OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 6/11/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on Biden at the G-7 summit, the Justice Department under Trump" PBS NewsHour 6/11/2021

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Biden at the G-7 summit, the Justice Department under the Trump administration, and how redistricting will impact the nation's political makeup.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

And they are in person here with me.

David Brooks, New York Times:  We're here.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  I can touch you.  Actually, you're in the studio.  This is exciting.  I have got to figure out how I'm going to get through this conversation.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  It's so weird to be doing it while wearing shoes.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  Unusual.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Exactly, instead of our house slippers.

So much to talk about.

And, Jonathan, let's just quickly pick up with where Dan Bush left off.

Texas, really important decision for them to make about these new districts.  They have got to figure out how to draw those lines.  What is at stake?  With the Congress so evenly divided, what's at stake here?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  What's at stake is the majority for the Congress, whether the — excuse me — whether the Democrats will maintain their very slim majority or, as a result of redistricting, not just in Texas, but around the country, whether the lines will be drawn in such a way that gives an advantage to Republicans going into the 2022 midterms before a vote has even been cast.

And, you know, with Texas, the influx of people, the population growing, a lot of them in the urban centers that went for Democratic candidates, and yet the way the districts can be drawn, that voting power very well might end up resulting in districts that would be drawn for Republicans to do better in.

Judy Woodruff:  So, what — how can Democrats counter this, David?  How do you see this shaking out, given what's going on in…

David Brooks:  Yes, I think prayer would help.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  You know, I think the Democrats I talk to want to maintain the House.  They don't expect to.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

David Brooks:  As I would — they would — somebody said, it would take a miracle.

Miracles could happen.  And it could happen.  But in midterm elections, when one party controls both houses of Congress and the White House, then their records in these first midterms tends to be terrible.

And then there's the population shift, which we have been hearing about.  That, by itself, is probably enough to get the Republicans four or five, six, seven seats.  And then there's the redrawing of the lines.  And Republicans just control a lot more state legislatures.

Now, I should say, I'm more focused on population shifts than on gerrymandering, because, while I think these lines, these — the legislatures draw our gross and unwieldy, and it's the politicians selecting the voters, I don't think the effect is that big.

In the middle of the 20th century, you had a big effect where Democrats had a natural advantage, because of the way they drew the lines.  Then, in the early 20th century, the Republicans had a pretty big effect, maybe 20 more seats than you would think from their vote totals.

But, recently, it's been a pretty small effect.  It's been in the single digits.  So — and that's in part because half the states, it's not partisanly drawn.  And so…

Judy Woodruff:  For different reasons.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, what we have happening here is, it's not just redistricting.  We have what I call a perfect storm brewing.

You have got redistricting, on top of voter laws that have been voted into Georgia, Florida.  Texas, Democrats did a dramatic move to keep their law from going into effect, but a special session will be called, and those laws might well go through.  Iowa.  Arizona.

And so those laws being put in place.  Democrats call them voter suppression laws.  They will keep people, primarily Black and brown people, the young, from getting out to vote.  Not every — not every eligible voter will be able to vote and not — every legally cast vote might not be counted.  And that's what's at danger — in danger as well.

Judy Woodruff:  And all this getting more attention.  Usually, we're waiting for census data, waiting to see what each state does, certainly in the spotlight.

Let's turn, David, to our lead tonight.  And that is President Biden in Europe meeting with the British prime minister, meeting with his counterparts in the so-called G7.

What is — why does this trip matter for him?  What does he need to do?

David Brooks:  Well, he needs to show that America is back.  And he — and back and cooperating with people.  And I have traveled on delegations he's made to Munich to the Security Conference they have there.  And what you see is, he's on first-name basis with everybody, like, with the world leaders, with the doormen in the hotel.  He's been doing it for so long.  And so I think there's a little of that personal diplomacy.

And I think they're proud of the fact they got this vaccine thing done.  I spoke to a White House official today.  And they said the last four weeks have really been a sprint to get this, so we could offer half-a-billion vaccines and get our allies to another…

Judy Woodruff:  Huge number.

David Brooks:  ....  another half-a-billion.

And that will all be done by the middle of the next year.  And so they are surprised they could get to this.  They thought we would not be in a state where we had so many vaccines, we would have enough to buy and then share with the world.  And I think they want to show that we're in the generosity business again, and that America can be a generous nation in the world, a little Marshall Plan.

And I think they'd love to get to a spot where it's not a nation-by-nation fight against COVID.  It's a little more of an interdependent global fight against COVID.  And so they're pleased with that.

They are under no illusions that American-European relations are going to go back to the way they used to be in the Cold War.  That's not going to happen.  But they're very pleased, and I think legitimately so.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see the way — what is at stake for Biden and his agenda here and globally?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I think, to your point, the President knows all of these people.  He was a senator for 36 years, Vice President for eight years.

Yes, he is on a first-name basis.  His mantra is, America is back.  But there's a piece in, I think it was The Times of London asking the question, OK, but do the words match the deeds?

And I do think that there's some skepticism in Europe about whether the President's focus on China, whether that's taking attention away from them, whether the President, President Biden, is continuing former President Trump's policies vis-a-vis China.  Think of tariffs.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:  And then other things that Vice President Biden is doing that former President Trump talked about, withdrawing from Afghanistan.

So I think what we're seeing, yes, it's not going to go back to the way it was.  And I do think that the world now is, like, they're happy the United States is back in the fold, but I think they have figured out over the last four years, we can't really depend on the United States, especially when it comes to — President Biden's mantra is also democracy.  We have to show that democracy works.

But those world leaders are watching what we're doing here, the last conversation we had about voting rights.  How can you have a democracy if voting rights are at risk?

Judy Woodruff:  So, it's — David, it's the pandemic that has shifted the landscape, of course, but it's also the Trump — the four years of Donald Trump.

David Brooks:  Yes, PTSD, they have got, whatever, post-traumatic Trump is.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  They wonder if this four years is an interregnum, and that Trump will be back.  They wonder if a Trump-like figure will be back.

And so they — there's some sense America's fundamentally less stable.  And then we are more America first.  I mean, Biden is not as America first as Trump was, but you look at our purchasing decisions as a government, it's America first.  And we're just living in a world where multilateral cooperation is less emphasized, frankly, from a lot of countries all at once.

And that has just been a trend of the last 25 years, as nationalism has become a stronger force in the world and across the West and in Asia.  And, somehow, there's just been a deterioration in our willingness to cooperate on a whole range of fronts.

Judy Woodruff:  Harder, in other words.

