January, 16 2020, 11:00pm EDT
Democracy 21 Files Complaint Against Attorney General Barr for Repeated Failures to Comply with DOJ Norms, Rules and Standards of Conduct
Complaint cites pattern of bias by Barr to protect President Trump at expense of carrying out DOJ mission to "ensure fair and impartial administration of justice."
WASHINGTON
Democracy 21 filed a complaint today with the Department of Justice requesting an investigation and remedial action against Attorney General William Barr for his repeated failures to comply with DOJ norms, rules and standards of conduct. The complaint was filed with DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility and Departmental Ethics Office.
According to the Democracy 21 complaint:
The improper actions by Attorney General Barr cover a wide range of his statements and activities but all result from a single overriding impropriety: the Attorney General has eschewed the core mission of the Department of Justice "to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."
Attorney General Barr has instead repeatedly demonstrated bias in acting to protect the personal and political interests of President Trump, as opposed to protecting the interests of the American people. He has done this to the detriment of the country and in derogation of the mission and integrity of the Department he heads.
According to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer:
Attorney General Barr has repeatedly abused his office to provide cover for President Trump. The Attorney General has acted in biased ways and violated Justice Department norms, standards and rules to protect President Trump at the expense of fulfilling his responsibilities to provide fair and impartial administration of justice.
Attorney General Barr has made improper attacks on the investigations of DOJ Special Counsel Mueller and DOJ Inspector General Horowitz, has made unjustified and unsubstantiated claims to protect President Trump and failed to recuse himself from the Ukraine whistleblower matter involving the President in which Barr was directly implicated by Trump.
Attorney General Barr is doing enormous damage to the integrity and credibility of the Justice Department he leads. It is the responsibility of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Departmental Ethics Office to hold Barr accountable for his repeated improper actions.
The complaint forwarded a letter also raising concerns about Barr that was sent by the New York City Bar Association to the congressional leaders. The complaint stated:
We enclose for your information a letter sent by the New York City Bar Association to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate which expresses "serious concerns about the propriety of Barr's recent actions and statements." The letter urges Congress "to commence formal inquiries into a pattern of conduct by Attorney General William P. Barr that threatens public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice."
According to the Democracy 21 complaint:
As we discuss below, Attorney General Barr has directly contradicted, misrepresented or undermined the independent, non-partisan and credible work of both the Department's Inspector General and its Special Counsel, in order to blunt conclusions by these officials which were contrary to the views and interests of President Trump. He has publicly echoed the President's inflammatory rhetoric about "spying" and "collusion" without providing any adequate legal basis for using these terms. And he has refused to recuse himself from sensitive Department decisions about the handling of a whistleblower complaint alleging a gross abuse of power by President Trump and in which the Attorney General himself is directly and personally implicated.
The complaint continued:
It is the clear duty of the Attorney General always to maintain fidelity to the Constitution and to the nation's legal system, and never to abdicate these responsibilities to protect the President's personal or political interests at the expense of the impartial administration of justice.
Attorney General Barr has repeatedly failed meet this critical obligation to the American people. Therefore, as the Justice Department officials who have the responsibility to safeguard the norms, standards and rules that protect the Department's integrity and credibility, it falls to you to investigate and take appropriate remedial action to address the Attorney General's improper conduct.
According to the complaint, Attorney General Barr and U.S Attorney Durham publicly challenged and criticized the findings of the DOJ Inspector General that the Justice Department had sufficient basis to open the Russia investigation in 2016 and that the FBI and Justice Department had acted without political bias or impropriety in conducting the investigation.
The complaint stated:
Most importantly, DOJ rules prohibit Department officials from publicly commenting on open criminal investigations. These rules state that Department personnel may not "confirm the existence of or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations" and may not comment on "the nature or progress" of an "ongoing investigation." USAM SS 1-7.400 (April 2018).
In general, this provision forbids Department officials, including the Attorney General, from engaging in any discussion about active criminal investigations, except in limited, specific circumstances that are not applicable here.
