| ||
|---|---|---|
Business and personal
45th and 47th President of the United States Tenure
Impeachments   | ||
TheBarr letter is a four-page letter sent on March 24, 2019, fromAttorney GeneralWilliam Barr to leaders of theHouse andSenate Judiciary Committees purportedly detailing the "principal conclusions" of theMueller report of theSpecial Counsel investigation led byRobert Mueller intoRussian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election,allegations of conspiracy or coordination betweenDonald Trump'spresidential campaign andRussia, and allegations ofobstruction of justice.
Even before seeing the Mueller report, Barr had already decided to clear Trump of obstruction. To this end, he tasked theOffice of Legal Counsel with writing a memo that would justify this decision. The Barr letter was written over the course of two days in tandem with the legal memo on which the letter ostensibly relied.[1]
After the release of the redacted report on April 18, 2019, Barr's letter was criticized as a deliberate mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and its conclusions, and as an attempt atspinning the media narrative to undermine Mueller's investigation.[2][3] In March 2020, a federal judge sharply criticized Barr's characterizations and ordered the Justice Department to provide him the redacted portions from the public version of the report so he could determine if they were justified. Following litigation under theFreedom of Information Act, the Justice Department released the full text of the memorandum in August 2022.[4]
On May 17, 2017,Deputy Attorney GeneralRod Rosenstein appointed a special counsel,Robert Mueller, to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".[5] Mueller concluded his investigations and sent a 448-page written report toAttorney GeneralWilliam Barr on March 22, 2019.[6]
Barr tasked theOffice of Legal Counsel (OLC) in theDepartment of Justice with authoring a memo that would justify the decision Barr had already made to clear Trump of obstruction.[4][7][1] The group authored both the memo and Barr letter in tandem over the course of two days;[8] the final memo was signed bySteven Engel andEd O'Callaghan.[7][1][9]
On March 24, Barr sent a four-page letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees detailing what he said were the report's principal conclusions on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, allegations of coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice.
On April 18, 2019, theDepartment of Justice released to the public a two-volumeredacted version ofReport on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, informally known as the "Mueller report".
Barr's letter describes the conclusions investigated by the Special Counsel investigation. It is split into two sections: Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and allegations of obstruction of justice.
Barr's letter mentioned two methods found by the special counsel that Russia tried to do to influence the 2016 presidential election. First method: disinformation through social media campaigns by theInternet Research Agency (IRA) "to sow social discord"; and secondly, hacking computers foremails that came from the2016 Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee.[10]
Barr quoted the report as saying the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."[11]
Barr wrote that the special counsel "did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction"[12] and that "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime".[13] Barr concluded on obstruction of justice by saying: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense".[14]
After the Barr letter was released, media commentators have pointed out that previously in June 2018, Barr (who was not working for the government then) wrote an unsolicited 19-page memo to the Department of Justice protesting that Mueller's investigation of President Trump for obstruction is "legally insupportable",[15][16][17][18][19] and "fatally misconceived".[20][21][22][23][24] The memo continued by saying that Trump was within his power to firstly ask then-FBI DirectorJames Comey to stop investigatingMichael Flynn, first and formerNational Security Advisor to Trump, and to secondlyfire Comey.[24] Barr further wrote that it would be detrimental to the institution of the presidency if Trump were accused of a crime when he fired Comey, a subordinate.[21][22]
Both the 2018 memo and the Barr letter argued that an underlying crime (in this case, "related to Russian election interference") was needed for obstruction to occur.[18] Democrats referred to the memo in suggesting that Barr's decision on obstruction was biased.[16]Time magazine said "Barr has already realized some of Democrats' biggest fears", then went on to describe the memo.[22]USA Today wrote that Barr's decision in the letter "rekindled concerns among Democratic lawmakers" about the memo,[18] whileCNN wrote that the Barr letter gave the memo "heightened relevance".[24]Deputy Attorney GeneralRod Rosenstein previously said that the memo had "no impact on the investigation", butThe Guardian points to the memo as why Barr's decision on obstruction in the letter is "controversial".[20]
The New Yorker wrote that in light of Barr's decision in the Barr letter, the memo raises questions on whether Barr should have recused from the special counsel investigation, as it has already done before when Barr was nominated for Attorney General.[15] TheLos Angeles Times wrote that Barr used similar reasoning in both the 2018 memo and Barr letter,[21] whileNPR similarly wrote that the memo which "was a precursor to" the Barr letter.[23] Regarding the decision on obstruction in the Barr letter,The Washington Post wrote that the memo "suggests Barr didn't think there was much of a case in the first place",[17] whileThe Irish Times wrote that "Barr already made his views clear" earlier in the memo.[19]
After the release of the redacted report, Barr's letter was criticized as a deliberate mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and its conclusions, and as an attempt atspinning the media narrative to undermine Mueller's investigation.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Numerous legal analysts concluded that Barr's letter did not accurately portray some of the findings of the investigation, casting Trump in a better light than was intended in the report.The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the findings in the report, including:[25]
CNN wrote that while Barr in his letter took it upon himself to deliver a ruling on whether Trump had committed obstruction, the redacted report indicates that Mueller intended that decision to be made by Congress, not Barr.[35][clarification needed]
Numerous other political and legal analysts, includingBob Woodward[36] andBrian Williams,[37] observed significant differences in what Barr said about Mueller's findings in his letter, and in his April 18 press conference, compared to what the Mueller Report actually found. This commentary included a comparison of Barr toBaghdad Bob, calling him "Baghdad Bill".[37][38][39][40]
