January​ ​4,​ ​2018

The​ ​Honorable​ ​Michael​ ​E.​ ​Horowitz
Inspector​ ​General
Office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​General
U.S.​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice
950​ ​Pennsylvania​ ​Avenue,​ ​N.W
Suite​ ​4706
Washington,​ ​DC​ ​20530
BY​ ​FAX:​ ​(202)​ ​616-9881

Robin​ ​C.​ ​Ashton
Counsel
Office​ ​of​ ​Professional​ ​Responsibility
U.S.​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice
950​ ​Pennsylvania​ ​Avenue,​ ​N.W
Suite​ ​3266
Washington,​ ​DC​ ​20530
BY​ ​FAX:​ ​(202)​ ​514-5050

RE:​ ​ ​Investigating​ ​Improper​ ​White​ ​House​ ​Influence​ ​on​ ​Specific​ ​Investigations
Dear​ ​Mr.​ ​Horowitz​ ​and​ ​Ms.​ ​Ashton:
We​ ​write​ ​to​ ​ask​ ​your​ ​offices​ ​to​ ​open​ ​an​ ​immediate​ ​inquiry​ ​into​ ​whether​ ​attorneys​ ​at​ ​the
Justice​ ​Department​ ​are​ ​acting​ ​in​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​enforcement​ ​matter​ ​involving​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​political
opponents​ ​because​ ​of​ ​pressure​ ​from​ ​the​ ​President​ ​or​ ​other​ ​White​ ​House​ ​officials.​ ​ ​For​ ​the​ ​Justice
Department​ ​to​ ​pursue​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​investigation​ ​or​ ​enforcement​ ​action​ ​based​ ​on​ ​White​ ​House
influence​ ​would​ ​violate​ ​our​ ​country’s​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Department’s​ ​most​ ​foundational​ ​principles—that
we​ ​are​ ​a​ ​nation​ ​of​ ​laws,​ ​with​ ​equal​ ​justice​ ​under​ ​law.​ ​ ​The​ ​Department​ ​and​ ​the​ ​American​ ​people
rely​ ​on​ ​your​ ​offices​ ​to​ ​safeguard​ ​the​ ​Department’s​ ​sacred​ ​obligations​ ​to​ ​the​ ​fair​ ​and​ ​impartial
administration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law.​ ​ ​We​ ​ask​ ​that​ ​you​ ​open​ ​an​ ​immediate​ ​inquiry​ ​and​ ​take​ ​all​ ​appropriate
remedial​ ​actions​ ​if​ ​any​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​officials​ ​are​ ​engaging​ ​in​ ​investigative​ ​or​ ​prosecutorial
actions​ ​in​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​matter​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​White​ ​House​ ​political​ ​pressure.
I.

Reports​ ​of​ ​White​ ​House​ ​Interference​ ​in​ ​a​ ​Specific​ ​DOJ​ ​Enforcement​ ​Matter

According​ ​to​ ​recent​ ​news​ ​reports,​ ​the​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​is​ ​now​ ​engaging​ ​in
investigative​ ​or​ ​prosecutorial​ ​activity​ ​related​ ​to​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​political​ ​opponents​ ​in​ ​the​ ​face​ ​of
substantial​ ​pressure​ ​from​ ​the​ ​White​ ​House.​ ​ ​According​ ​to​ ​this​ ​report,​ ​Department​ ​officials​ ​“are
acutely​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​demands​ ​from​ ​President​ ​Donald​ ​Trump​ ​that​ ​they​ ​look​ ​into​ ​Clinton’s​ ​use​ ​of​ ​a
private​ ​email​ ​server​ ​while​ ​secretary​ ​of​ ​state—and​ ​that​ ​they​ ​lock​ ​up​ ​her​ ​top​ ​aide,​ ​Huma​ ​Abedin.”1
​ ​Betsy​ ​Woodruff,​ ​“Justice​ ​Department​ ​‘Looking​ ​Into’​ ​Hillary​ ​Clinton’s​ ​Emails—​ ​Again,”​ ​The​ ​Daily
Beast​ ​(Jan.​ ​4,​ ​2018),​ ​https://www.thedailybeast.com/justice-department-looking-intohillary-clintons-emails-again.
1

 
 
Protect​ ​Democracy 
2020​ ​Pennsylvania​ ​Avenue,​ ​NW​ ​#163 
Washington,​ ​DC​ ​20006

