“The examination of the documents revealed that the Attorney General was not It then takes part in deciding whether the president should be charged with obstructing justice. The fact that he will not be prosecuted is an inherited affair, ”wrote Jackson, former President Barack Obama’s nominee.
Jackson linked the Justice Department’s efforts to keep records confidential with Barr’s initial description of Mueller’s conclusions, declaring the two were trying to be misleading.
“Not only is the Attorney General a rude person, the DOJ also disagrees with the Court in connection with the existence of decision-making processes that should be protected by the prerogative of judicial proceedings,”; she wrote. The response of the agency and is not complete. The explanation puzzled the true purpose of the memorandum and the excerpt, believed the idea was up to the Attorney General to decide the prosecution or that decision was on the table at any time. “
Lawyers for the Justice Department also argued that the record was covered by the attorney and client privileges. But Jackson said most appeared to have no legal advice or conclusions. “The court has not been persuaded the agency to uphold its obligation to show that the records were sent for the purpose of” the law “. Providing legal advice as opposed to strategic and policy advice that are outside the scope of the privilege, “the judge wrote.
Jackson noted that another federal judge in DC, Reggie Walton, previously criticized Barr’s initial description of the Mueller report. She said the criticism was “acceptable”.
Jackson released her comments in part on Monday after personally examining the record, a process she noted the Justice Department. “Extremely opposed”, she withheld parts with details of the memo from publicly available versions of her decision.
The Justice Department can appeal Jackson’s decision to force the record out.
A spokesperson for the department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. Attempts to contact the named former official to make a decision to comment were unsuccessful.
The Freedom of Information suit that Jackson ruled on Monday was filed in 2019 by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
While it is unclear whether this will influence her ruling, Jackson has a close view of one of the biggest fire storms in Barr’s tenure as attorney general: his decision. That would refute the frontline prosecutor and effectively withdraw the advice of seven to nine. A year jail sentence for Roger Stone, longtime adviser to President Donald Trump, for lying to Congress and testifying to falsification. Jackson, who was a judge at the Stone ruling – did not openly criticize Barr’s move, but clarified in court that she believed it was deviated by the administration’s stated policies in the trial.
Jackson was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. But Trump instead used a prison sentence and eventually forgave Stone.