Jonathan, I hear you saying this is harder than one might have expected coming out of Trump and — President Trump and assuming everything's going to be easier for President Biden globally.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right, harder.

But I think, from President Biden's perspective, for someone who knows all of these people, I think he's counting on and banking on the fact that those relationships will help smooth over some of the harder things that they have to deal with.

And you know what?  If I were President Biden, I would think that my chances, my odds were good, not great, but good.

David Brooks:  We have been on a lot of calls with Biden administration officials, and they're weirdly normal.  It's like democracy is in crisis, the world's falling apart.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  But they're like as if it's like 1955.  It's like, no, no, no, everything — we will cooperate, we will compromise, we will have these civil discussions.

And I don't know if they're just putting that face on that we live in a normal world anymore, but they're very normal.

Jonathan Capehart:  I think they would probably say — yes, they are very normal.

But I what I take from that is, you know what?  These are people who are competent.  They have been in these jobs before.  They know what the pitfalls are.  And they also know that everything is on fire, but at least they know the terrain.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, speaking of everything being on fire, David, in the last few days, we have learned that the Trump administration was trying in a number of ways that we find now surprising to seize data from not just journalists — and that's been in the news — but Democratic members of Congress, going after their cell phone records, the data, and their family members, even children.

We have now got an investigation under way.  What does this tell us about what was going on under President Trump?

David Brooks:  Yes, the Trump Justice Department keeps looking worse and worse, even more — worse than it was when it was in office.

When there's a leak of confidential information, there's going to be an investigation.  We understand that.  But they tried an investigation.  They didn't dig up anything on the people they wanted to get, Adam Schiff and people like that.

And so they relaunched another investigation using extremely aggressive means.  And prosecutors or investigators have some discretion over how aggressive they're going to be.  And I would say they got so aggressive, not only so aggressive, that it's super invasive to those of us in the media and people in Congress.

But it just looks like a political witch-hunt.  And Donald Trump is out there in public saying Adam Schiff should be investigated.  And, lo and behold, the people in the Justice Department take political orders.  And that's not what they're supposed to do.  The Justice Department, it's never pure, but it's always supposed to be a step removed from politics, so we have some sense of justice.

Judy Woodruff:  Is this something, Jonathan, that President Trump can be held accountable for, ultimately?  I mean…

Jonathan Capehart:  I mean, that, I don't know.  I mean, I really don't know.  I can't see — as much as everyone — and I shouldn't say everyone — a lot of Democrats and people who had a lot of problems with Donald Trump, they would love to be able to say, oh, this is what's going to take them down, meaning send him to jail, hold him accountable.

I'm not sure.  But, again, I'm not surprised.  It's sort of like you're shocked, but you're not shocked, because we watched this in real time.  The one thing about Donald Trump, he allowed our imaginations to go wild, because, if you let them go wild, you actually kind of know what's happening.

And this story, to my mind, is that situation of, when you're imagining — when reality catches up with your imagination.

Judy Woodruff:  He was publicly going after Adam Schiff.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  He was speaking about him, tweeting about him.  Eric Swalwell.  Well, I mean, these are — but to be using your Justice Department, the Justice Department that belongs to the American people, this way…

Jonathan Capehart:  Look, I would hope, I would hope, if proof is found that he directly ordered the Attorney General to do these things, then, absolutely, he should be held accountable.

But I don't see — I just don't see it happening at this point right now, given what we know.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, one thing's for sure.  We are thrilled that the two of you are here in the studio.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  And I know everybody watching is too.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  It's good to be with you, Judy.

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you both.  Really good to see you both.  Thank you.

TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAYER - Roger Stone Sentencing

No matter what William Barr says, his actions (including his 6/8/2018 'memo' [download link] to Trump via AG Rod Rosenstein, that got him his job, saying Presidents can do anything they want) has demonstrated loud and clear the he is Trump's personal layer, and NOT the layer of the American people or protector of he Constitution.

"The ‘remarkable’ DOJ controversy over Roger Stone’s sentencing" PBS NewsHour 2/11/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Roger Stone, the sixth former associate of President Trump to be convicted on charges stemming from the Mueller probe, is again at the center of controversy.  Federal prosecutors recommended Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison, but senior Justice Department officials intervened.  Now, all four line prosecutors quit the case.  John Yang talks to The Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky.

"Prosecutors quit Roger Stone case after DOJ lowers recommended prison time" PBS NewsHour 2/11/2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four lawyers who prosecuted Roger Stone quit the case Tuesday after the Justice Department said it would take the extraordinary step of lowering the amount of prison time it would seek for President Donald Trump’s longtime ally and confidant.

The decision by the Justice Department came just hours after Trump complained that the recommended sentence for Stone was “very horrible and unfair.”  The Justice Department said the sentencing recommendation was made Monday night — before Trump’s tweet — and prosecutors had not spoken to the White House about it.

The four attorneys, including two who were early members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia team, had made up the Justice Department’s trial team and had signed onto a Monday court filing that recommended up to nine years in prison for Stone.

The department’s decision to back off the sentencing recommendation raised questions about political interference and whether Trump’s views hold unusual sway over the Justice Department, which is meant to operate independently of the White House in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Attorney General William Barr has been a steady ally of Trump’s, clearing the President of obstruction of justice even when special counsel Robert Mueller had pointedly declined to do so and declaring that the FBI’s Russia investigation — which resulted in charges against Stone — had been based on a “bogus narrative.”

On Monday night, prosecutors had recommended Stone serve seven to nine years behind bars after being convicted of charges including lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election.  The recommendation raised the prospect that Stone could receive the harshest sentence of any of the half-dozen Trump aides charged in Mueller’s probe.

In a tweet early Tuesday, Trump said the case against Stone was a “miscarriage of justice.”  A Justice Department official said authorities decided to step in and seek a shorter sentence because they had been taken by surprise by the initial recommendation.  The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said prosecutors had told the department to expect a shorter recommendation.

It is extremely rare for Justice Department leaders to reverse the decision of its own prosecutors on a sentencing recommendation, particularly after that recommendation has been submitted to the court.  Normally, United States attorneys have wide latitude to recommend sentences on cases that they prosecuted.

The departures came abruptly after the decision by Justice.  Jonathan Kravis resigned his position as an assistant U.S. attorney.  He had been a veteran prosecutor in Washington [DC], and though not part of Robert Mueller’s original team, was nonetheless involved in multiple cases brought by the special counsel’s office.  Besides the Stone prosecution, Kravis had also signed onto the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, which resolved with a guilty plea, and against a Russian troll farm accused of sponsoring a cover social media campaign aimed at dividing public opinion during the 2016 presidential election.

