The “leadership” of Trump-appointed Attorney General William Barr at the Justice Department will never be the same. A letter has come out from Special Counsel Robert Mueller objecting to Barr’s handling of the findings from his Russia investigation, offering not only confirmation of suspicion that Barr was off-point with his spin but evidence that he lied, since he repeatedly told Congress he had no idea what media reports were talking about that indicated Mueller’s team was breaking with him. This Wednesday, Barr began having to answer to Congress for his behavior, although only in the context of the currently Republican — and more specifically, Lindsey Graham-led Senate Judiciary Committee.
During his opening statement, Barr repeatedly deflected criticism onto Mueller over the whole issue through means like complaining that the special counsel’s team hadn’t explicitly set aside federally protected grand jury material in their final report, which could have expedited the process of preparing the document for public consumption.
He also complained that Mueller didn’t himself conclude whether or not President Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, despite the standing Justice Department precedent against indicting a sitting president and Barr’s own past arguments against the obstruction probe in the first place! In other words, it seems as though for Barr, it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t kind of situation” in which those who investigate his boss are the bad guys.
Barr criticizes Mueller for not reaching a conclusion as to whether Trump obstructed justice pic.twitter.com/egm5SujGHd
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 1, 2019
Barr’s contentious assertions quickly went on from there. For instance, he told ranking committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that it’s not necessarily clear that Trump was even angling for a lie in seeking to pressure White House counsel Don McGahn into asserting Trump hadn’t sought to have him get Mueller out, although he did exactly that. Barr’s justification was that Trump hadn’t tried to have McGahn fire Mueller, but instead… wait for it.. tried to have McGahn have someone else fire him, so the president is in the clear.
That’s the kind of contortionist spin that Barr is willing to indulge in for this guy, apparently.
BARR makes painstaking distinctions: “There is something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed for conflict — that suggests you’re going to have another special counsel.” pic.twitter.com/xcV4XcKvqo
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 1, 2019
He didn’t even have any evidence for why the alternative he presented of Trump “only” trying to have McGahn have someone else fire Mueller was appropriate in the first place.
LOL — Barr defends Trump for wanting to remove Mueller for “a conflict,” but can’t at all specify what that conflict was pic.twitter.com/3KKQ5u7dOP
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 1, 2019
In the wake of all of these issues, Barr has faced continued criticism from House Democrats, who have now upped the ante and begun in part calling for him to resign. There’s been a hearing with the House Judiciary Committee as led by Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) scheduled for this Thursday, but Barr has threatened to refuse to show because Nadler wants answers on the full, unredacted final report from Mueller’s probe and a chance for legal counsel for both sides to question Barr.
Barr has torpedoed his credibility through other means, like his recent assertion to Congress that he believes the Trump campaign was “spied on” that he eventually admitted was based on no evidence of any actual illegal behavior on the government’s part. In other words, he turned legitimate investigative functions into “spying” as a bone for his boss.
Getting around Barr, Democrats including Feinstein want Mueller himself to come testify before Congress, and considering his privately expressed dissent with Barr’s behavior, he might be keen on that.
Check out more:
Featured Image via screenshot
