theintercept--2020-08-28--Drug Companies Continue to Shed Liability for Rushed Coronavirus Treatments

warnings that rushing a vaccine for Covid-19 could endanger hundreds of millions of people , President Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants to fast track a vaccine .
His plan , reportedly , is to bypass regulatory standards in order to have a vaccine ready before Election Day .
Such a move could bolster Trump ’ s claims that he ’ s saving us from the coronavirus , rather than worsening the course of the pandemic and causing tens of thousands of avoidable deaths — and presumably would help him win a second term .
But what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and market the vaccine if people discover they ’ ve been harmed by a product that was hastily brought to market ?
According to a law passed this spring , pretty much nothing .
An amendment to the PREP Act , which was updated in April , stipulates that companies “ can not be sued for money damages in court ” over injuries caused by medical countermeasures for Covid-19 .
Such countermeasures include vaccines , therapeutics , and respiratory devices .
The only exception to this immunity is if death or serious physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And even then , the people who are harmed will have to meet heightened standards for “ willful misconduct ” that are favorable to defendants .
The sweeping protections are “ an extreme departure from the norms , ” according to Ameet Sarpatwari of the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School .
Sarpatwari said that pharmaceutical companies have traditionally not been offered much liability protection under the law .
But that has changed during the pandemic .
And while people harmed by vaccines for other diseases are able to file claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was established in 1986 , the PREP Act now bars anyone who feels they were harmed by a vaccine for the coronavirus from using the program .
The inability to get compensation underscores “ the tension between pushing the gas — and possibly cutting corners — on bringing a vaccine to market and compensating people who may suffer adverse events from these therapeutics down the line , ” said Sarpatwari .
What Could Go Wrong ?
At least 120 vaccines to protect against Covid-19 are in development around the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for harm .
While the hope is that these products will stop coronavirus infections , some will likely prove ineffective .
Others may make the disease worse , as a vaccine meant to protect children from the dengue virus did in 2016 .
And still others could cause unrelated harms .
That was the case with a vaccine for the swine flu , which wound up causing a serious neurological disorder in thousands of healthy people who took it in the 1970s .
Covid-19 treatments , which are now the subject of more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially hurt , as well as help .
We ’ ve already seen this with hydroxychloroquine , the malaria treatment that can cause fatal side effects and has been used experimentally for Covid-19 .
That drug , on which Trump became fixated , was given emergency use authorization in March , which was revoked in June after it became clear that the harms it posed to patients with the coronavirus outweighed its benefits .
Given the desperate need for tools to fight the coronavirus , and the life-or-death consequences if those tools prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle the risks are huge and hotly debated .
The discussion of them has been heightened — and hastened — by the exorbitant sums the federal government is quickly spending to fight the pandemic , including $ 27 billion that has been appropriated to a division of Health and Human Services called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority , or BARDA , to purchase of vaccines , therapeutics , diagnostics , and medical supplies for Covid-19 .
Consider an experimental antiviral drug known as EIDD-2801 , which Dr. Rick Bright said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of BARDA .
According to a whistleblower complaint he filed in May , EIDD-2801 was presented to Bright last fall as a “ miracle cure ” for influenza , even though the antiviral hadn ’ t yet been tested in humans .
Bright , an expert in infectious diseases , expressed concern about the drug because similar ones in its class had caused serious reproductive problems in animals , with animals exposed in the womb born without teeth and with partially formed skulls .
Bright described facing renewed pressure to fund EIDD-2801 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presented to him again , this time as a potential Covid-19 treatment .
By this time , a company called Ridgeback Biotherapeutics had partnered , in March , with the Emory Institute for Drug Development .
According to Bright ’ s complaint , Ridgeback CEO Wendy Commins Holman was hoping “ to secure approximately $ 100 million ” from BARDA for the development of EIDD-2801 to treat the coronavirus .
The push to get the money was fast-moving and intense , according to the complaint and emails obtained by The Intercept , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call from Bright ’ s direct superior at HHS , Robert Kadlec , the assistant secretary for preparedness and response .
Shortly after that , another HHS official urged the funding of Ridgeback ’ s proposal “ as quickly as possible , and preferably within 24 hours.
” A spokesperson for Ridgeback Biotherapeutics said that the Bright account is inaccurate and that the company never sought funding from BARDA .
An attorney who represents Bright did tell the Financial Times that Bright “ is encouraged to see that the drug has now been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Merck has found the data to be supportive of further development for the drug.
” But Kendra Barkoff , who works for the consulting firm SKDKnickerbocker , said that Bright and his attorneys still stand by everything in his complaint .
EIDD-2801 didn ’ t receive funding from BARDA .
But it ’ s worth noting that Bright , the government official who urged caution on the use of the drug and reported facing pressure from individuals that stood to gain from scientifically unvetted drugs , was removed from his job .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights to EIDD-2801 in June , though the company says that it continues to be involved in its development .
“ This agreement with Merck , a leader in infectious disease therapeutics , positions us to harness the full potential of EIDD-2801 and , if approved , deliver it to the patients that need it globally , ” said Holman .
The drug is already considered to be on track to edge out remdesivir as the antiviral of choice in combating Covid-19 .
While two safety studies of the drug are now underway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 174 subjects .
Neither has yet posted results .
Nevertheless , investors appear to be anticipating the drug ’ s impacts on the market by the end of the year .
Wendy Holman and her husband , hedge fund manager and Ridgeback founder Wayne Holman , received an undisclosed amount from Merck after acquiring EIDD-2801 only months earlier .
The company will also receive a share of the profits if the drug is approved .
And even while they don ’ t have to worry about liability for these products , Ridgeback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , vaccines , and tests for the coronavirus will stand to profit further if Covid-19 is designated a “ material threat ” to homeland security .
Such an official designation comes with “ priority review vouchers ” that allow the companies who make products that address the material threat to accelerate the Food and Drug Administration approval process by four months .
The vouchers can also be sold to other companies and have fetched as much as $ 350 million .
“ If you can get your drug on the market that much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in excess the hundreds of millions of dollars that you ’ re purchasing the waiver for , ” Sarpatwari explained .
Also , as Holman herself recently explained in an April webinar hosted by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation , the “ material threat designation allows for the government to pre-purchase drugs ” even before they are approved .
