All eyes on Biden’s choice for AG

Justice agency staffers seek shield from partisan battles

WASHINGTON — Since President Donald Trump took office, the Justice Department has been under sustained attack as he questioned the motives of the agency’s lawyers and investigators, who serve the country.

But under President-elect Joe Biden, some of the department’s former and current employees hope that his pick for attorney general will shield the agency from partisan battles and political concerns.

More than 40 current and former department employees shared with The New York Times who they thought should run the Justice Department. They all wanted someone who would stand up for the employees and protect them from undue political influence, something that they say Trump’s attorneys general have largely been unable or unwilling to do.

They said that restoring the department’s independence from the White House, repairing morale and engaging both racial justice advocates and law enforcement officials on matters of race and criminal justice were the biggest issues facing the incoming leader.

More than a dozen people said that they hoped Biden would nominate Sally Yates, the former deputy attorney general in the Obama administration who was fired by Trump for refusing to defend his executive order banning entry to the United States for those from Muslim-majority countries.

Because she had so recently served as a top official in the department, the current and former department employees said they believed Yates would be ready from the get-go to tackle the big national security threats facing the country. As a strong civil rights advocate under President Barack Obama, she would be able to revitalize racial justice work that had languished during the Trump administration, they said.

Two people made cases for Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., the departing Alabama senator who, as a U.S. attorney under the Clinton administration, prosecuted members of the Ku Klux Klan who had bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963, killing four Black girls.

One person said that he believed Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whose Supreme Court nomination Republicans blocked in 2016, would be ideal, citing his reputation for fairness.

Biden’s choice of attorney general has been complicated by the fact that his son, Hunter Biden, is under federal investigation for possible tax crimes, shifting some of the calculus over the pick. Among the questions the selection now raises is whether it is an asset or a liability for the attorney general to be known as a close friend when that person will need to handle such a sensitive matter.

The choice gained some urgency Saturday after Trump again attacked Attorney General William Barr, this time for not publicly disclosing the inquiry on Hunter Biden. Doing so, he contended, could have helped sway the election in his favor, and the public excoriation set off a fresh wave of speculation that he would fire Barr and replace him with a loyalist who department employees feared could inflict untold damage on the institution.

“Why didn’t Bill Barr reveal the truth to the public, before the Election, about Hunter Biden,” Trump said on Twitter, referring to the federal inquiry. Justice Department policies prohibit public discussion about cases that could influence the outcome of the election.

While Democratic administrations often prioritize the work of the civil rights division, the protests prompted by the death of George Floyd this spring have made such work an urgent priority, regardless of which party is in office, most interviewees said. To that end, they hoped for an attorney general who had the strong support of civil rights groups. But many acknowledged that for that to be consequential, on issues including complicated ones like policing, that person should be able to work with groups like the Fraternal Order of Police.

People were deeply divided over how the department should handle the prospect of investigating Trump or his inner circle. Some argued that Biden himself had no appetite for investigating and prosecuting the past and that the attorney general should take a similar approach. Others, mostly prosecutors, said the department must pursue criminal cases without fear or favor.

But those interviewed agreed on one thing: The merits of a case should determine whether the department chose to seek an indictment, and only someone who was seen as nonpartisan could credibly make and explain that sort of sensitive determination.