[ad_1]
OROn Monday, Donald Trump announced the departure of William Barr from the Justice Department. Finally, the president had managed to impose his will on someone, anyone, after weeks of repeated failures. On the same day that marked the 300,000th American death from Covid-19 and the electoral college ratification of Joe Biden’s victory, Trump had once again harassed his office attorney general. Jeff Sessions is no longer a club of one.
However, Barr won’t be there if the president delivers his latest round of pardons, a likely relief for the president’s legal spear-wielder, but also a reason for Trump to worry: Barr knows a thing or two about pardons last. moment. Mike Flynn is just the latest.
As George HW Bush’s attorney general, Barr successfully urged the late president to grant a series of pardons following the Iran-Contra scandal and Bush’s 1992 defeat to Bill Clinton. In fact, in Barr’s account, he was a driving force nearly three decades ago, trampling on the “naysayers” of the justice department.
Specifically, Barr fought for the pardon of Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan’s defense secretary who was under indictment, and five others, including Elliot Abrams. In time, Abrams would join the George W Bush administration and eventually serve as Trump’s special representative for Iran and later for Venezuela.
In a 2001 interview, Barr from law and order framed things this way: “The big guys obviously were Iran Contra. I certainly did not object to any of them. I preferred the larger one. “
As for limiting Bush’s pardons to Weinberger, who was facing charges of perjury, Barr would not agree to any of that. He explained, “There were some people arguing just over Weinberger, and I said, ‘No, for a penny, for a pound.’
At the time, Abrams had already pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress, but Barr would not accept any of that. Rather, Barr “felt” that Abrams “had been treated very unfairly.” Unsurprisingly, Lawrence Walsh, the then independent attorney, saw things differently and said: “The Iran-Contra cover-up … has now been completed.”
Years later, Barr would distort the findings of the Mueller report, earning the ire of Mueller, his former friend, and Reggie Walton, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal bank. In a 23-page opinion, Walton “seriously” questioned whether Barr “made a calculated attempt to sway public discourse on the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary.” .
This certainly wasn’t the last time Barr drew fire from the courts. In the wake of the justice department’s tortuous efforts to drop the government’s case against Flynn and Trump’s clemency, another federal judge, Emmet Sullivan, slammed Barr’s leadership. Like Walton, Sullivan was also distraught over the government’s contortionate ability to placate Trump.
Even when he dismissed the charges against Flynn, Sullivan opined: “In light of the government’s previous argument in this case that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were ‘absolutely material’ because his false statements ‘went to the heart’ of the FBI investigation , the government’s radical change, without explanation, raises concerns about the regularity of its decision-making process. “
As Barr leaves Main Justice, he has taken a toll on his hasty retirement. In the context of Trump’s unsubstantiated claims about electoral fraud and theft, Barr punched his boss in the eye. His letter of resignation stated that “it is incumbent upon all levels of government, and all agencies acting within their purview, to do everything possible to ensure the integrity of the elections and promote public confidence in their outcome.”
Without Barr by his side, Trump now faces a long list of supplicants. In addition to Trump considering a self-pardon, he also faces the issue of granting pardons to Javanka, two of his sons, Rudy Giuliani and Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general who is under an active investigation by the FBI. Here too, Barr’s words may come back to haunt the president.
At his 2019 confirmation hearing, Barr testified that the president possessed the power to pardon family members, but could also face prosecution if the pardon was linked to a broader effort to obstruct justice. Barr explained that while the president has the “power to forgive a family member,” if it was “related to some act that violates a statute of obstruction, it could be obstruction.”
At 12:01 p.m. on January 20, 2021, Trump loses immunity and becomes a target for prosecutors. Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney, is already enthusiastically circling Trump and his business. As for the Southern District of New York, they have already labeled Trump as an uncharged conspirator.
What comes next remains.
