The ambiguity of the Justice Department’s election policy is particularly concerning in light of hints from Attorney General William Barr about a possible October Surprise.
The Senate Intelligence Committee argued that the president-elect may not claim executive privilege for advice received after the election and before the inauguration. A federal judge reached the opposite conclusion.
The same arguments used to defend Michael Flynn could be used against the prosecution of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Yet Flynn’s supporters have remained silent.
A Justice Department veteran testified last week that attorneys in the Antitrust Division were ordered to open unfounded investigations targeted at companies Attorney General Barr dislikes. If true, this is deeply troubling.
Attorney General William Barr’s recent four-page letter to Congress, quoting from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report, stated that Mueller’s “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” But Mueller purportedly did not determine whether President Trump obstructed justice.
A review of Preet Bharara, "Doing Justice: A Prosecutor’s Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and The Rule of Law" (Knopf, 2019)
Roger Stone says that more than two dozen FBI agents executed a search warrant at his house. That’s generally consistent with the bureau’s standard operating procedure.