Politics
Trump DOJ Weighs Changes in lawmaker prosecution oversight
lawmaker prosecution oversight
According to three persons familiar with a proposal that attorneys in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section learned about last week, federal prosecutors nationwide may soon have the authority to indict members of Congress without the consent of the section’s attorneys.
The proposal would also change a long-standing clause in the Justice Department’s handbook that specifies how investigations of elected officials should be carried out by removing the requirement that investigators and prosecutors confer with the section’s attorneys at critical stages of public official investigations.
If approved, the modifications would eliminate a level of scrutiny meant to guarantee that accusations made against public servants are legitimate and unmotivated by politics. The criminal investigations into allegations of corruption by then-Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and New York Mayor Eric Adams (D) were directed and approved by career prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section.
The suggestion was verified by a Justice Department spokesperson, who added that no final decisions had been made. Because they are afraid of retaliation, the three individuals who are acquainted with the idea spoke on condition of anonymity.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has vowed to rid the country’s top law enforcement agency of politics and has frequently accused the Biden administration of using the Justice Department as a weapon. Since taking office, she has refocused the civil rights division on culture war battles that transcend traditional conservative causes like religious freedom and increased immigration enforcement, bringing the department, which has historically maintained a certain distance from the White House, closer to the president.
Prosecutors accused Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) of trespassing after federal law enforcement officers detained him at an immigration center last month. Three New Jersey members of Congress, all Democrats, who were present at the facility with Baraka may also face charges, according to warnings from Trump administration officials.
Prosecution of public corruption charges can be challenging due of their complexity. Numerous high-profile cases have been lost by the FBI, such as the unsuccessful prosecutions of former Democratic Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and former Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
However, Dan Schwager, a former Public Integrity Section lawyer who is currently in private practice, warned that removing the Public Integrity Section from the approval process for lawmaker prosecutions completely could give presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys more power to shape public corruption cases, making prosecutions more political.
“This administration claims to want to stop politicization, which is why you have the section,” Schwager stated. That calls for deference and the capacity to comprehend how the laws have previously been implemented in comparable circumstances. Having as much institutional knowledge and expertise as possible is the only way to guarantee that public officials on both sides of the aisle are treated equally.
Based out of the Justice Department’s headquarters in Washington, the Public Integrity Section, or PIN, is in charge of investigating and prosecuting public officials for possible voting offenses. The unit, which was established in the wake of the Watergate incident, has drastically decreased in size during the Trump administration. At the end of the Biden administration, there were about 30 prosecutors, but today there are less than five. According to several people familiar with the department who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals, at least one person lost his job, others quit because they didn’t agree with Trump officials’ orders, and others were assigned to different departments.
In order to give U.S. attorney’s offices more control over prosecuting lawmakers, the Justice Department has suggested permanently reducing the size of the Public Integrity Section.
In their respective areas, the 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices nationwide manage a large number of public corruption investigations and prosecutions. On important phases in those investigations, however, the PIN section must still be checked, according the Justice Department handbook, which is available online.
In the run-up to an election, public corruption cases can become very delicate. PIN lawyers must be consulted on even nonpublic investigative actions, such subpoenas and search warrants, according to Justice Department regulations.
According to the Justice Department handbook, when charges against members of Congress are connected to their campaign or public office, PIN counsel are required to approve the charges rather than merely be consulted on them. However, the attorney general has the last word on whether or not to file an indictment.
PIN lawyers occasionally take on cases involving public corruption or collaborate with the appropriate U.S. attorney’s office to look into and prosecute public authorities. Due to personnel limitations, smaller U.S. attorney’s offices are more likely to form these kinds of alliances than those in larger cities.
According to the Justice Department spokesperson, “the goal of the review is to make sure that equal responsibility is held in the field at U.S. attorney’s offices as opposed to centralizing all authority in PIN.”
Cases pertaining to voting are also handled by the Public Integrity Section. The section is responsible for deciding whether and how the Justice Department would step in during contentious elections.
Since the beginning of the Trump administration, the Public Integrity Section has been the target of criticism. As part of a wave of dismissals of senior career officials throughout the Justice Department, Trump fired Corey Amundson, the head of the section, during his first week in office.
During the first Trump administration, Amundson, a career official, was appointed to the senior position.
Following a stalemate with the Trump administration, which insisted on a PIN lawyer approving the dismissal of corruption charges against Adams, the majority of the section’s leaders resigned in February. The lawyers declined.
The Justice Department’s political appointees threatened to remove prosecutors if no one signed the request to dismiss the case, according to a February Washington Post story. In order to prevent a mass dismissal of prosecutors and to give his colleagues time to find other employment, Edward Sullivan, a seasoned public corruption prosecutor who was approaching retirement, offered to sign the motion.
The little section is now led by Sullivan.
PIN prosecutors took over after Ed Martin, Trump’s first choice to head the U.S. attorney’s office in Updatix, D.C., contemplated filing charges against Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) for remarks he had made years ago against two justices of the Supreme Court. According to many people familiar with the investigations, the lawyers advised Martin that Schumer’s words did not constitute a threat that could be prosecuted.
Paul Butler, a Georgetown Law professor and former PIN lawyer, stated that “the attorney general is still the boss, so if the attorney general does not approve the case, it is not brought — even if it is recommended for indictment.” “There are still grounds for caution. This is a component of a change to curtail the authority of law enforcement professionals in cases of public corruption.