Barr wrote that his letter provided "the principal conclusions" of the Mueller Report.Ryan Goodman, a professor at theNew York University School of Law and co-editor ofJust Security, observed that in 1989, Barr also wrote a letter which he stated contained "the principal conclusions" of a controversial legal opinion "that the FBI could forcibly abduct people in other countries without the consent of the foreign state" when he worked on as head of theOLC. Barr declined to provide the full opinion to Congress, but it was later subpoenaed and released to the public, showing that the 1989 letter did not fully disclose the principal conclusions.[41][42]
On March 25, a day after the Barr letter was released,Robert Mueller himself reportedly wrote a letter to Barr, as described in theNew York Times as "expressing his and his team's concerns that the attorney general had inadequately portrayed their conclusions".[43] InUSA Today it was described that Mueller "expressed his differences with Barr".[44]
On March 27, Mueller sent Barr another letter describing his concerns of Barr's letter to Congress and the public on March 24. Mueller thought that Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the findings. "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations." Mueller also requested Barr release the Mueller Report's introductions and executive summaries. This was first reported on April 30, 2019.[45][46][47]
The next day on March 28, Mueller had a phone conversation with Barr and reportedly expressed concerns about public misunderstandings of the obstruction investigation due to a lack of context released by Barr's letter. In their phone conversation, Barr reportedly said that his letter was not intended to be a summary, but rather only as a description of the principal findings of Mueller's report, and said he preferred not to release more information until a more complete redacted version of the report could be prepared. Barr then sent a subsequent letter to Congress in which he reiterated that his letter had not been intended as a summary of the Mueller Report and volunteered to testify before Congress in early May.[46]
On April 3, 2019, some members of the Mueller investigation team, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed concerns to the press that Barr's letter did not accurately portray some of the findings of the investigation, casting Trump in a better light than was intended in the report.[48]
On Barr's decision to clear him on obstruction, Trump said in late April 2019 that Barr read the Mueller Report "and he made a decision right on the spot. No obstruction."[49][50]
In a joint statement, DemocratsHouse SpeakerNancy Pelosi andSenate Minority LeaderChuck Schumer said that Barr is "not a neutral observer". They also said that Barr's past "bias" against the special counsel (Barr's memo) showed that he was "not in a position to make objective determinations".[51]
In May 2019, Republican US RepresentativeJustin Amash (who in July 2019 became an Independent) stated "it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's analysis and findings", adding, "Barr's misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice."[52]
In his own statement, Republican House Minority LeaderKevin McCarthy declared, based on the conclusions in the Barr Letter and the vast scope and resources made available to Mueller, that "This case is closed."[53] McCarthy emphasized a need to move on from the investigation "after months upon months of manufactured outrage."
In 2019, following the release of the Barr letter, several parties, includingJason Leopold,Electronic Privacy Information Center andCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed records requests under theFreedom of Information Act regarding the Justice Department's handling of the Mueller report, including the internalOffice of Legal Counsel memorandum that recommended against charging Trump.[54][55][56][57] The Department of Justice refused to release the memorandum and related records, citing the doctrine ofdeliberative process privilege andattorney-client privilege, a decision which the filers appealed in court.[58]
On March 5, 2020,Reggie Walton, a senior judge of theD.C. district court, sharply criticized Barr's characterizations of the Mueller Report as "distorted" and "misleading" and called "into question Attorney General Barr's credibility and, in turn, the department's" representations to the Court. Walton asked if Barr's characterizations were a "calculated attempt" to help the president. He ordered the Justice Department to show him the redacted portions from the public version of the report so he could determine if they were justified.[59][60][54]
In May 2021, D.C. district court judgeAmy Berman Jackson ordered the release of the OLC memo supporting the Barr letter, criticizing Barr's characterizations of the Mueller report as "disingenuous" and ruling that deliberative process privilege did not apply because "[t]he review of the document reveals that the Attorney General wasnot 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."[61][58] The Justice Department appealed this decision, and in August 2022, a three-judge panel of theD.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Jackson's order, ruling that Barr had never considered charging Trump and likened the memo to a "thought experiment";[7][1] the Department of Justice released the full memo the following week.[7]
Srinivasan said the memo, co-authored by Assistant Attorney General for Legal Counsel Steven Engel and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Edward O'Callaghan, seemed more like a 'thought experiment' because Barr decided before the memo was written that Trump would not be charged with a crime.
In just two days, without speaking to the authors of the report about their evidence or their conclusions, Barr and Rosenstein asserted that they had digested hundreds of pages of dense findings and decided that the President had not committed a crime. The letter was an obvious act of sabotage against Mueller and an extraordinary gift to the President. By leaving the disclosure of the report and its conclusions entirely up to Barr, Mueller had brought this disaster on himself and his staff.
'The court's ... review of the memorandum revealed that the Department in fact never considered bringing a charge,' the panel wrote in its opinion. 'Instead, the memorandum concerned a separate decision that had gone entirely unmentioned by the government in its submissions to the court — what, if anything, to say to Congress and the public about the Mueller Report.' The panel added: 'We affirm the district court.'
DOJ officials previously told the court that the memo should be kept from the public because it involved internal department deliberations and the advice given to Barr about whether Trump should face prosecution. But a district judge ruled that Barr was never engaged in such a process and had already made up his mind to not charge Trump.
In her order, Jackson noted that the memo prepared for Barr, and the letter from Barr to Congress that describes the special counsel's report, are 'being written by the very same people at the very same time. The emails show not only that the authors and the recipients of the memorandum are working hand in hand to craft the advice that is supposedly being delivered by OLC, but that the letter to Congress is the priority, and it is getting completed first,' the judge wrote.
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
