Trudeau’s party expels former allies who challenged him in political scandal

The roots of the scandal stretch back to 2015, when SNC-Lavalin was charged by Canadian authorities with using bribes to secure business in Moammar Gaddafi’s Libya.

The Globe and Mail newspaper reported in February that Trudeau’s team “pressed” Wilson-Raybould to cut the firm a deal known as a deferred prosecution agreement.

These deals, which are used in several countries, allow firms to avoid criminal convictions if they admit wrongdoing, pay fines and commit to stricter compliance rules.

Trudeau has said his team did not “direct” Wilson-Raybould’s decision, but few have been satisfied by the response.

In a January cabinet shuffle, Wilson-Raybould was moved from the Ministry of Justice to Veterans Affairs. It was widely seen as a demotion.

The Globe and Mail published its report the next month. Wilson-Raybould resigned as minister of veterans affairs and hired a retired Supreme Court justice to represent her.

.. Wilson-Raybould testified before a parliamentary committee that 11 members of Trudeau’s team had pressured her — some resorting to “veiled threats” — to get her to cut a deal.

Then Philpott resigned from the cabinet in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould.

.. Trudeau appeared for a spell to have weathered the storm, but the scandal burst into view again last week when Wilson-Raybould went public with a recording of a December phone call with Canada’s then-top civil servant.

In the call, she warned Michael Wernick, then Canada’s clerk of the Privy Council, that Trudeau “was on dangerous ground.”

Some have questioned her decision to tape the call.

“I am angry, hurt, and frustrated because I feel and believe I was upholding the values that we all committed to. In giving the advice I did, and taking the steps I did, I was trying to help protect the prime minister and the government from a horrible mess,” she wrote in a letter to fellow Liberals.

Shortly after breaking the news of her expulsion, she sent another tweet.

“What I can say is that I hold my head high & that I can look myself in the mirror knowing I did what I was required to do and what needed to be done based on principles & values that must always transcend party,” she tweeted.

The Barr Memo Is a Commendable Piece of Lawyering

It is exactly what we need and should want in an attorney general of the United States: the ability to reason through complex legal questions in a rigorously academic way. Not to bloviate from the cheap seats, but to think these issues through the way a properly functioning Justice Department does: considering them against jurisprudence, statutes, rules, regulations, and Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions, with a healthy respect for facts that we do not know or about which we could be wrong — facts that could alter the analysis.

.. Barr was not only attorney general in the Bush 41 administration; he also served in the weighty positions that Rosenstein and Engel now occupy.
.. Barr wrote not as an advocate representing someone in the investigation, but as a former high-ranking government official concerned about the institutions of the executive branch, particularly the Justice Department. Special Counsel Mueller’s apparent obstruction theory may have been conceived with the specific facts of President Trump’s situation in mind — Trump’s expression of hope that the FBI would drop any investigation of Michael Flynn, his decision to fire FBI director James Comey. But while a prosecutor may believe his application of a legal principle is narrow, once that application becomes a precedent, only the limits of logic curtail its further, potentially paralyzing extension... As Barr elaborates, if a president may be prosecuted for obstruction based on carrying out the executive’s constitutional prerogatives — exercises of prosecutorial discretion, giving direction to the course of an investigation, making personnel and management decisions — then every other official in the Justice Department is similarly vulnerable. The apprehension that proper and necessary acts could be construed as improperly motivated, and therefore as actionable obstruction, would profoundly undermine the administration of justice.

.. note that Barr took pains to caveat that many facts of Mueller’s investigation are unknown to him and the rest of the public. Barr’s legal and policy views were based on publicly reported information; if it turns out that Mueller is in possession of new facts that would alter Barr’s assessment, then his assessment would be altered accordingly... Indeed, Democrats and Trump critics should be encouraged by Barr’s analysis. Put aside that they should be impressed by its high quality. Barr is very far from saying that a president may never be prosecuted for obstruction. Invoking the Nixon and Clinton precedents as support, he asserts that

if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction

.. Barr’s argument is narrow. Mueller appears to be relying on Section 1512 of the federal penal code, an obstruction statute that contains a “catch-all” provision (subsection (c)(2)). This provision targets anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” (Emphasis in Barr’s memo, not in the statute.) Barr’s point is that, to avoid constitutional problems (e.g., vagueness, infringement on Article II authorities), “otherwise” must be read to refer to the types of innately obstructive acts that precede it (in subsection (c)(1)) — “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.”

Trump Taps William Barr to Be Next Attorney General

Nominee served in the post for two years during the first Bush administration

Mr. Barr spent two years as attorney general under former Republican President George H.W. Bush. One of the people who served under Mr. Barr during that time was Pat Cipollone, whom Mr. Trump named White House counsel in October.

Mr. Barr has also called for “more balance” among the prosecutors working for Mr. Mueller, noting that some of them have made political contributions to Democrats. Mr. Mueller is a registered Republican. Mr. Barr also publicly supported Mr. Trump’s call last year for the Justice Department to investigate 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, saying there was “nothing inherently wrong” with such a call. Presidents typically avoid public calls for investigations to avoid the appearance of interfering with matters of justice.
.. As Mr. Trump mulled his choices for the job, some of the president’s advisers opposed Mr. Barr, saying he was the sort of establishment figure the president often derides on the campaign trail.
..  Mr. Whitaker also had told CNN that if Mr. Sessions were succeeded by an acting attorney general, he could imagine a scenario in which that person would reduce Mr. Mueller’s budget “so low that his investigations grinds to almost a halt.”