February, 26 2020, 11:00pm EDT
Democracy 21 Files Fifth Justice Department Complaint Against AG Barr for Repeated Biased Actions on Behalf of President Trump
Complaint Charges Barr Has Seriously Compromised the Integrity and Credibility Of The Justice Department As An Independent, Nonpartisan Guardian Of The Rights And Protections Of All Americans
WASHINGTON
Democracy 21 filed a complaint today with the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice requesting an investigation and appropriate action against Attorney General William Barr for his "repeated actions demonstrating clear bias on behalf of President Trump's personal political interests."
The complaint charged Barr with "utter disregard of [his] overriding obligation to ensure the 'impartial administration of justice on behalf of all Americans." This is the fifth Justice Department complaint filed by Democracy 21 against AG Barr in less than a year.
"Attorney General Barr has repeatedly acted to accommodate President Trump's efforts to weaponize the Justice Department to protect Trump's friends and punish his perceived enemies," according to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, who filed the complaint for the group.
"Justice Department rules, standards and norms exist to safeguard the integrity and credibility of the Department and to protect it from political interference. They have been seriously violated by Attorney General Barr in his repeated efforts to protect President Trump and further Trump's personal political interests. The Office of Professional Responsibility is the only place in the Justice Department with authority to hold Barr accountable for his misdeeds and unprofessional conduct. It is essential that the Office fulfill its responsibilities," Wertheimer said.
According to the Democracy 21 complaint:
It is imperative that the Office of Professional Responsibility not stand silent. The country needs to hear from your Office that impartial administration of justice and responsible professional conduct remain the Justice Department standards for all DOJ lawyers--starting with, and most importantly, the Attorney General. Your Office is empowered by DOJ rules to hold the Attorney General accountable for his actions. It is incumbent that your Office act at this critical time for the American people and the Justice Department.
The complaint stated:
This complaint challenges Barr's unprecedented intervention into the Department's handling of the sentencing process for Trump crony and political adviser Roger J. Stone, Jr. This intervention led more than 2,600 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials, who had served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, to call for the resignation of Attorney General Barr.
The complaint continued:
Attorney General Barr's intervention into the Department's handling of the sentencing process for Trump crony Roger Stone is unprecedented. The facts of this matter have been widely reported in the press. Stone was convicted on seven felony accounts of obstruction of Congress and witness tampering. Career prosecutors handling the case recommended to the court a seven-to-nine-year sentence for Stone, in accordance with federal sentencing guidelines and normal Department procedures.
Then, according to an account in The New York Times, "After prosecutors recommended on Monday a seven-to-nine-year sentence for Mr. Stone on seven felony convictions, the president criticized the move. Senior law enforcement officials overruled the career prosecutors the next day, immediately prompting accusations of political interference."
The complaint noted:
Ultimately, Stone received a sentence from the court of 40 months in prison. The fact that this was lower than the sentence recommended by the prosecuting attorneys in accordance with Justice Department policy is irrelevant to the favoritism for Stone that occurred.
According to the complaint:
Attorney General Barr recently has exercised his authority to protect Trump's personal political interests in other ways as well. He has "assigned an outside prosecutor to scrutinize the criminal case against President Trump's former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn....," a review that the Times said "is highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors."
The complaint said about the IG report on the opening of the Russia investigation and Barr:
The IG found with regard to the opening of the investigation that "under the AG Guidelines and the [FBI Guidelines], the FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or protect against, a national security threat or federal crime, even though the investigation also had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity." IG Rpt. at iii.
Attorney General Barr immediately attacked the IG report by criticizing and challenging the Inspector General's conclusion that there was a legitimate basis to open the 2016 investigation.
The complaint noted:
The broad picture painted by all of these episodes is that Attorney General Barr continues to enable the weaponization of the Justice Department to advance the personal political interests of President Trump. This is directly contrary to Barr's principal responsibility as Attorney General to ensure fair and impartial justice and to act in the best interests of all Americans, not to serve the personal political interests of the President.