The statements issued by both Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham disagreeing with the key conclusions of the Inspector General report were clearly based on their views about the findings of the parallel criminal investigation they are conducting into the same matter that was investigated by the Inspector General. Thus, Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham chose to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation in order to attack the findings of the Inspector General and thereby improperly provided cover for President Trump's obsessive attacks on the 2016 Russia/Trump investigation opened by the Justice Department and the FBI.
Democracy 21 believes these statements were in violation of DOJ rules prohibiting Department officials from commenting on open criminal investigations.
The complaint continued:
By publicly attacking the Inspector General report immediately upon its issuance, by specifically disagreeing with its central conclusion, and by having U.S. Attorney Durham follow with his challenge to the report, Attorney General Barr undermined his own Inspector General and attacked his own Department. Barr demonstrated his bias and fealty to President Trump, contravening the Department's mission of promoting "fair and impartial justice for all Americans," in favor of echoing President Trump's irresponsible attacks on the Justice Department itself.
The complaint then detailed the following actions Barr has taken since becoming Attorney General:
- Barr testified before Congress, without any substantiation, that FBI and Justice Department officials engaged in "spying" on the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.
- Barr sent a letter to Congress mischaracterizing the Mueller report ahead of its release, leaving it as the only information available to the public about the report for almost a month. Barr then refused Special Counsel Mueller's request to release the summaries included in the report and held a press conference hours before the release of the full report where he continued to mischaracterize it.
- Barr failed to recuse himself from overseeing matters being consideration by DOJ and related to the whistleblower complaint about President Trump's call with the Ukrainian President, in which Trump mentioned Barr by name five times.
The complaint concluded:
This pattern of biased behavior by Barr is in stark conflict with his duty to ensure the "impartial administration of justice on behalf of all Americans." It is contrary to the mission, the norms, the rules, and the standards of conduct of the Justice Department and it seriously undermines the integrity and credibility of the Justice Department in the eyes of the American people.
Because you are responsible for safeguarding the institutional integrity of the Justice Department and the standards of behavior that govern its officials, Attorney General Barr's pattern of improper behavior warrants investigation and appropriate remedial action by your offices. Democracy 21 strongly calls on you to fulfill that responsibility.
Read the full complaint here.
Democracy 21 is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to making democracy work for all Americans. Democracy 21, and its education arm, Democracy 21 Education Fund, work to eliminate the undue influence of big money in American politics, prevent government corruption, empower citizens in the political process and ensure the integrity and fairness of government decisions and elections. The organization promotes campaign finance reform and other related political reforms to accomplish these goals.
(202) 355-9600LATEST NEWS
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Labor Department Finalizes Pro-Worker Rules on Overtime, Retirement Savings
"Democrats are delivering for working people!" declared Rep. Pramila Jayapal as the AFL-CIO noted that GOP ex-President Donald Trump "gutted the rules that required overtime pay for millions of workers."
Apr 23, 2024
Roughly 4.3 million U.S. workers will now be eligible for overtime pay under a new rule finalized Tuesday by President Joe Biden's Labor Department—in stark contrast to his Republican predecessor's rules that severely limited the number of workers who were eligible for required compensation when they worked more than 40 hours per week.
Under the new rule, employers will be required to pay overtime premiums to salaried workers who work more than standard full-time hours if they earn less than $1,128 per week, or about $58,600 per year.
Former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, may now have to defend his 2020 rule that set the overtime pay threshold at just $35,500 per year, leaving out millions of workers.
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that the updated rule was "a major piece" of the Executive Action Agenda released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which she chairs.
"This is a HUGE pro-worker initiative by President Biden," said Jayapal. "Democrats are delivering for working people!"
Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, who Biden has nominated to fill the role permanently, said it is "unacceptable" that lower-paid workers "are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay," while hourly workers are eligible for overtime pay.
"This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time," said Su. "The Biden-Harris administration is following through on our promise to raise the bar for workers who help lay the foundation for our economic prosperity."
The Labor Department posted a chart on social media showing how under Trump's policy, only workers who earn less than $688 per week are eligible for required overtime pay. The full rule is set to go into effect in January 2025.
The chart offers a "good split screen with the GOP," saidSlate reporter Mark Joseph Stern.
