HOUSE DEMS READY FOR A BARR FIGHT
EYE CONTEMPT RAP AGAINST AG AFTER HE REFUSES TO TESTIFY
Fed-up House Democrats say they will hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt if he follows through on his plans to snub a congressional panel seeking more details on the redacted report about Russian election interference.
Barr, who sparred Wednesday with senators over the same subject, had been scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday about his handling and interpretation of special counsel Robert Mueller’s account.
But Barr, the nation’s top law enforcement official, backed out because the committee wants to use in-house lawyers to question him alongside lawmakers, a snub that rankled leading Democrats.
“Given his lack of candor in describing the work of the special counsel, our members were right that we be permitted to question the attorney general,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), (photo) chairman of the committee. “When push comes to shove the administration cannot dictate the terms of our hearing in our hearing room. They will not comply with our subpoena for the full unredacted report, a subpoena that was returnable today. I will continue to work with the attorney general to reach access to the full report and underlying evidence but not for much longer.
“Compliance with congressional subpoenas is not optional, and if good faith negotiations don’t result in a pledge of compliance in the next day or two, the next step is seeking a contempt citation against the attorney general.”
But a Justice Department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said Barr has been more than cooperative.
“Today, the attorney general testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for over five hours,” Kupec said. “The attor
ney general also voluntarily released the special counsel’s confidential report with minimal redactions to Congress and the public, made an even-less redacted report available to Chairman Nadler and congressional leadership.”
But by bringing staff lawyers in to ask questions, Nadler placed “conditions” on its hearing that are “unprecedented and unnecessary,” Kupec said.
The top Republican on the committee, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), called the staff gambit a sideshow, and argued the only reason Democrats want to have staff lawyers interview Barr is to make it look like an impeachment proceeding — even though Democratic leaders say they don’t want to impeach the president, and haven’t taken steps to do so.
“The chairman has decided along with the majority that they want to appear as if they are doing impeachment,” Collins said. “They want to have an impeachment-like inquiry because the precedent for staff questioning is impeachment. But the problem is they can’t bring themselves to bring impeachment.”
The House hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 9 a.m. “There are many questions that must be answered,” Nadler said. “My colleagues will be present. I hope and expect the attorney general will think overnight and will be there as well.”
Already under fire for what Democrats call a whitewash of President Trump’s actions, Barr struggled to explain why he failed to mention Mueller’s critical letter about the Trump-friendly handling of the report in a previous hearing about the report into the president’s alleged obstruction of justice.
“I feel your answer was deliberately misleading,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told Barr.
Sheldon Whitehouse (DRhode Island) accused Barr of “masterful hairsplitting.”
Barr did not explain why he didn’t reveal the existence of the critical Mueller letter — which he slammed as “a bit snitty” — until it was reported Tuesday night. He released it in the morning before the hearing.
In several testy back-and-forths with senators, Barr defended his four-page letter about the report and his decision to clear Trump of obstruction charges despite a mountain of evidence presented by Mueller.
He told senators that he had to decide whether or not to charge Trump after Mueller declined to make such a judgment.
“At that point, it was my baby,” Barr said.
However, he conceded under withering questioning by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) that he never read any of the underlying evidence in the investigation.
Barr added that Mueller told him three times that a future special counsel might recommend indicting a sitting president, but he did not do so.
That point was contentious to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who grilled Barr over the AG’s claim that Mueller did not take into account the Justice Department opinion that a president cannot be indicted. Mueller’s report says he did consider that opinion in making his nondecision.