Fmr SDNY Attorney Berman Says in Newly Released Testimony Barr’s ‘Irregular and Unexplained Actions’ Pushing Him to Resign ‘Raised Serious Concerns’

Photo credit: Johannes Eisele, AFP via Getty Images.

Former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman explained to Congress the bizarre circumstances around his departure from the Southern District of New York, in which Attorney General Bill Barr abruptly announced Berman’s resignation on a Friday night even though he had already refused to voluntarily step down until his replacement was confirmed by the Senate.

That move by Barr prompted Berman to very publicly refuse to resign and led to a number of conflicting statements from the White House and Justice Department before Berman ultimately did step down a day later after he was assured that his office’s deputy would take over as interim U.S. Attorney. The very messy sequence of events prompted the House Judiciary Committee to schedule an interview with Berman to understand what happened.

Berman spoke to the Committee last week and on Monday the transcript was made public.

During his testimony before the Committee, Berman explained at length his disinterest in leaving his job and his private pushback against Barr’s attempts to lure him to leave the SDNY office with an appointment at Main Justice. But as part of the ground rules for the interview, Berman insisted he would not answer questions about why he thought Barr or President Donald Trump might have wanted him removed from the office.

In one key exchange with Judiciary Chair Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Berman offered his alarm over what he said were inexplicable efforts by the Attorney General to replace.

NADLER: Sir, what did you understand the Attorney General’s motivations to be in issuing that 9 p.m. press release stating that you were stepping down when you had very clearly told him that you were not resigning hours earlier?

BERMAN: I do not know what the Attorney General’s motives were, but the irregular and unexplained actions by the Attorney General raised serious concerns for me. The Attorney General offered me two important jobs in the administration and described me as tenacious and savvy and said I had done an excellent job as U.S. Attorney.

When pressed about his office’s potential legal pursuit of the president’s friends and associates as a possible reason for removing him, Berman repeatedly demurred to majority staff member, Sarah Istel.

ISTEL: You just said that, in addition to your concern about delay or disruption, the Attorney General’s actions raised serious concerns for me. Can you describe what those serious concerns were, please?

BERMAN: I decline to answer that question because it is outside of the parameters established for the interview.

ISTEL: Do you believe that you were removed because of your concerns about the office’s cases continuing unimpeded?

BERMAN: I decline to answer that question because it is outside of the parameters established for the interview.
ISTEL: Sir, I’m asking about the immediate circumstances of your removal. Do you know whether you were removed because of your concern about the office’s cases continuing unimpeded?

BERMAN: I do not know what the Attorney General’s motives were.

ISTEL: Did you express to anyone that you believed that you were removed because of your concern for the office’s — that the office’s cases would not continue unimpeded?

BERMAN: I decline to answer that question because it is outside of the parameters established for the interview.

Later, during an exchange with Steve Castor, a member of the Republican House Judiciary staff, Berman did note that Barr appeared eager to offer him enticements at Main Justice in exchange for his resignation from the SDNY office.

CASTOR: So he didn’t ask you to do anything differently with any of your cases or with any of the personnel on the cases, correct?

BERMANB: No.

CASTOR: Okay. There was no quid pro quo proposed, correct —

BERMAN: You know, he wanted me to resign to take a position. I assume you could call that a quid pro quo. You resign and you get this, that would mean quid pro quo.

The SDNY office, it should be noted, has already prosecuted or is currently conducting investigations into the president’s Inaugural Committee as well as several associates of Trump, including convicting the president’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, over campaign finance violations and its ongoing investigation into current Trump lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, for possible illegal lobbying.