SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
justice department
Trump's Dangerous Vow to Weaponize the DOJ Against His Political Enemies
If there weren’t already enough reason to fear a second Trump presidency, this would be it.
Jun 20, 2023
Last week, Trump said that if reelected, he’d appoint a “real special prosecutor” to “go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.”
In other words, if Trump is reelected, you can kiss nonpartisan criminal justice goodbye.
His remark made me think back almost a half century ago, to when I was a rookie lawyer in the Justice Department. The department was in shambles, discredited by Nixon’s and Attorney General John Mitchell’s political abuse and corruption.
To restore trust in the Justice Department, President Gerald Ford appointed Edward Levi to be attorney general. In naming Levi, who had been president of the University of Chicago and the former dean of its law school, Ford found someone whose reputation for integrity was impeccable.
As Levi said at his swearing in, “Nothing can more weaken the quality of life or more imperil the realization of the goals we all hold dear than our failure to make clear by words and deed that our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose.”
Levi set out to insulate the Justice Department from politics, instituting rules limiting White House involvement in law enforcement decisions.
The Senate Watergate Committee chairman, Senator Sam Ervin, didn’t think Levi’s rules went far enough to protect the department from an unscrupulous future president. Ervin wanted to make the Justice Department an independent agency with an attorney general appointed by the president every six years and removable only for neglect.
At the time, I thought Ervin’s proposal too extreme. I assumed America had learned its lesson from Watergate and would never again elect a president as repugnant as Nixon, willing to sacrifice the institutions of government to his own political ambition.
Yet there was some precedent for Ervin’s view. The attorney general was originally viewed as having an independent, semi-judicial role — analogous to that of judges.
Congress established the office of the attorney general in the Judiciary Act of 1789 — the same act that created the federal court system, as distinct from acts establishing executive departments. In the original draft, attorneys general would be appointed by the Supreme Court, not the president. Congress changed this so that attorneys general would be appointed exactly like federal judges.
When George Washington appointed the nation’s first attorney general in 1789, Thomas Jefferson referred to him as “the Attorney General for the Supreme Court.” Early attorneys general shared offices with the court. Their budgets were line items under the federal judiciary, not the executive. Originally, the attorney general was not even in line to succeed to the presidency.
Even after the attorney general became a key part of the executive branch and the Department of Justice was established in 1870, presidents continued to respect the need for prosecutorial independence.
Until Richard Nixon and his scurrilous Attorney General John Mitchell.
But surely, I said to myself at the time, Nixon and Mitchell were the extremes. Edward Levi’s reforms were adequate.
Then came the worst offender of all. During his presidency, Donald Trump viewed the Justice Department as an extension of his own will — even claiming, “I have an absolute right to do what I want to with the Justice Department.”
Trump interfered in the department’s prosecutions of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, fired FBI Director James Comey for investigating possible collusion between Russia and Trump associates, and demanded that the department reopen a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.
John Dean, former White House counsel to Nixon, described Trump’s efforts to use the Justice Department for personal gain as “Nixon on stilts and steroids.”
Now, Trump threatens that if reelected he’ll turn the Justice Department into his own personal vendetta machine. If there weren’t already enough reason to fear a second Trump presidency, this would be it.
Public trust in our governing institutions has already sunk to a new low — due in large part to Trump’s first term, his subsequent Big Lie that the 2020 election was “stolen,” and now his second Big Lie that Biden is orchestrating a “witch hunt” against him.
Even if Biden is reelected, it will be necessary to deal with the damage Trump and his Republican enablers have wrought. Perhaps Sam Ervin’s proposal for an independent Justice Department should be given more serious consideration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Push Biden DOJ to Probe Possible 'Criminal' Violations by SVB Execs
"SVB officials showed a pattern of risky and questionable decision-making that may have contributed to the bank's instability," wrote Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal.
Mar 15, 2023
Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal demanded Tuesday that the Biden Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission investigate whether Silicon Valley Bank executives "violated civil or criminal law" in the lead-up to the firm's collapse, which sent shockwaves through the entire U.S. financial system.
"This was a colossal failure in asset liability risk management," the Democratic senators in a letter to SEC Chairman Gary Gensler and Attorney General Merrick Garland. The letter was first reported by CNBC on Wednesday morning.
The lawmakers pointed to recent reporting detailing how "SVB officials showed a pattern of risky and questionable decision making that may have contributed to the bank's instability and collapse and the ripple effects being felt throughout the economy."
Warren and Blumenthal asked the Biden administration to launch a probe to determine "whether senior bank executives and other key officials involved in the collapse met their statutory and regulatory responsibilities or violated civil or criminal law."
"One of the enduring failures in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis was the inability or unwillingness of DOJ and bank regulators to hold bank executives accountable for behavior that destroyed millions of lives and cost trillions of dollars of wealth," they wrote. "The nation's bank regulators cannot make the same mistake twice."