So the eventual finding that a drug is useless or harmful wouldn ’ t prevent a manufacturer from profiting from it .
While waiving liability for drugmakers has quickly become standard in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has not been the case in Europe .
When the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca recently asked for immunity from any future claims over side effects from its experimental vaccine in Brussels , experts there balked , calling the request “ slightly shocking , ” as Thierry Vansweevelt , professor of medical law at the University of Antwerp , told the Brussels Times last week .
This week , however , a document from vaccine makers made it clear that the European pharmaceutical industry is also seeking exemption from future liability .
The document @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seeks “ an exemption from civil liability ” on the grounds that Covid-19 is an “ unprecedented public health and economic crisis.
” While the European Union is in negotiation with other vaccine makers , it has already reportedly granted AstraZeneca has exemption from liability .
The precedent worries Yannis Natsis , a patient representative on the management board of the European Medicines Agency .
“ This kind of discussion around giving companies a free pass , this undermines patient safety and confidence in vaccines , ” said Natsis , who also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make new precedents via Covid.
” Meanwhile , in the U.S. , the precedent for waiving liability during the pandemic has already been set .
Trump has said that the approval of a vaccine by Election Day “ wouldn ’ t hurt ” his chances against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
If the vaccines or treatments rushed to market to give him a political boost hurt the people who take them , there will be little recourse .
This article has been updated to clarify Ridgeback Biotherapeutics ’ ongoing role in @ @ @ @ @

Despite experts’ repeated warnings that rushing a vaccine for Covid-19 could endanger hundreds of millions of people, President Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants to fast track a vaccine. His plan, reportedly, is to bypass regulatory standards in order to have a vaccine ready before Election Day. Such a move could bolster Trump’s claims that he’s saving us from the coronavirus, rather than worsening the course of the pandemic and causing tens of thousands of avoidable deaths — and presumably would help him win a second term.
But what will happen to the companies that make and market the vaccine if people discover they’ve been harmed by a product that was hastily brought to market? According to a law passed this spring, pretty much nothing. An amendment to the PREP Act, which was updated in April, stipulates that companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries caused by medical countermeasures for Covid-19. Such countermeasures include vaccines, therapeutics, and respiratory devices. The only exception to this immunity is if death or serious physical injury is caused by “willful misconduct.” And even then, the people who are harmed will have to meet heightened standards for “willful misconduct” that are favorable to defendants.
The sweeping protections are “an extreme departure from the norms,” according to Ameet Sarpatwari of the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School. Sarpatwari said that pharmaceutical companies have traditionally not been offered much liability protection under the law. But that has changed during the pandemic.
And while people harmed by vaccines for other diseases are able to file claims with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which was established in 1986, the PREP Act now bars anyone who feels they were harmed by a vaccine for the coronavirus from using the program. The inability to get compensation underscores “the tension between pushing the gas — and possibly cutting corners — on bringing a vaccine to market and compensating people who may suffer adverse events from these therapeutics down the line,” said Sarpatwari.
What Could Go Wrong?
At least 120 vaccines to protect against Covid-19 are in development around the world. And each one holds its own potential for harm. While the hope is that these products will stop coronavirus infections, some will likely prove ineffective. Others may make the disease worse, as a vaccine meant to protect children from the dengue virus did in 2016. And still others could cause unrelated harms. That was the case with a vaccine for the swine flu, which wound up causing a serious neurological disorder in thousands of healthy people who took it in the 1970s.
Covid-19 treatments, which are now the subject of more than 1,000 clinical trials, can also potentially hurt, as well as help. We’ve already seen this with hydroxychloroquine, the malaria treatment that can cause fatal side effects and has been used experimentally for Covid-19. That drug, on which Trump became fixated, was given emergency use authorization in March, which was revoked in June after it became clear that the harms it posed to patients with the coronavirus outweighed its benefits.
Given the desperate need for tools to fight the coronavirus, and the life-or-death consequences if those tools prove unsafe, the questions about how to handle the risks are huge and hotly debated. The discussion of them has been heightened — and hastened — by the exorbitant sums the federal government is quickly spending to fight the pandemic, including $27 billion that has been appropriated to a division of Health and Human Services called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, to purchase of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and medical supplies for Covid-19.
Covid-19 treatments, which are now the subject of more than 1,000 clinical trials, can potentially hurt, as well as help.
Consider an experimental antiviral drug known as EIDD-2801, which Dr. Rick Bright said he was pressured to fund when he was head of BARDA. According to a whistleblower complaint he filed in May, EIDD-2801 was presented to Bright last fall as a “miracle cure” for influenza, even though the antiviral hadn’t yet been tested in humans. Bright, an expert in infectious diseases, expressed concern about the drug because similar ones in its class had caused serious reproductive problems in animals, with animals exposed in the womb born without teeth and with partially formed skulls.
Bright described facing renewed pressure to fund EIDD-2801 in April, when the drug was presented to him again, this time as a potential Covid-19 treatment. By this time, a company called Ridgeback Biotherapeutics had partnered, in March, with the Emory Institute for Drug Development. According to Bright’s complaint, Ridgeback CEO Wendy Commins Holman was hoping “to secure approximately $100 million” from BARDA for the development of EIDD-2801 to treat the coronavirus. The push to get the money was fast-moving and intense, according to the complaint and emails obtained by The Intercept, one of which alluded to a late-night phone call from Bright’s direct superior at HHS, Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. Shortly after that, another HHS official urged the funding of Ridgeback’s proposal “as quickly as possible, and preferably within 24 hours.”
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
A spokesperson for Ridgeback Biotherapeutics said that the Bright account is inaccurate and that the company never sought funding from BARDA. An attorney who represents Bright did tell the Financial Times that Bright “is encouraged to see that the drug has now been evaluated in human clinical studies and that Merck has found the data to be supportive of further development for the drug.” But Kendra Barkoff, who works for the consulting firm SKDKnickerbocker, said that Bright and his attorneys still stand by everything in his complaint.
EIDD-2801 didn’t receive funding from BARDA. But it’s worth noting that Bright, the government official who urged caution on the use of the drug and reported facing pressure from individuals that stood to gain from scientifically unvetted drugs, was removed from his job. Meanwhile, Ridgeback sold Merck the exclusive worldwide rights to EIDD-2801 in June, though the company says that it continues to be involved in its development. “This agreement with Merck, a leader in infectious disease therapeutics, positions us to harness the full potential of EIDD-2801 and, if approved, deliver it to the patients that need it globally,” said Holman.
