Does the justice department work for the Trump campaign now? Barr thinks so

It was enough that last week, the US Department of Justice did something completely unheard of: it moved to dismiss the guilty plea of a cabinet level officer, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, for lying to the FBI. The department’s argument was so preposterous that within days, nearly 2,000 former department officials signed a letter in protest of William Barr’s “assault on the rule of law”.

Related: Welcome to William Barr's America, where the truth makes way for the president | Lloyd Green

A week before the motion to dismiss in the Flynn case, Trump had tweeted that a prosecution like Flynn’s “should never be allowed to happen … again”. The day that the motion was filed, Trump told reporters that the Obama administration officials had targeted Flynn to try to “take down a president”. In co-ordination, Trump campaign manager BradParscale issued a statement saying: “[T]he Obama-Biden officials responsible for these misdeeds must be held accountable.”

Immediately after the filing in the Flynn case, Barr went on national television and attacked the FBI, pointedly disparaging its 2016 investigation into Russian interference and letting it be known that FBI officials or ex-officials were under examination for prosecution: “[J]ust because something may even stink to high heaven and … appear to everyone to be bad we still have to apply the right standard and be convinced that there’s a violation of a criminal statute.”

Then on Wednesday, Barr’s press spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, upped the ante in the high-stakes effort to lend political support to Gen Flynn and to Trump’s partisan political interests. Kupec complained about an allegedly nefarious effort involving Joe Biden to “unmask” Flynn’s identity during the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

She said this to the Fox news correspondent Martha MacCallum: “Martha, what happened to candidate Trump and then President Trump was one of the greatest political injustices in American history and should never happen again.”

It is remarkable how quickly Flynn’s fate is put aside and the focus shifted to the president.

When has a justice department press person ever issued so nakedly political a statement?

Biden was among several people who asked that the intelligence committee to identify the unnamed American who had been recorded in a conversation with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, about Obama’s newly imposed sanctions in December 2016. It apparently doesn’t matter to the Barr justice department that the rules were scrupulously adhered to in this “unmasking”. It also doesn’t matter that such requests are permitted if the identity unmasked is necessary to understand the information, and that such requests are hardly unusual. The National Security Agency handles such unmasking requests in thousands of cases: 10,000 in 2019 and nearly 17,000 in 2018.

Kupec’s statement tracks perfectly with Mr Trump’s partisan campaign messaging and with the president’s efforts to present himself and his most loyal followers as victims of a conspiracy. The DoJ has now been let loose in search of nefarious activity by Biden, and in the hope it can cast his way a McCarthyite shadow of suspicion.

Barr, the attorney general, is by no means the first occupant of that office to do political work for or serve as a political ally of the president who appointed him. Indeed, Edmund Randolph, the first attorney general of the United States, was a close ally of George Washington, having served as the general’s chief of staff and personal secretary. During Randolph’s term, Washington relied on him for support on matters that went well beyond the formal duties of his office.

Other attorneys general have followed in Randolph’s footsteps, serving as close political allies of the president. Examples from the early years of the country include Andrew Jackson’s attorney general, Roger Taney, who worked hand-in-hand with Jackson to end funding for the Bank of the United States.

In the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt’s attorneys general regularly helped him in political battles. Some of those battles involved the justice department and some did not. Other close political allies of the president who appointed them include Robert Kennedy, who was appointed at 35 by his brother John, and widely criticized as unqualified for the job. President Reagan’s second attorney general, Edwin Meese, was a longtime friend of, and political operative for, Reagan.

But throughout American history, when presidents have appointed political cronies to be attorney general, they were looking for people only to help them pursue a policy agenda.

Nixon’s efforts to enlist John Mitchell in the Watergate cover-up and get one of Mitchell’s successors, Elliot Richardson, to fire the Watergate special prosecutor stand out as important, but rare, exceptions.

Other presidents have neither expected nor asked their attorneys general to use the vast investigatory and prosecutorial power of the justice department itself to intervene in criminal cases to help cronies, to buy the silence of those who might threaten him, or to discredit political adversaries. That is a new and dangerous ballgame.

Using the justice department in this way undermines the integrity and professionalism of the lawyers and prosecutors who work there. It turns law into an arena for gaining partisan advantage and settling political grudges.

Having gotten away with doing the same in his dealings with Ukraine, the president has an attorney general who is only too happy to go beyond merely politicizing the DoJ. He seems determined to turn it into a full-fledged arm of the Trump campaign.