HARVARD SCANDAL – Feds Probe DOC DESTRUCTION!

A scandal plaguing the Harvard Law Review spotlights potential obstruction of justice, as accusations of document destruction intensify.

At a Glance

• Harvard Law Review accused of retaliating against Daniel Wasserman for allegedly leaking documents.
• Demands were made for Wasserman to request document destruction amid a federal retention order.
• The Justice Department was probing racial discrimination at the Law Review.
• Wasserman, cooperating with the government, faced a “Formal Reprimand,” later retracted.
• The Law Review’s response seen as an attempt to hide incriminating practices amidst federal scrutiny.

Accusations Mount Against Law Review

The Harvard Law Review faces intense scrutiny as accusations of retaliation and potential obstruction of justice surface. Allegedly, the prestigious journal retaliated against student editor Daniel Wasserman, suspected of leaking sensitive documents to the Washington Free Beacon. These documents reportedly highlighted racial discrimination activities at the Law Review, stirring federal interest.

A critical point in the controversy occurred when the journal allegedly demanded Wasserman advocate for the destruction of said documents. This demand collided with an existing federal document retention order tied to ongoing investigations, casting a shadow over the Law Review’s intentions. The Justice Department intervened, raising concerns that the actions might impede federal inquiries.

Government Involvement and Legal Stretch

The Justice Department has been delving into reports of racial discrimination within the Law Review, adding to the complexity of the situation. Wasserman’s cooperation with the government intensified suspicions of interference in federal investigations. His “Formal Reprimand,” later retracted, suggested attempts to suppress his whistleblower status, allegedly breaching Harvard’s non-retaliation policy for such individuals.

The Harvard Law Review’s position is that they were unaware of Wasserman’s cooperation despite the Justice Department’s explicit naming. Critics argue the journal’s actions appeared to verge on witness intimidation, raising questions about its alleged efforts to reclaim disputed documents rather than addressing the claims of racial bias documented within their processes.

Potential Consequences and Institutional Denial

The Harvard Law Review’s retraction of the evidence destruction request further complicates its position. The order initially only pertained to copies, not originals, yet the intention behind the demand remains under scrutiny. Accusations of manipulating or ‘rewriting history’ suggest an avoidance of accountability, as the Trump administration’s prior financial cut to Harvard exemplifies.

With allegations of the journal aiming to hide its practices amidst federal investigations, the debate continues as to how the prestigious institution ought be held accountable. Harvard University’s efforts to distance itself by claiming no oversight on the Law Review’s admissions policies warrant further examination as this saga unfolds.