Aaron Zelinsky quit the case and his job in Washington [DC], and would go back to his job as a federal prosecutor in Baltimore.  He was working there when he was selected in 2017 for the Mueller team.  He was involved in cases aimed at determining what knowledge the Trump campaign had about Democratic emails that were hacked by Russia and what efforts Trump aides made to get information about them.  He was also involved in the prosecution of George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign aide who played a critical role in the FBI launching its investigation in the summer of 2016.

A third prosecutor, Adam Jed, who was an original member of Mueller’s team, also withdrew from the case.  His status at the Justice Department was not clear.  Before joining Mueller’s team, he worked on civil cases at the Justice Department.

After the attorneys quit the case, Justice Department officials filed a revised sentencing memorandum with the judge, arguing its initial recommendation could be “considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances,” but that it would defer to the court.  None of the original prosecutors in Stone’s case signed onto the revised memo.

Sentencing decisions are ultimately up to the judge, who in this case may side with the original recommendation.  U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has repeatedly scolded Stone for his out-of-court behavior, which included a social media post he made of the judge with what appeared to be crosshairs of a gun.

The judge barred Stone from social media last July after concluding that she repeatedly flouted his gag order.

Meanwhile, Democrats decried the decision, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for an investigation by the DOJ’s Inspector General.

“The rule of law and this grand, grand tradition of this wonderful Justice Department is being totally perverted to Donald Trumps’ own personal desires and needs,” the New York Democrat said.  “And it’s a disgrace.’’

House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff said it would be a blatant abuse of power if the Justice Department intervened on behalf of Trump.

“Doing so would send an unmistakable message that President Trump will protect those who lie to Congress to cover up his own misconduct, and that the Attorney General will join him in that effort,” the California Democrat said.

Trump later told reporters that he didn’t speak to Justice officials.  “I would be able to do it if I wanted,” he said.  “I have the absolute right to do it.  I stay out of things to a degree that people wouldn’t believe, but I didn’t speak to them.”

Federal prosecutors also recently softened their sentencing position on former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying that they would not oppose a probation of punishment after initially saying that he deserved up to six months in prison for lying to the FBI.  The Flynn prosecution is also being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington.

In the initial memorandum Monday evening, prosecutors asked for Stone to serve between 87 and 108 months in federal prison — the sentence they said was in line with federal guidelines.  Such a sentence would send a message to deter others who might consider lying or obstructing a congressional probe or tampering with witnesses, they said.

The prosecutors wrote in the court papers that “Stone’s actions were not a one-off mistake in judgment” and that he “decided to double – and triple – down on his criminal conduct by tampering with a witness for months in order to make sure his obstruction would be successful.”

Stone has denied wrongdoing and consistently criticized the case against him as politically motivated.  He did not take the stand during his trial and his lawyers did not call any witnesses in his defense.

Witnesses in the case testified that Trump’s campaign viewed Stone as an “access point” to the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks, which was in possession of more than 19,000 emails hacked from the servers of the Democratic National Committee and tried to use him to get advance word about hacked emails damaging to Hillary Clinton.

Prosecutors charged that Stone lied to Congress about his conversations about WikiLeaks with New York radio host Randy Credico — who had scored an interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016 — and conservative writer and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi.

"Does the Roger Stone fight hurt the Justice Department’s credibility?" PBS NewsHour 2/12/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Outrage over the Justice Department's new, shorter sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, an ally of President Trump, bubbled over on Wednesday on Capitol Hill, where congressional critics of the president say he unfairly interfered to help a friend.  Are the Justice Department's moves justified?  Yamiche Alcindor talks with two former Justice Department officials, Mary McCord and James Trusty.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Trump's Personal Attorney, William Barr

Attorney General William Barr behavior proves he is actually Trump's personal attorney and NOT the attorney of the American people.

Also, he is a believer in the Unitary Executive (aka and elected President CAN do anything he/she wants), and includes 2 current Supreme Court Justices.

"Barr defends his handling of Mueller report, despite criticism from special counsel" PBS NewsHour 5/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Attorney General William Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday to explain his handling of the Mueller report.  While Barr defended his actions, Democrats zeroed in on a newly discovered letter from Mueller criticizing Barr's summary of the report's “principal conclusions.”  Meanwhile, Barr said he would not attend a planned House hearing Thursday.  Judy Woodruff reports.

"How Congress and the White House reacted to Barr’s testimony" PBS NewsHour 5/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It was a contentious day on Capitol Hill as Attorney General William Barr appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss his handling of the Mueller report.  Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to analyze Barr’s testimony, including his explanation of why he determined President Trump hadn’t committed obstruction of justice.

"Defending Barr, Rep. Collins calls House Democrats’ demands a partisan ‘stunt’" PBS NewsHour 5/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia is ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, which planned to question Attorney General William Barr on Thursday.  Judy Woodruff talks to Collins about Barr’s late-breaking decision not to attend the hearing, why Collins believes that Democrats are engaging in a partisan “stunt” over the Mueller report and what questions he would ask of the attorney general.

"Why Rep. Lieu thinks Attorney General Barr should resign" PBS NewsHour 5/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When reports emerged Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller had sent Attorney General William Barr a letter expressing concern over Barr’s characterization of the Mueller report’s conclusions, several Democrats called for Barr to resign.  Among them was California Rep. Ted Lieu, who joins Judy Woodruff to discuss that and his reaction to Barr's decision not to attend a House hearing Thursday.

"On Mueller report, has Attorney General Barr been ‘forthcoming’ or ‘lawless?’" PBS NewsHour 5/2/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After Attorney General William Barr failed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee for a scheduled hearing on the Mueller report, House Democrats threatened to hold him in contempt.  Meanwhile, Republicans argue Mueller’s investigation was biased against President Trump.  Amna Nawaz talks to former Justice Department official David Rivkin and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general.

"Can Democrats force the DOJ to hand over the Mueller report?" PBS NewsHour 5/5/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee’s deadline for the Justice Department to turn over special counsel Mueller's full report, questions remain over whether the time limit can be enforced.  The deadline comes as Democrats threaten Attorney General Barr with contempt over his refusal to testify before the committee.  Wall Street Journal reporter Sadie Gurman joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.

TRUMP'S LAWYER - Barr vs Congress

More and more Barr is behaving like he is Trump's personal lawyer, instead of the Attorney General for the American people.  We now know exactly why Trump appointed Barr.

"Barr’s congressional appearance suggests parties are on a ‘collision course’ over Mueller" PBS NewsHour 4/9/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Attorney General William Barr appeared on Capitol Hill Tuesday to discuss his agency budget.  With prompting from House Democrats, he also talked about when Congress and the public will see the Mueller report and how much of it Barr will have redacted.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff with that update, plus fallout from the departure of DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and immigration policy.

THE MUELLER REPORT - Mueller Team Questions Barr Summary

Trump appoints Barr who wrote him a letter saying a sitting President cannot be charged with obstruction of justice BEFORE being appointed, and we should not question that Barr is biased?  Not hardly.

#ReleaseTheFullMullerReport

"Some of Mueller team reportedly unhappy with Barr conclusions on their work" PBS NewsHour 4/4/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team are reportedly frustrated by Attorney General William Barr's conclusions from the nearly 400-page report.  The Washington Post’s Rosalind Helderman and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss that story, questions about certain White House officials' security clearances, and the effort to force release of the President's taxes.

AMERICAN POLITICS - The Mueller Report

#ReleaseTheFullMullerReport the American people need to know the details if we are to have any confidence in our federal government.  If ANYTHING remains hidden/redacted there will be suspicion that the Trump Administration is hiding something.  Like why did a Trump appointee decide there was no obstruction of justice?  Also, reminder that this investigation was about Russia, not Trump.

"How Congress could respond to the Mueller report" PBS NewsHour 3/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A nearly two-year investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election “does not exonerate” President Trump, Attorney General William Barr said in a summary of the Mueller report on Sunday, as Democrats consider whether there is enough evidence to impeach the President.  NewsHour politics correspondent Lisa Desjardins joins Hari Sreenivasan for a look at what Congress may do next.

"Republicans ‘very excited’ after release of Mueller summary" PBS NewsHour 3/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Republican establishment on Sunday felt a sense of vindication following the release of a Justice Department summary on the Mueller report.  NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor reports.  She joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss reactions from both sides of the political aisle.

"How much of the Mueller report should be made public?" PBS NewsHour 3/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find evidence that President Trump conspired with Russia during the 2016 Presidential campaign, according to a summary released by the Justice Department on Sunday.  Bob Bauer, a professor at NYU's School of Law and former White House counsel to President Obama, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how much of the full report should be made public.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Whitaker Testimony

"Frustration erupts on both sides at Whitaker’s House testimony" PBS NewsHour 2/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker insisted Friday he hasn’t “interfered in any way” in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.  His much-anticipated testimony came before a contentious hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, now led by Democrats.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - Nominee for U.S. Attorney General

The question, is William Barr really a Trump stooge?

"William Barr Has a Long History of Abusing Civil Rights and Liberties in the Name of ‘National Security’" by Manar Waheed and Brian Tashman, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 1/14/2019

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on William Barr’s nomination to be the next attorney general of the United States, offering senators an opportunity to scrutinize his record and views.

Such scrutiny is especially crucial in the Trump era.  As we’ve seen throughout his time in office, from imposing the Muslim ban to the recent shutdown fight over border wall funding, President Trump has tried to use “national security” as a pretext to justify discriminatory or otherwise illegal policies.

That’s why his nomination of William Barr should concern everyone — because Barr has a long record of doing the same thing during the George H.W. Bush administration.  If confirmed to be Trump’s attorney general, Barr could enable the President to act on many of his worst instincts.

Defending discriminatory profiling

In the lead up to the Persian Gulf War, the FBI questioned hundreds of Arab-Americans.  It claimed these interviews were to solicit information about terrorism.  Barr, who served as deputy attorney general at the time, defended the FBI’s actions, insisting that they were needed “to solicit information about potential terrorist activity and to request the future assistance of these individuals.”

Community activists said that the FBI was singling them out and questioning their loyalty because of their identity.  Many of the people who were questioned said that they were interrogated about their political views and travel plans and if they personally knew terrorists — based not on actual evidence, but on national origin.  As an official charged with upholding the law, Barr should know not only are such practices offensive, ineffective, and a waste of limited resources, but they also undermine the very constitutional rights he swore to protect.

Supporting secret military trials

And Barr’s history doesn’t stop there.

Following the 1988 Lockerbie Bombings, Barr floated the idea of the President convening secret military tribunals to try people accused of involvement with suspected terrorist activities.  Barr revived the idea of secret military trials after the 9/11 attacks and testified in support of President George W. Bush’s decision to order them without congressional authorization.

Barr told the Senate that the President has the power to order such trials as long as he cites “national defense” interests.  Barr said that “no war need be declared for this power to come into being,” and that there is “no geographical limit” for the President to exercise such powers.  Anyone declared a foreign adversary, he said, “is not entitled to constitutional protections.”

More recently, Barr’s belief that the President has virtually unchecked security powers is also seen in his defense of the first version of Trump’s Muslim ban.

Such beliefs are in keeping with his sweeping views of executive power.  Indeed, Barr has said that “the real threat to domestic liberties is the artificial restriction of our powers of national defense by gratuitously expanding constitutional guarantees beyond their intended office.”

Endorsing detention and denying rights

Barr’s nomination should trouble anyone worried about executive overreach, especially as Trump is trying to go beyond his authority to ban asylum-seekers and expand detention, including the separation of parents from their children.

During the George H.W. Bush-era, Barr endorsed the administration’s use of the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay to detain Haitians seeking asylum in the U.S., denying them access to legal advice during their asylum proceedings.  A federal judge rebuked the government for indefinitely detaining the Haitians and denying them access to legal counsel.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has announced that it will force asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims for protection are processed.  And right now, the President is threatening to formally declare a national emergency in order to build his border wall without congressional approval or appropriations.

As Trump leads attacks on civil liberties and the rule of law, often by making false claims about national security, senators must ask Barr about his troubling record and make sure that he will not become a rubber stamp for the President’s unlawful actions.

"Barr pledges to protect Mueller probe from partisanship and ‘personal interests’" PBS NewsHour 1/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In his confirmation hearing, William Barr wasted no time declaring independence from the President who nominated him.  President Trump's pick for attorney general vowed not to fire -- without just cause -- special counsel Robert Mueller, nor interfere with the probe into Russian election meddling.  Yamiche Alcindor reports.

"Klobuchar ‘very concerned’ about Barr’s independence in light of Mueller memo" PBS NewsHour 1/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) said she has serious concerns about Attorney General nominee William Barr’s stances on the Mueller investigation, but that it was positive to hear him say he would let the probe run its course.  The senator joins Judy Woodruff to discuss Barr’s answers on obstruction of justice, voting rights, his rhetoric on immigration and more from Tuesday’s hearing.

