The decision increased criticism of federal judges and others about Barr and its deal with ending the Mueller investigation. Jackson and others have repeatedly questioned Barr̵7;s motivation to keep documents related to the investigation, including Mueller’s findings and Barr’s reaction to them secret or by delaying the investigation. Release
“The agency’s response and incomplete explanation mislead the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excerpt is believed to be the idea that the attorney general will decide the prosecution or decision. On the table at any time, ”Jackson wrote in a 35-page comment published Tuesday.
“The fact that [Trump] Will not be prosecuted She added.
The judge’s comments come in a case that Washington’s Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics transparency group is requesting access to DOJ documents through the Freedom of Information Act.
CREW and others are still trying to leverage the new record from the Mueller investigation to the public eye through lawsuits and other challenges, a case Jackson decided this week on documents about Barr’s decision to Refusing to charge Trump.
A record of legal justification should be released for the administrative Barr Jackson. Analysis of the bill from the Office of Legal Counsel will remain confidential, so did Jackson.
“We requested these records and filed this lawsuit because of great doubt about the official story coming out of Barr’s DOJ. While we do not yet know what is in the memo, the court’s opinion reassures us.” “We have the right to have questions,” CREW spokesman Jordan Libowitz said on Tuesday.
The nine-page memo Jackson said it should be published was summed up by two top political leaders in the Justice Department – Steven Engel of the Office of Legal Counsel and Ed O’Callagan, Senior Adviser in the Deputy Attorney’s Office. Highest – The same day Barr briefed Mueller’s findings on Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s efforts to obstruct justice.
The Justice Department has argued in court that most of the content of Engel and O’Callaghan’s records should be covered because internal discussions about law and policy, Paul Colborn, a DOJ attorney, told the court the record was there. To help Barr decide whether to prosecute Trump.
Engel and O’Callaghan’s records do not recommend prosecution, saying Mueller’s findings are not without any doubt evidence.
Jackson had read the document in question for herself, she noted. The judge said the edited web page proposed. “Strategic as opposed to legal advice” to Barr, without mentioning it in court, Jackson wrote that the DOJ pretended there was no discussion on strategy.
How the Department of Justice handles public access disputes “It serves to overshadow the true purpose of the memorandum,” Jackson added.
It doesn’t deserve credibility, Jackson said.
Jackson’s clear opinion, though, is largely about technical secrecy of government secrecy. But it was close to the accusation the Justice Department concealed.
The judge wrote that while senior DOJ officials prepared legal opinion that Barr had to hide from prosecuting Trump. But they emailed the higher priorities they had at the same time informing Congress that the president was exempt.
Jackson closely examined how the decision was made, looking at a court statement from the department’s attorney and an internal email between Barr’s top advisers.
“Certificate” of the Ministry of Justice officials. [in court about the memo] It is inconsistent with the evidence in the record and therefore does not deserve credibility, ”Jackson wrote.