The consensus view outside the world of Trump supporters was that Attorney General William Barr came across at Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing as a political hack.
“Looking at Barr’s testimony as a whole, the most disappointing aspect was how he, once again, was willing to act more as (President) Trump’s defense attorney — twisting legal and factual arguments in Trump’s favor, which is not his job and is not how prosecuting decisions should be made,” former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah told me. “And it’s appalling that he continues to perpetuate these extreme right-wing conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation and throw (Robert) Mueller and the hard work he did (as well as the whole FBI essentially) under the bus.”
There was no “worst” moment in the hearing, but a series of them. As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., remarked afterward, Barr “said Justice Department policy against indicting a president wasn’t the reason Mueller didn’t conclude the president broke the law, when the report says the opposite. He said authorized Justice Department investigations are ‘spying’ and that it’s the media’s fault that characterization rubbed anyone the wrong way.”
Barr conceded that he had not read the evidence underlying the report before taking the prosecutorial decision on himself. He claimed not to know that Mueller and his team objected to the report, but later called the letter — Mueller went to the trouble of putting his concerns in writing — “a bit snitty.” He insisted that Mueller was only upset about news coverage, not Barr’s four-page summary — which strains credulity. Barr then refused to turn over notes of his discussion with Mueller.
Barr’s original sin was in distorting the Mueller report. He has doubled down on his dishonesty by asserting in testimony to Congress that he had no reason to think Mueller took exception to it. It’s a good thing that Mueller documented his scathing assessment of Barr’s handiwork.
Personal defense attorney
At Wednesday’s hearing, Barr offered the radical opinion that a president can dismiss any investigation he thinks is unwarranted. “The president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course,” Barr insisted. “The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.” That would have blessed President Richard Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre and would give every president an exemption from investigation, a notion entirely at odds with the idea that everyone must obey the law.
Barr feigned ignorance of evidence that the Trump campaign sought to benefit from Russian interference, although Mueller discussed it in his report. He continued to insist that Trump fully cooperated, despite evidence of witness tampering and Trump’s refusal to sit for an interview.
If anything, Barr underscored the necessity of calling Mueller to testify. “I was actually against calling Mueller before Congress on the principle that prosecutors shouldn’t be required to explain their discretion, but AG Barr’s testimony now essentially mandates that the special counsel’s presence is required for explanation,” attorney Mark S. Zaid told me. “AG Barr repeatedly cites personal conversations with Mueller that sought to explain discrepancies that existed on paper, including in the letter we learned of today.”
Susan Hennessey of Lawfare blog agrees: “There is just no question that Attorney General Barr appeared before Congress today not in his capacity as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer but rather as President Trump’s personal defense attorney.” She added: “Barr’s conduct has been indefensible.”
Most ominously, perhaps, Barr insisted that he would not recuse himself from any of the 14 spinoff cases arising out of Mueller’s probe. That will leave a man who thinks his job is defending Trump in charge of investigations into Trump and his associates. That sounds like a banana republic, which just about sums up the Barr-Trump view of our Constitution.
Barr did so poorly under questioning from senators that it hardly came as a surprise when he decided to cancel his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, where he would be questioned by counsel. That’s about as close to a confession of his lack of credibility and consistency as we are likely to get.
Jennifer Rubin is an opinion writer for The Washington Post. Twitter: @JRubinBlogger
