Bill Barr has a history of partisan interference
by digby
Josh Marshall points to an article he wrote for Salon back in 2002 about the final report that came out about the Whitewater investigation (which no one paid any attention to.) William Barr played a part and it wasn’t good. Before the election, Bush Sr apparently got wind of a referral to the Department of Justice about that stupid Arkansas land deal back in the 1980s:
According to the report, on Sept. 17, 1992, Edie Holiday, the secretary to the Cabinet in the Bush White House, contacted then Attorney General William Barr and — after some awkward back and forth — asked Barr if he “would be aware of a pending matter in Justice (she may have said it was a criminal referral) about a presidential candidate or a family member of a presidential candidate.”
At around the same time, according to the report, then-White House counsel C. Boyden Gray also apparently took action. He inquired about the status of the referral with the head of the Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC), the agency from which the referral to the U.S. attorney originated.Washington is replete with rules prohibiting or discouraging contact that might create the appearance of a conflict of interest. And most cover inappropriate contact between the political side of the executive branch and the law enforcement side of the executive branch, for obvious reasons. During a later phase in the Whitewater investigation, the general counsel at the Treasury gave White House lawyers a heads up about a possible upcoming indictment of Jim McDougal and possibly President Clinton, which was being reported in an internal RTC newsletter called the “early bird report.” That incident was enough to get several White House officials hauled before a federal grand jury and led to the eventual resignations of White House counsel Bernie Nussbaum and Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman. The series of incidents noted in Wednesday’s Whitewater report are considerably more serious: political appointees trying to use their influence over the executive law enforcement agencies for political gain.
And it has former Clinton staffers steamed.
“It doesn’t pass the smell test,” says one legal source close to the former president. “How did anybody at the White House even know about it? It suggests to us clearly that they were using the Justice Department and an investigation to influence the election.” How did Edie Holiday find out about the referral? Or C. Boyden Gray? Why did they try to intervene as they did? What other officials were involved? On all of these questions the report is silent.
What is clear is that Barr went on to get in touch with Ira Raphaelson, the Justice Department’s special counsel for financial institution fraud, and asked him to find out whether such a referral existed. When Raphaelson didn’t uncover one at first, Barr asked him to try again. From here, the story takes a turn that is either comic or Kafkaesque.
Though Barr had no apparent reason to believe that the budding case against the McDougals was being handled inappropriately, he instructed his subordinates at the Department of Justice and the FBI to commence a series of contacts with local officials in Little Rock to make sure the case was being handled appropriately. The OIC Report is replete with self-serving statements from these officials, to the effect that they simply wanted to make sure it was handled neither more quickly nor more slowly than any other similar case. Barr, the report explains, told a subordinate that “he did not want action on it artificially sped up or slowed down — it was to be dealt with on its merits and in the normal course.”
In the succeeding pages, statements such as these are coupled with actions that clearly belie them. Everything in this case should be handled like every other case, Washington seemed to be telling the U.S. attorney in Little Rock. But after reading the OIC’s recounting, it is virtually impossible to conclude that Barr and his colleagues at Justice were concerned with anything except the possibility that the potential case might not be moving as quickly as it could.
On Oct. 7, 1992, Banks informed his superiors in Washington that based on his review of the referral he was not inclined to open an investigation or move toward issuing indictments. Justice and FBI officials then met and responded to Banks’ message by ordering him to commence an investigation and report back to them on Oct. 16.
Banks had little doubt about the origins of the sudden urgency to move ahead with the case. “All of a sudden, we had this FBI pressure that something had to be done by October 16th,” he later told the OIC. But Banks and other law enforcement officials in Little Rock held their ground.
Officials in the Bush Justice Department apparently realized that it wouldn’t do to order local officials to fast-track the case, but they nudged them as much as they could. It reflects well on Banks that he didn’t let his superiors convince him that they knew better than he did. He believed he was being angled into issuing subpoenas in the case before the November election, and later testified that he would have resigned before doing so.
There are many passages in the OIC report that beg the question of whether more questions would have been asked if the independent counsel were interested in scrutinizing the behavior of former Bush administration officials rather than people tied to the Clinton administration. Why did the independent counsel choose to investigate possible foot-dragging on the part of U.S. Attorney Banks (who is completely vindicated in the report), when Banks had no reason to help Bill Clinton, and ignore the possibility that inappropriate pressure tactics were employed by Attorney General Barr, when Barr had a vested interest in seeing Clinton lose in November?
After Banks refused to pursue the Whitewater investigation, and after Bill Clinton’s election, departing Bush Justice Department officials revealingly lost their sense of urgency about the case. Whitewater ultimately came into full bloom when Clinton requested a special prosecutor to look into it in 1994, following pressure from the media and critics.
Another tantalizing tidbit in the report is the central role that FBI director Robert Mueller, then assistant attorney general for the criminal division, played in Barr’s fishing expedition. From the facts contained in the report, it’s not clear that Mueller was doing anything more than overseeing the execution of decisions made by others or overseeing meetings of Justice Department and FBI officials in Washington. But he was clearly in the center of the drama and in the position to see almost everything that was going on.
All we can hope for is that Mueller still has enough juice with Barr to keep him from reverting to his old partisan ways. I think the odds are no better than 50-50.
.