New testimony further undercuts William Barr’s explanation for removing prosecutor who probed Trump allies

That already strained and highly illogical case looks even worse upon the release of Berman’s full testimony.

The House Judiciary Committee late Monday released the full transcript of Berman’s testimony. (We had previously seen his opening statement.) In it, Berman declines to speculate upon the reasons for his ouster — including whether it was tied to his office’s investigation of President Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani — but he does offer some key insights into how his talks with Barr went down.

Berman’s opening statement had already painted a picture of a hasty and haphazard effort to remove him. He said he spoke with Barr on the afternoon of June 19 and then again by phone that evening, and consistently and explicitly declined Barr’s entreaties to take a different job. Berman said the two of them planned to speak again the following day, but Barr instead released a statement two hours later wrongly claiming Berman had stepped down from his post heading the Southern District of New York.

But beyond that, Berman repeatedly sought to emphasize a key point: Even though he felt Clayton was unqualified because he has no experience as a criminal prosecutor, he told Barr he was willing to step aside quietly if and when Clayton was confirmed.

  • “I told the attorney general in that meeting, you know — even though I said, you know, Clayton was unqualified, I said: Look, if he’s nominated and confirmed, I’m stepping away without a peep. I respect the process.”
  • “I told the attorney general that I would not make a peep, not make a noise if the normal process was adhered to, which would be a nomination and confirmation of a candidate for the United States attorney.”
  • “I told expressly the attorney general in that meeting he would not hear a peep out of me, I wouldn’t make a sound, I would step down once the nominee was confirmed or certainly if I were removed by the court.”
  • “But, as I told the Attorney General: Nominate him, have him confirmed, you won’t hear a peep out of me. I’ll leave without a sound.”

The fact that a U.S. attorney like Berman would step aside quietly when a successor would be confirmed is hardly shocking. Officials in these roles are indeed drilled on respecting processes like that. It’s part of the job.

But Berman seemed to be making a point — and repeatedly so — that he gave Barr an easy off-ramp from his gambit. He was essentially saying, Fine, you want me out. Do it the right way, and I’ll never raise a fuss.

Despite this promise, though, Barr chose to make it messy. He said in his statement on the evening of June 19 that Berman had stepped aside and would be replaced in an acting capacity by the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Craig Carpenito with Clayton being nominated for the permanent role. Berman quickly denied he had resigned.

This was obviously problematic, given Berman’s office had probed Trump’s allies and even implicated Trump in his former lawyer Michael Cohen’s guilty plea for a campaign finance violation. It sure looked like Barr might be trying to push out someone who posed a threat to Trump and his allies.

So the Justice Department put out word it was really about something else: Clayton wanted to move back to New York, and Trump administration officials wanted to find a job for someone they liked.

That already strained credulity for a host of reasons. One is Clayton’s lack of relevant experience. Another is the idea that heading up the Southern District of New York — one of the most important U.S. attorney’s offices in the country — is just some job you give to a guy you like who wants to move. Yet another is that Barr et al. didn’t seem to do their homework on whether Clayton could even be confirmed.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) quickly said his committee would abide by the long-standing practice of allowing home-state senators to veto a U.S. attorney pick, which New York’s two Democratic senators quickly did. If the goal was to install Clayton, maybe someone should’ve checked on whether that was feasible? Graham said nobody even gave him a heads-up.

Berman’s newly revealed testimony only reinforces the almost inescapable conclusion that this was truly about removing him rather than installing Clayton. Berman says he explicitly gave Barr a way to both get Clayton in the job and to keep the whole thing quiet. Barr opted to take a different — and much noisier — path. So Berman resisted and forced Trump to fire him, which meant he would be succeeded by his trusted deputy, Audrey Strauss, rather than Carpenito.

The big question nearly a month later remains: Why? Why did this need to be handled so quickly and so messily? Why not give it a few days, rather than, according to Berman’s testimony, blindside him with the false claim that he had resigned? Why not take him up on his offer to keep this orderly?

Berman’s testimony may not have directly ascribed a motive for Barr’s actions, but it sure points in a familiar direction.

Source:WP