Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced the review in a two- paragraph news release, although he noted his jurisdiction would be limited to “allegations concerning the conduct of former and current DOJ employees,” and he could not examine activity by other government officials. The news release said the inspector general’s office would follow its normal process in releasing the results of its work publicly.
Horowitz’s announcement comes just days after reporting that Trump entertained a plan to replace the acting attorney general for his final weeks in office, Jeffrey Rosen, with a different department lawyer, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, who was more amenable to wielding the department’s power to help keep Trump in office. Trump aborted the plan only after Justice Department officials threatened a mass resignation, according to people familiar with the matter who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s political sensitivity.
The plan sparked outrage among lawmakers and former Justice Department officials, who saw in it another attempt by Trump to inappropriately leverage the powers of federal law enforcement to benefit his political interests. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) had publicly called for the inspector general to investigate, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the department to preserve records because they, too, would be looking into the matter. The Senate could subpoena records and seek to compel testimony, although the politics of legislative inquiries often make them less revelatory than other inquiries.
Horowitz said he announced the investigation “to reassure the public that an appropriate agency is investigating the allegations,” but he declined to comment further. Although Horowitz probably will have broad access to Justice Department files and emails, he cannot compel the cooperation of former officials — which could limit his probe. The investigation probably will reveal conversations that officials had with Trump, but Horowitz’s office does not have the jurisdiction to specifically explore actions taken by the president or other White House officials.
Trump and his political allies had long sought to press the Justice Department to help boost his unfounded claims of election fraud. The department inquired into allegations across the country but ultimately found the evidence lacking, and then-Attorney General William P. Barr said as much publicly in early December.
In addition to resisting the installation of Clark as attorney general, top Justice Department officials refused Trump’s demands that they get involved in contesting the election’s outcome at the Supreme Court, efforts first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Trump had pinned his hopes on a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas seeking to throw out the election results in four battleground states that had gone for Joe Biden — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia — and wanted the Justice Department to support it, as Republican state attorneys general had. But department officials agreed with most legal observers that the case was a lost cause, and that the Supreme Court would not agree that Texas had the legal standing to bring such a claim.
Barr consulted with then-acting solicitor general Jeffrey B. Wall and told the White House why the approach was not viable, accurately predicting what the Supreme Court decided on Dec. 11, according to a former administration official. None of Trump’s three choices for the Supreme Court separated themselves from that finding.
After that, Trump pressed for the department to file its own petition at the Supreme Court, and the White House supplied a draft written by a private lawyer of what it might say. The former administration official said it was similar to the case the court rejected, but substituted the United States as the challenger instead of Texas. The department officials told the White House there was even less chance the Supreme Court would agree to that, and the department refused to file it.
“It was dead on arrival,” the official said.
Barr’s relationship with Trump already had grown fraught because Barr would not take other steps that Trump saw as helpful to him politically in the months leading up to the election, and his publicly breaking with the president on fraud was something of a last straw. Trump erupted, and Barr contemplated whether he might have to resign or be fired, according to people familiar with the matter. Although tensions later eased somewhat, Barr later submitted his resignation, indicating he planned to step down Dec. 23.
That left in charge Rosen, who had been Barr’s top deputy and who shared his views on the lack of evidence to support Trump’s claims of fraud, according to people familiar with the matter. But, the people said, Trump soon came to meet a different Justice Department official who seemed to share his worldview: Clark, whom Trump had appointed to lead the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and who later would come to lead the Civil Division.
Clark, according to people familiar with the matter, pushed in the final month of the administration to have the department hold a news conference to announce that investigators were examining serious fraud allegations, and to take particular steps in Georgia, such as sending a letter asserting that there was an investigation ongoing and Biden’s win could be voided there. Trump, the people said, then contemplated putting Clark in charge of the department, and Rosen was soon informed of the plan. The acting attorney general pushed for a meeting with Trump himself.
All of those involved have since left the Justice Department, as they were Trump appointees. Even if the plan had been carried out, it seems unlikely it would have affected the election results — which already had been certified by the states — although it would have significantly eroded the Justice Department’s credibility.
Clark, in a written statement, has denied that he “devised a plan . . . to oust Jeff Rosen,” and he also has denied that he made recommendations “based on factual inaccuracies gleaned from the Internet.” He seemed to quote language from the New York Times, which first reported the event.
“My practice is to rely on sworn testimony to assess disputed factual claims,” Clark said. “There were no ‘maneuver[s].’ There was a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the President. It is unfortunate that those who were part of a privileged legal conversation would comment in public about such internal deliberations, while also distorting any discussions . . . Observing legal privileges, which I will adhere to even if others will not, prevent me from divulging specifics regarding the conversation.”
Rosen has declined to comment.
Horowitz already had been examining another incident of possible Justice Department malfeasance over the election: the abrupt departure of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta after Trump complained officials in Georgia were not doing enough to find election fraud.
Byung J. “BJay” Pak unexpectedly announced Jan. 4 that he was stepping down that day as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and Trump then bypassed his top deputy in selecting a temporary replacement. According to people familiar with the matter, Pak had received a call from a senior Justice Department official in Washington that led him to believe he should resign shortly before he did so.
Pak’s resignation came just a day after The Washington Post reported on a call in which Trump urged Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his election defeat in that state.