"Barr’s Mueller probe memo shouldn’t be disqualifying, former deputy says" PBS NewsHour 1/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lots of lawyers have thoughts about the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference, said former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, and the fact that Attorney General nominee William Barr shared his thoughts isn’t “really unusual.”  Terwilliger joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the confirmation hearing, including immigration issues wrapped up in the government shutdown fight.

TRUMP OBSTRUCTION - Mueller Probe

"What the acting attorney general thinks of the Mueller probe" PBS NewsHour 11/8/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What does the departure of Attorney General Jeff Sessions mean for the Mueller investigation?  Matt Whitaker, the acting attorney general, was formerly Sessions’ chief of staff, but before joining the Justice Department, he was openly critical of the Mueller probe he now oversees.  William Brangham speaks with Devlin Barrett,who covers the Justice Department for The Washington Post.

"What Acting AG Whitaker’s record says about how he might handle the Mueller probe" by Gretchen Frazee, PBS NewsHour 11/8/2018

Excerpt

In his first public statement as acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker said he was “committed to leading a fair department with the highest ethical standards.”

But Whitaker, who was chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions before President Donald Trump picked him Wednesday to replace Sessions, has worked as a conservative activist in recent years, raising questions about whether he can lead a department overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney, is a well-known figure in conservative legal circles in Washington, D.C.

Prior to joining the Justice Department as Sessions’ chief of staff, Whitaker founded a conservative judicial watchdog group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, that called for investigations into Hillary Clinton, former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Florida) and into accusations that the Democratic National Committee was working with the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election.

During the 2016 election, Whitaker, who ran as a Republican for the U.S. Senate in Iowa in 2014, called for a special counsel to be named to investigate Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.

He has also repeatedly criticized Mueller’s Russia investigation, which the Justice Department oversees, both in appearances as a CNN commentator and on Twitter.  Those attacks on the Mueller probe, in particular, are drawing fresh scrutiny now as Washington waits to see how Whitaker will approach the investigation in his new role.

Whitaker’s record on the Mueller investigation

In an op-ed published last year by CNN, Whitaker warned Mueller would be crossing a “red line” if his investigation looked into the finances of the Trump family.

“If he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel’s investigation was a mere witch hunt,” Whitaker wrote.

During an appearance on CNN last year, Whitaker suggested that whoever replaced Sessions would not need to fire Mueller but could reduce his budget “so low that his investigations grinds to almost a halt.”

In August 2017, Whitaker retweeted an article that called Mueller’s team a “lynch mob.”

Whitaker warned Mueller would be crossing a ‘red line’ if his investigation looked into the Trump family’s finances

The New York Times reported in September that the Trump administration was prepared to name Whitaker as the No. 2 at the Justice Department should Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein resign.  Rosenstein kept his job after a flurry of speculation that he would be fired following a New York Times report that suggested Rosenstein had raised concerns about Trump.

Rosenstein had been overseeing the Russia investigation after Sessions recused himself.  But a Justice Department spokesperson said Wednesday that Whitaker is now “in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice,” which presumably would include the Russia probe.

Progressive activists denounced Whitaker as a political operative.

“This is somebody who has already been out there, who has opined about the scope of the investigation, who is a political appointee,” Marge Baker, the executive vice president of People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, said in an interview.  “It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious as a threat to democracy.”

Whitaker’s legal and political career

Whitaker has long been involved in Republican Party politics.

Whitaker received a law degree from the University of Iowa and then worked in private practice before being appointed in 2004 by then-President George W. Bush to serve as U.S. attorney for the Southern district of Iowa.  Whitaker held the position until 2009.

As U.S. attorney, he prosecuted national security, immigration, income tax and firearm cases.  Few of those cases were high profile.  In 2008, he was part of a nationwide effort by the Justice Department to crackdown on fraud in the H1-B visa program for high-skilled immigrant workers.

Whitaker, who has said he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, grabbed headlines when in 2007 when he prosecuted an openly gay Democratic state senator in Iowa for alleged extortion.  The senator was found not guilty, and Whitaker was criticized for running a politically motivated case.

After leaving the office of U.S. attorney in 2009, Whitaker, along with Chris Hagenow and Bill Gustoff, founded the law firm Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP.  The firm’s name was changed to Hagenow & Gustoff when Whitaker left in September of last year to become Sessions’ chief of staff at the Justice Department.

People who know Whitaker say he deserves an opportunity to prove himself

Whitaker’s private legal career largely focused on white collar litigation.  People who have known Whitaker for decades said he deserves an opportunity to prove himself.

Gustoff said he, Whitaker and Hagenow founded their law firm with common conservative beliefs and the goal of serving their faith, families and Iowans rather than solely to make money.

“Our politics plays into our law and our law plays into our politics,” Gustoff said in an interview.

Others praised Whitaker’s integrity and argued he wouldn’t let his personal beliefs cloud his judgment.

“Regardless of what his positions are, he has a job to do, and he will do that within the frame of the law,” said Scott Raecker, the executive director of Drake University’s center focusing on leadership ethics and civility and a former Iowa state representative.

Still, Whitaker has made his strong conservative viewpoint and support for the Republican Party clear.  Whitaker was the co-chair of Raecker’s 2010 re-election campaign for the state legislature, and co-chaired former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s 2012 presidential campaign in Iowa.  He ran for Iowa state treasurer in 2002, years before making his failed 2014 U.S. Senate.

During a 2014 debate when Whitaker was running for U.S. Senate, he said appointed judges should have a “biblical view of justice.”  If they had a secular worldview, he said that would make him “very concerned about how they judge.”

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION - Latest Indictments

As Trump shakes in fear, rants and raves......

"What the latest Russia probe indictments show for the first time" PBS NewsHour 7/13/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While President Trump condemned the Russia probe as a "rigged witch hunt," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the indictment of 12 Russian military officers for conspiring to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election.  The charges come three days before Trump is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Judy Woodruff talks with former FBI agent Asha Rangappa.

IMMIGRATION - U.S. vs. California

Personal message to Trump from a Californian.... UP YOURS!

"Suing California, Sessions vows to ‘use every power’ to stop state laws on immigration enforcement" PBS NewsHour 3/7/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Attorney General Jeff Sessions accused the state of California on Wednesday of "using every power it has and some it doesn't to frustrate federal law enforcement" on the issue of immigration.  The Justice Department is suing the state for three laws on interaction with federal immigration officials, including requiring businesses to alert workers of impending raids.  William Brangham reports.

