Former Attorneys General Defend Current AG

Former Attorneys General Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey have this op-ed in the WSJ, headlined “Lawyers Cast a Stone at William Barr: Former officials urge current officials to defy their supervisors. That’s an affront to the rule of law.”

Judge Amy Berman Jackson last week sentenced Mr. Stone to 40 months in prison—a term within the range Mr. Barr had suggested when he overruled prosecutors who recommended a term of seven to nine years. The attorney general’s move generated accusations that he was doing President Trump’s bidding by showing leniency to Mr. Trump’s friend and former political adviser. It even prompted a petition, signed by more than 2,000 former Justice Department employees, demanding Mr. Barr’s resignation.

*      *      *

The criticisms of Mr. Barr’s decision about the Stone sentencing recommendation were unmoored from the case itself. Whatever the line prosecutors thought, the decision to reduce the proposed sentence was reached by others at the department as well, including career attorneys, one of whom signed the lower recommendation.

*      *      *

The much-publicized letter from former Justice Department employees is a curious document. The signers seek to inoculate themselves from criticism as politically motivated by pointing out that many served under Republican attorneys general. Still, it’s hard to escape the impression that the letter writers think of themselves as an elite clerisy, gifted with a superior understanding that should dictate the management of all cases.

*      *      *

All that said, the president has severely burdened Mr. Barr’s conduct of his office by repeatedly sounding off about pending cases. He has justified his comments by saying he is the highest law-enforcement officer in the land, and that’s technically true. But it cuts against the president’s narrow interest in at least two ways.

First, he has at least the same obligation as any other actor in the law-enforcement hierarchy to refrain from statements that could prejudice anyone’s chance to get an impartial hearing. Whether he likes it or not, courts will enforce that obligation if he violates it, whether by dismissing charges or by taking other steps to undo any damage.

Second, the attorney general and others at the Justice Department must consider whether public confidence in the department will be shaken if their decisions agree with the president’s expressed views. That would have the perverse effect of encouraging Justice Department decisions with which the president disagrees.