guidance he issued in July<\/a> that paved the way for congressional testimony but limited the topics former DOJ officials were permitted to discuss. But his assertions drew repeated, and sometimes pointed, challenges from Judiciary Committee aides in both parties, the transcripts show.<\/p>\n\u201cIt strikes me as completely within the scope of this interview,\u201d said Sara Zdeb, chief oversight counsel for Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), after Weinsheimer intervened to block an answer from Byung Pak, a former U.S. attorney from the Atlanta area. Pak resigned on Jan. 4 under pressure from Trump to interfere in election-related matters.<\/p>\n
The exchange, one of a dozen times that Weisenheimer blocked former officials from answering committee questions, underscores the tension facing the Biden DOJ and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Although congressional Democrats have largely hailed Garland\u2019s willingness to make witnesses available, the interviews show that the Biden administration will still move to protect Executive Branch interests.<\/p>\n
And that tension may sharpen as House and Senate investigators begin to delve more deeply into the Trump White House\u2019s role in orchestrating efforts to overturn the 2020 election.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the Biden Justice Department has taken unprecedented steps to furnish details about Trump\u2019s campaign to upend the election, including waiving questions of privilege for senior Trump DOJ officials to testify. That enabled Pak, former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue to provide detailed testimony about Trump\u2019s pressure campaign.<\/p>\n
Senate Democratic investigators had asked Pak specifically to indicate whether he had received any evidence that 2,560 felons voted in Georgia, a claim propagated by the Trump campaign that later proved unfounded. Weinsheimer said that the question was beyond the scope of the committee investigation, which was focused specifically on Trump\u2019s pressure campaign against Pak and other senior DOJ officials.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou’re getting into specific investigations that don’t have anything to do with specific pressure put on Mr. Pak, and so I would object,\u201d Weinsheimer said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt seems to me that it is inherent in understanding \u2026 whether there were particular things that [White House chief of Staff Mark Meadows], the President thought that Mr. Pak’s office ought to be looking into that they were not looking into,\u201d Zdeb replied, according to the transcripts.<\/p>\n
But Weinsheimer didn\u2019t relent, and Pak\u2019s personal attorney deferred to the Justice Department.<\/p>\n
While DOJ has waived questions of privilege so that senior Trump DOJ officials could testify, it’s simultaneously sought to protect executive branch prerogatives. The Justice Department declined to comment, but Garland confirmed in an interview Monday that the DOJ is in regular contact with the White House on executive privilege issues related to investigations of former President Trump.<\/p>\n
But the department is still keeping a tight lid on specific investigative steps it may have taken to pursue claims of voter fraud, even as aides in both parties said that information was essential to understanding the context of Trump\u2019s push. The Justice Department declined to comment, but Garland confirmed in an interview Monday that the DOJ is in regular contact with the White House on executive privilege issues related to investigations of former President Trump.<\/p>\n
Durbin told reporters on Thursday that he isn\u2019t concerned about the refusal to allow the witnesses to answer certain questions because the interviews themselves were extraordinary in the first place.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat opened the door to this inquiry was the decision by the attorney general that they couldn\u2019t hide behind any type of privilege,\u201d Durbin said Thursday. \u201cThey could testify as to what happened. So I think generally speaking, just the opposite is true. I think Merrick Garland\u2019s position has really opened the door for more inquiries like this.\u201d<\/p>\n
But a spokesperson for the Judiciary Committee’s top Republican, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley pointed to the refusal to answer certain questions and said it contradicted DOJ\u2019s promise to be transparent.<\/p>\n
“It\u2019s remarkable that while President Biden took the extraordinary step of waiving executive privilege to publicize the former president\u2019s deliberations with his top advisers, Biden\u2019s own Justice Department thwarted the same level of transparency when asked about records the Department provided and what it did to actually investigate claims of irregularities in the 2020 election,\u201d said Grassley spokesperson Taylor Foy.<\/p>\n
Most of Weinsheimer\u2019s interjections came during questioning by Republican counsel Josh Flynn-Brown. During an interview with Rosen, Weinsheimer blocked Rosen from answering questions about whether the department opened election fraud cases prior to the certification of the 2020 results. He blocked Pak from answering a similar question as well.<\/p>\n
\u201cI would object to that question. It’s beyond the scope of the authorization, \u201cWeinsheimer said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it’s precisely in scope and a very critical question for him to answer,\u201d Flynn-Brown replied.<\/p>\n
In the same interview, Flynn-Brown asked Pak for examples of the types of fraud claims he received surrounding the 2020 election. Weinsheimer again objected.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think in the Donoghue interview I had five objections. In the Rosen interview, I had one. I have two now. So let’s see how many I can rack up today,\u201d Flynn-Brown said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThen I recommend you stay within the scope, and I won’t object, \u201cWeinsheimer replied.<\/p>\n
During Democrats\u2019 questioning of Pak, Weinsheimer also stopped Pak from issuing a lengthy answer about his work after Pak appeared to begin discussing efforts to investigate threats against election workers. <\/p>\n
\u201cAt this point,\u201d Weinsheimer said, \u201cI’m concerned that Mr. Pak may be going beyond the scope.\u201d<\/p>\n
Read More<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Source: Politics A top career official in President Joe Biden’s Justice Department blocked efforts by Senate investigators to probe the handling of voter fraud complaints in the aftermath of the… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":23125,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23124"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23124\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/23125"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}