"Gov. Jerry Brown: Sessions ‘sowing discord’ instead of proposing immigration reform" PBS NewsHour 3/7/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  California Gov. Jerry Brown says the Trump administration's lawsuit against the state over immigration is a political stunt, and called Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ claim that California is protecting criminals a lie.  Brown and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra join Judy Woodruff to share their reactions to the Justice Department’s case against California.

TRUMP AGENDA - Slowly Kill DACA

"DACA sits in limbo as symbolic deadline passes" PBS NewsHour 3/5/2018

Trump #NotMyPresident  Punish people (who were at the time) children for parent's mistake.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Last fall, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the DACA program would end by March 5 unless Congress acted.  But that day has come and Congress has not acted, despite efforts to strike a deal that was ultimately rejected by President Trump.  Lisa Desjardins reports on what’s at stake for the “Dreamers.”

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/5/2018

"Shields and Brooks on Russia revelations, Trump-Bannon rift" PBS NewsHour 1/5/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including new revelations in the Russia investigation, the war of words between President Donald Trump and former White House adviser Steve Bannon, and what former Vice President Joe Biden told Woodruff earlier this week about the future of the Democratic Party.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Next to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, David, the lead of the program tonight is what I guess a lot of people in Washington are reading and talking about right now, are these Russia revelations, what the President did or didn’t do in trying to pressure the Attorney General to stay involved or not in this investigation.

Then other stories keep coming out.  We talked about it a few minutes ago in the program, but are we really learning more about what President Trump did?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, we knew that he really wanted to squash this investigation, but I think what we’re learning is a lot of the details, a lot of the efforts that he made, the letter he wanted to write, his attitude toward government.

To me, the most astonishing quote of the whole deal is he saying, “Where is my Roy Cohn?”  And Roy Cohn was Joe McCarthy’s henchman, more or less.  And so he’s basically — and a mentor to Donald Trump, it should be said, later in life.

And so he thinks government is sort of a family mafia business, and he can shut it down, and loyalty to the Don is the primary value here.

To me, that was just a mind-boggling quote, because most people consider Roy Cohn and Roy Cohn's role with Joe McCarthy as a shameful moment in American history, not something you want to emulate.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Mark, are we learning more here?  I mean, the stories are coming almost by the bushel full, and every one of them has a little bit more information about what happened.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Yes.

Well, we’re certainly learning — and I’m trying to separate the stories right now, but we’re learning the President was deeply involved in trying to divert attention on that return flight from his European trip in July, you know, that he was — that this is a matter of personal urgency to him, and which just sets off alarms.

I mean, why?  What is it?  I don’t think there is — we’re anywhere near a smoking pistol or anything of the sort on him and Russia, but there’s no question of his hypersensitivity, concern, involvement and unseemly involvement in trying to divert attention and to send the attorney general out as his personal attorney.

I mean, he really views the Attorney General of the United States not at the Department of Justice, but as a personal attorney, and is somewhat upset that he doesn’t have the same relationship with Jeff Sessions that he perceives that John Kennedy had with Robert Kennedy, who was his brother and his campaign manager.

ATTORNEY GENERAL - Duty to Protect a President, NO

Regarding Donald Trump's apparent belief that the Attorney General should protect the President:  No.

pic.twitter.com/0EpgHRENQW

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) December 29, 2017

TRUMP AGENDA - Sessions' Black Government

aka "Anti-Protection, Anti-Obama, Black Government" 😡

"Jeff Sessions is dramatically reshaping Justice Department policy" PBS NewsHour 8/24/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Behind the scenes, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been making a series of significant and controversial changes.  Lisa Desjardins reports on how Sessions has been one of the key forces executing the President's agenda and reversing the Obama legacy.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - Jeff Sessions & Russia Investigation

Reminder:  In Trump World he does not have to follow laws or rules, and all must bow-down and be loyal (aka never criticize, never disagree).

Also, Trump and Republicans are still living in 2016 and fixated on Hillary Clinton.  As if they didn't win. 😒

"Under attack from the President, Attorney General Sessions still advancing conservative agenda" PBS NewsHour 7/25/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's escalating criticism of Jeff Sessions over his rescual from the Russia investigation has exposed a rare public rift between a President and his attorney general, leading some to believe that Sessions may be forced out.  How did we get here, and how are fellow Republicans responding?  John Yang and Sari Horwitz of The Washington Post join Jeffery Brown to discuss.

"Schiff: Trump 'wants to appoint a more malleable attorney general' for Russia investigation" PBS NewsHour 7/25/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Jared Kushner faced another round of questions about his contacts with Russian officials during and after the Trump campaign.  William Brangham speaks with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) one of the lawmakers who questioned Kushner in the closed session, about whether Kushner's answers were satisfactory and the possibility of Attorney General Jeff Sessions being forced to resign.

"Rep. Stewart: Kushner testimony 'didn't have much to add' to Russia story" PBS NewsHour 7/25/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner met privately with the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, answering more questions on Capitol Hill about his interactions with Russian officials during the campaign and beyond.  William Brangham speaks with Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) a member of the committee, about what questions he had going into the meeting with Kushner.

SESSIONS - Spin and Obfuscation

"What former Justice officials heard in Sessions' testimony" PBS NewsHour 6/13/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  From dealings with former FBI Director James Comey to the Attorney General's recusal from the Russia probe, Judy Woodruff gets analysis from George Terwilliger, Walter Dellinger, and Carrie Cordero, three former Justice Department officials with extensive experience in government and the law.

TRUMP AGENDA - Hurricane Comey

The question, has Trump started the long march to a Nixon ending?

"White House claims Comey's firing was due to handling of Clinton email case" PBS NewsHour 5/9/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In an abrupt and stunning development, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey Tuesday, after receiving recommendations from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Judy Woodruff explores what we know so far with John Yang and gets reaction from John Dean, former White House counsel for President Nixon.

"Rep. Swalwell: Comey firing amid Russia probe 'disturbing for our democracy'" PBS NewsHour 5/9/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif), joins Judy Woodruff to discuss his concerns about the Trump administration's firing of FBI James Comey and its potential consequences for the investigations into possible connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election.

"Comey's firing 'perhaps inevitable' after Clinton email controversy, says Sen. Collins" PBS NewsHour 5/9/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what may have led to the firing of FBI Director James Comey, plus how the Senate will proceed on health care reform in the wake of the House passing a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare and the senator's own concerns about the current bill.

"How does the Comey sacking affect work at the FBI?" PBS NewsHour 5/9/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Before the firing of FBI Director James Comey, morale among agents had already taken a beating.  How does this surprise turn affect the bureau and its work going forward?  Judy Woodruff learns more from Matt Apuzzo of The New York Times about reports that Comey wanted more resources to expand the Russia investigation and more.