 This​ ​recent​ ​report​ ​follows​ ​on​ ​a​ ​letter​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​to​ ​the​ ​House​ ​Judiciary​ ​Committee
indicating​ ​that​ ​“the​ ​Attorney​ ​General​ ​has​ ​directed”​ ​certain​ ​federal​ ​prosecutors​ ​to​ ​look​ ​into​ ​issues
related​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Clinton​ ​email​ ​investigation​ ​and​ ​to​ ​“report​ ​directly​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Attorney​ ​General​ ​and​ ​the
Deputy​ ​Attorney​ ​General.”2
The​ ​reported​ ​activity​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​comes​ ​in​ ​the​ ​wake​ ​of​ ​repeated​ ​requests​ ​by​ ​the
President​ ​to​ ​prosecute​ ​his​ ​former​ ​electoral​ ​opponent.​ ​ ​Those​ ​attempts​ ​began​ ​during​ ​the​ ​campaign
when​ ​President​ ​Trump​ ​and​ ​his​ ​surrogates​ ​regularly​ ​led​ ​“lock​ ​her​ ​up”​ ​chants​ ​at​ ​campaign​ ​rallies
and​ ​the​ ​Republican​ ​National​ ​Convention.​ ​ ​Mr.​ ​Trump’s​ ​threats​ ​to​ ​use​ ​the​ ​Justice​ ​Department
against​ ​his​ ​opponent​ ​continued​ ​during​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​presidential​ ​debates,​ ​when​ ​candidate​ ​Trump
promised​ ​to​ ​instruct​ ​the​ ​attorney​ ​general​ ​to​ ​investigate​ ​Secretary​ ​Clinton:
TRUMP​ ​.​ ​.​ ​.​ ​[I]f​ ​I​ ​win,​ ​I​ ​am​ ​going​ ​to​ ​instruct​ ​my​ ​attorney​ ​general​ ​to​ ​get​ ​a​ ​special
prosecutor​ ​to​ ​look​ ​into​ ​your​ ​situation,​ ​because​ ​there​ ​has​ ​never​ ​been​ ​so​ ​many​ ​lies,​ ​so
much​ ​deception.​ ​There​ ​has​ ​never​ ​been​ ​anything​ ​like​ ​it,​ ​and​ ​we’re​ ​going​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a
special​ ​prosecutor.
.​ ​.​ ​.
So​ ​we’re​ ​going​ ​to​ ​get​ ​a​ ​special​ ​prosecutor,​ ​and​ ​we’re​ ​going​ ​to​ ​look​ ​into​ ​it,​ ​because
you​ ​know​ ​what?​ ​People​ ​have​ ​been​ ​—​ ​their​ ​lives​ ​have​ ​been​ ​destroyed​ ​for​ ​doing
one-fifth​ ​of​ ​what​ ​you’ve​ ​done.​ ​And​ ​it’s​ ​a​ ​disgrace.​ ​And​ ​honestly,​ ​you​ ​ought​ ​to​ ​be
ashamed​ ​of​ ​yourself.
.​ ​.​ ​.
CLINTON:​ ​.​ ​.​ ​.​ ​[I]t’s​ ​just​ ​awfully​ ​good​ ​that​ ​someone​ ​with​ ​the​ ​temperament​ ​of
Donald​ ​Trump​ ​is​ ​not​ ​in​ ​charge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law​ ​in​ ​our​ ​country.
TRUMP:​ ​Because​ ​you’d​ ​be​ ​in​ ​jail.3
And​ ​those​ ​efforts​ ​have​ ​not​ ​ceased​ ​since​ ​Mr.​ ​Trump​ ​assumed​ ​office.​ ​ ​T​he​ ​president​ ​has,
on​ ​multiple​ ​occasions,​ ​called​ ​for​ ​DOJ​ ​to​ ​investigate​ ​Secretary​ ​Clinton​ ​and​ ​her​ ​aides:

​ ​Letter​ ​from​ ​Stephen​ ​E.​ ​Boyd,​ ​Assistant​ ​Attorney​ ​General,​ ​to​ ​Hon.​ ​Robert​ ​W.​ ​Goodlatte,​ ​Chairman,
House​ ​Committee​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Judiciary​ ​(Nov.​ ​13,​ ​2017).
3
​ ​Transcript​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Second​ ​Presidential​ ​Debate,​ ​N.Y.​ ​Times​ ​(Oct.​ ​10,​ ​2016),​ ​available​ ​at
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/transcript-second-debate.html.
2

2

 Donald​ ​J.​ ​Trump​ ​(@realDonaldTrump),​ ​Twitter​ ​(July​ ​22,​ ​2017,​ ​4:44​ ​AM),
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/888726438265966592

Donald​ ​J.​ ​Trump​ ​(@realDonaldTrump),​ ​Twitter​ ​(July​ ​24,​ ​2017,​ ​5:49​ ​AM),
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/889467610332528641

Donald​ ​J.​ ​Trump​ ​(@realDonaldTrump),​ ​Twitter​ ​(Oct.​ ​29,​ ​2017,​ ​7:17​ ​AM),
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/924641278947622913

Donald​ ​J.​ ​Trump​ ​(@realDonaldTrump),​ ​Twitter​ ​(Nov.​ ​3,​ ​2017,​ ​3:57​ ​AM),
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/926403023861141504
3

 Donald​ ​J.​ ​Trump​ ​(@realDonaldTrump),​ ​Twitter​ ​(Nov.​ ​3,​ ​2017,​ ​4:11​ ​AM),
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/926406490763784194

Donald​ ​J.​ ​Trump​ ​(@realDonaldTrump),​ ​Twitter​ ​(Jan.​ ​4,​ ​2018,​ ​4:48​ ​AM).
Sadly,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​these​ ​recent​ ​reports,​ ​it​ ​appears​ ​that​ ​President​ ​Trump’s​ ​efforts​ ​to
command​ ​the​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​to​ ​pursue​ ​a​ ​politically-motivated​ ​investigation​ ​of​ ​his​ ​opponent
may​ ​finally​ ​have​ ​borne​ ​fruit.
II.

Acting​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​White​ ​House​ ​Pressure​ ​Violates​ ​the​ ​Constitution,​ ​Ethical​ ​Rules,​ ​and
the​ ​Justice​ ​Department’s​ ​Most​ ​Sacred​ ​Duty

Pursuing​ ​an​ ​investigation​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​political​ ​pressure​ ​from​ ​the​ ​White​ ​House​ ​violates
the​ ​Department’s​ ​most​ ​sacred​ ​duty​ ​to​ ​the​ ​American​ ​people.​ ​ ​In​ ​keeping​ ​with​ ​the​ ​words​ ​“Equal
Justice​ ​Under​ ​Law”​ ​engraved​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Main​ ​Justice​ ​building,​ ​DOJ’s​ ​mission​ ​requires​ ​the
Department​ ​“to​ ​ensure​ ​fair​ ​and​ ​impartial​ ​administration​ ​of​ ​justice​ ​for​ ​all​ ​Americans.”​ ​ ​As​ ​the
Department’s​ ​website​ ​notes:​ ​“Thomas​ ​Jefferson​ ​wrote,​ ​‘The​ ​most​ ​sacred​ ​of​ ​the​ ​duties​ ​of
government​ ​[is]​ ​to​ ​do​ ​equal​ ​and​ ​impartial​ ​justice​ ​to​ ​all​ ​its​ ​citizens.’​ ​ ​This​ ​sacred​ ​duty​ ​remains​ ​the
guiding​ ​principle​ ​for​ ​the​ ​women​ ​and​ ​men​ ​of​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice.”4
For​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​to​ ​pursue​ ​or​ ​re-open​ ​an​ ​investigation​ ​based​ ​on​ ​political​ ​pressure​ ​also
violates​ ​core​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​our​ ​Constitution.​ ​ ​Every​ ​attorney​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​swears​ ​an​ ​oath​ ​to
4

​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,​ ​About​ ​DOJ,​ ​https://www.justice.gov/about.
4

