Federal judge criticizes Barr over transparency concerns for the Mueller report

A federal judge handling a case centered around special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report criticized Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday, saying he has “created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned that there will be transparency.” Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered the rebuke in federal court before ruling that the Justice Department would not be compelled to provide BuzzFeed with a version of the Mueller report by Thursday. The judge’s words appeared to echo concerns about Barr that congressional Democrats have also expressed. “Obviously there is a real concern about whether there will be transparency … I hope that the government will be as transparent as it can be,” Walton said.

BuzzFeed is seeking Mueller’s report through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and asked for it to be provided to them under an expedited schedule by April 18, which is this Thursday. Earlier this week, the DOJ announced it will be providing a copy of Mueller’s highly anticipated report to Congress that same day with redactions being overseen by Barr. In his opening remarks, Walton said that even though he doesn’t know what the redacted Mueller report released by Barr will look like, “it seems to me that it’s premature to believe that what will be released on Thursday will be different than what would be released under FOIA.” BuzzFeed filed its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in early April, asking the court for injunctive relief to compel the Justice Department to provide a copy of the Mueller report to them. Walton denied a similar request earlier this month that was brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, but the research center had also sought a whole host of other nonpublic documents related to the special counsel investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election as well. BuzzFeed had hoped it might receive a more favorable ruling because its request was much narrower than the information sought by the research center. That didn’t happen.

DOJ’s attorney argued to Walton that “an injunction is an extraordinary act with a high burden” and said that “this is particularly true when trying to order the Justice Department to do something.” In prior court filings, DOJ argued BuzzFeed “cannot establish irreparable harm," specifically citing the fact that Barr sought to release the Mueller report in mid-April and said he would “color code” the report with “explanatory notes describing the basis for each redaction.” Matthew Topic, the attorney for both BuzzFeed and its journalist Jason Leopold, said, “We intend to challenge the redactions,” and argued that “the longer we wait to get the FOIA response, the longer it takes for us to move this case forward.” In a recent court filing, BuzzFeed said, “It is likely, given the categories of information the Attorney General has already determined will be redacted, that we are at the first step of what could be a lengthy legal process to decide whether those redactions are legally permissible under FOIA.”

Given the number of public pronouncements made by government officials such as President Trump and others, Topic said there was an incredible public interest in knowing what the full Mueller report contains. Countering the idea that further delay wouldn’t cause any harm, Topic argued, “The irreparable harm would be being forced to wait.” Walton disagreed, saying BuzzFeed “cannot be harmed irreparably by waiting a little longer. … I don’t doubt there’s some harm, but it’s not irreparable.” He denied BuzzFeed’s motion for injunctive relief.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-judge-criticizes-barr-over-transparency-concerns-for-the-mueller-report

DOJ lost Mueller excuse to dodge questions on Clinton emails investigation, GOP leaders say

Top Senate Republicans are renewing the push for access to more information on the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server now that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation has concluded. In a letter sent to Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday, three Senate chairman argue the Justice Department can no longer cite the ongoing Russian interference investigation as a reason not to comply with their demand for a briefing.

“Now that the Special Counsel’s investigation has concluded, we are unaware of any legitimate basis upon which the Department can refuse to answer the Judiciary Committee’s inquiries,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., wrote in their letter. The Republicans previously requested information on a classified appendix to the Justice Department inspector general’s report titled, “A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election," that was released in June 2018.

“The classified appendix raises significant issues associated with the FBI’s failure to review certain highly classified information in support of its Midyear investigation,” they wrote, referring to the code name for the email investigation. “In particular, the Inspector General noted that it learned that the FBI acquired classified material that ‘may have included information potentially relevant to the Midyear investigation.’ The FBI even drafted a memorandum in May of 2016 stating that access to the information was ‘necessary to complete the investigation.’ However, that memorandum was never completed.”

The 568-page inspector general report found former FBI Director James Comey was “insubordinate” and “affirmatively concealed” his intentions from Justice Department leadership during the investigation into Clinton's private email server. The report also slammed former FBI investigator Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who were having an affair with each other, for anti-Trump tweets that suggested "a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects."

Though the report criticized FBI actions as unorthodox and at times improper, ultimately it concluded that this did not change the outcome of the Clinton email investigation. Mueller concluded his investigation last month, issuing a nearly 400-page report to Barr on his findings. Barr intends to release a redacted version of the full report on Thursday.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doj-lost-mueller-excuse-to-dodge-questions-on-clinton-emails-investigation-gop-leaders-say

Inspector general slams 'insubordinate' James Comey, concludes bias did not hinder FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/inspector-general-no-political-bias-in-fbis-investigation-of-hillary-clintons-emails

Clinton Foundation Donor Funded Ukraine Report at Core of Charges Against Former Obama Counsel

On April 15, former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig revealed the identity of the previously unknown man who funded the Ukraine report which is now at the center of federal charges against Craig. In a video statement, Craig said that Victor Pinchuk “helped fund” the 2012 report. Pinchuk is a Ukrainian businessman and a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. “It was Doug Schoen who brought this project to me, and he told me he was acting on behalf of Mr. Victor Pinchuk, who is a pro-Western Ukranian businessman, who helped fund the project,” Craig said.

In an indictment filed earlier in April, federal prosecutors alleged that Craig lied about aspects of his work on the Ukraine report, including the nature and extent of his communications with the media, in order to avoid registering as a foreign lobbyist as required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Craig adamantly denied the allegations, explaining that he worked with other attorneys to determine whether he was required to register and concluded that he was not. “I never discussed the findings of our report with any U.S. officials. I certainly did not lobby any U.S. officials on behalf of Ukraine,” Craig said. “I did not help Ukraine promote its spin when it released our report.” Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when Craig began work on the Ukraine report in 2012. Craig has had a long-running close and personal relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton and held a senior position in the Clinton White House before becoming Obama’s counsel. The Victor Pinchuk Foundation donated $10 million to $25 million to the Clinton Foundation sometime before 2013, making him the top foreign contributor to the foundation. When The Wall Street Journal asked the Pinchuk Foundation if Pinchuk was lobbying the State Department, Pinchuk’s foundation said, “This cannot be seen as anything but a good thing.”

The link between Pinchuk, Craig, and Clinton may mean that the Justice Department already has examined or may eventually scrutinize communications between Craig and the Clintons. While Craig said he didn’t lobby U.S. officials on behalf of Ukraine, he didn’t state whether or not he had lobbied on behalf of Pinchuk, a private businessman who didn’t hold a post in the Ukrainian government at the time he funded the report. Craig also didn’t mention whether he lobbied a spouse of a U.S. official, namely Bill Clinton.

Schoen, the man who brought the project to Craig, was registered as a lobbyist for Pinchuk throughout Clinton’s tenure at the head of the State Department. It was after being introduced to the Clintons by Schoen in 2006 that Pinchuk began donating to the Clinton Foundation. Schoen told The Wall Street Journal that the donations were not part of his lobbying efforts. Schoen arranged about a dozen meetings between Pinchuk and State Department officials between September 2011 and November 2012, according to The New York Times. The meetings occurred as Pinchuk was donating to the Clinton Foundation and funding Craig’s Ukraine report.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donor-funded-ukraine-report-at-core-of-charges-against-former-obama-counsel_2881961.html