1. The new defense of Barr's conduct over the weekend is that he was just trying "to find a job for [Jay] Clayton."
There are at least three problems with this effort to whitewash what Barr did and said—all of which suggest that he was, indeed, acting in bad faith.
A #thread:
There are at least three problems with this effort to whitewash what Barr did and said—all of which suggest that he was, indeed, acting in bad faith.
A #thread:
2. First, the Clayton story makes no sense because the Senate still uses blue slips for U.S. Attorneys.
There is a 0.0% chance that both Sen. Schumer and Sen. Gillibrand would've signed off on confirming someone to that job with zero prosecutorial experience—and Barr knows that.
There is a 0.0% chance that both Sen. Schumer and Sen. Gillibrand would've signed off on confirming someone to that job with zero prosecutorial experience—and Barr knows that.
3. Second, Barr's Friday night statement—in his own words—is affirmatively misleading. Leaving aside Carpenito (more on him in a moment), the statement claimed that Berman was "stepping down," even though Barr (1) knew he wasn't; and (2) lacked the power to fire him directly.
3. Then there's Saturday's letter—which (1) says nothing about Carpenito (Friday's statement said Trump *appointed* him, not that he intended to); (2) claims Trump removed Berman (which the President denied); & (3) holds out the IG (who Barr has constantly undermined) as a check.
4. I don't know *why* Barr did this. But the Attorney General ought to turn square corners when taking these kinds of actions. Given the above considerations, I don't see how one can look at Friday's statement and Saturday's letter and conclude that Barr acted above board.
/end
/end
P.S. It’s also worth stressing that, even if this *was* all about getting Clayton a new job, there was no need to remove Berman until/unless Clayton was confirmed by the Senate—which would have automatically ousted Berman under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d).
That’s a rather big plot hole.
That’s a rather big plot hole.