Since Watergate, the norms of the Justice Department have been clear: the Attorney General needs to protect the independence of the Department from interference by the President and the White House, particularly in matters relating to the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Department, and needs to insulate career prosecutors from political pressure.
The complaint concluded:
As head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, it is your responsibility to hold Attorney General Barr accountable for his unprofessional and damaging conduct. It is your responsibility to protect the integrity and credibility of the Department and its employees, even when the matter involves the Attorney General.
Democracy 21 calls on you to investigate the unprofessional conduct and inappropriate actions by Attorney General Barr in the matters described in this complaint and the previous complaints filed by Democracy 21. We urge you to take appropriate action concerning Attorney General Barr to ensure that the accelerating deterioration of the independence, integrity and credibility of the Justice Department is stopped before irreparable damage is done to the Department.
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
'A Small Step Forward': Canadian Parliament Backs Ending Arms Exports to Israel
"While imperfect, this is a tangible victory on the road to a Canadian two-way arms embargo with Israel," said one advocacy group.
Mar 19, 2024
Canada's Parliament on Monday approved a nonbinding resolution calling on the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cut off the country's arms exports to Israel, demand an immediate cease-fire and the release of hostages, and support international legal efforts to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable.
The measure, led by Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP), passed in a 204-to-117 vote after private negotiations between Trudeau's Liberal government and the NDP produced significant changes to the original text, including the removal of language calling for "sanctions on Israeli officials who incite genocide."
The final motion, which Conservatives opposed, calls on Trudeau's government to "cease the further authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel to ensure compliance with Canada's arms export regime," "sanction extremist settlers from Canada," and "demand unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza," among other steps.
"We are dismayed by the failure of Canada's Liberal government to stand up for what is right, for the rule of international law, for humanity, for peace," NDP MP Heather McPherson, the lead sponsor of the original motion, said in a speech ahead of Monday's vote. "Canadians are horrified by a brutal assault on Gaza where over 30,000 civilians have been killed, they were horrified on October 7 by the vile terrorist attack on innocent civilians in Israel by Hamas terrorists, and they are horrified now by the way [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's extremist government has responded."
2/14
Today, the Liberals and Conservatives have an opportunity to join the NDP and uphold the values of Canadians – to show that Palestinian lives matter as much as any other lives. That Palestinian rights are human rights. And that children – all children - deserve peace. pic.twitter.com/RhtowYsEDp
— Heather McPherson (@HMcPhersonMP) March 18, 2024
Michael Bueckert, vice president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), said in a statement that the amended measure does not "go nearly as far as we had hoped for, but it is nonetheless a small step forward for ending Canadian complicity in Israel's genocidal war in Gaza."
"The watering down of the NDP resolution weakens the significance of Parliament's vote, even if it was a major concession forced by the Liberal government to ensure its passage," Bueckert added. "With the passage of this motion, the government has effectively promised to adopt a clear policy to restrict exports, including for already-issued permits, not just a temporary pause on approvals. While imperfect, this is a tangible victory on the road to a Canadian two-way arms embargo with Israel. The NDP must not rest on its laurels and continue to fight Canada's relationship with the Israeli military-industrial complex."
Bueckert said Trudeau's government "must immediately implement the democratic will of Parliament by adopting these demands, and ignore the backlash from those who seek to vilify this motion, including the far-right Israeli government itself."
The motion's passage comes days after the Toronto Starreported that the Trudeau government "stopped approving exports of non-lethal military goods and technology to Israel two months ago amid deepening concerns about possible human rights violations."
"Since Jan. 8, applications for permits to allow Canadian companies to ship tens of millions of dollars worth of non-lethal goods and technology, such as night vision goggles, have been temporarily put on hold because of the difficulty in establishing whether the material could be used in human rights violations," the Star reported, citing unnamed senior government officials.
Data from Global Affairs Canada indicates that Canada exported at least $28.5 million worth of military equipment to Israel in the three months after October 7. A coalition of human rights groups noted in a letter last month to Canada's foreign affairs minister that Canada has exported more than $140 million worth of military goods to Israel over the past decade, "including military aerospace components as well as bombs, missiles, explosives, and associated parts."
