—
Meanwhile back on the “we need to investigate it more thoroughly” ranch:
Subverting Justice:
How the Former President and his Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election
Senate Committee of the Judiciary — Oct 2021
www.judiciary.senate.gov
[...]
Given the gravity of the misconduct the Committee has uncovered to date, however—and in the interest of making a public record of Trump’s efforts to compromise DOJ’s independence — the Committee is releasing this interim staff report. The report makes six primary findings:
FINDING 1: President Trump repeatedly asked DOJ leadership to endorse his false claims that the election was stolen and to assist his efforts to overturn the election results. [...] Trump directly and repeatedly asked DOJ’s acting leadership to initiate investigations, file lawsuits on his behalf, and publicly declare the 2020 election “corrupt.” [...]
—
FINDING 2: White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asked Acting Attorney General Rosen to initiate election fraud investigations on multiple occasions, violating longstanding restrictions on White House-DOJ communications about specific law-enforcement matters. Meadows asked Rosen to have DOJ investigate at least four categories of false election fraud claims that Trump and his allies were pushing. [...]
—
FINDING 3: After personally meeting with Trump, Jeffrey Bossert Clark pushed Rosen and Donoghue to assist Trump’s election subversion scheme — and told Rosen he would decline Trump’s potential offer to install him as Acting Attorney General if Rosen agreed to aid that scheme. Clark pushed Rosen and Donoghue to publicly announce that DOJ was investigating election fraud and tell key swing state legislatures they should appoint alternate slates of electors following certification of the popular vote. He did so following personal communications with Trump, including at least one meeting that Clark attended in the Oval Office without the knowledge of DOJ leadership. [...]
—
FINDING 4: Trump allies with links to the “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6 insurrection participated in the pressure campaign against DOJ. In addition to Trump White House officials, including the President himself, outside Trump allies with ties to the “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6 insurrection also pressured DOJ to help overturn the election results. [...]
—
FINDING 5: Trump forced the resignation of U.S. Attorney Byung Jin (“BJay”) Pak, whom he believed was not doing enough to address false claims of election fraud in Georgia. Trump then went outside the line of succession when naming an Acting U.S. Attorney, bypassing First Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt Erskine and instead appointing Bobby Christine because he believed Christine would “do something” about his election fraud claims. U.S. Attorney Pak investigated and did not substantiate various claims of election fraud advanced by Trump and his allies, including false claims that a videotape showed suitcases of illegal ballots being tabulated at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena. Trump accused Pak publicly and privately of being a “Never Trumper” and told Rosen and Donoghue on January 3 that he wanted to fire him. [...]
—
FINDING 6: By pursuing false claims of election fraud before votes were certified, DOJ deviated from longstanding practice meant to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in the election. Prior to the 2020 general election, DOJ’s longstanding policy and practice was to avoid taking overt steps in election fraud investigations until after votes were certified, in order to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in the election. Then-Attorney General Barr weakened this decades-long policy shortly before and after the 2020 election, including in a November 9, 2020 memo that directed prosecutors not to wait until after certification to investigate allegations of voting irregularities that “could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.” Consistent with this directive and following additional personal involvement by Barr, DOJ took overt steps to investigate false claims of election fraud before certification in one instance detailed to the Committee—and likely others.
[...]
Key Document I [pg 192 of pdf]
Watermarked:
FOR INTERNAL SJO USE
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Donoghue, Richard (ODAG)
-- -- -- --
From: Donoghue, Richard (ODAG)
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 5:50 PM
To: Clark, Jeffrey (ENRD)
Cc: Rosen, Jeffrey A. (ODAG)
Subject: RE: Two Urgent Action Items
Jeff,
I have only had a few moments to review the draft letter and, obviously, there is a lot raised there that would have to be thoroughly researched and discussed. That said, there is no chance that I would sign this letter or anything remotely like this.
While it may be true that the Department “is investigating various irregularities in the 2020 election for President” (something we typically would not state publicly), the investigations that I am aware of relate to suspicions of misconduct that are of such a small scale that they simply would not impact the outcome of the Presidential Election. AG Barr made that clear to the public only last week, and I am not aware of intervening developments that would change that conclusion. Thus, I know of nothing that would support the statement, “we have identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states.” While we are always prepared to receive complaints and allegations relating to election fraud, and will investigate them as appropriate, we simply do not currently have a basis to make such a statement. Despite dramatic claims to the contrary, we have not seen the type of fraud that calls into question the reported (and certified) results of the election. Also the commitment that “the Department will update you as we are able on investigatory progress” is dubious as we do not typically update non-law enforcement personnel on the progress of any investigations.
More importantly, I do not think the Department’s role should include making recommendations to a State legislature about how they should meet their Constitutional obligation to appoint Electors. Pursuant to the Electors Clause, the State of Georgia (and every other state) has prescribed the legal process through which they select their Electors. While those processes include the possibility that election results may “fail[ ] to make a choice”, it is for the individual State to figure out how to address that situation should it arise. But as I note above, there is no reason to conclude that any State is currently in a situation in which their election has failed to produce a choice. As AG Barr indicated in his public comments, while I have no doubt that some fraud has occurred in this election, I have not seen evidence that would indicate that the election in any individual state was so defective as to render the results fundamentally unreliable. Given that, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the Department would recommend that a State assemble its legislature to determine whether already-certified election results should somehow be overridden by legislative action. Despite the references to the 1960 Hawaii situation (and other historical anomalies, such as the 1876 Election), I believe this would be utterly without precedent. Even if I am incorrect about that, this would be a grave step for the Department to take and it could have tremendous Constitutional, political and social ramifications for the country. I do not believe that we could even consider such a proposal without the type of research and discussion that such a momentous step warrants. Obviously, OLC would have to be involved in such discussions.
I am available to discuss this when you are available after 6:00 pm but, from where I stand, this is not even within the realm of possibility.
Rich
That’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
SOOOO ...
How much damage did Trump DO to the DOJ?
….
Sadly, the way it is currently going … we probably will never fully know.
— —
The Wheels of Justice seem be grinding to a halt.
You know that old truism:
Urgent times demand …
endless delays.