The fallout from SVB's collapse has brought intense scrutiny to the venture capital lender's ill-considered investment moves as well as the conduct of its top executives, who sold tens of millions of dollars worth of stock in the two years leading up to the bank's failure last week—raising questions about possible insider trading.
Greg Becker, SVB's former CEO, sold millions of dollars of shares as recently as late last month.
The bank's leadership has also come under fire for dishing out bonuses hours before federal regulators took over on Friday.
"You have nobody to blame for the failure at your bank but yourself and your fellow executives."
In a letter to Becker earlier this week, Warren—a member of the Senate Banking Committee—slammed SVB for lobbying against bank regulations in recent years and argued that "you have nobody to blame for the failure at your bank but yourself and your fellow executives."
"SVB failed—while its chief risk officer position sat vacant for eight months as its financial standing deteriorated—because it failed to address two key risks: concentration in your client base, and rising interest rates," the Massachusetts Democrat wrote. "This is a failure of 'Banking 101'—what one analyst called 'sheer incompetence.' Had SVB been subject to Dodd-Frank rules undone by [a 2018 GOP law], the bank would have been required to maintain stronger liquidity and capital requirements and conduct regular stress tests that would have required SVB to shore up its business to weather the type of stress it experienced last week."
"You lobbied for weaker rules, got what you wanted, and used this opportunity to abdicate your basic responsibilities to your clients and the public—facilitating a near-economic disaster," Warren added.
The Wall Street Journalreported Tuesday that the DOJ and SEC have both opened investigations into the SVB failure, which was the second-largest bank collapse in U.S. history.
"The separate probes are in their preliminary phases and may not lead to charges or allegations of wrongdoing," the Journal noted. "The investigations are... examining stock sales that SVB Financial's officers made days before the bank failed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
100 Groups From Around the World to UN: Demand Accountability for CIA Torture
More than 100 national and international rights groups call for accountability
Jun 25, 2015
This Friday, the world will mark International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. This day is commemorated every year to reaffirm the universal commitment to the total eradication of torture, which is categorically prohibited under international law.
On Wednesday, the largest-ever group of civil society organizations from scores of countries urged the U.N. Human Rights Council to call out the United States for failing to provide justice for both the perpetrators and the victims of the CIA's abhorrent torture program.
In 1984, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which entered into force on June 26, 1987. The Reagan administration signed the treaty and sent it to the Senate for ratification with this statement:
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
The United States ratified the treaty in 1994 and Congress passed a federal anti-torture statute which defines the crime of torture, albeit slightly differently than does the treaty, and prescribes harsh punishments for anyone -- U.S. citizen or not -- who commits an act of torture outside of the United States. The U.S. has since generously contributed millions of dollars to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture so that survivors may rebuild their lives.
However, U.S. and international prohibitions against torture did not deter the Bush administration from flouting the law and authorizing a secret CIA program of torture, forced disappearance, and unlawful detention after 9/11. Six months ago, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the summary of its report on CIA torture, documenting in graphic detail instances of mock executions, forced rectal feeding, and widespread use of forced sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. While the report doesn't call for a criminal investigation, it includes significant new information relating to serious federal crimes, including torture, homicide, conspiracy, and sexual assault. These findings warrant a comprehensive criminal investigation.
Shockingly, the Justice Department declared to a U.S. court that it has never opened the full report it received from the Senate, let alone reviewed it for evidence of human rights violations and criminal wrongdoing. And yet yesterday, in response to a new letter from the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch -- supported by more than 110,000 signatures calling for comprehensive criminal investigation -- DOJ spokesman Marc Raimondi told The Miami Herald:
In 2009, the Attorney General directed a preliminary review of the treatment of certain individuals alleged to have been mistreated while in U.S. Government custody subsequent to the 9/11 attacks. That review generated two criminal investigations, but the Department of Justice ultimately declined those cases for prosecution because the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Those investigators have also reviewed the Senate Committee's full report and did not find any new information that they had not previously considered in reaching their determination. This inquiry was extraordinarily thorough and we stand by our previously announced decision not to initiate criminal charges.
The Justice Department's reluctance to order a new independent criminal investigation defies any common sense and fundamental principles of the rule of law. It also flies in the face of U.S. and international law obligations and sends a dangerous message to U.S. and foreign leaders that torture has no legal consequences.
That is why 100 organizations from around the world delivered a statement today to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva calling for accountability for the CIA torture program and reparations to its victims. In September, the council will adopt a report on the United States' human rights record as part of the Universal Periodic Review process. The statement urges the council to demand that the United States "take measures to meet the full spectrum of its obligations under international law to ensure accountability, transparency, reparations and non-repetition, including declassification of the full Senate report on the CIA detention program, independent, comprehensive criminal investigation, and the issuing of apologies and compensation to victims." The statement concludes:
We know from the experiences of civil society groups and survivors of torture around the world that the struggle for accountability for human rights violations and the search for truth can be a long and difficult journey. Yet the United States has much to gain from rejecting impunity, returning to the rule of law, and providing adequate redress to the dozens and dozens of people it so brutally abused.
We hope the United States will follow that path.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular