DC District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejects DOJ invocation of deliberative process exception to the Freedom of Information Act, as well as attorney client privilege, to shield post-decisional memorandum devoid of legal advice:

"In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Justice Department attorneys argued that the memo was part of the process of advising Barr on whether Trump should be prosecuted, but Jackson said the analysis consisted of a post hoc rationalization of a decision already made.

"'The review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,' wrote Jackson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

"Jackson linked Justice Department's effort to keep the memo secret to Barr's initial descriptions of Mueller's conclusions, declaring both efforts misleading.

"'Not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege,' she wrote. 'The agency's redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time.'

"Justice Department attorneys also argued that the memo is covered by attorney-client privilege, but Jackson said much of it didn't seem to contain legal advice or conclusions. 'The Court is not persuaded that the agency has met its burden to demonstrate that the memorandum was transmitted for the purpose of providing legal advice, as opposed to the strategic and policy advice that falls outside the scope of the privilege,' the judge wrote."

A copy of the court's opinion:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/show_publi…