 “support​ ​and​ ​defend​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​against​ ​all​ ​enemies,​ ​foreign​ ​and
domestic”​ ​and​ ​to​ ​“faithfully​ ​discharge​ ​the​ ​duties​ ​of​ ​the​ ​office”​ ​in​ ​which​ ​they​ ​serve.5​ ​ ​The
Constitution​ ​requires​ ​the​ ​President​ ​to​ ​take​ ​care​ ​that​ ​the​ ​law​ ​is​ ​faithfully​ ​executed—for​ ​him​ ​to
seek​ ​or​ ​request​ ​a​ ​prosecution​ ​of​ ​his​ ​political​ ​opponents​ ​is​ ​the​ ​opposite​ ​of​ ​that.​ ​ ​More​ ​than​ ​this,
the​ ​Constitution​ ​guarantees​ ​to​ ​every​ ​American​ ​the​ ​due​ ​process​ ​of​ ​law,​ ​the​ ​freedom​ ​to​ ​engage​ ​in
political​ ​speech,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​equal​ ​protection​ ​of​ ​the​ ​laws.​ ​ ​For​ ​any​ ​Justice​ ​Department​ ​employee,
from​ ​the​ ​Attorney​ ​General​ ​to​ ​a​ ​line​ ​attorney,​ ​to​ ​take​ ​action​ ​based​ ​on​ ​a​ ​political​ ​vendetta​ ​targeted
at​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​person​ ​violates​ ​these​ ​core​ ​tenets​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution.
The​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​has​ ​been​ ​unequivocal​ ​on​ ​that​ ​point.​ ​ ​The​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice’s
“selectivity​ ​in​ ​the​ ​enforcement​ ​of​ ​criminal​ ​law​ ​is​ ​[]​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​constitutional​ ​constraints.”​ ​ ​Wayte
v.​ ​United​ ​States​,​ ​470​ ​U.S.​ ​598,​ ​608​ ​(1985).​​ ​ ​Accordingly,​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice​ ​may​ ​not
make​ ​a​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​investigate​ ​an​ ​individual​ ​“​based​ ​on​ ​an​ ​unjustifiable​ ​standard​ ​such​ ​as​ ​race,
religion,​ ​or​ ​other​ ​arbitrary​ ​classification,”​ ​ ​United​ ​States​ ​v.​ ​Armstrong​,​ ​517​ ​U.S.​ ​456,​ ​464​ ​(1996)​,
“​including”​ ​an​ ​individual’s​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​“exercise​ ​.​ ​.​ ​.​ ​protected​ ​statutory​ ​and​ ​constitutional
rights,”​ ​Wayte​,​ ​470​ ​U.S.​ ​at​ ​608.​ ​ ​A​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​investigate​ ​an​ ​individual​ ​or​ ​members​ ​of​ ​an
opposing​ ​political​ ​party​ ​because​ ​of​ ​their​ ​political​ ​opposition​ ​to​ ​the​ ​President​ ​would​ ​violate​ ​both
the​ ​First​ ​and​ ​Fifth​ ​Amendments.
Investigating​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​political​ ​opponents​ ​on​ ​the​ ​instructions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​President
would​ ​also​ ​violate​ ​DOJ​ ​policy.​ ​The​ ​Department’s​ ​U.S.​ ​Attorneys’​ ​Manual​ ​makes​ ​clear​ ​that
investigative​ ​or​ ​prosecutorial​ ​actions​ ​may​ ​not​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​based​ ​on​ ​political​ ​considerations​ ​or​ ​White
House​ ​pressure.​ ​ ​The​ ​Manual​ ​explains​ ​that​ ​“[i]n​ ​determining​ ​whether​ ​to​ ​commence​ ​or
recommend​ ​prosecution​ ​or​ ​take​ ​other​ ​action​ ​against​ ​a​ ​person,”​ ​an​ ​“attorney​ ​for​ ​the​ ​government
should​ ​not​​ ​be​ ​improperly​ ​influenced​ ​by”​ ​(1)​ ​the​ ​person’s​ ​“political​ ​association,​ ​activities,​ ​or
beliefs”​ ​or​ ​(2)​ ​“the​ ​attorney’s​ ​own​ ​personal​ ​feelings​ ​concerning​ ​the​ ​person,​ ​the​ ​person’s
associates,​ ​or​ ​the​ ​victim”​ ​or​ ​(3)​ ​“[t]he​ ​possible​ ​affect​ ​of​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​on​ ​the​ ​attorney’s​ ​own
professional​ ​or​ ​personal​ ​circumstances.”6​ ​ ​Each​ ​of​ ​these​ ​factors​ ​appear​ ​to​ ​be​ ​implicated​ ​by​ ​the
recent​ ​reports​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​is​ ​taking​ ​investigative​ ​actions​ ​against​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​political
opponents​ ​in​ ​the​ ​face​ ​of​ ​pressure​ ​from​ ​the​ ​President.
These​ ​principles​ ​would​ ​be​ ​violated​ ​even​ ​if​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​is​ ​only​ ​conducting
investigative​ ​activity​ ​for​ ​show​ ​or​ ​to​ ​appease​ ​the​ ​President.​ ​ ​The​ ​Manual’s​ ​comments​ ​explain​ ​that
these​ ​improper​ ​considerations​ ​“​are​ ​listed​ ​here​ ​not​ ​because​ ​it​ ​is​ ​anticipated​ ​that​ ​any​ ​attorney​ ​for
the​ ​government​ ​might​ ​allow​ ​them​ ​to​ ​affect​ ​his/her​ ​judgment,​ ​but​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​make​ ​clear​ ​that
federal​ ​prosecutors​ ​will​ ​not​ ​be​ ​influenced​ ​by​ ​such​ ​improper​ ​considerations.”7​ ​ ​As​ ​the​ ​Manual
explains,​ ​these​ ​principles​ ​are​ ​designed​ ​to​ ​“promote​ ​the​ ​reasoned​ ​exercise​ ​of​ ​prosecutorial
authority​ ​and​ ​contribute​ ​to​ ​the​ ​fair,​ ​evenhanded​ ​administration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​criminal​ ​laws.”8
And​ ​they​ ​are​ ​further​ ​aimed​ ​at​ ​“​promoting​ ​confidence​ ​on​ ​the​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​public​ ​and​ ​individual
​ ​5​ ​U.S.C.​ ​§​ ​3331.
​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,​ ​U.S.​ ​Attorneys’​ ​Manual​ ​§​ ​9-27.260​ ​(emphasis​ ​added).
7
​ ​Id.​ ​(Comment).
8
​ ​Id.​ ​§​ ​9-27.001.
5

6

5

 defendants​ ​that​ ​important​ ​prosecutorial​ ​decisions​ ​will​ ​be​ ​made​ ​rationally​ ​and​ ​objectively​ ​on​ ​the
merits​ ​of​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​and​ ​circumstances​ ​of​ ​each​ ​case.”9​ ​ ​Even​ ​if​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​is​ ​only​ ​creating​ ​the
appearance​ ​of​ ​an​ ​investigation​ ​to​ ​satisfy​ ​the​ ​President,​ ​it​ ​sends​ ​the​ ​message​ ​to​ ​the​ ​American
people​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​upholding​ ​its​ ​sacred​ ​duty.
This​ ​is​ ​especially​ ​so​ ​where,​ ​as​ ​here,​ ​career​ ​officials​ ​within​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​have​ ​already
extensively​ ​investigated​ ​and​ ​twice​ ​formally​ ​declined​ ​the​ ​case.​ ​ ​Principles​ ​of​ ​due​ ​process​ ​counsel
that​ ​subjects​ ​of​ ​criminal​ ​investigations​ ​have​ ​the​ ​right​ ​to​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Department’s​ ​decisions​ ​and
that​ ​they​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​continually​ ​at​ ​the​ ​mercy​ ​of​ ​political​ ​pressure​ ​to​ ​have​ ​the​ ​same​ ​evidence
considered​ ​over​ ​and​ ​over​ ​again.
An​ ​investigation​ ​or​ ​prosecution​ ​motivated​ ​by​ ​political​ ​considerations​ ​also​ ​violates​ ​rules
of​ ​professional​ ​conduct​ ​and​ ​prosecutors’​ ​ethical​ ​obligations.​ ​ ​The​ ​American​ ​Bar​ ​Association
Model​ ​Rules​ ​of​ ​Professional​ ​Conduct​ ​provide​ ​that​ ​“[i]t​ ​is​ ​professional​ ​misconduct​ ​for​ ​a​ ​lawyer
to​ ​.​ ​.​ ​.​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​conduct​ ​that​ ​is​ ​prejudicial​ ​to​ ​the​ ​administration​ ​of​ ​justice.”10​ ​It​ ​is​ ​hard​ ​to
imagine​ ​conduct​ ​more​ ​prejudicial​ ​to​ ​the​ ​administration​ ​of​ ​justice​ ​than​ ​engaging​ ​in​ ​investigative
or​ ​prosecutorial​ ​activity​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​demands​ ​to​ ​lock​ ​up​ ​his​ ​political
opponents.​ ​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​prosecutors​ ​have​ ​a​ ​special​ ​responsibility​ ​to​ ​“refrain​ ​from​ ​prosecuting​ ​a
charge​ ​that​ ​the​ ​prosecutor​ ​knows​ ​is​ ​not​ ​supported​ ​by​ ​probable​ ​cause.”11​ ​ ​Department​ ​attorneys
are​ ​also​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Standards​ ​of​ ​Ethical​ ​Conduct​ ​for​ ​Employees​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Executive​ ​Branch,
which​ ​require​ ​them​ ​to​ ​adhere​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​and​ ​laws​ ​of​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States,​ ​to​ ​act​ ​impartially,
and​ ​to​ ​avoid​ ​even​ ​the​ ​appearance​ ​that​ ​they​ ​are​ ​violating​ ​the​ ​law​ ​or​ ​their​ ​ethical​ ​obligations.12
Finally,​ ​acting​ ​on​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​matter​ ​in​ ​light​ ​of​ ​White​ ​House​ ​pressure​ ​also​ ​violates
long-standing​ ​policies​ ​that​ ​have​ ​sought​ ​to​ ​insulate​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​from​ ​this​ ​type​ ​of​ ​pressure.
Since​ ​Watergate,​ ​both​ ​Republican​ ​and​ ​Democratic​ ​administrations​ ​have​ ​put​ ​in​ ​place​ ​written
policies,​ ​called​ ​“contacts​ ​policies,”​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​the​ ​DOJ​ ​impartially​ ​exercises​ ​its​ ​law
13
enforcement​ ​powers​ ​by​ ​restricting​ ​the​ ​Department’s​ ​contacts​ ​with​ ​the​ ​White​ ​House. ​ ​ ​As​ ​we
9

​ ​Id.

​ ​ABA​ ​Model​ ​Rules​ ​of​ ​Professional​ ​Conduct,​ ​Rule​ ​8.4.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​comments​ ​to​ ​this​ ​Rule​ ​explain,

10

“Lawyers​ ​holding​ ​public​ ​office​ ​assume​ ​legal​ ​responsibilities​ ​going​ ​beyond​ ​those​ ​of​ ​other
citizens.”​ ​Id.​ ​comment​ ​7.

​ ​ABA​ ​Model​ ​Rules​ ​of​ ​Professional​ ​Conduct,​ ​Rule​ ​3.8.
​ ​5​ ​C.F.R.​ ​§​ ​2635.101;​ ​see​ ​also​ ​28​ ​U.S.C.​ ​§​ ​530B​ ​(“​An​ ​attorney​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​subject​ ​to
State​ ​laws​ ​and​ ​rules,​ ​and​ ​local​ ​Federal​ ​court​ ​rules,​ ​governing​ ​attorneys​ ​in​ ​each​ ​State​ ​where​ ​such​ ​attorney
engages​ ​in​ ​that​ ​attorney’s​ ​duties,​ ​to​ ​the​ ​same​ ​extent​ ​and​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​manner​ ​as​ ​other​ ​attorneys​ ​in​ ​that
State.”).
13
​ ​ ​See,​ ​e.g.​,​ ​Eric​ ​Holder,​ ​Communications​ ​with​ ​the​ ​White​ ​House​ ​and​ ​Congress​,​ ​Memorandum​ ​for​ ​Heads
of​ ​Department​ ​Components​ ​and​ ​All​ ​U.S.​ ​Attorneys,​ ​May​ ​11,​ ​2009,
https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/2017/2009%20Eric%20Holder%20memo.pdf
(“Holder​ ​Memo”);​ ​Michael​ ​B.​ ​Mukasey,​ ​Communications​ ​with​ ​the​ ​White​ ​House​,​ ​Memorandum​ ​for​ ​Heads
of​ ​Department​ ​Components​ ​and​ ​U.S.​ ​Attorneys,​ ​Dec.​ ​19,​ ​2007,
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3371650/Mukasey-12-19-07.pdf.
11
12

6

 explained​ ​in​ ​an​ ​earlier​ ​letter​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​General,14​ ​the​ ​longstanding​ ​policies​ ​restricting
contacts​ ​between​ ​the​ ​White​ ​House​ ​and​ ​DOJ​ ​are​ ​most​ ​important​ ​in​ ​the​ ​context​ ​of​ ​enforcement
15
and​ ​litigation​ ​actions​ ​involving​ ​specific​ ​parties.
III.