"Kaine: Comey firing 'clear attempt' to block Russia probe" PBS NewsHour 5/10/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va), has called the firing of James Comey outrageous.  He joins Judy Woodruff to discuss his reaction and what he sees as a thread running back to the investigation into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia and its role in the election.

"Does the White House's rationale for firing Comey add up?" PBS NewsHour 5/10/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Judy Woodruff gets two perspectives on President Trump's firing of James Comey and what it means for his relationship with the FBI from Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution and former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger.

"Comey firing unleashes firestorm from Capitol Hill" PBS NewsHour 5/10/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's stunning move to fire FBI Director James Comey has left a wake of questions and condemnations from across the political spectrum.  William Brangham recaps the reactions and the events leading up to the firing, then John Yang and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest from Capitol Hill and the White House.

"How the White House's explanation of Comey firing has changed" PBS NewsHour 5/11/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As President Trump lambasted in an interview the man he had fired two days ago, the acting FBI director at a Senate hearing painted a very different picture of James Comey.  Meanwhile, the President's explanation seemed to contradict what White House officials have been saying.  William Brangham recaps the conflicting statements and Judy Woodruff gets an update from Lisa Desjardins and John Yang.

"Panetta: Comey firing undermines investigation credibility" PBS NewsHour 5/11/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former CIA Director Leon Panetta joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what President Trump's decision to fire former Director James Comey means for the investigation into Russian election meddling, and the White House's challenge of dealing with contradictory explanations.

"Trump keeps Comey battle alive by warning him not to talk" PBS NewsHour 5/12/2017

aka "Trump Shoots Himself in the Foot"

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The firing of former FBI Director James Comey continues to spark controversy and questions.  President Trump tweeted Friday that “Comey had better hope there are no tapes of our conversations,” and Press Secretary Sean Spicer refused to answer press questions about whether there are recording devices in the White House.  Lisa Desjardins reports and John Yang joins Judy Woodruff.

TRUMP AGENDA - Sessions on Drugs

"Sessions' Dubious Drug Claims" by Vanessa Schipani, FactCheck.org 3/31/2017

In an address to law enforcement, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions made two dubious claims about marijuana and opioids:

• Sessions said marijuana is “only slightly less awful” than heroin, an illicit opioid.  Experts says heroin is three times more harmful than marijuana based on a rating scale that takes into account lethal overdoses, dependence potential, economic harm and other factors.
• He said he is “astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana.”  While medical marijuana may not “solve” the epidemic, research suggests legalization may curb opioid overdoses, which have surged in recent years.

Sessions made his claims on March 15 during an address to law enforcement at the Justice Department.  He first discussed trends in violent crime, correctly noting that while “crime rates in our country remain near historic lows,” FBI statistics show that “the violent crime rate in the U.S. increased by more than 3 percent” between 2014 and 2015.

Sessions also said that it's his “fear” that the increase in violent crime is “the start of a dangerous new trend.”  Later on during his speech, he added that to “turn back this rising tide of violent crime, we need to confront the heroin and opioid crisis in our nation.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 52,404 people died of drug overdoses in 2015, 63.1 percent of which involved an opioid.  This includes illicit opioids, such as heroin, and prescription opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone.

The 2015 numbers are part of a larger trend.  Opioid-related deaths have gone from around 3 per 100,000 people in 2000 to over 10 per 100,000 people in 2015, according to the CDC.

At the same time that opioid-related deaths have increased, the CDC also notes, “Sales of prescription opioids in the U.S. nearly quadrupled from 1999 to 2014, but there has not been an overall change in the amount of pain Americans report.”

So Sessions was on the mark when he said that “every three weeks, we are losing as many American lives to drug overdoses as we lost in the 9/11 attacks.”  About 3,023 people die every three weeks of drug overdoses, while 2,977 died in the 9/11 attacks.  But he made other claims about drugs that were questionable:

Sessions, March 15:  I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store.  And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana – so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that's only slightly less awful.  Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs will destroy your life.  In the '80s and '90s, we saw how campaigns stressing prevention brought down drug use and addiction.  We can do this again.

We'll explain why Sessions' claim that marijuana is “only slightly less awful” than heroin contradicts expert opinion.  We'll also lay out evidence that suggests medical marijuana may help curb the opioid epidemic, which includes heroin.

Marijuana Versus Heroin

Though Sessions' claim that marijuana is “only slightly less awful” than heroin is subjective, it runs counter to the opinion of experts.

In a study published in The Lancet in November 2010, David Nutt, a professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, and other members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, a group of drug experts in the U.K., ranked 20 drugs based on 16 criteria.

The criteria took into consideration both the harm the drugs do to users and to society, including lethal overdose potential, abuse and addiction potential, damage to physical and mental health, economic cost, link to crime, environmental damage, and family dysfunction.  The researchers also considered the extent to which a drug is used in the U.K.

On a scale of 1 to 100, marijuana ranked eighth most harmful with a score of 20.  Heroin came in second place with a rating of 55.  Alcohol was the most harmful drug, according to the experts, with a harm rating of 72, while mushrooms ranked last with a score of 6.  A large chunk of alcohol's overall score came from harm it did to society, although alcohol also ranked fourth in terms of the harm it does to users.  Heroin, on the other hand, was the second most harmful drug to users and the third most harmful to society.

To be clear, the researchers ranked drugs for the U.K. in particular.  Since no ranking of this sort has been done for the U.S., we reached out to Nutt by email to ask him if the U.K. rankings could translate to the United States.  He said largely yes, but “if anything with the legalization of medical [marijuana] in the USA, cannabis would be even lower in harm than in our ratings.”  He added, “Heroin would stay about the same.”

When we asked why, he told us that marijuana legalization eliminates “black market harms,” which means that there would be less harm related to crime, for example.  Marijuana is currently illegal in the United Kingdom.  Heroin, on the other hand, would likely have a similar rating because the U.K. is also currently experiencing a heroin epidemic, he said.

However, some researchers, including Jonathan P. Caulkins, a professor of public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, have argued that ranking drugs under a single measure obscures the nuance behind how and why certain drugs are harmful.

So let's go over a few specifics.

First off, no one has ever died of a marijuana overdose, but nearly 13,000 people died of heroin overdose in the U.S. in 2015 alone.  According to the National Cancer Institute, the receptors in the brain activated by marijuana aren't located in the brainstem regions that control respiration, while those activated by heroin and other opioids are.  This means that “lethal overdoses” from marijuana don't occur, says the NCI.

