Merrick Garland on Trump and Misrepresentations in the Mueller Report Review
Article by Eli Haney
The contention surrounding Merrick Garland's confirmation involves an internal memo from the Justice Department that alleges William Barr's deceitful attempts to shield Donald Trump from the devastating revelations in Robert Mueller's 448-page report. Just two days after receiving the Mueller report, Barr drafted a four-page summary that significantly distorted its contents.
Barr claimed in his summary that Mueller's investigation did not uncover any conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russia. While Mueller documented more than 100 ties between Trump associates and Russia and presented compelling evidence for some obstruction of justice, Barr nonetheless insisted that Trump was not guilty of hindering justice (although Muller did not rule out the possibility of Trump having committed crimes, largely due to the Department of Justice's policy against prosecuting sitting presidents).
Judge Jackson is currently pursuing a Freedom of Information suit against the Justice Department in relation to the Mueller report. In a preliminary ruling, Jackson deemed Barr's summary "untruthful," criticizing the department's internal legal memo as "misleading" and laying bare its flawed justification in defending Trump's alleged obstruction of justice.
Jackson is not alone in questioning Barr's veracity (and perhaps more) in protecting Trump. Mueller himself penned a letter arguing that Barr's public summary did not fully capture "the context, nature, and content" of the investigation's work and conclusions. In 2001, then-Republican President George W. Bush's judge, Reggie Walton, also criticized Barr's lack of candor, calling his arguments at the time "unpersuasive" and undermining public trust in the Department of Justice's account of the Mueller report.
In a particularly damning addition to her ruling, Judge Jackson went further, suggesting that Barr had driven a "public relations stunt" in an attempt to exonerate Trump while the Justice Department focused on how to counter the negative impacts of the report in the courts. By taking two days to conclude that there was no obstruction but then withholding the report from the public for nearly a month thereafter, Barr had effectively misled the public.
Trump and his supporters erroneously claimed in this critical moment that Mueller found "no collusion, no obstruction." To date, Trump has faced no significant repercussions for his obstructive behavior. He has never been charged or indicted for the conduct described in the Mueller report.
Garland found himself in a challenging position. Each new Attorney General inherits the chaos of the previous administration, and the Justice Department has a tendency to protect its internal advisory processes. However, with his nomination, Garland is essentially challenging the previous administration, or at least failing to draw a clear line. Garland's decision not to file an appeal means that Americans will soon have an uncensored version of the "Memo" to review, which may signal a new approach from the Justice Department.
Question Time
Matt (Nevada): Is it possible for the government to enforce vaccinations if enough Americans refuse, potentially compromising our ability to achieve herd immunity?
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that states could use their "police powers" to enact compulsory vaccination laws. However, this does not mean that states can do whatever they wish. Any exercise of state power must be reasonable and take into account factors such as the nature of the disease, its spreading rate, and the vaccine itself. In 1922, the court also upheld states' rights to require certain vaccinations for public school students, making it common practice for each state to have some form of vaccination law in place.
Currently, there does not appear to be significant political support for compulsory vaccinations. If political circumstances change and legislative leaders decide to enact binding vaccination laws in the interest of public health, the legality of such laws could be challenged in court.
[1] [3]