"There is substantial concern that some of these weapons could be enabling Israel's operation in Gaza," the groups wrote. "In addition to direct exports, Canadian-produced technology has also been supplied to Israel by first being integrated into US-produced systems, including components incorporated into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which Israel has used in its bombing campaign across Gaza."
United Nations experts have called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel, warning last month that "state officials involved in arms exports may be individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting any war crimes, crimes against humanity, or acts of genocide."
The National Council of Canadian Muslims said Monday that it is "pleased to see that a historic vote on the NDP motion on Palestine is likely going to result in historic change for Canada."
"While we recognize that some would have liked the original motion to stay fully together," the group added, "we believe that the NDP did the right thing by tabling the original motion and pushing to make sure that Canada voted in favor of Palestine today. That is history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrat Eva Burch Shares With Arizona Senate Her Plans to Get an Abortion
"I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion," the state senator said. "I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Mar 18, 2024
As Arizonans prepare for a potential vote on an abortion rights ballot measure, Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch on Monday took to the chamber's floor to announce that she plans to terminate her current pregnancy, explain why, and condemn harmful restrictions.
"A few weeks ago, I learned that against all odds, I am pregnant," said Burch (D-9). "Many of you know that I've had kind of a rough journey with fertility. I had my first miscarriage more than 13 years ago, and I have been pregnant many times. Since then, twice, I was lucky enough to successfully carry to term and I have two beautiful healthy little boys."
"But two years ago, while I was campaigning for this Senate seat, I became pregnant with what we later determined was a nonviable pregnancy. It was a pregnancy that we had been trying for, and we were heartbroken over it," she continued, referencing an abortion she has previously discussed publicly. "After numerous ultrasounds and blood draws, we have determined that my pregnancy is once again not progressing and is not viable And once again, I have scheduled an appointment to terminate my pregnancy."
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona."
Burch, who has worked as an emergency nurse and a nurse practitioner in a women's health clinic, stressed that "I don't think people should have to justify their abortions but I'm choosing to talk about why I made this decision because I want us to be able to have meaningful conversations about the reality of how the work that we do in this body impacts people in the real world."
After acknowledging some of the risks of pregnancy and that she accepted them to carry her two sons, she said: "I don't know how many of you have been unfortunate enough to experience a miscarriage before but I am not interested in going through it unnecessarily. And right now, the safest and most appropriate treatment for me and the treatment that I choose is abortion."
The Democrat then took aim at the Arizona Legislature for passing laws that restrict access to care for people like her. The state bans most abortions after 15 weeks, imposes a 24-hour waiting period between in-person counseling containing misinformation and the procedure, and forces patients to get medically unnecessary ultrasounds.
Detailing her trip to an abortion clinic on Friday, Burch said:
I didn't have an ultrasound because my doctor thought I needed one. I had one because legislation has forced me to do that, an invasive transvaginal ultrasound that I didn't want or need to have, performed by someone who didn't want to have to do it. I am safe and loved and protected in my marriage. But I cannot imagine how inappropriate that would be for a victim of sexual assault or for someone who has an abusive or coercive relationship with their partner—another unwanted vaginal penetration, but this time by the state, by the people who are commissioned to protect us.
Then I got to sit through an exhaustive list of absolute disinformation that was read off to me. I was told that there were alternatives to abortion, parenting or adoption among them, as if delivering a healthy baby is an option for me. It is not. My medical provider was forced to tell me multiple things that don't apply to my situation, and some that are just transparently factually false. And they do this because of laws passed by this Legislature in opposition to medical expert testimony and advice. From where I sat, the only reason I had to hear those things was in a cruel and really uninformed attempt by outside forces to shame and coerce and frighten me into making a different decision other than the one that I knew was right for me.
Burch explained that "the last time that I had an abortion, I started to miscarry that night before it was scheduled to take place. And I was denied a procedure in the hospital because I was deemed not critical enough, in spite of the fact that my embryo had died, and that my miscarriage had stalled."
"The clauses for emergencies aren't good enough. These laws can serve to intimidate doctors and it muddies the waters when they're trying to make complex decisions in situations that are really volatile," she argued. "I had been bleeding and passing huge clots for hours, but I wasn't bleeding out. And I was still pregnant. So I was offered medication to make me start bleeding again and told that I could have a procedure when I had bled enough. A waiting period is often totally inappropriate and potentially dangerous."
The lawmaker got an abortion at the clinic the following day—just two weeks before the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade in June 2022, setting off a new wave of efforts by state legislators to pass forced-pregnancy legislation.
Burch highlighted some negative impacts of being denied an abortion—from heightened risks of domestic violence and eviction to long-term health consequences. She also noted the "sensitive feelings surrounding pregnancy" and "philosophical questions that people cannot agree on," while stressing that decisions should be made by patients and providers.
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona, in the laws that restrict and dictate abortion and in the resources that it cuts and strangles and denies at every opportunity," she said of her time in the state Senate. "Our decision-making should be grounded in expert testimony and in consensus from both the medical community and from constituents, and free from political posturing and partisan bias, but that's not what I see happening."
"So I truly hope that Arizonans have the opportunity to weigh in on abortion on the ballot in November. We know that the majority of Arizonans support the right to abortion and if we can't operate in that reality in this chamber, then it is critical that everyone have the opportunity for their voices to be heard elsewhere," she concluded. "I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion at a time when the decisions being made were complicated enough. I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Among those who praised her 10-minute speech was Sam Paisley, national press secretary of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which works to elect state lawmakers in the party.
"Arizona Sen. Eva Burch sharing her decision to get an abortion is the epitome of courage," said Paisley. "No woman should have to go through the emotional and physical hurdles she described—Arizona Republicans have passed unnecessary burdens on abortion care that put women in danger. Sen. Burch's story is powerful, but it is sadly not unique—patients across Arizona have to jump through hoops to get the care they need."
"There are very real, and sometimes even deadly, consequences to the attacks on reproductive freedom that Republicans across the country have launched," Paisley added. "The DLCC commends Sen. Burch for her advocacy and stands ready to defeat alarming GOP extremism in state legislatures in Arizona and across the country."
Jodi Liggett, founder of the Arizona Center for Women's Advancement, similarly said on social media: "Today, Sen. Eva Burch shared her heart-wrenching story of nonviable pregnancy. AZ laws... have complicated her access to care. Her situation is one of thousands; personal and complicated. Conservatives, butt out and let patients and doctors handle these decisions. Privately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Announces 'Long-Overdue' Asbestos Ban
"Today's EPA rule to ban the use of chrysotile asbestos is a groundbreaking, landmark protection," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Mar 18, 2024
Labor and environmental advocates on Monday applauded the Environmental Protection Agency for finalizing a ban on the last remaining type of asbestos used in the United States eight years after Congress amended the nation's chemical safety law to accelerate the phaseout of the carcinogenic substance.
The EPA announced a final rule to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, which is found in a wide range of products including asbestos diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, and aftermarket automotive brakes and linings. In a rare display of election-year bipartisanship, Congress voted nearly unanimously in 2016 to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to update and strengthen the nation's chemical safety laws.
"Today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
Asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma as well as laryngeal, lung, and ovarian cancer. Banned in more than 50 countries, the substance is linked to more than 40,000 U.S. deaths each year.
"The science is clear—asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health," said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. "President [Joe] Biden understands that this concern has spanned generations and impacted the lives of countless people. That's why EPA is so proud to finalize this long-needed ban on ongoing uses of asbestos."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus said on social media that "this new asbestos ban is long-overdue and will save thousands of lives."
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement that "today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
"An immediate ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos for the chlor-alkali industry is a long-overdue step forward for public health," he added.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO union, hailed the EPA's "groundbreaking, landmark protection," adding that "unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Green groups echoed labor unions in welcoming the EPA move. Environmental Working Group senior vice president Scott Faber said that "it's been more than 50 years since EPA first sought to ban some uses of asbestos and we're closer than ever to finishing the job."
"For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use, and release toxins like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health," Faber added, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called forever chemicals. "Thanks to the leadership of the Biden EPA, those days are finally over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular