Senators Corey Booker and Kamala Harris at Barr Testimony - ALEX WONGGETTY IMAGES Attorney General William Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was brazen. Barr answered many of the questions posed by Democrats as if he were unaware that there was a fact-record against which to compare his answers. At other times he seemed to be contemptuous of the hearing or some Senators, and even Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel who wrote the subject report.
Initially, Democratic questioners focused on the letter Mueller had written complaining about Barr’s misleading summary of the conclusions in the Mueller Report. In a previous hearing, Barr had misled the Committee by saying he did not know what Mueller and his team thought of his summary. Barr’s rather weak defense was that he only knew what Mueller, not his team thought about his summary.
In an exchange with Senator Richard Blumenthal, Barr stumbled over answering whether he had talked to anyone in the White House about the 12 or 14 cases Mueller had referred to the U.S. attorneys in the various Department of Justice districts. Senator Corey Booker befuddled Barr when he cited the polling data that former campaign manager Paul Manafort had passed to Russian intelligence agent Konstantin Kilimnik. Barr’s confusion made it clear that he either had not read Mueller’s Report or could not remember one of the essential pieces of evidence of a conspiracy.
Senator Kamala Harris scored twice. First, she asked Barr if he or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had examined any of the underlying evidence in the Mueller Report before concluding that there was no obstruction of justice. Presumably, such a critical prosecutorial decision would call for a complete understanding of the evidence. Second, Senator Harris asked Barr whether the President or anyone else at the White House had asked or suggested that he investigate someone.
Perhaps the most informative moment occurred when Barr claimed that if the President believes that an investigation of him is baseless, then the President is entitled to fire the investigator or end the investigation. In effect, Barr’s claim is that the President above the law. There is no basis for such a claim. Even if a President cannot be indicted while in office, a former President can be indicted once he leaves the office. Precluding an investigation while the President is in office might prevent a later indictment.
The Republican Majority on the Committee supported Barr by raising questions about Hillary Clinton’s emails; they are intent on having Barr delve into whether the FBI agents who investigated Clinton tried to sabotage Trump’s campaign. They also wanted Barr to open another investigation into FISA warrants and the inception of the investigation into Trump’s collusion with Russia.
The net effect of the hearing on Democrats seemed to be to anger them. And in the case of Nancy Pelosi, it seemed to clarify her thinking about the consequences of the lawlessness of Trump and his administration. In a news conference today, Pelosi noted that lawlessness and disrespect shown to Congress by the Trump administration undermines the Democratic policy agenda. Until a new administration is in office, there will be no health care or other legislation that is important to Democrats.
Initially, Democratic questioners focused on the letter Mueller had written complaining about Barr’s misleading summary of the conclusions in the Mueller Report. In a previous hearing, Barr had misled the Committee by saying he did not know what Mueller and his team thought of his summary. Barr’s rather weak defense was that he only knew what Mueller, not his team thought about his summary.
In an exchange with Senator Richard Blumenthal, Barr stumbled over answering whether he had talked to anyone in the White House about the 12 or 14 cases Mueller had referred to the U.S. attorneys in the various Department of Justice districts. Senator Corey Booker befuddled Barr when he cited the polling data that former campaign manager Paul Manafort had passed to Russian intelligence agent Konstantin Kilimnik. Barr’s confusion made it clear that he either had not read Mueller’s Report or could not remember one of the essential pieces of evidence of a conspiracy.
Senator Kamala Harris scored twice. First, she asked Barr if he or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had examined any of the underlying evidence in the Mueller Report before concluding that there was no obstruction of justice. Presumably, such a critical prosecutorial decision would call for a complete understanding of the evidence. Second, Senator Harris asked Barr whether the President or anyone else at the White House had asked or suggested that he investigate someone.
Perhaps the most informative moment occurred when Barr claimed that if the President believes that an investigation of him is baseless, then the President is entitled to fire the investigator or end the investigation. In effect, Barr’s claim is that the President above the law. There is no basis for such a claim. Even if a President cannot be indicted while in office, a former President can be indicted once he leaves the office. Precluding an investigation while the President is in office might prevent a later indictment.
The Republican Majority on the Committee supported Barr by raising questions about Hillary Clinton’s emails; they are intent on having Barr delve into whether the FBI agents who investigated Clinton tried to sabotage Trump’s campaign. They also wanted Barr to open another investigation into FISA warrants and the inception of the investigation into Trump’s collusion with Russia.
The net effect of the hearing on Democrats seemed to be to anger them. And in the case of Nancy Pelosi, it seemed to clarify her thinking about the consequences of the lawlessness of Trump and his administration. In a news conference today, Pelosi noted that lawlessness and disrespect shown to Congress by the Trump administration undermines the Democratic policy agenda. Until a new administration is in office, there will be no health care or other legislation that is important to Democrats.
The New York Times. Fandos - Pelosi Accuses Barr of Law-Breaking as Democrats' War with Attorney General Boils Over
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/house-democrats-barr-mueller.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/house-democrats-barr-mueller.html
The Washington Post.Barrett, Zapatosky, Demerjian, and Heiderman. Barr Spars With Democrats Over 'Snitty' Mueller Letter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/democrats-expected-to-grill-attorney-general-over-his-depiction-of-muellers-findings/2019/04/30/f4ce673e-6ba4-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html?utm_term=.0b227f6070be
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/democrats-expected-to-grill-attorney-general-over-his-depiction-of-muellers-findings/2019/04/30/f4ce673e-6ba4-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html?utm_term=.0b227f6070be
The New York Times. Katyal. Why Barr Can't Whitewash the Mueller Report
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/barr-mueller-report.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/barr-mueller-report.html