Second, heroin is highly addictive, whereas only about 1 in 10 marijuana users become addicted, according to the CDC.  Withdrawal symptoms of heroin include muscle and bone pain, sleep problems, diarrhea, vomiting, cold flashes and uncontrollable leg movements.  Withdrawal symptoms of marijuana include grouchiness, sleep problems, decreased appetite and anxiety.  In other words, marijuana withdrawal “symptoms appear to be mild compared with withdrawal symptoms associated with opiates,” adds the NCI.

Intravenous heroin use, which is the most common means of taking the drug, can also put people at risk for HIV, hepatitis C and other infections.  Marijuana is typically smoked, but there isn't conclusive evidence to suggest that it can cause lung cancer, though there is some association with testicular cancer.  However, studies have shown that smoking marijuana can impact heart rate and blood pressure, which means it may increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, says the CDC.

Lastly, it's important to note that marijuana and heroin are both classified as Schedule 1 drugs by the Drug Enforcement Administration.  This means the DEA sees them “as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”  This is also despite the fact that Chuck Rosenberg, the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency in 2015, has said that “heroin is clearly more dangerous than marijuana.”

In short, marijuana isn't harmless, but experts agree it's considerably less harmful than heroin.

Marijuana and Opioids

Currently, 28 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana in some form, while eight states and D.C. have legalized marijuana for recreational use.

We reached out to the Justice Department to ask if Sessions meant medical or recreational marijuana when he said he is “astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana.”  But we have yet to receive a response.  We'll update this article, if we do.

There's no research suggesting legalizing recreational marijuana will “solve” the heroin crisis, but there is evidence backing the idea that medical marijuana may help curb the opioid epidemic more broadly.

For example, Marcus A. Bachhuber, now a doctor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, and others found that states with medical marijuana laws had an almost 25 percent lower annual rate of opioid overdose deaths on average between 1999 and 2010 than states without such laws.  Three states had medical marijuana laws prior to 1999 and 10 additional states implemented laws during the course of the study.  The group looked at all 50 states.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2014, the study also found that the association between medical marijuana legalization and reductions in opioid overdose deaths generally improved over time.  There was a little less than a 20 percent reduction in deaths after the first year of the medical marijuana law's implementation and a more than 33 percent reduction after six years of implementation, the study found.

And when the researchers conducted additional analyses that included heroin overdose deaths, they got similar results — a 23 percent lower annual rate of deaths.

Another study published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence in February 2017 found medical marijuana legalization was associated with a 23 percent reduction in hospitalizations for opioid-related dependence or abuse and a 13 percent reduction in hospitalizations for opioid-related overdoses between 1997 and 2014, compared with states that hadn't legalized marijuana.

Conducted by Yuyan Shi, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of California, San Diego, the study did conclude that it's “premature to advocate medical marijuana legalization as a strategy to curb” opioid abuse and overdose.  Shi argued this last point, in part, because the causal mechanisms to explain the relationship between opioid and marijuana use have yet to be fully fleshed out.

However, a study by Ashley C. Bradford and W. David Bradford, a master's student and a professor of public policy, respectively, at the University of Georgia, provides evidence for one causal explanation — people may be swapping opioids for marijuana.

Published in Health Affairs in July 2016, the study investigated whether medical marijuana laws affected “prescribing patterns” between 2010 and 2013 in “Medicare Part D for traditional (FDA-approved) drugs that treat conditions marijuana itself might treat.”  Part D is the prescription drug program for Medicare, which is available to individuals 65 and older and certain younger individuals with disabilities.  State medical marijuana legislation, which the researchers reviewed, also notes specific conditions that medical marijuana might be able to treat.

Generally, the pair found that “prescription drugs for which marijuana could serve as a clinical alternative” fell significantly between 2010 and 2013 once a medical marijuana law was implemented.  This was particularly the case for pain medications, including opioids, which dropped by 1,826 daily doses filled annually by doctors after medical marijuana laws were implemented.

The researchers “haven't yet analyzed how many of those doses were opioid drugs versus other painkillers, but David Bradford suspects it's a large chunk,” reported Science in November 2016.  “It's suggestive evidence that medical marijuana might help divert people away from the path where they would start using [an opioid drug], and of course if they don't start, they're not on that path to misuse and abuse and potentially death,” he told Science.

It's also important to note that the study estimated that, nationally, the Medicare program and its enrollees spent over $515 million less between 2010 and 2013 “as a result of changed prescribing behaviors induced by seventeen states and the District of Columbia — the jurisdictions that had legalized medical marijuana by then.”

One limitation of the study is that it looks at primarily older individuals, which may not be representative of marijuana and opioid users as a whole.  However, the researchers also told Science that they're in the process of publishing a follow-up study that looks at medical marijuana legislation's effect on prescription patterns for Medicaid recipients.

Younger individuals are eligible for Medicaid, including those who are low-income or disabled.  So far, the drop in pain medication prescriptions appears to be even more significant than that for Medicare, Bradford told Science.

An additional study backs up the Bradford study.

In June 2016, Daniel J. Clauw, the director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, and others published research that looked at patterns of prescription opioid and medical marijuana use in 244 individuals with chronic pain surveyed between 2013 and 2015.

Published in The Journal of Pain, the study found that marijuana use was associated with 64 percent less opioid use in patients with chronic pain.  The researchers also found marijuana use “was associated with better quality of life” in 45 percent of the individuals surveyed.

The CDC also states, “Although prescription opioids can help manage some types of pain, there is not enough evidence that opioids improve chronic pain, function, and quality of life.”  The CDC adds that “long-term use of opioid pain relievers for chronic pain can be associated with abuse and overdose, particularly at higher dosages.”

And there is still more research that supports the idea that medical marijuana may help curb the opioid epidemic.

While these studies primarily looked at prescription opioids — that is, not heroin — there's a relationship between prescription opioid use and heroin use.  According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 79.5 percent of “recent heroin initiates” previously used prescription opioids and 31.3 percent previously abused or were addicted to prescription opioids.

For this reason, the CDC says that past “misuse of prescription opioids is the strongest risk factor for starting heroin use.”  However, the CDC adds, “Increased availability, relatively low price (compared to prescription opioids), and high purity of heroin in the U.S. also have been identified as possible factors in the rising rate of heroin use.”  For example, the DEA confiscated less than 500 kilograms of heroin between 2000 and 2008 on the southwest border of the U.S., compared with 2,196 kilograms in 2013.

So while marijuana may not be the silver bullet for the heroin crisis, or the opioid epidemic more broadly, there is some evidence that medical marijuana may help.