It says that 29% of the Antitrust Division of the merger of the probes targeting the cannabis industry, citing Barr’s explanation for the continuation of the investigation in March 2019.
“Rejecting the analysis of the career staff, the Attorney General Barr ordered the Antitrust Division to issue the Second Request for the subpoenas,” Elias said, referring to the division, the more complete the fusion type of the probe. “The reason to make it centered, not on an antitrust analysis, but because he does not like the nature of their underlying activity. ”
Taken together, the accounts from Elias, and Mueller, the team’s lawyer, Aaron Zelinsky, who will also appear Wednesday to testify that long-time advisor Roger Stone had been “treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship with the President” — to tell a consistent story of significant policies of abuse through the Department of Justice. The two stories reinforce each other, despite coming from two separate Department of Justice teams supervised by the various political appointments.
Elias also suggests that several people in the division were aware of Barr’s anti-cannabis biases, and that, in many cases, mergers have been documented by the staff of the department, as it appears ” unlikely to raise significant competition concerns. ”
At a general meeting in September 2019, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, chief of the Antitrust Division, “has acknowledged that the investigations were motivated by the fact that the cannabis industry is unpopular” on the fifth floor, a reference to the Attorney General of Barr’s offices in the GM building, the headquarters, ” Elias wrote. “Personal dislike of the industry is not a good basis for an antitrust investigation. ”
Elias witness also stated that the Ministry of Justice has launched an anti-trust probe in August 2019 after President Donald Trump has tweeted his anger about a deal between automakers and California to comply with strict emissions standards, despite the Trumpet of the administration’s plans to roll back the rules.
“The day after the tweets, Antitrust Division of the political leadership has asked the staff to open an investigation in the day,” Elias wrote.
At a general meeting in September, Delrahim, “said that the staff was not rushed in of the initiators of the investigation,” Elias added. “That the representation was in conflict with the memory of a member of staff who has contributed to the opening of the protocol. ”
The memo initiation of this investigation has not included a recommendation from staff, ” has been generated by the Division of personnel policy, which does not proceed to the application of the law of surveys of this type “, and said that the staff “had not fully considered the public record,” he wrote.
In addition, Delrahim, has been conducting the investigation, even if “the enforcement staff asked for time to perform their own analysis and asked for a delay ranging manifesto with the investigation,” Elias said.
CNN Manu Raju and Marshall Cohen contributed to this report.