question Barr about whether he believes the Mueller inquiry was necessary or justified.Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., another staunch defender of the president, has promised to ask the Justice Department to open a criminal inquiry into whether the special counsel's office mishandled the prosecution of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.Both Barr's critics and defenders are carefully watching the Flynn case for signs that Barr is backing away from what had been an aggressive prosecution initiated by Mueller and inherited by the U.S. attorney's office in Washington. More than two years after he pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government, Flynn reversed himself and asked to withdraw his plea. He claimed prosecutors had deceived him — accusations that the judge overseeing the case has firmly rejected.Once Flynn recanted, prosecutors stiffened their sentencing recommendation, saying Flynn deserved up to six months in prison. But in January, they seemed to soften that stance, saying that probation was also "reasonable."Outside prosecutors have now been assigned to review the Flynn prosecution, along with other politically sensitive national security cases — a level of second-guessing that has disturbed federal prosecutors in the Washington office and elsewhere.Even some of Barr's defenders acknowledge that the sentencing of Stone, a former campaign adviser to Trump, turned into a debacle for the department. Barr overruled the sentencing recommendation of four career prosecutors after Trump wrote on Twitter that Stone was being treated too harshly.The prosecutors withdrew from the case in protest. Faced with a backlash in his department, Barr asked the president on national television to quit commenting on the department's criminal cases, and associates suggested he was on the verge of resigning. But when Trump ignored him, Barr stayed put.While Barr insisted he made his decision about Stone's proper punishment based on the merits of the case, sentencing data show the move was extraordinary.A jury convicted Stone, 67, of obstructing a congressional inquiry, tampering with a witness and lying to congressional investigators. The government requested that Stone be granted leniency despite the fact that he had refused to plead guilty.That was the case in less than 2% of the nearly 75,000 criminal defendants who were sentenced in federal courts in the fiscal year that ended in September, according to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Stone case also stands out because the government ended up seeking a lighter punishment than the federal probation office had recommended, although that recommendation was likely guided by information provided by the prosecutors who Barr overruled.Prosecutor rarely ask for leniency after a trial because it undercuts their ability to negotiate guilty pleas with other defendants, according to Douglas Berman, a professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law who specializes in sentencing issues. "They want to be able to say, and to have a defense attorney repeat to a client, that they are willing to cut a deal, but they are never going to offer this again," he said.In fact, a review by The New York Times of more than 60 federal cases in which a defendant faced at least one similar charge to Stone's turned up no instances in which the government recommended leniency after a trial. The Times reviewed cases in which defendants were sentenced after January 2017 and that were handled by two of the biggest U.S. attorneys offices: in Washington and in the central district of California.In at least nine cases, the government asked for leniency, technically called a variance from sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors typically cited other mitigating factors, including advanced age or illness, on top of a speedy guilty plea.This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2020 The New York Times Company



Source link

قالب وردپرس

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here