WASHINGTON (AP) — A crucial and contentious midterm election takes place next week, and President Donald Trump’s Justice Department has struggled with a series of headline-grabbing actions and cases that defense lawyers, Democrats and other critics say are no coincidence and smack of politics — both in timing and goals.
Just this month, the Justice Department intensified its investigation into Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar by raiding her home; filed criminal charges against two former FBI officials accused of falsely minimizing their knowledge of investigations involving Hunter Biden; Revealed New Attempt to Prosecute Former FBI Director James Comey; And tried in vain to charge a former White House aide who delivered dramatic but controversial testimony about Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
It’s above lawsuits in Alaska And California linked to next week’s vote.
The moves are notable not only because of the timing, but also because they are largely aimed at vocal critiques of Trump or issues that have enlivened the Republican base.
The Justice Department has also resorted to unusual maneuvers to lock in charges, bypassing grand juries to file what are effectively pretrial cases against Comey and former FBI officials in a heavily Democratic nation’s capital — where prosecutors over the past year have repeatedly struggled to secure indictments.
“Never in the modern history of the Justice Department has there been such blatant disregard for time-honored norms and protocols when designing or conducting politically sensitive investigations,” said David Laufman, who served as a senior Justice Department official in both Democratic and Republican administrations and helped oversee the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The Justice Department, in a statement, said it “follows the facts and the law, not anyone’s political agenda.”
The Justice Department has historically sought to avoid any major action before an election.
Law enforcement has a long-standing practice of avoiding investigations opened against candidates in the weeks leading up to an election, or any other public action that could be seen as an attempt to influence a political outcome.
It is such a fundamental principle that successive attorneys general have issued department-wide memos during election cycles reminding employees not to take investigative steps intended to help or hinder any particular candidate.
Responding to questions about recent investigative moves, the Justice Department said in a statement that it was an informal practice, not a written rule, to avoid overt action within 60 days of an election. The practice is intended to prohibit prosecutors from choosing the timing of an action that could influence an election, the department said.
“The standard is the goal, not proximity to Election Day. Department policy does not require the Department to stop ongoing work during an election season,” the department said.
This practice was famously tested in 2016 when then-FBI Director Comey told Congress 11 days before Election Day that the office was reviewing its investigation into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information due to recently discovered emails. Comey said he felt he chose the least destructive option available, but his decision-making was harshly criticized by Democrats – and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.
Attorney General Todd Blanche, for his part, has not hesitated to assert that the Justice Department does not exist independently of the White House and insisted that he is no different from his predecessors as president. He denied that the department’s investigative decisions were political. Yet even before this month, the Justice Department had launched multiple investigations into the president’s alleged adversaries.
This includes a Florida-based investigation with which Trump joins had hoped to prove a right-wing theory that former law enforcement and intelligence officials who scrutinized the president over the past decade had conspired against him.
That investigation has shown signs of losing steam due to a wave of staff turnover and delays. In recent weeks, investigators have postponed planned grand jury testimony from several witnesses, according to several people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
A “little show on top of a show”
One of the most politically sensitive actions this month came when federal agents searched the home of Omar, one of the president’s most vocal critics in Congress. She is on the ballot Tuesday for another term representing Minnesota’s 5th District. Federal agents seized Omar’s phone during the search and have issued more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas, including to some of his relatives, as investigators probe matters related to his immigration documents.
Blanche defended the timing of the search, which was approved by a federal judge. He told reporters last week: “I can tell you unequivocally that the decision to seek a search warrant had nothing to do with what happened in November. »
The Justice Department later charged two former FBI officials with making false statements to Congress about their knowledge of a laptop the department claimed they owned. Hunter, the son of former President Joe Biden. The case stems from an investigation that began immediately after a July speech by Trump on election security and was ordered by FBI Director Kash Patel. according to testimony Tuesday of an FBI agent assigned to the investigation.
The Justice Department charged the two former officials through a complaint instead of a grand jury indictment — a move the magistrate judge overseeing the case called unusual. Prosecutors then left the judge stunned when they attempted to add another charge by filing a new criminal complaint in court without the required judicial approval that probable cause existed.
“It’s all just a little show on top of a show,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui told prosecutors.
On Monday, newly unsealed court documents in a separate case revealed that prosecutors attempt to bring third criminal case against Comey since Trump returned to the White House, accusing him of leaking classified information a decade ago. With the statute of limitations set to expire early this month, prosecutors have used an unusual legal tactic to try to extend the time in which they can seek a grand jury indictment.
Comey’s legal team has described it as legally invalid and politically motivated, and is pushing the judge to throw it out. A judge is scheduled to hear arguments Friday.
Asked about the latest case against the former FBI director, Trump said this week he knew nothing about it. But the president added: “He’s a dirty cop, James Comey. »
For his part, Comey didn’t seem surprised. “Well, they’re back, again,” he said in a video statement Monday. “It would almost be funny if this were not such a terrible abuse of the Department of Justice, an abuse to which we cannot remain insensitive. Nothing has changed for me; I am still innocent, I am still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independence of the federal judiciary.”
Gn usa
