We obtained former Attorney General William Barr’s calendars for May 2019 through 2020. These records show Barr attended numerous White House meetings throughout President Trump’s first impeachment. americanoversight.org/document/attor…
On Dec. 2, 2019, House Republicans released their minority report on the impeachment inquiry. Barr’s calendars show he was at the White House the same day.
On Dec. 5, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked the House Judiciary Committee to draft articles of impeachment. The next day, Barr had a White House meeting.
On Dec. 9, lawyers argued their cases for and against impeachment during a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. That same day, Barr had a meeting at the White House.
Also on Dec. 9, Barr had a phone call with Jonathan Turley, a law professor who testified in opposition to impeachment just days prior to the call.
The Attorney General is the nation’s top law enforcement officer – not the president’s personal lawyer – despite Trump’s repeated attempts to misuse the Justice Department for personal or political ends.
Barr’s pattern of meetings and calls during the first Trump impeachment raises further questions about his independence, particularly as it related to investigations of Trump’s abuses of power.
We saw a similar pattern in Barr’s repeated meetings with prosecutor John Durham, who had been tapped to conduct a counter investigation after the conclusion of the Mueller investigation.
Although the Trump administration is over, the public deserves answers about its corrupt abuses of power. Learn more about our ongoing investigation into William Barr and the politicization of the DOJ here: americanoversight.org/investigation/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We’re pleased that our lawsuit for records from the federal investigation of Matt Gaetz was a key part of the public pressure that led to his decision to withdraw from attorney general consideration. americanoversight.org/statement-from…
Gaetz’s withdrawal is a clear indication that public demand for information and a transparent process will remain a powerful force for holding leaders accountable. Through our litigation, we will continue to demand answers about the alleged conduct of Mr. Gaetz.
Earlier this week, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction in our ongoing lawsuit for the release of interview records, known as “302s,” from the FBI’s investigation of Gaetz for serious criminal allegations, including sex trafficking of a minor. documentcloud.org/documents/2534…
We recently launched an investigation into efforts to undermine direct democracy and sabotage abortion access ballot measures, which will be considered by voters in ten states this November. #FoiaFriday americanoversight.org/investigation/…
Since 2022, 7 states have protected abortion rights through ballot initiatives.
In November, 10 states will have initiatives related to abortion rights on their ballots: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota.
In addition to a litany of lawsuits from conservative activists challenging the qualifying status of abortion-related ballot measures, legislators in many states have proposed laws that would change the requirements for ballot initiatives to make passage more difficult.
Records we obtained from Missouri show how state Sen. Mike Moon — a staunchly anti-abortion rights legislator — has sought to subvert the state’s measure related to abortion rights by trying to amend the ballot initiative process. americanoversight.org/document/recor…
Earlier this year, 380,000 Missourians signed a petition to put an abortion rights constitutional amendment on the ballot. In response, conservatives in the state pushed a bill that would have made it much harder to pass any constitutional amendment via a ballot initiative.
The documents show that Moon’s policy director directly tied Moon’s support for adding a concurrent majority measure to initiative petitions to his desire to defeat the measure. His chief of staff suggested collaborating with an anti-abortion rights group to defeat the amendment.
Floridians will vote in November on a ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban.
Conservative lawmakers and interest groups have been working to make it harder for the measure and citizen initiatives like it to pass. americanoversight.org/investigation/…
Republican officials drafted a financial statement to accompany the measure. The statement argues that the measure’s passage would lead to fewer births, which would hurt the state’s growth and revenue over time. nbcmiami.com/news/local/fin…
The financial statement speculates that the measure’s passage would result in expensive litigation.
Abortion rights groups have filed lawsuits to prevent this language from appearing on the ballot.
LITIGATION UPDATE: We reached a settlement in our lawsuit against Ohio Sec. of State Frank LaRose for records related to the 2023 decision to withdraw Ohio from the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonpartisan voter-roll maintenance tool. americanoversight.org/american-overs…
ERIC was a non-controversial nonprofit that quietly helped states clean up their voter rolls by securely comparing voter data. A cascade of misinformation coordinated by anti-democratic activists, eventually led several states to withdraw.
Our investigation and the documents obtained as part of it show how election officials defended ERIC behind the scenes while publicly caving to a pressure campaign led by some of the same people who sought to keep former President Trump in power in 2020. americanoversight.org/the-campaign-t…
NEW: Today, the Georgia State Election Board withdrew rules it approved in a recent illegal meeting, which was held without proper notice of a quorum. We’d sued the Board for violating the state’s Open Meetings Act. americanoversight.org/georgia-electi…
We’re pleased that our lawsuit, along with pressure from partner organizations on the ground in Georgia, has prompted the Board to withdraw the illegally approved rules from its sham July 12 meeting.
The board also announced plans to reconsider the rules at its Aug. 6 meeting. We remain deeply concerned by the Board’s decision to promptly revisit these problematic measures that serve to intimidate election workers and grant partisan advantage to preferred candidates.