- Messages
- 4,115
I expect many here to be shocked by this report.
"...The selective details about the investigation included in the initial MDPA statement and the letter suggested that the actions of the individual who engaged in the conduct were intentional and likely chargeable criminally; however, even at that early stage of the investigation, Department leadership was aware of information that substantially undercut this narrative—including that the subject of the investigation was mentally impaired, appeared to have discarded the ballots by mistake, and would likely not be criminally charged. Indeed, the Department determined before Election Day that no charges would be brought in the matter, although it failed to inform the public of that fact until well after the election.
... The OIG contacted Barr on or about December 17, 2020, to request his participation in a voluntary interview. Barr stated that he would consider the request. On January 5, 2021, after having resigned from the Department, Barr sent a 3-page letter to the Inspector General discussing his role in the events under investigation (“Barr’s letter to the IG,” or “Barr’s letter”). Barr’s letter did not address certain issues that the OIG became aware of during the investigation. The OIG contacted Barr on March 10, 2021, to again request his participation in a voluntary interview, but he declined to participate.12 Barr’s Chief of Staff during the events in question had already left the Department when the OIG contacted him, and he also declined to participate in a voluntary interview.13 The OIG does not have the authority to compel or subpoena testimony from former Department employees, including those who retire or resign during the course of an OIG investigation.
... As detailed below, our investigation found that then Attorney General Barr was personally involved in the events in question and called Freed by telephone twice to discuss the Luzerne County matter prior to the initial MDPA statement being issued, but that he had no further contact with Freed after the initial statement was issued. We found that Barr encouraged and authorized Freed to issue the initial MDPA statement and specifically approved inclusion of the details about the discarded ballots, including that all the recovered ballots had been cast for President Trump; that Freed sought, and received, go-ahead from the Director of the Department’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA Director) to publicly issue both the statement and the letter; and that Freed did not consult with either the FBI or the Department’s Public Integrity Section (PIN) about the MDPA statement or the letter to the Director of the Luzerne County Bureau of Elections, or notify either that the Department planned to issue them publicly. We found no evidence that Barr was aware of or authorized Freed’s decision to publicly issue the letter to the Director of the Luzerne County Bureau of Elections. Our investigation also found that Barr briefed President Trump about the Luzerne County investigation the day before the statements were issued and specifically disclosed to the President that the recovered ballots were “marked for Trump,” information that was not public at that time and that Trump revealed on a national radio show the next morning.
Other than Freed and the OPA Director, nearly every DOJ lawyer we interviewed— both career employees and Trump Administration political appointees—emphasized how
“unusual” it would be for the Department to issue a public statement containing details about an ongoing criminal investigation, particularly before any charges are filed.
... Based on our factual findings described in detail in this report, we concluded that, while the decision by Barr and Freed to issue a statement was within their discretion, the statement ultimately issued did not comply with the Justice Manual. However, we did not find that either Barr or Freed committed misconduct in issuing the statement because of ambiguity regarding the applicability of 28 C.F.R. § 50.2, which recognizes the Attorney General’s discretion to publicly disclose information about an ongoing criminal investigation that the Attorney General believes is “in the interest of the fair administration of justice.” ..."