The drug is already considered to be on track to edge out remdesivir as the antiviral of choice in combating Covid-19. While two safety studies of the drug are now underway, they have enrolled a total of only 174 subjects. Neither has yet posted results. Nevertheless, investors appear to be anticipating the drug’s impacts on the market by the end of the year.
Material Threat
Wendy Holman and her husband, hedge fund manager and Ridgeback founder Wayne Holman, received an undisclosed amount from Merck after acquiring EIDD-2801 only months earlier. The company will also receive a share of the profits if the drug is approved. And even while they don’t have to worry about liability for these products, Ridgeback and other pharmaceutical firms that make treatments, vaccines, and tests for the coronavirus will stand to profit further if Covid-19 is designated a “material threat” to homeland security.
Such an official designation comes with “priority review vouchers” that allow the companies who make products that address the material threat to accelerate the Food and Drug Administration approval process by four months. The vouchers can also be sold to other companies and have fetched as much as $350 million. “If you can get your drug on the market that much sooner, that can be worth well in excess the hundreds of millions of dollars that you’re purchasing the waiver for,” Sarpatwari explained.
Also, as Holman herself recently explained in an April webinar hosted by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, the “material threat designation allows for the government to pre-purchase drugs” even before they are approved. So the eventual finding that a drug is useless or harmful wouldn’t prevent a manufacturer from profiting from it.
Do you have a coronavirus story you want to share? Email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com or use one of these secure methods to contact a reporter.
While waiving liability for drugmakers has quickly become standard in the U.S. in the age of Covid-19, that has not been the case in Europe. When the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca recently asked for immunity from any future claims over side effects from its experimental vaccine in Brussels, experts there balked, calling the request “slightly shocking,” as Thierry Vansweevelt, professor of medical law at the University of Antwerp, told the Brussels Times last week.
This week, however, a document from vaccine makers made it clear that the European pharmaceutical industry is also seeking exemption from future liability. The document, from the trade group Vaccines Europe, seeks “an exemption from civil liability” on the grounds that Covid-19 is an “unprecedented public health and economic crisis.” While the European Union is in negotiation with other vaccine makers, it has already reportedly granted AstraZeneca exemption from liability.
The precedent worries Yannis Natsis, a patient representative on the management board of the European Medicines Agency. “This kind of discussion around giving companies a free pass, this undermines patient safety and confidence in vaccines,” said Natsis, who also expressed concern “that industry is trying to make new precedents via Covid.”
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the precedent for waiving liability during the pandemic has already been set. Trump has said that the approval of a vaccine by Election Day “wouldn’t hurt” his chances against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. If the vaccines or treatments rushed to market to give him a political boost hurt the people who take them, there will be little recourse.
Update: August 28, 2020
This article has been updated to clarify Ridgeback Biotherapeutics’ ongoing role in the development of EIDD-2801.


theintercept--2020-08-26--GOP Lawmakers Asked Trump for Low-Wage, Migrant Worker Visas

But the Georgia Republican has sung a different tune in private messages to the Trump administration .
The lawmaker contacted the Department of Homeland Security and Labor Department in February , urging officials to increase the flow of visas offered to temporary migrant workers to be employed in low wage , nonagricultural jobs .
Sen. David Perdue has long argued that “ strained working-class Americans ” face an uneven playing field as they are forced to compete with “ a steady supply of cheap , unskilled ” immigrant labor .
“ I am writing to request that you exercise authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , citing the statute that governs foreign work visas , “ to increase the numerical limitation on H-2B visas in order to provide relief to American businesses.
” Despite increasing campaign rhetoric by leading Republicans about the downward impact on wages posed by some forms of immigration , many lawmakers are quietly helping business interests lobby for greater access to a pool of low-wage foreign workers .
The Intercept , through a records request , obtained a number of recent requests by GOP lawmakers to the Trump administration .
The legislative letters echo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of available H-2B visas for employers to bring in migrant workers .
North Carolina Republican Sens .
Thom Tillis and Richard Burr , along with the GOP House delegation from North Carolina , requested that the administration “ expeditiously release all 64,716 H-2B visas .
House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Liz Cheney , R-Wyo.
, wrote “ on behalf of business ” that her state needed emergency “ H-2B cap relief.
” Rep. Kenny Marchant , R-Texas , and Rep .
Rob Wittman , R-Va. , wrote similar letters earlier this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded to a request for comment .
The letters came a time of increasing political pressure to bring cheap labor into the country .
The Wall Street Journal reported on a broad bipartisan effort in January to increase the number of H-2B visas available for employers .
Democratic lawmakers such as Sen. Mark Warner , D-Va. , and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema , D-Ariz. , signed onto the push .
After these letters were sent and following a coalition lobbying effort by employers in the seafood , landscaping , construction , and food services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional seasonal work visas in March , bringing the total available this year to 101,000. Business interests also won expedited approval of H-2B visas .
The State Department declared that the program is “ essential to the economy ” and waived in-person interviews for applicants .
But the administration soon changed course , freezing the the flow of new visas as the economy deteriorated in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic .
The H-2B program has come under fire from organized labor and migrant worker civil rights organizations for rampant human rights violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have reported sexual violence , imprisonment , physical abuse , starvation , wage theft , and conditions akin to slavery .
Though the visa program is required to pay prevailing wages , employers routinely pay wages lower than those offered to Americans working the same jobs .
Not long ago , Perdue openly and sharply criticized migrant worker visas as an exploitative trap that harmed both American wages and foreign migrant workers .
In 2017 , Perdue cosigned a letter with Sens .
Chuck Grassley , R-Iowa ; Richard Durbin , D-Ill. ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rampant abuses in the H-2B program .
The lawmakers noted in the letter that “ a large body of evidence suggests that our increasing reliance on the H-2B program cuts wages , pushes American workers out of jobs , and may , in some cases , discourage them from ever applying again .
Indiscriminate increases in the number of H-2B workers will only exacerbate these problems.
” The letter noted that some employers “ take advantage of H-2B workers ’ unique vulnerabilities , which can result in human trafficking and labor abuse.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that “ the way H-2 visas shackle workers to a single employer leaves them almost no leverage to demand better treatment.
” The H-2B program is designed to only be available when businesses can not find Americans willing to take on jobs .
But a growing body of research shows the application process can be gamed and that many employers in fact use H-2B to drag down wages for American workers .
Michael Cunningham , a former official with the Texas State Building and Construction Trades Council , has documented a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I have seen the misuse of construction and production occupations that adversely affects wages paid to guest workers , ” wrote Cunningham in an email to The Intercept .
“ This is the way the employers get the cheapest wage possible that really was created to deter American workers from applying for these jobs.
” Cunningham described systemic problems that allow multibillion-dollar businesses to easily game the system for H-2B visas for work that could be offered to Americans .
“ Also concerning is the lack of enforcement by the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They don ’ t have enough boots on the ground to monitor and enforce each employer to make sure they are in compliance.
” The migrant visa program has only grown in recent years .
The Obama administration sharply lowered the number of H-2B visas provided to U.S. employers , below record highs in 2007 and 2008 during the previous administration .
But the Trump administration has reversed that trend , increasingly expanding the number of visas over the last four years .
Advocates for business interests in Congress have agitated to raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming close in 2018 to expanding the program from 66,000 to 114,000 visas .
The administration has dutifully offered employers waivers to increase the number of H-2B beyond the annual cap .
But the growing economic crisis has forced a shift in the administration ’ s response .
In June , President Donald Trump suspended a range of work visas programs .
The decision was touted as a major intervention into the economy to save American jobs at risk during the global coronavirus pandemic .
The executive order , in a deference to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact H-2B workers already in the country for the 2020 season .

Sen. David Perdue has long argued that “strained working-class Americans” face an uneven playing field as they are forced to compete with “a steady supply of cheap, unskilled” immigrant labor.
But the Georgia Republican has sung a different tune in private messages to the Trump administration. The lawmaker contacted the Department of Homeland Security and Labor Department in February, urging officials to increase the flow of visas offered to temporary migrant workers to be employed in low wage, nonagricultural jobs.
“I am writing to request that you exercise authority delegated to you,” wrote Perdue, citing the statute that governs foreign work visas, “to increase the numerical limitation on H-2B visas in order to provide relief to American businesses.”
Despite increasing campaign rhetoric by leading Republicans about the downward impact on wages posed by some forms of immigration, many lawmakers are quietly helping business interests lobby for greater access to a pool of low-wage foreign workers.
The Intercept, through a records request, obtained a number of recent requests by GOP lawmakers to the Trump administration. The legislative letters echo business demands that the government raise the number of available H-2B visas for employers to bring in migrant workers.
North Carolina Republican Sens. Thom Tillis and Richard Burr, along with the GOP House delegation from North Carolina, requested that the administration “expeditiously release all 64,716 H-2B visas. House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., wrote “on behalf of business” that her state needed emergency “H-2B cap relief.” Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, and Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., wrote similar letters earlier this year. None of the lawmakers’ offices responded to a request for comment.
The letters came a time of increasing political pressure to bring cheap labor into the country. The Wall Street Journal reported on a broad bipartisan effort in January to increase the number of H-2B visas available for employers. Democratic lawmakers such as Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., signed onto the push.
After these letters were sent and following a coalition lobbying effort by employers in the seafood, landscaping, construction, and food services industries, the Trump administration approved 35,000 additional seasonal work visas in March, bringing the total available this year to 101,000. Business interests also won expedited approval of H-2B visas. The State Department declared that the program is “essential to the economy” and waived in-person interviews for applicants. But the administration soon changed course, freezing the the flow of new visas as the economy deteriorated in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.
The H-2B program has come under fire from organized labor and migrant worker civil rights organizations for rampant human rights violations. Across numerous workplaces, guest workers have reported sexual violence, imprisonment, physical abuse, starvation, wage theft, and conditions akin to slavery. Though the visa program is required to pay prevailing wages, employers routinely pay wages lower than those offered to Americans working the same jobs.
Not long ago, Perdue openly and sharply criticized migrant worker visas as an exploitative trap that harmed both American wages and foreign migrant workers. In 2017, Perdue cosigned a letter with Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., decrying rampant abuses in the H-2B program.
The lawmakers noted in the letter that “a large body of evidence suggests that our increasing reliance on the H-2B program cuts wages, pushes American workers out of jobs, and may, in some cases, discourage them from ever applying again. Indiscriminate increases in the number of H-2B workers will only exacerbate these problems.”
The letter noted that some employers “take advantage of H-2B workers’ unique vulnerabilities, which can result in human trafficking and labor abuse.” One labor investigator the Perdue letter cited found that “the way H-2 visas shackle workers to a single employer leaves them almost no leverage to demand better treatment.”
The H-2B program is designed to only be available when businesses cannot find Americans willing to take on jobs. But a growing body of research shows the application process can be gamed and that many employers in fact use H-2B to drag down wages for American workers.
Michael Cunningham, a former official with the Texas State Building and Construction Trades Council, has documented a number of abuses in the H-2B program.
“I have seen the misuse of construction and production occupations that adversely affects wages paid to guest workers,” wrote Cunningham in an email to The Intercept. “This is the way the employers get the cheapest wage possible that really was created to deter American workers from applying for these jobs.”
Cunningham described systemic problems that allow multibillion-dollar businesses to easily game the system for H-2B visas for work that could be offered to Americans. “Also concerning is the lack of enforcement by the Department of Labor,” wrote Cunningham. “They don’t have enough boots on the ground to monitor and enforce each employer to make sure they are in compliance.”
The migrant visa program has only grown in recent years. The Obama administration sharply lowered the number of H-2B visas provided to U.S. employers, below record highs in 2007 and 2008 during the previous administration. But the Trump administration has reversed that trend, increasingly expanding the number of visas over the last four years.
Advocates for business interests in Congress have agitated to raise the statutory cap on H-2B visas, coming close in 2018 to expanding the program from 66,000 to 114,000 visas. The administration has dutifully offered employers waivers to increase the number of H-2B beyond the annual cap.
But the growing economic crisis has forced a shift in the administration’s response. In June, President Donald Trump suspended a range of work visas programs. The decision was touted as a major intervention into the economy to save American jobs at risk during the global coronavirus pandemic. The executive order, in a deference to large employers, however, did not impact H-2B workers already in the country for the 2020 season.


theintercept--2020-08-29--How William Barr Is Weaponizing the Justice Department to Help Trump Win

, a day after President Donald Trump again charged that Democrats ’ efforts to expand mail-in voting due to the pandemic will create “ the greatest rigged election in history , ” U.S. Attorney General William Barr too made unfounded and conspiratorial-sounding claims .
Barr told Sean Hannity on Fox News that Democrats ’ drive seeking to expand mail-in voting could raise “ serious questions about the integrity of the election , ” were “ grossly irresponsible , ” and “ reckless.
” That was hardly the first time they seemed to agree .
In a July House Judiciary hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News , Barr joined Trump in his monthslong and spurious attacks on voting by mail .
He told Fox that voting by mail “ absolutely opens the floodgates to fraud , ” adding , without evidence , that “ right now a foreign country could print tens of thousands of counterfeit ballots.
” Citing Barr ’ s words in one tweet , Trump then upped the ante : “ MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES , AND OTHERS .
IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence of widespread mail-voting fraud , ” former federal prosecutor and former senior official at Homeland Security Paul Rosenzweig told me .
“ All he is doing is trying , unsuccessfully , to give Trump a basis for challenging the election .
This is not the job of the Attorney General.
” Barr has violated numerous fundamental norms as attorney general , using his sweeping powers to carry out actions and judgments that are politically beneficial to the president ’ s reelection campaign .
Many former Justice Department officials say Barr ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at helping Trump ’ s political interests and friends , leading to an unprecedented politicization of the department by the nation ’ s top law enforcement officer .
A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Barr ’ s actions and views for this story .
Now , with under 70 days to the presidential election , the actions that pose the most consequential harm are those that threaten a free and fair election — especially Barr ’ s work to undermine , rather than uphold , voting rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies .
“ Barr has utterly and completely trashed the norm of DOJ separation from politics , ” Donald Ayer , a former deputy attorney general who served in the George H.W .
Bush administration just prior to Barr ’ s first stint as AG , told me .
“ For the last several months , Barr has been fully engaged in using the tools of the Justice Department primarily for the purpose of advancing the president ’ s election prospects.
” Barr ’ s attacks on mail-in voting seem to be well-choreographed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been repeatedly shown that voter fraud is rare , yet Barr has continued to spew Trump ’ s false claim that mail-in voting is riddled with fraud , ” Gerry Hebert , who spent 21 years working in the DOJ on voting rights issues , told me .
Hebert also stressed that Barr ’ s Justice Department has failed to protect voting rights .
“ There have been literally dozens of lawsuits all over the country to protect voting rights during the pandemic , so that voters don ’ t have to choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk .
The Barr DOJ hasn ’ t yet weighed in on any of those cases.
” Specifically , the Justice Department has failed to pursue pending court cases that seek to stop discriminatory voting practices , including ones that happened in 2018 , 2019 , and 2020 , and these or similar cases could come up before November , say former DOJ lawyers .
It has abstained from taking legal action in cases of voter purges that occurred in Georgia and Ohio in both 2018 and 2019 .
Likewise , the DOJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involving polling place reductions during this year ’ s primaries in Wisconsin , Kentucky , and Georgia .
And it has failed to take action in cases stemming from too few — or error-prone — voting machines in minority neighborhoods .
In the past , attorneys general have used their powers to send personnel to monitor polling sites to ensure there are no voting irregularities involving civil rights abuses ; the Department of Justice did this in 2016 .
Critics fear now that Barr may heed Trump ’ s suggestions last week — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he could only lose due to a “ rigged ” election by Democrats and called for deploying law enforcement personnel — and send monitors who would intimidate voters , suppressing the overall vote “ We will have to see whether Barr is prepared to implement what Trump wants , which appears to be harnessing law enforcement agencies to participate in an aggressive voter suppression effort , ” former DOJ inspector general Michael Bromwich told me .
“ Neither Trump nor Barr has any legal authority over sheriffs , police departments , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green-lighted rogue law enforcement elements around the country to undertake such efforts as voter suppression vigilantes .
An attorney general who believed in the rule of law and democracy would come out four-square against such tactics.
” What ’ s more , Barr ’ s DOJ may wind up defending the U.S .
Postal Service against lawsuits that were filed in mid-August by several state attorneys general challenging cutbacks in services that have been made in recent months that threaten to hurt the ability of the USPS to handle the greatly expanded volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr ’ s DOJ could also back lawsuits by the Republican National Committee that have been filed in a few swing states , including Pennsylvania and Nevada , to curb mail-in voting plans by the states .
Barr ’ s commitment to ensuring election integrity became more suspect when the attorney general was asked at the House Judiciary hearing if the president could legally delay the election .
Barr did not simply answer no but left the door open by replying evasively that “ I ’ ve never been asked that question before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked into that.
” “ Even a first-year law student would know the answer to that question , ” Hebert quipped .
Barr may be on the verge of deploying another unusual and norm-busting tactic .
In May 2019 , Barr launched an inquiry when he tapped Connecticut federal prosecutor John Durham to investigate the origins of how FBI and CIA officials in 2016 began “ Operation Crossfire ” looking at Kremlin meddling in the elections and possible collusion with Trump ’ s campaign .
The Durham inquiry was also spurred by Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller ’ s two-year probe that had just concluded that Russia interfered in 2016 in “ sweeping and systematic ” ways to help Trump win — a verdict that Trump has used to create a dark picture of a “ deep state ” of foes seeking to destroy his presidency .
Now , critics fear that Barr will try to release a report on Durham ’ s probe this fall that Barr can spin to placate Trump — as the AG did by downplaying key parts of the Mueller report — fueling a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent judiciary testimony , Barr was pressed on if and when a report on Durham might be released : Barr flatly declined to rule out its release prior to the elections , despite a Justice Department tradition of not making public any information that could sway an election 60 to 90 days before .
“ Any report will be , in my judgment , not one that is covered by the policy , ” he told the Judiciary Committee about his position .
Barr has also made several public comments suggesting that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising new information .
In his July House testimony , Barr called the FBI probe of possible Trump campaign collusion with Moscow “ bogus ” and in a Fox news interview , he charged the FBI with trying to “ sabotage the presidency.
” Barr ’ s stream of comments fit with his attempts to undercut the Mueller report and bolster Trump ’ s barrage of charges that the Russia investigations were a “ hoax , ” while touting what Durham in tandem with Barr is pursuing .
“ Given his past misrepresentations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people should look very carefully and very skeptically at absolutely anything Barr announces this year , ” Justin Levitt , a former DOJ prosecutor who now is a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles , told me .
Barr could take Durham ’ s findings and spin them as well , to make them seem more damning of the early Russia probes by the FBI and CIA , say former DOJ officials .
“ Barr ’ s active promotion of Durham ’ s investigation has already discredited it in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Intercept .
“ Any criminal charges or public report released close in time to the election — generally defined as within 60 days — would be viewed with great skepticism.
” Other former DOJ officials went farther .
“ It seems inevitable that Barr will attempt to unleash an October surprise through the Durham investigation , ” Rosenzweig , the former prosecutor , told me .
But Trump ’ s hopes of big charges before the election seem unlikely , say former DOJ officials , who note that a recent 1,000-page bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further than Mueller in providing significant new evidence of numerous contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians ; according to the report , Konstantin Kilimnik , an active Kremlin military intelligence officer had extensive contacts with Trump ’ s campaign chair Paul Manafort , who was convicted on eight counts of financial and tax crimes .
Nevertheless , there are mounting signs that Barr and Durham are moving forward on their inquiry — and that Barr may be under pressure from Trump .
Barr has said that Durham , with whom he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trip to Italy last year to do interviews ) , is making progress and seems intent on digging into other possible misconduct involving FBI and CIA officials ; ex-CIA Director John Brennan was reportedly interviewed this month for eight hours but has been told he ’ s not a target .
On August 12 , Barr coyly told conservative talk-radio commentator Buck Sexton that “ we ’ re not going to do anything for the purpose of affecting the election , but we ’ re trying to get some things done before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Fox News that “ Bill Barr has the chance to be the greatest of all time .
But if he wants to be politically correct , he ’ ll be just another guy.
” And then , on August 14 , it was announced that an ex-FBI lawyer , Kevin Clinesmith , who was involved in one part of the 2016 inquiry would plead guilty to a charge of falsifying a document .
Clinesmith formally entered his plea the following week .
Finally , as Trump ’ s law-and-order mantra has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s crackdown on largely peaceful protests in D.C. , and authorizing federal agents to help fight violent crime in several cities run by Democrats look like ominous campaign ploys and possible harbingers of what ’ s ahead before November .
Dubbed “ Operation Legend , ” the program began in Kansas City , Missouri , on July 8 and was soon after launched in eight other cities run by Democrats including Chicago ; Albuquerque , New Mexico ; Cleveland ; and Detroit , ostensibly to reduce violent crime with a key focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were taken aback last month when in an unorthodox move for an attorney general , Barr joined Trump at the White House for a campaign-style announcement about Operation Legend ’ s expansion to several cities run by Democrats , including Chicago .
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot dubbed the event a “ political stunt.
” Barr ’ s leading role in Operation Legend at times overlaps — and seems to be inspired by — a conspiratorial , far-right , and dystopian vision of urban chaos he has linked to Black Lives Matter protests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox interview this month with Mark Levin .
Barr labeled some Black Lives Matter protesters “ bolsheviks ” engaged in “ urban guerrilla warfare , ” driven by a “ lust for power.
” Ex-prosecutor Rosenzweig was stunned by Barr ’ s comments to Levin .
“ They ’ re flat-out racist , dogwhistle , white supremacist nonsense , ” he told me .
As criticism of Operation Legend mounted , Barr held a press briefing on August 19 in Kansas City to trumpet some 1,500 arrests in nine cities to date , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Barr .
Barr ’ s explanation for why there ’ s been a recent uptick in violent crime provided new signs that the program has a distinctly political edge : At his briefing , Barr cited a few possible causes such as “ pent-up aggression ” due to local and state coronavirus quarantine orders , the “ defund the police ” movement , and “ premature release of violent criminals by the courts ” during the pandemic .
Just where the DOJ may opt to expand the program before the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Justice Department lawyers fret that it will be increasingly aimed at cities in swing states .
What ’ s more , former DOJ officials note that it ’ s highly unusual for the feds to impose their will in cities and states without being invited initially , which has been the case so far in most of the urban areas targeted by Operation Legend — a trend that suggests just how political the DOJ campaign has been .
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz in late July announced an inquiry that will examine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s general direction , forcefully removed protesters from the area near Lafayette Square in Washington , D.C. , right before Trump ’ s photo-op holding a Bible upside down at a nearby church .
But the results of that inquiry are likely to take months , if not years .
“ Barr has proven his loyalty to the president at any cost , ” Rep. Eric Swalwell , who sits on the House Judiciary panel that grilled Barr in July , told The Intercept .
“ He ’ s shown a willingness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to punish his enemies ” — including dropping the DOJ ’ s case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn , despite his twice pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about sanction talks he had with Russia ’ s ambassador before Trump took office .
Barr also intervened to suggest a lesser punishment for Trump ’ s long-time friend Roger Stone who was convicted on seven counts including lying to Congress and witness tampering ; but Trump commuted his three-year prison sentence this summer to keep Stone out of jail .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Geoffrey Berman , the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York , who Barr , in tandem with Trump , suddenly forced out in June on dubious grounds .
Berman ’ s office has been investigating a few high-profile cases involving Trump allies , including Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
The Southern District has also been involved in a long-running probe into Trump ’ s inaugural funding , and it handled the successful prosecution of one-time Trump lawyer Michael Cohen who implicated Trump in campaign finance violations involving hush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to silence her in 2016 from discussing their affair years earlier .
Ayer , who has known Barr for almost four decades , stressed that Barr ’ s litany of actions to help Trump ’ s political agenda seem rooted in Barr ’ s long-standing advocacy of expanding presidential powers .
“ Barr has been committed for a very long time to a concept of the presidency that is virtually all-powerful , ” Ayer told me last year .
In many ways , Barr ’ s concept of an all-powerful presidency seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oft-expressed absolutist view of his powers , Ayer added .
“ Barr can ’ t achieve his mission of creating an unrestrained president if Trump isn ’ t reelected .
”

On August 13 , a day after President Donald Trump again charged that Democrats’ efforts to expand mail-in voting due to the pandemic will create “the greatest rigged election in history,” U.S. Attorney General William Barr too made unfounded and conspiratorial-sounding claims. Barr told Sean Hannity on Fox News that Democrats’ drive seeking to expand mail-in voting could raise “serious questions about the integrity of the election,” were “grossly irresponsible,” and “reckless.”
That was hardly the first time they seemed to agree. In a July House Judiciary hearing and in a June interview with Fox News, Barr joined Trump in his monthslong and spurious attacks on voting by mail. He told Fox that voting by mail “absolutely opens the floodgates to fraud,” adding, without evidence, that “right now a foreign country could print tens of thousands of counterfeit ballots.”
Citing Barr’s words in one tweet, Trump then upped the ante: “MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES,AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!”
“Barr has admitted he has no evidence of widespread mail-voting fraud,” former federal prosecutor and former senior official at Homeland Security Paul Rosenzweig told me. “All he is doing is trying, unsuccessfully, to give Trump a basis for challenging the election. This is not the job of the Attorney General.”
Barr has violated numerous fundamental norms as attorney general, using his sweeping powers to carry out actions and judgments that are politically beneficial to the president’s reelection campaign. Many former Justice Department officials say Barr’s actions and public statements are increasingly aimed at helping Trump’s political interests and friends, leading to an unprecedented politicization of the department by the nation’s top law enforcement officer. A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Barr’s actions and views for this story.
Now, with under 70 days to the presidential election, the actions that pose the most consequential harm are those that threaten a free and fair election — especially Barr’s work to undermine, rather than uphold, voting rights and to publicly accuse Trump’s enemies.
“Barr has utterly and completely trashed the norm of DOJ separation from politics,” Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general who served in the George H.W. Bush administration just prior to Barr’s first stint as AG, told me. “For the last several months, Barr has been fully engaged in using the tools of the Justice Department primarily for the purpose of advancing the president’s election prospects.”
Voter Suppression
Barr’s attacks on mail-in voting seem to be well-choreographed with the president. “It has been repeatedly shown that voter fraud is rare, yet Barr has continued to spew Trump’s false claim that mail-in voting is riddled with fraud,” Gerry Hebert, who spent 21 years working in the DOJ on voting rights issues, told me.
Hebert also stressed that Barr’s Justice Department has failed to protect voting rights. “There have been literally dozens of lawsuits all over the country to protect voting rights during the pandemic, so that voters don’t have to choose between voting and putting their health at risk. The Barr DOJ hasn’t yet weighed in on any of those cases.”
Specifically, the Justice Department has failed to pursue pending court cases that seek to stop discriminatory voting practices, including ones that happened in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and these or similar cases could come up before November, say former DOJ lawyers. It has abstained from taking legal action in cases of voter purges that occurred in Georgia and Ohio in both 2018 and 2019. Likewise, the DOJ has been missing in action in cases involving polling place reductions during this year’s primaries in Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Georgia. And it has failed to take action in cases stemming from too few — or error-prone — voting machines in minority neighborhoods.
In the past, attorneys general have used their powers to send personnel to monitor polling sites to ensure there are no voting irregularities involving civil rights abuses; the Department of Justice did this in 2016. Critics fear now that Barr may heed Trump’s suggestions last week — when he railed, without evidence, that he could only lose due to a “rigged” election by Democrats and called for deploying law enforcement personnel — and send monitors who would intimidate voters, suppressing the overall vote
“It has been repeatedly shown that voter fraud is rare, yet Barr has continued to spew Trump’s false claim that mail-in voting is riddled with fraud.”
“We will have to see whether Barr is prepared to implement what Trump wants, which appears to be harnessing law enforcement agencies to participate in an aggressive voter suppression effort,” former DOJ inspector general Michael Bromwich told me. “Neither Trump nor Barr has any legal authority over sheriffs, police departments, or state AGs, but Trump has now green-lighted rogue law enforcement elements around the country to undertake such efforts as voter suppression vigilantes. An attorney general who believed in the rule of law and democracy would come out four-square against such tactics.”
What’s more, Barr’s DOJ may wind up defending the U.S. Postal Service against lawsuits that were filed in mid-August by several state attorneys general challenging cutbacks in services that have been made in recent months that threaten to hurt the ability of the USPS to handle the greatly expanded volume of mail-in ballots expected this year. Barr’s DOJ could also back lawsuits by the Republican National Committee that have been filed in a few swing states, including Pennsylvania and Nevada, to curb mail-in voting plans by the states.
Barr’s commitment to ensuring election integrity became more suspect when the attorney general was asked at the House Judiciary hearing if the president could legally delay the election. Barr did not simply answer no but left the door open by replying evasively that “I’ve never been asked that question before” and “I’ve never looked into that.”
“Even a first-year law student would know the answer to that question,” Hebert quipped.
Photo: Timothy D. Easley/AP
An October Surprise
Barr may be on the verge of deploying another unusual and norm-busting tactic. In May 2019, Barr launched an inquiry when he tapped Connecticut federal prosecutor John Durham to investigate the origins of how FBI and CIA officials in 2016 began “Operation Crossfire” looking at Kremlin meddling in the elections and possible collusion with Trump’s campaign.
The Durham inquiry was also spurred by Trump’s disdain for special counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year probe that had just concluded that Russia interfered in 2016 in “sweeping and systematic” ways to help Trump win — a verdict that Trump has used to create a dark picture of a “deep state” of foes seeking to destroy his presidency. Now, critics fear that Barr will try to release a report on Durham’s probe this fall that Barr can spin to placate Trump — as the AG did by downplaying key parts of the Mueller report — fueling a campaign attack against Democrats. In his recent judiciary testimony, Barr was pressed on if and when a report on Durham might be released: Barr flatly declined to rule out its release prior to the elections, despite a Justice Department tradition of not making public any information that could sway an election 60 to 90 days before. “Any report will be, in my judgment, not one that is covered by the policy,” he told the Judiciary Committee about his position.
“We’re not going to do anything for the purpose of affecting the election, but we’re trying to get some things done before the election.”
Barr has also made several public comments suggesting that the Durham probe has found some damaging and surprising new information. In his July House testimony, Barr called the FBI probe of possible Trump campaign collusion with Moscow “bogus” and in a Fox news interview, he charged the FBI with trying to “sabotage the presidency.” Barr’s stream of comments fit with his attempts to undercut the Mueller report and bolster Trump’s barrage of charges that the Russia investigations were a “hoax,” while touting what Durham in tandem with Barr is pursuing.
“Given his past misrepresentations of the Mueller report, the American people should look very carefully and very skeptically at absolutely anything Barr announces this year,” Justin Levitt, a former DOJ prosecutor who now is a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told me. Barr could take Durham’s findings and spin them as well, to make them seem more damning of the early Russia probes by the FBI and CIA, say former DOJ officials.
“Barr’s active promotion of Durham’s investigation has already discredited it in the eyes of many,” Bromwich told The Intercept. “Any criminal charges or public report released close in time to the election — generally defined as within 60 days — would be viewed with great skepticism.”
Other former DOJ officials went farther. “It seems inevitable that Barr will attempt to unleash an October surprise through the Durham investigation,” Rosenzweig, the former prosecutor, told me.
But Trump’s hopes of big charges before the election seem unlikely, say former DOJ officials, who note that a recent 1,000-page bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee went further than Mueller in providing significant new evidence of numerous contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians; according to the report, Konstantin Kilimnik, an active Kremlin military intelligence officer had extensive contacts with Trump’s campaign chair Paul Manafort, who was convicted on eight counts of financial and tax crimes.
Nevertheless, there are mounting signs that Barr and Durham are moving forward on their inquiry — and that Barr may be under pressure from Trump.
Barr has said that Durham, with whom he has reportedly worked closely (including making a trip to Italy last year to do interviews), is making progress and seems intent on digging into other possible misconduct involving FBI and CIA officials; ex-CIA Director John Brennan was reportedly interviewed this month for eight hours but has been told he’s not a target.
On August 12, Barr coyly told conservative talk-radio commentator Buck Sexton that “we’re not going to do anything for the purpose of affecting the election, but we’re trying to get some things done before the election.”
The next day, Trump told Fox News that “Bill Barr has the chance to be the greatest of all time. But if he wants to be politically correct, he’ll be just another guy.” And then, on August 14, it was announced that an ex-FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who was involved in one part of the 2016 inquiry would plead guilty to a charge of falsifying a document. Clinesmith formally entered his plea the following week.
Law and Order
Finally, as Trump’s law-and-order mantra has become a central campaign motif, Barr’s crackdown on largely peaceful protests in D.C., and authorizing federal agents to help fight violent crime in several cities run by Democrats look like ominous campaign ploys and possible harbingers of what’s ahead before November. Dubbed “Operation Legend,” the program began in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 8 and was soon after launched in eight other cities run by Democrats including Chicago; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cleveland; and Detroit, ostensibly to reduce violent crime with a key focus on gun violence.
Some former DOJ officials were taken aback last month when in an unorthodox move for an attorney general, Barr joined Trump at the White House for a campaign-style announcement about Operation Legend’s expansion to several cities run by Democrats, including Chicago. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot dubbed the event a “political stunt.”
Barr’s leading role in Operation Legend at times overlaps — and seems to be inspired by — a conspiratorial, far-right, and dystopian vision of urban chaos he has linked to Black Lives Matter protests, which the attorney general alleged in a Fox interview this month with Mark Levin. Barr labeled some Black Lives Matter protesters “bolsheviks” engaged in “urban guerrilla warfare,” driven by a “lust for power.”
Ex-prosecutor Rosenzweig was stunned by Barr’s comments to Levin. “They’re flat-out racist, dogwhistle, white supremacist nonsense,” he told me.
As criticism of Operation Legend mounted, Barr held a press briefing on August 19 in Kansas City to trumpet some 1,500 arrests in nine cities to date, including about 217 facing federal charges, according to Barr. Barr’s explanation for why there’s been a recent uptick in violent crime provided new signs that the program has a distinctly political edge: At his briefing, Barr cited a few possible causes such as “pent-up aggression” due to local and state coronavirus quarantine orders, the “defund the police” movement, and “premature release of violent criminals by the courts” during the pandemic.
Just where the DOJ may opt to expand the program before the election isn’t clear, but some former Justice Department lawyers fret that it will be increasingly aimed at cities in swing states.
What’s more, former DOJ officials note that it’s highly unusual for the feds to impose their will in cities and states without being invited initially, which has been the case so far in most of the urban areas targeted by Operation Legend — a trend that suggests just how political the DOJ campaign has been.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz in late July announced an inquiry that will examine how federal law enforcement, under Barr’s general direction, forcefully removed protesters from the area near Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., right before Trump’s photo-op holding a Bible upside down at a nearby church. But the results of that inquiry are likely to take months, if not years.
“Barr can’t achieve his mission of creating an unrestrained president if Trump isn’t reelected.”
“Barr has proven his loyalty to the president at any cost,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, who sits on the House Judiciary panel that grilled Barr in July, told The Intercept. “He’s shown a willingness to protect the president’s friends and to punish his enemies” — including dropping the DOJ’s case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, despite his twice pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about sanction talks he had with Russia’s ambassador before Trump took office. Barr also intervened to suggest a lesser punishment for Trump’s long-time friend Roger Stone who was convicted on seven counts including lying to Congress and witness tampering; but Trump commuted his three-year prison sentence this summer to keep Stone out of jail.
Swalwell noted that among those Barr punished was Geoffrey Berman, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who Barr, in tandem with Trump, suddenly forced out in June on dubious grounds. Berman’s office has been investigating a few high-profile cases involving Trump allies, including Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. The Southern District has also been involved in a long-running probe into Trump’s inaugural funding, and it handled the successful prosecution of one-time Trump lawyer Michael Cohen who implicated Trump in campaign finance violations involving hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels to silence her in 2016 from discussing their affair years earlier.
Ayer, who has known Barr for almost four decades, stressed that Barr’s litany of actions to help Trump’s political agenda seem rooted in Barr’s long-standing advocacy of expanding presidential powers. “Barr has been committed for a very long time to a concept of the presidency that is virtually all-powerful,” Ayer told me last year. In many ways, Barr’s concept of an all-powerful presidency seems to fit well with Trump’s own oft-expressed absolutist view of his powers, Ayer added. “Barr can’t achieve his mission of creating an unrestrained president if Trump isn’t reelected.”