Shutdown felt by the wrong people
Why aren’t we furious? If Democrats and Republicans want to shut the government down, no one should get paid in the House, Senate or White House — including all staff. Why should 800,000 government workers who can’t afford to go without suffer?
When Democrats held all three branches of government, nothing was done regarding immigration.
When Republicans held all three branches the past two years, nothing was done regarding immigration — including a wall.
Edward Mikula,
North Las Vegas
The Senate has some tough questions to ask of William Barr this week before voting on confirming him as the next attorney general.
Not only has Barr already come perilously close to reassuring President Donald Trump that the president did not obstruct justice by trying to derail the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russia to corrupt the 2016 election, and that special counsel Robert Mueller was overreaching, but he also has a long history of advancing an aggressive, expansive conception of presidential power.
He has made the case that a president can resist congressional oversight — a convenient position for Trump, but a concerning one for the country, now that Democrats are in charge of the House. He’s even seen no problem with the president investigating a political opponent, saying there would be more validity in investigating Hillary Clinton for a uranium deal the government approved while she was secretary of state — which she had nothing to do with — than there was in investigating whether Trump conspired with Russia.
This theory of executive power has long been prized in conservative legal circles. But it will only empower a chief executive who has fought oversight since his first days in office and has rued the day that the special counsel was appointed after his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the Russia investigation.
Barr cast further doubts about his appointment when he freelanced a memorandum to the Trump administration saying that the steps the president has continually taken to stymie a criminal probe he’s detested — firing FBI Director James Comey, threatening to pardon associates who might cooperate with Mueller, or even using his “authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding” — were constitutionally legitimate. “Mueller’s obstruction theory,” he wrote, “would do lasting damage to the presidency.”
Given these past statements, it would be best if Barr, too, recused himself. But with the impending departure of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and oversaw his investigation after Sessions’ recusal, it’s not clear if the inquiry would be any better protected in other hands. There should be tremendous pressure on Barr to allow Mueller free rein, both in investigating and in writing a final report.
Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters Wednesday that Barr assured him that he doesn’t think the special counsel is conducting a witch hunt and that he’d aim for transparency whenever Mueller delivers to him a final report on the special counsel investigation.
But is that assurance enough? And if Justice Department ethics officials conclude that Barr ought to cede supervision of the probe to avoid the “appearance” of bias, as they concluded in the case of the acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, will Barr simply ignore them, as did Whitaker?
Barr recommended that President George H.W. Bush pardon Reagan administration officials convicted or implicated in the Iran-contra scandal, including former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Would he object to Trump pardoning his former national security adviser Michael Flynn or Paul Manafort, whom Mueller has accused of giving polling data to an associate connected to Russian intelligence? Trump has certainly considered it.
These are not the only subjects senators should pursue with Barr. He holds the same hard-line views on immigration and criminal justice that once endeared Sessions to the president. And as the Justice Department has declined to crack down on discriminatory police departments, reversed course as protector of voting rights and abdicated its role in the defense of the Affordable Care Act, morale in its ranks has taken a hit.
Just this month, a former lawyer with the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, an elite office that gives legal and policy advice to the president, wrote in The Washington Post that she had resigned after she no longer could give legal cover to the White House’s actions. What are Barr’s plans to earn back the trust of these public servants and stand up for the rule of law?
But it is Barr’s approach to the investigation of the president that demands the most scrutiny. Under his view that the president controls Justice Department functions and can “start or stop a law enforcement proceeding,” he may well be committed to the idea that the president can do as he wishes with the Mueller investigation. Would he be willing to resign if Trump tried to shut that investigation down, as Attorney General Elliot Richardson did when President Richard Nixon ordered him to fire the Watergate special prosecutor?
At the very least, Barr can commit to standing up for the integrity of the office he aspires to hold. Despite the partial government shutdown, Mueller’s investigators continue to move ahead. And federal prosecutors in New York, Virginia and Washington remain hard at work, bringing cases that have arisen out of Mueller’s probe or that otherwise incriminate subjects at the center of it.
This commitment to justice serves as an example to all and ought to go on unimpeded.