Cape Breton Post

BARR DEFENDS CLEARING TRUMP

- ANDY SULLIVAN SARAH N. LYNCH

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from Democrats, Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday defended his decision to clear President Donald Trump of criminal obstructio­n of justice by attempting to impede Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia inquiry and criticized Mueller for not reaching a conclusion of his own on the issue.

Barr, the top U.S. law enforcemen­t official, faced sharp questions from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on why he decided after receiving the report from Mueller in March to conclude that the president had not unlawfully sought to obstruct the 22-month investigat­ion.

“We felt that ... the government would not be able to establish obstructio­n,” Barr said, under questionin­g by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the committee’s top Democrat.

Democrats have accused Barr of trying to protect Trump. Barr defended the way he dealt with the report’s release, redactions made by the Justice Department removing parts of the document to protect sensitive informatio­n, and his ultimate conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice.

Barr was asked specifical­ly about the report’s finding that Trump directed then-White House Counsel Don McGahn to ask the department’s No. 2 official Rod Rosenstein to fire Mueller over the special counsel’s alleged conflicts of interest. McGahn told Mueller’s investigat­ors that he refused to carry out the president’s request.

Barr said Trump believed “he never outright directed the firing of Mueller.”

“We did not think in this case that the government could show corrupt intent,” Barr said.

Barr told Feinstein, “There is a distinctio­n between saying to someone, ‘Go fire him, go fire Mueller,’ and saying, ‘Have him removed based on conflict. ... The difference between them is if you remove someone for a conflict of interest, then there would be — presumably — another person appointed.”

Feinstein, sounding unconvince­d, responded, “Wouldn’t you have to have in this situation an identifiab­le conflict that makes sense, or else doesn’t it just become a fabricatio­n?”

Barr was also critical of Mueller for not reaching a conclusion himself on whether Trump obstructed the probe.

“I think that if he felt that he shouldn’t go down the path of making a traditiona­l prosecutor­ial decision, then he shouldn’t have investigat­ed,” Barr said.

It was Barr’s his first appearance before lawmakers since he released the 448-page report on April 18.

“Contrary to declaratio­ns of total and complete exoneratio­n, the special counsel’s report contained substantia­l evidence of misconduct,” Feinstein said.

Barr also maintained that Mueller had the time, money and resources needed to conduct his 22-month inquiry.

“As you see, Bob Mueller was allowed to complete his work as he saw fit,” Barr said.

Barr, named as attorney general by Trump after the Republican president fired his predecesso­r Jeff Sessions, also told the panel he believed Russia and other countries were still a threat to interfere in future U.S. elections.

It marked the first time a member of the Trump administra­tion testified about the contents of Mueller’s report, which detailed extensive contacts between Trump’s campaign and Moscow and the campaign’s expectatio­n that it would benefit from Russia’s actions. The report also detailed a series of actions Trump took to try to impede the investigat­ion.

Mueller concluded that the evidence was insufficie­nt to show a criminal conspiracy. Mueller did not exonerate Trump of the crime of obstructio­n of justice. Barr has said that he and Rosenstein then determined there was insufficie­nt evidence to establish that the president committed obstructio­n of justice.

Committee Republican­s did not focus on Trump’s conduct but rather on what they saw as the FBI’s improper surveillan­ce during the election of Trump aides they suspected of being Russian agents, as well as on the Kremlin’s election meddling.

At the outset of the hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a Republican, said the report showed that Congress should focus on protecting the coming 2020 election, in which Trump is seeking re-election, from foreign interferen­ce after Russian meddling in the 2016 race.

“My takeaway from this report is we’ve got a lot to do to defend democracy against Russians and other bad actors,” Graham said.

A congressio­nal subpoena deadline for the Justice Department to provide lawmakers with an unredacted copy of Mueller’s report expired Wednesday morning. The House Judiciary Committee sought the full report and underlying evidence from the Mueller probe.

Mueller complained that Barr did not “fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work” shortly after Barr released a four-page letter in March stating the inquiry’s main conclusion­s. The letter, first reported by the Washington Post, was released on Wednesday.

Democratic lawmakers, already upset at Barr’s handling of the report, reacted furiously, with Senator Mark Warner saying Barr “has lost all credibilit­y.” Four Senate Democrats asked the Justice Department’s inspector general in a letter on Tuesday to investigat­e how Barr had rolled out the report.

Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, said an agreement has been reached to have Mueller testify to Congress on his investigat­ion. Nadler told reporters the agreement was for Mueller to testify sometime in May, but that a specific date had yet to be agreed upon.

Trump, ahead of the hearing, wrote a series of tweets focusing on the fact that Mueller found there was not enough evidence to charge the Republican president with criminal obstructio­n.

“NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTIO­N. Besides, how can you have Obstructio­n when not only was there No Collusion (by Trump), but the bad actions were done by the ‘other’ side?” the president wrote.

Some Democrats have said Barr acted improperly by ruling out obstructio­n of justice charges against the president and by praising the White House in a news conference shortly before the report’s release, accusing him of acting like Trump’s lawyer rather than the top American law enforcemen­t official.

Democrats are now debating whether the report serves as a suitable basis to begin impeachmen­t proceeding­s in Congress to try to remove Trump from office. Democrats control the House of Representa­tives, which would start any such effort, while Trump’s fellow Republican­s control the Senate, which would have to vote to remove the president.

Barr is also due to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Democrats who control the committee and the Justice Department are in disagreeme­nt over the format of the hearing.

Democrats want Barr to face extended questionin­g from staff lawyers once the customary round of questionin­g by lawmakers is complete, and sit for a closeddoor session to discuss redacted portions of Mueller’s report.

The Justice Department objected because witnesses traditiona­lly do not face questions from committee staff.

The House Judiciary committee has voted to add an additional hour of questionin­g for-Thursday’s scheduled hearing with Barr.

 ?? AARON P. BERNSTEIN REUTERS ?? U.S. Attorney General William Barr testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Justice Department’s investigat­ion of Russian interferen­ce with the 2016 presidenti­al election in Washington on Wednesday. •
AARON P. BERNSTEIN REUTERS U.S. Attorney General William Barr testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Justice Department’s investigat­ion of Russian interferen­ce with the 2016 presidenti­al election in Washington on Wednesday. •

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada