While Justice Department officials are generally not known for making abusive or bold statements in public, they have been especially active in October this year in the kind of politics that have engulfed the department in the past two presidential elections. They have been given clear instructions to remain mostly silent in the hope of avoiding a public outburst. .
The department has instituted what many insiders informally refer to as the “30-day rule,” which is designed to drastically reduce the number of public appearances and statements made by government officials. It is said that An internal Justice Department memo issued this summer and seen by The New York Times said senior officials “must guard against giving the appearance that their official duties are an effort to influence the outcome of an election.” It has been stated.
In some ways, the memo comes amid a high-stakes presidential race in which former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee, faces criminal charges in two federal cases that could evaporate. It reflects Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s intent to avoid confrontation. If you win, you will be sent to court, or if you lose, you will be sent to court.
Trump, on the other hand, has no such concerns. He declared Thursday that, if elected, he intends to fire Special Counsel Jack Smith on his first day in office.
“I would fire him in two seconds,” Trump said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.
In sharp contrast to this campaign rhetoric, the Justice Department memo reflects widespread internal concerns that the department’s actions and statements in the final days of the campaign could be used as political leverage. is emphasized. Especially since the Justice Department’s practices and policies have come under far greater scrutiny since the election campaign. 2016 election.
In the final days of that year’s election campaign, the FBI announced that it had reopened its investigation into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, sparking criticism that the agency had inadvertently influenced the outcome of the election.
In the 2020 cycle, the department and FBI faced pressure from President Trump’s advisers to authorize an investigation into Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son Hunter.
Under the 30-day rule, Garland will spend part of this week visiting U.S. attorney’s offices across the country, but no public events are scheduled for this trip. And at one of the year’s largest law enforcement gatherings, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, held in Boston this week, senior Justice Department officials were conspicuously absent. FBI Director Christopher A. Wray also attended, but even his presence was the subject of debate among federal officials. Junior officials from the Ministry of Justice also attended.
The memo seeks to set a more formal and clear direction for adhering to what successive Justice Department officials have called a “quiet period” before the election.
The department already has a practice known as the “60-day rule,” which generally states that prosecutors should not take overt or unnecessary investigative actions that could affect an election in the two months before an election. has been done. The basic principle is that prosecutors should be cautious when it comes to politically sensitive cases.
In some ways, the 30-day rule is broader and stricter than the 60-day rule, but both guidelines are subject to different interpretations, priorities, and criticism.
Trump has already tried to use the 60-day rule to accuse the department of wrongdoing. When Mr. Smith recently submitted documents in court containing evidence supporting charges that Mr. Trump conspired to tamper with the 2020 election results, Republican candidates voiced their condemnation. However, in this case, important decisions are made by the courts, and the courts are not influenced by departmental policies.
There has been debate within the department about where exactly to draw the line on the 30-day rule. Some officials appear indifferent or intimidated by the challenge to take any action that could put them back on the political stage, or by Trump’s loudest critic. I see it as walking down a narrow path between being silent and being silent.
“While it is vitally important that Justice Department officials stay out of political contention and avoid actions that appear political or partisan, they also do not overreact to unwarranted or false criticism of the Department. “I think it’s important. The FBI is politicized or politically motivated,” said former U.S. attorney Greg Brower.
The Justice Department’s internal referee who makes these decisions is Bradley Weinsheimer, the department’s top career official. Mr. Weinsheimer also wrote a memo.
“Previously, attorneys general have ordered presidentially appointed officials, or those holding such positions, to make public appearances in any state immediately prior to a primary or general election in that state. “We have endeavored and encouraged the public to avoid such manifestations as much as possible,” the memo said. .
Garland “determined that this precedent should be followed,” the document said. “This policy is not intended to limit the normal day-to-day activities of political appointees. For example, U.S. attorneys will continue to make public appearances related to verdicts, indictments, and investigations. As usual, we will be meeting with local stakeholders, including the department’s law enforcement partners.”
But beyond that, senior department leaders and 93 U.S. attorneys across the country consult with Mr. Weinsheimer “before accepting any public invitation or making any public appearance.” The memo says you need to do this. The period stated in the memo is from September 30th to November 6th, the day after the election.
A memo issued for the 2022 parliamentary elections contained similar language. But the stakes for the department are high now that Trump has promised to make sweeping changes to government, including using the Justice Department to go after perceived enemies if reelected to the White House. It’s increasing.
