Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A pattern. AG Bill Barr tried to force US Attorney Chuck Banks to prosecute Bill Clinton
Clinton had moved ahead of Bush in polls. Barr gave Banks an Oct. 16 deadline — 18 days before the election — to take action or give him a convincing explanation for not doing it. Simultaneously, the Criminal Division of the Justice Department — run by Robert Mueller (yes, that one) — ordered the Little Rock FBI office to look into the matter.
Banks had recognized from the first that the object was political, not a question of justice. On Oct. 16, Banks sent a letter to the Justice Department and the FBI. This is what it said:
“The insistence of urgency in this case appears to suggest an intentional or unintentional attempt to intervene in the political process of the upcoming presidential election. You and I know that in investigations of this type the first steps, such as issuance of grand jury subpoenas for records, will lead to media and public inquiries about matters that are subject to absolute privacy. Even media questions . . . all too often publicly purport to ‘legitimize’ what can’t be proven.
“For me personally to participate in an investigation . . . amounts to prosecutorial misconduct and violates the most basic fundamental rule of Department of Justice policy. I cannot be a party to such actions.”
Subsequent investigations concluded that Banks was right that Jean Lewis’ complaint had no merit.
Banks knew that his letter to Barr ended his career as a prosecutor or a judge, regardless of whether Bush or Clinton won the election. It still rankles that Barr had said Banks had submarined a Republican president, but he is satisfied that he preserved his honor. For William Barr, not so much.
Banks had recognized from the first that the object was political, not a question of justice. On Oct. 16, Banks sent a letter to the Justice Department and the FBI. This is what it said:
“The insistence of urgency in this case appears to suggest an intentional or unintentional attempt to intervene in the political process of the upcoming presidential election. You and I know that in investigations of this type the first steps, such as issuance of grand jury subpoenas for records, will lead to media and public inquiries about matters that are subject to absolute privacy. Even media questions . . . all too often publicly purport to ‘legitimize’ what can’t be proven.
“For me personally to participate in an investigation . . . amounts to prosecutorial misconduct and violates the most basic fundamental rule of Department of Justice policy. I cannot be a party to such actions.”
Subsequent investigations concluded that Banks was right that Jean Lewis’ complaint had no merit.
Banks knew that his letter to Barr ended his career as a prosecutor or a judge, regardless of whether Bush or Clinton won the election. It still rankles that Barr had said Banks had submarined a Republican president, but he is satisfied that he preserved his honor. For William Barr, not so much.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
