Former Attorney General William repeatedly obscured the “real motive” when blocking the publication of the memo, the judge said.
A federal judge has previously ordered the publication of a legal memorandum prepared by the then-Attorney General William Barr’s Legal Advisory Office. Announcement His decision that Trump did not obstruct the trial during Russia’s election mediation and possible coalition investigations.
The judiciary refused on March 24, 2019, to issue a memorandum to an information individual group of the Department of Information as part of a larger effort to gain a clearer idea of the department’s decision-making before Bars’ announcement. .
Justice officials argued that the document presented personal advice to lawyers and was presented to Trump before any formal decision was made on whether to prosecute him. Since the memo was made before any formal decision was made, it was exempted from publication in accordance with the Public Records Act, officials argued.
However, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the judiciary had obscured the “real purpose of the memorandum” when intercepting the document.
He said the memo, obtained from the Law Department’s Office of Justice, contained “contrary to strategic, legal advice” and that both the author and the recipient had already reached an agreement on what the prosecution’s decision would be after the matter was written.
“In other words, a review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not busy deciding whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; “It was true he would not be prosecuted,” Jackson said in Monday’s order.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team did not reach this conclusion significantly, although the decision by Bern and senior Justice Department leaders to clear Trump of obstacles was an important moment for the president.
The announcement, and a four-page summary of Mueller’s report, helped with the size and size of the 448-page document before it was published. Public opinion In the conclusion of the investigation.
Mueller later complained to the bar that his summary investigation did not fully capture the results and created “public confusion.”
Jackson also appeared to join Molar’s criticism.
“Politicians and pundits took their microphones and tried to hide the fact that Twitter was scared,” Jackson wrote.
For Washington’s accountability and ethics, citizens applied for public records to communicate decisions about barriers. The party wanted both documents in the case pending before Jackson.
Jackson ruled that a judicial official had duly withheld a document described as an “untitled, uninterrupted draft legal analysis” submitted to the attorney general as part of his decision.
He did, however, order the release of another memo prepared by the then head of the Legal Council’s office for Bars and another Justice Department official, concluding that the evidence gathered by Mueller’s party would not support any barriers against Trump. .
Jackson said the memo was written at the same time and that the same people expressed their views on the attorney general’s letter to Congress based on the prosecution.
Therefore, he said, “the decision announced by the Attorney General on the basis of the advice contained in the memo cannot be attributed to the declaration alone.”
The government has until May 17 to appeal the decision.