The​ ​Public​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​Rely​ ​on​ ​Your​ ​Offices​ ​to​ ​Uphold​ ​the​ ​Department’s
Sacred​ ​Duty​ ​of​ ​Impartial​ ​Justice

President​ ​Trump​ ​has​ ​claimed​ ​that:​ ​“I​ ​have​ ​the​ ​absolute​ ​right​ ​to​ ​do​ ​what​ ​I​ ​want​ ​with​ ​the
Justice​ ​Department.”16​ ​ ​That​ ​is,​ ​of​ ​course,​ ​not​ ​true.​ ​ ​The​ ​President,​ ​like​ ​all​ ​public​ ​officials,​ ​is
constrained​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​and​ ​laws​ ​of​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States.​ ​ ​His​ ​obligation​ ​to​ ​take​ ​care​ ​that​ ​the
laws​ ​be​ ​faithfully​ ​executed​ ​requires​ ​that​ ​he​ ​safeguard​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​due​ ​process​ ​and​ ​equal
treatment​ ​under​ ​law.​ ​ ​He​ ​may​ ​not​ ​pick​ ​and​ ​choose​ ​the​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​that​ ​he
wishes​ ​to​ ​follow,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​certainly​ ​may​ ​not​ ​intervene​ ​in​ ​specific​ ​Department​ ​matters​ ​to​ ​pursue​ ​a
political​ ​vendetta.
In​ ​the​ ​face​ ​of​ ​President​ ​Trump’s​ ​unprecedented​ ​and​ ​authoritarian​ ​approach​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Justice
Department,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​incumbent​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​professional​ ​men​ ​and​ ​women​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​to​ ​uphold
the​ ​rule​ ​of​ ​law​ ​in​ ​America.​ ​ ​As​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​Attorneys’​ ​Manual​ ​explains,​ ​the​ ​success​ ​of​ ​our​ ​law
enforcement​ ​system​ ​“must​ ​rely​ ​ultimately​ ​on​ ​the​ ​character,​ ​integrity,​ ​sensitivity,​ ​and​ ​competence
of​ ​those​ ​men​ ​and​ ​women​ ​who​ ​are​ ​selected​ ​to​ ​represent​ ​the​ ​public​ ​interest​ ​in​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​criminal
justice​ ​process.”17
Recent​ ​reports​ ​suggest​ ​that​ ​DOJ​ ​leadership​ ​has​ ​been​ ​unable​ ​or​ ​unwilling​ ​to​ ​resist​ ​the
President’s​ ​illegal​ ​and​ ​inappropriate​ ​efforts​ ​to​ ​influence​ ​specific​ ​investigative​ ​actions.
Accordingly,​ ​it​ ​falls​ ​to​ ​your​ ​offices​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​the​ ​men​ ​and​ ​women​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​are
upholding​ ​their​ ​duties​ ​and​ ​not​ ​succumbing​ ​to​ ​political​ ​influence​ ​from​ ​the​ ​White​ ​House.​ ​ ​As​ ​you
know,​ ​the​ ​Department’s​ ​Inspector​ ​General’s​ ​mission​ ​is​ ​to​ ​“detect​ ​and​ ​deter​ ​waste,​ ​fraud,​ ​abuse
and​ ​misconduct​ ​in​ ​DOJ’s​ ​programs​ ​and​ ​personnel​ ​.​ ​.​ ​.​ ​.”18​ ​ ​And​ ​the​ ​Office​ ​of​ ​Professional
Responsibility​ ​was​ ​established​ ​by​ ​order​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Attorney​ ​General​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​DOJ​ ​attorneys​ ​and
law​ ​enforcement​ ​personnel​ ​perform​ ​their​ ​duties​ ​“in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​professional
standards​ ​expected​ ​of​ ​the​ ​nation’s​ ​principal​ ​law​ ​enforcement​ ​agency.”19​ ​ ​Reports​ ​that
Department​ ​officials​ ​are​ ​acting​ ​in​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​enforcement​ ​matter​ ​based​ ​upon​ ​White​ ​House
​ ​Letter​ ​from​ ​Protect​ ​Democracy​ ​et​ ​al.​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Honorable​ ​Michael​ ​E.​ ​Horowitz​ ​(June​ ​12,​ ​2017).
​ ​ ​Memo​ ​from​ ​Protect​ ​Democracy​ ​to​ ​Interested​ ​Parties,​ ​White​ ​House​ ​Communications​ ​with​ ​the​ ​DOJ​ ​and
FBI​,​ ​Mar.​ ​8,​ ​2017,​ ​at​ ​https://protectdemocracy.org/agencycontacts/.
16
​ ​Michael​ ​S.​ ​Schmidt​ ​and​ ​Michael​ ​D.​ ​Shear,​ ​“Trump​ ​Says​ ​Russia​ ​Inquiry​ ​Makes​ ​U.S.​ ​‘Look​ ​Very​ ​Bad’”
The​ ​New​ ​York​ ​Times​ ​(Dec.​ ​28,​ ​2017),​ ​https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/
trump-interview-mueller-russia-china-north-korea.html?_r=0.
17
​ ​U.S.​ ​Attorneys’​ ​Manual​ ​§​ ​9-27.001.
18
​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,​ ​Office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​General:​ ​Mission,​ ​https://oig.justice.gov/.
19
​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Justice,​ ​About​ ​The​ ​Office​ ​And​ ​OPR​ ​Policies​ ​And​ ​Procedures,
https://www.justice.gov/opr/about-office-and-opr-policies-and-procedures.
14
15

