DOJ's Rachel Brand Was on Trump's Radar for Russia Probe, But Aide Resisted Inquiries: Mueller
In a footnote, the special counsel's office made the reason for President Trump's interest in Rachel Brand abundantly clear.
April 19, 2019 at 02:13 PM
5 minute read
In the early months of his presidency, at arguably the peak of his frustration with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, President Donald Trump wanted a question posed to the third-in-command at the Justice Department: Rachel Brand.
It was the summer of 2017, and Trump was feuding with Sessions, who had infuriated the president months earlier with his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, setting in motion Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's appointment of Robert Mueller III as special counsel.
Questions swirled over whether Trump would fire Sessions and Rosenstein. And there was speculation that Rosenstein's central role in firing FBI Director James Comey would require him, as a witness, to step away from overseeing the Russia investigation.
In July 2017, Trump turned to a top aide to pitch a question for Brand, a longtime Washington lawyer and former Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner who was then serving as the No. 3 official at the Justice Department. Trump reportedly asked staff secretary Rob Porter whether Brand was “on the team” and if she were interested in overseeing the Russia probe.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller III, a former Wilmer partner who left the firm to lead the Russia investigation, learned about Trump's remarks from Porter, who kept contemporaneous notes.
“Keep in touch with your friend,” Trump told Porter. Trump would follow up, asking later if Porter had reached out to Brand. He never did, according to the report, “because he was uncomfortable with the task.”
The episode was among several outlined in Mueller's report showing instances of Trump aides ignoring or otherwise resisting a request from the president that was directly related to Mueller's ongoing Russia investigation.
“In asking him to reach out to Brand, Porter understood the president to want to find someone to end the Russia investigation or fire the special counsel, although the president never said so explicitly,” Mueller's team wrote. “Porter did not contact Brand because he was sensitive to the implications of that action and did not want to be involved in a chain of events associated with an effort to end the investigation or fire the special counsel.”
In a footnote, the special counsel's office made the reason for Trump's interest in Brand abundantly clear: “Because of Sessions' recusal, if Rosenstein were no longer in his position, Brand would, by default, become the DOJ official in charge of supervising the special counsel's investigation, and if both Sessions and Rosenstein were removed, Brand would be next in line to become acting attorney general for all DOJ matters.”
Brand, of course, would never take charge of the Russia investigation.
In February 2018, less than a year after her confirmation as associate attorney general, she departed for a top in-house role at Walmart Inc. as head of global corporate governance. Brand had begun talks with Walmart in December 2017, according to an ethics disclosure she made to the Justice Department.
One of her former Wilmer colleagues, Jamie Gorelick, said at the time: “She didn't seek this out—they sought her out.” Gorelick described Brand's move as “something she could not turn down.”
Brand was not reached for comment Friday.
Porter stepped down as staff secretary in February 2018 amid allegations of spousal abuse. He reportedly denied as “outrageous” the claims made against him by his two former wives. Porter and Brand both graduated from Harvard Law School, but they did not attend the school at the same time. It was not immediately clear how the two know each other.
Porter was not reached for comment.
On Friday, Trump took aim at the notes and recollections of former aides who were featured in Mueller's report. “Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue,” Trump said in a tweet.
“Watch out for people that take so-called 'notes,' when the notes never existed until needed,” Trump said, describing some of the statements about him as “total bullshit.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readAmir Ali, MacArthur Justice Center Director, Confirmed to DC District Court
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readConservative Boutiques That Backed Trump Reap Their Rewards
Trending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
- 3Battle for Top Talent Accelerates Amid Profit and Demand Surge
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250