Connect with us

News

Secret Garland Memo Cites Bill Barr Order to Flag AG if Investigating a Presidential Candidate

Published

on

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow obtained a Feb. 2020 memo authored by then-Attorney General Bill Barr saying that anyone at the Justice Department who is investigating a political candidate has to run it by the Attorney General. That memo, she explained, was renewed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in May 2022.

“The Department of Justice has a strong interest in the prosecution of election-related crimes, such as those involving federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage laws, and corruption of the election process. As Department employees, however, we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and non-partisanship,” the memo says.

“Simply put,” it continues, “partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other actions in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution.”

The new guidance from Barr said that any investigation for a declared candidate for president has to be run by the attorney general personally.

However, the 2022 midterms aren’t elections for presidents, and former President Donald Trump hasn’t declared he’s running in 2024 yet. Even if he had announced or if he announces ahead of 2022, the memo essentially says that any investigator looking into Trump has to run it by Garland. The theory is that if someone at the Justice Department was investigating a former president it likely would include the attorney general. It would have prevented FBI Director James Comey from announcing an investigation into Hillary Clinton in 2016, however.

Former Justice Department official Andrew Weissmann said that under a normal and reputable attorney general something like this would make sense.

“On the other hand, the Bill Barr Justice Department was anything but a Justice Department. The rule of law was so flouted that the idea of re-upping something that he put in place is one that I’m not sure if I were at the department I would look at with anything other than saying, ‘I am not bringing a case against anyone at the White House until such time as I personally approve it’ no matter how much evidence seems to be accumulated in the Jan. 6th committee hearings. So, you know, I think it’s a plus/minus. You know, it probably could have been phrased a lot better and clearer to people at the Justice Department.”

None of the people involved in Jan. 6 are at the White House anymore, however.

Weissmann went on to quote the recent Wall Street Journal report that the Justice Department was getting more funding to address the Jan. 6 cases.

“Is it expanded to include all of the evidence of criminality that was laid out by the Jan. 6th committee? In other words, not just who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6th and not just fake electors, but what was going on at the Department of Justice in terms of beheading Jeffrey Rosenstein to get a lackey? What is going on in other states? The pressuring of the vice president of the United States?” he asked. “All of that seems to me to be appropriate for a criminal investigation.”

Last week, Weissmann penned an op-ed saying that he was concerned by the reports that Justice Department officials were shocked by Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony. It led him to believe that their “shock” meant they didn’t know about her comments to the Jan. 6 committee. That would thus mean that the DOJ isn’t doing investigations into the White House role in Jan. 6, or if they are they hadn’t brought in someone as key as Hutchinson.

Maddow’s opener and Andrew Weissmann’s commentary are below:

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

NCRM

Two-Thirds of Americans Say Economy is Keeping Them From Having Babies

Published

on

Nearly two-thirds of Americans aren’t having babies due to the economy, according to a new poll.

According to a Harris-Guardian poll, many Americans are deciding against having children, with 65% saying that they’ve decided against having children because they’re worried about the economy and doubt they could afford it.

The poll also asked about other regular life milestones. Americans are also holding off on getting married (60%), buying a house (75%) or pursuing higher education (61%). It’s not just major events, either—65% said the cost of living had only gotten higher since January, and half said they were having difficulty paying for regular living expenses.

READ MORE: Nikki Haley: Frozen Embryos Are ‘Babies’

A majority of adults, 52%, blamed either tariffs (29%) or other government policies (23%) for causing their household economic woes. Only 4% blamed themselves, with another 6% blaming employers; 16% blamed something altogether different. The only group that largely felt the economy was getting better was Republicans; 33% said it was getting worse, compared to 73% of Democrats and 64% of independents.

The survey of 2,102 adult Americans was conducted between April 24-26. The margin of error is 2.5%.

America’s birth rate has been declining since the 1950s, barring a small bump between 1978 and 1988, according to Macrotrends. In the last 40 years, the number of live births has fallen from a peak of 15.5 live births per 1,000 people in 1988 to 12.01 births in 2024.

The Trump administration has urged Americans to have more children. In April, President Donald Trump floated the idea of giving out a “baby bonus” of $5,000 to new parents, according to CBS News.

While not as generous, the House GOP’s first draft of the budget includes $1,000 to be placed in “MAGA accounts” for new babies, according to Raw Story. The $1,000 could come in handy for new parents—but a May 9 report from CBS estimates Trump’s tariffs have added $1,000 to the cost of raising a child. (This does not take into account Monday’s announcement of reduced tariffs on Chinese goods.)

Declining birth rates could lead to an imbalance of demographics. As Americans get older, there are fewer young people to fill their shoes in the workplace. Fewer workers means lower tax revenue, and aging typically means an increase in health care costs, as Mike Walden, Reynolds Distinguished Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University, points out.

It’s not all downsides, however. Walden says lower birth rates could also lessen competition for good housing. It could also lead to less traffic congestion, less waste and more land for food production.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

NCRM

Trump Promises to Lower Drug Costs as House GOP Tries to Cut $880B From Medicaid

Published

on

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday aimed at cutting drug costs. Meanwhile, his fellow Republicans in the House are trying to gut Medicaid.

Trump’s executive order, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients,” is an attempt to “equalize evident price discrimination,” allowing Americans to pay the same price as other “comparably developed nations.”

“This abuse of Americans’ generosity, who deserve low-cost pharmaceuticals on the same terms as other developed nations, must end.  Americans will no longer be forced to pay almost three times more for the exact same medicines, often made in the exact same factories.  As the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, Americans should get the best deal,” the EO reads in part.

READ MORE: ‘Pushed Up to the Edge of the Cliff’: GOP Proposals Would Kick Millions Off Health Care

Prior to the announcement, Trump posted to Truth Social that “DRUG PRICES TO BE CUT BY 59%,” but did not provide details on where that figure came from. It is also unclear if the White House has the authority to enforce this order, according to NPR.

PhRMA President and CEO Steve Ubl dismissed the executive order, saying that it was other countries paying such low prices that drives up costs for Americans. Ubl implied that the executive order may require those countries to pay more.

“The Administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines. U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation,” Ubl said. “Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers. It would mean less treatments and cures and would jeopardize the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America – threatening jobs, hurting our economy and making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines.”

While Trump was promising to help American health care consumers on Monday, the night before, his colleagues in the House revealed legislation that would cut over $880 billion in Medicaid funding. Republicans say that the cuts will result in savings to the average American, but Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said “millions of Americans will lose their health care coverage,” according to the AP.

“Hospitals will close, seniors will not be able to access the care they need, and premiums will rise for millions of people if this bill passes,” Pallone continued.

Not all Republicans are on board with this bill. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri wrote a guest essay for The New York Times condemning the legislation. He called the bill “both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

NCRM

US Lifts Ban on Afghan Deportations, Despite UN Warning of ‘Escalating Crisis’

Published

on

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday that the ban on deporting Afghans had been lifted due to improvements in their home country. The United Nations has warned this isn’t the case, and deportees could be in danger.

The about-face is yet another example of the Trump administration reversing a Biden-era policy. Beginning in 2022, Afghan refugees were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), according to NPR. In addition to stopping deportation, TPS also gives refugees authorization to work in the United States.

Noem said the decision to rescind TPS was due to improving conditions in Afghanistan, citing an “improved security situation” and “stabilizing economy,” according to The Hill. The TPS designation expires on May 20, and becomes effective July 12, 60 days after the announcement is scheduled to be officially published in the Federal Register.

READ MORE: Trump Team Pushing ‘Utter Propaganda’ on Deportations to Create ‘Climate of Fear’: Experts

Despite Noem saying Afghanistan is safe for refugees, the State Department still gives the country a “Do Not Travel” designation. The State Department warns “travel to all areas of Afghanistan is unsafe,” according to NPR.

The United Nations also disputes Noem’s claims. A report published by the U.N. last month refers to an “escalating humanitarian crisis” in the country, and say increase deportations could further destabilize things. Iran and Pakistan have forcibly deported 96,000 Afghan refugees in April alone, the U.N. reported.

Afghan refugees in America—even those with green cards—say they’re afraid to return.

“It doesn’t matter just how you got here,” Muhammad Amiri, a Afghan refugee with legal permanent residency, told NPR. “We don’t feel safe, and we don’t feel good because now, we feel threatened, if they send us back to our country, it will be the same story. [We] feel threatened to be tortured, maybe be killed by [the] Taliban.”

Though Amiri has a green card, the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration has many worried. Amiri’s fiancée is in Afghanistan, and he told NPR he was afraid to visit her, due to fears he may not be allowed back into the country. Amiri’s fears are not unfounded; Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at airports have already turned away or detained those who come to the United States legally, according to The Verge.

The Taliban,a militant Islamic fundamentalist group, is still in control of Afghanistan. The Taliban bans women from working or being educated. This week, it also banned chess, according to the Telegraph. The Taliban has been in control since the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country, ending the longest war in which America has been involved.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.