7

 political​ ​pressure​ ​indicates​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​for​ ​serious​ ​“abuse​ ​and​ ​misconduct”​ ​and​ ​a​ ​breach​ ​of​ ​the
Department’s​ ​“highest​ ​professional​ ​standards,”​ ​demanding​ ​the​ ​attention​ ​of​ ​each​ ​of​ ​your​ ​offices.
We​ ​therefore​ ​ask​ ​your​ ​offices,​ ​together​ ​or​ ​individually,​ ​to​ ​open​ ​an​ ​immediate
investigation​ ​into​ ​Department​ ​leadership,​ ​prosecutors,​ ​and​ ​any​ ​other​ ​officials​ ​who​ ​are​ ​acting​ ​on​ ​a
specific​ ​enforcement​ ​matter​ ​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​President​ ​has​ ​sought​ ​to​ ​exert​ ​improper​ ​political
influence.​ ​ ​You​ ​should​ ​assess​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​political​ ​pressure​ ​has​ ​affected​ ​or​ ​in​ ​any
way​ ​contributed​ ​to​ ​any​ ​investigative​ ​action​ ​or​ ​decision​ ​in​ ​this​ ​matter.​ ​ ​Even​ ​if​ ​Department
officials​ ​are​ ​merely​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​a​ ​show​ ​of​ ​activity​ ​to​ ​appease​ ​the​ ​President​ ​or​ ​other​ ​White​ ​House
officials,​ ​this​ ​would​ ​be​ ​a​ ​severe​ ​breach​ ​of​ ​the​ ​laws​ ​and​ ​Constitution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States—and​ ​of
the​ ​sacred​ ​trust​ ​the​ ​American​ ​people​ ​place​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Department.​ ​ ​If​ ​you​ ​discover​ ​violations​ ​of
Departmental,​ ​legal,​ ​or​ ​ethical​ ​rules​ ​or​ ​standards,​ ​we​ ​request​ ​you​ ​take​ ​appropriate​ ​action​ ​to
remedy​ ​those​ ​breaches​ ​and​ ​report​ ​your​ ​findings​ ​to​ ​Congress​ ​and​ ​the​ ​American​ ​people.​ ​We
further​ ​request​ ​the​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​meet​ ​with​ ​you​ ​to​ ​discuss​ ​any​ ​questions​ ​you​ ​may​ ​have​ ​related​ ​to
these​ ​issues.
We​ ​look​ ​forward​ ​to​ ​your​ ​response​ ​and​ ​thank​ ​you​ ​for​ ​your​ ​important​ ​work.
Sincerely,

Justin​ ​Florence
Legal​ ​Director
Protect​ ​Democracy

cc:

Senator​ ​Chuck​ ​Grassley
Chairman,​ ​Senate​ ​Judiciary​ ​Committee
Senator​ ​Dianne​ ​Feinstein
Ranking​ ​Member,​ ​Senate​ ​Judiciary​ ​Committee
Congressman​ ​Robert​ ​Goodlatte
Chairman,​ ​House​ ​Judiciary​ ​Committee
Congressman​ ​Jerold​ ​Nadler
Ranking​ ​Member,​ ​House​ ​Judiciary​ ​Committee

8