"It isn't just that Trump's Department of Labor fought overtime pay—it's also that Trump appointed anti-labor judges who are about to block Biden's new rule," he said.
The former Republican president's appointed judges could also block a new Federal Trade Commission rule introduced on Tuesday, which blocks companies from including noncompete clauses in workers' contracts.
"Both reforms happened because of Biden and in spite of Republicans," said HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson.
Along with the overtime rule, the Labor Department announced a new policy aimed at safeguarding people's retirement savings from their financial advisers' conflicts of interest.
The finalized retirement security rule requires "trusted investment advice providers to give prudent, loyal, honest advice free from overcharges," said the department. "These fiduciaries must adhere to high standards of care and loyalty when they recommend investments and avoid recommendations that favor the investment advice providers' interests—financial or otherwise—at the retirement savers' expense."
"Under the final rule and amended exemptions, financial institutions overseeing investment advice providers must have policies and procedures to manage conflicts of interest and ensure providers follow these guidelines," the agency said.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said the nation's largest labor federation has "been pushing for the fiduciary and overtime rules since the Obama administration."
"It's really this simple," said Shuler. "Every worker deserves their fair share of the wealth they help create and every worker deserves to make sure their hard-earned money is secure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
More Than 4 Dozen Unions Demand 'End of Repression' of Columbia Protests
"The right to protest is necessary for every struggle, and the direct attack on this right is an attack on labor as well," said the labor groups. "An injury to one is an injury to all."
Apr 23, 2024
More than four dozen labor unions across numerous industries on Tuesday signed a letter expressing solidarity with students who have been suspended and arrested in recent days for protesting at Columbia University, including members of the on-campus labor group Student Workers of Columbia.
Unionized student workers in SWC-UAW 2710 were among the hundreds of picketers who have been protecting the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, which students set up at Columbia on April 17 to pressure administrators to divest from weapons manufacturers, tech companies, and other entities that benefit from Israel's apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The Ivy League institution, protesters say, will remain complicit in Israel's bombardment and blockade on Gaza, the killing of at least 34,183 Palestinians in the enclave since October, and the intentional starvation of dozens of people, until it entirely divests from Israel.
"As workers, we stand in solidarity with our union siblings in SWC-UAW 2710 who were arrested and face suspension," said the unions, including the Mother Jones Staff Union, Irvine Faculty Association, and Cleveland Jobs With Justice. "We call for their and their classmates' immediate reinstatement and for Columbia to drop all charges against them, both legal and academic. We deplore [Columbia president Minouche Shafik]'s actions and call for Columbia to immediately end the repression of protest."
The protests at Columbia—where more than 100 students were suspended, arrested for trespassing, and in some cases, evicted from their housing—have galvanized college students and faculty members at a growing number of universities in recent days.
Campus groups at the University of Minnesota and the University of Pittsburgh both announced early Tuesday that they were setting up their own encampments in solidarity with Columbia students and victims of the Israel Defense Forces' relentless attacks on Gaza, which the International Court of Justice said in January was "plausibly" a genocide.
After police arrested students at the University of Minnesota Tuesday afternoon and broke up the encampment, thousands of members of the school community rallied to demand that the university divest from all arms manufacturers.
Encampments were also erected Monday at University of California, Berkeley and University of Michigan.
Jessica Christian, a photojournalist for the San Francisco Chronicle, reported that students were stopping to "ask what supplies the campers need as they walk by to class" at Berkeley, where roughly 50 tents were set up on Tuesday.
On Monday night, dozens of students at Yale University and New York University were arrested for protesting, setting up encampments, and "disorderly conduct."
The arrests at Columbia last week have not stopped students and educators from speaking out against the administration. A new encampment was set up last Friday and hundreds of faculty members staged a walkout Monday in support of the students.
In their letter, the unions on Tuesday warned that "the repression and criminalization of activists, students, professors, and academic workers across the country are violations of our elementary rights to free speech and protest."
"The right to protest is necessary for every struggle, and the direct attack on this right is an attack on labor as well," said the unions, "An injury to one is an injury to all—if the Columbia students can be repressed for protesting, Columbia workers and all workers could be too. Workers stand in full solidarity with this student movement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular