Rep. Johnson Shows Trump’s Pattern of Abuse of Power in Judiciary: Political Interference & Threats to Prosecutorial Independence

Congressman: This is not what fair administration of justice looks like. Investigations must be opened based on facts, not political vendettas

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of the Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice: Political Interference and Threats to Prosecutorial Independence, Rep. Hank Johnson (GA-04) exposes a disturbing pattern of abuse of power within the Administration during his questioning of John W. Elias, trial attorney, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

Specifically, Mr. Elias testified that, over serious concerns and objections by career staff in the Division, the Department pursued investigations with extreme procedural irregularities against companies and industries to retaliate against them for political or personal reasons, and not based on legitimate concerns over antitrust violations.

The following exchange between Congressman Johnson and attorney Elias reveals that after the State of California announced in 2019 that it had reached an agreement with four automobile manufacturers on air quality standards that would be stricter than the rules the Trump Administration was preparing, AG Barr – at the behest of the president – launched a retaliatory antitrust investigation. This investigation had nothing to do with protecting Americans but more to do with attacking a state he didn't like and one that opposed the president's failure to prioritize creating a cleaner environment and reining in the burning of fossil fuels:

Watch here: https://youtu.be/qsLUkyXBQSc

Rep. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Zelinsky, Mr. Elias, you put duty over country, and you have come to testify today putting your job at risk, and I think the nation owes you both a debt of gratitude coming forward as whistleblowers. Mr. Elias, last summer, the State of California announced that it had reached an agreement with four large automobile manufacturers on air quality standards that would be stricter than the rules the Trump administration was preparing to adopt for the country. Correct?

Mr. Elias: Yes, that is correct.

Rep. Johnson: And when California announced that agreement, President Trump made clear he did not like it. Isn't that correct?

Mr. Elias: He did criticize the agreement on Twitter, yes.

Rep. Johnson: And then on August 20, 2019 – The New York Times reported he was quote "enraged by California's deal." Trump even apparently called a White House meeting to plot ways to retaliate — all because he resented the fact that California and the four auto makers would dare to undermine his loosening of air quality emission standards. So, the next day, on August 21, Trump went public: he threatened the four auto makers, saying these companies quote "will be out of business" if they didn't get in line. Then, the day after the tweets, President Trump's Justice Department followed through on that threat. On August 22, Assistant Attorney General Delrahim gave an instruction to your division to start an antitrust investigation immediately into those four automakers, is that correct?

Mr. Elias: That is when the instruction to open the investigation happened on August 22, yes.

Rep. Johnson: So, the President tweets out threats against the auto makers, and the next day the auto makers get hit with an antitrust investigation. That's what happened, isn't it?

Mr. Elias: And a point I'd like to underscore is normally for significant complicated matters, people put time and attention into assessing potential …

Rep. Johnson: But they didn't have any time to do that because the president made the order on August 21 and the investigation began on August 22.

Mr. Elias: There was very little time between those two events.

Rep. Johnson: Do you believe the Department commenced that investigation based on a good faith belief that they had committed a violation of the antitrust laws or not?

Mr. Elias: The career staff who examined it saw some very obvious inappropriate action. You really have to twist things to get around those. It did not appear to be in good faith, no.

Rep. Johnson: That investigation didn't have anything to do with protecting the American people from anticompetitive behavior, did it?

Mr. Elias: The career staff who reviewed it had some great concerns about opening it, especially with people who were charged with actually conducting the investigation. They wrote and documented their concerns with the legal underpinning of the case. If you are immune from eventual prosecution for something because you have a legal defense, you should be immune from investigation.

Rep. Johnson: So, the law was clear the state of California was immune.

Mr. Elias: So, the basis of my complaint was the state of California was not given enough time to properly go through and understand.

Rep. Johnson: I wish I could give you a chance to explain more, but the bottom line it was not a legitimate antitrust investigation, was it?

Mr. Elias: That is what my complaint alleges, yes.

Rep. Johnson: If it had been, the first step would have been for the Department to get with California officials and get the facts from those officials, but it never did even establish contact with California, did it before it instituted the investigation?

Mr. Elias: That stuff is permitted even before an investigation. You could have resolved things even before opening the investigation. But yeah, that's correct. To my knowledge they were never contacted.

Rep. Johnson: So, what we have here is a clear-cut case of the antitrust division (of the DOJ) being made to respond to a president's tweet the day before to begin an investigation that had no basis in law or in fact. Would you describe that an abuse of authority of the upper echelons of the Justice Department?

Mr. Elias: I did submit my complaint to the IG (Inspector General) on the grounds that events described here constitute an abuse of authority.

Rep. Johnson: Alright, with that I will yield back. Thank you.