Tag: Trump Justice Department

Barr puts Trump’s actions in best light, despite ‘substantial evidence’ of obstruction cited by Mueller

It was one of the most dramatic cases of potential obstruction of justice laid out by federal investigators: President Trump directing the top White House lawyer to seek the removal of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — and then later pushing him to deny the episode.

But Attorney General William P. Barr on Wednesday played down evidence that Trump sought to fire the head of the investigation bearing down on him, emphasizing in testimony before a Senate committee that the president may have had valid reasons for his actions.

It was a surprise recasting of the account of then-White House counsel Donald McGahn, who told investigators that Trump called him twice in June 2017 at home, pressuring him to intervene with the Justice Department to try to get Mueller removed. McGahn told federal investigators that he planned to resign rather than comply. And he said he later refused a demand by Trump that he write a letter denying news accounts of the episode.

View the complete May 1 article by Carol D. Leonnig on The Washington Post here.

Is an Attorney General Independent or Political? Barr Rekindles a Debate

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr said during his confirmation hearing in January that serving in his future post was “not the same” as representing President Trump and pledged to make law enforcement decisions based only on facts and the law — not politics.

But his handling of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has called that vow into question. On Wednesday, Mr. Barr defended his actions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, even as he put forward an interpretation of the evidence in a favorable light for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Barr’s dueling performances underscored tensions inherent in the role of the attorney general, pitting the ideal that the nation’s top law enforcement official should be independent of politics and enforce a neutral understanding of the rule of law against the reality that he or she is politically appointed and part of any administration’s team.

View the complete May 1 article by Charlie Savage on The New York Times website here.

House committee renews ethics inquiries into Collins, Hunter and Schweikert

House Ethics Committee investigations into Republicans Chris Collins of New York, Duncan Hunter of California and David Schweikert of Arizona were reauthorized for the 116th Congress this week.

The Ethics Committee voted unanimously to reauthorize investigative subcommittees looking into the three lawmakers, but the panel agreed to a Justice Department request to put its probes into Collins and Hunter on hold as they battle criminal indictments.

The subcommittee investigating allegations that Schweikert, an Arizona Republican, misused office resources and violated campaign finance rules will be led by Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota. Texas Republican Bill Flores will serve as ranking member.

View the complete May 3 article by Katherine Tully-McManus on The Roll Call website here.

Barr: Trump Instructing White House Counsel To Lie Is ‘Not A Crime’

Under questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Attorney General William Barr claimed on Wednesday morning that Trump instructing his top White House lawyer to lie “is not a crime.”

After Barr gave a long answer defending Trump, Feinstein asked a simple follow-up question about the time Trump demanded Don McGahn, who was then the White House counsel, to lie about Trump’s request that McGahn get rid of Mueller.

“You still have a situation where a president essentially tries to change the lawyer’s account in order to prevent further criticism of himself — ” Feinstein started to say before Barr interrupted her.

View the complete May 1 article by Dan Desai Martin on the National Memo website here.

James Comey: How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Bill Barr

Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive this president.

People have been asking me hard questions. What happened to the leaders in the Trump administration, especially the attorney general, Bill Barr, who I have said was due the benefit of the doubt?

How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like “no collusion” and F.B.I. “spying”? And downplaying acts of obstruction of justice as products of the president’s being “frustrated and angry,” something he would never say to justify the thousands of crimes prosecuted every day that are the product of frustration and anger?

How could he write and say things about the report by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, that were apparently so misleading that they prompted written protest from the special counsel himself?

View the complete May 1 commentary by former FBI Directory James Comey on The New York Times website here.

Barr, Dems fail to reach deal on House testimony

Attorney General William Barr is refusing to testify before the House on Thursday, arguing Democrats have put “unprecedented” conditions on his testimony.
The fight sets up a major clash between Barr and Democrats in control of the House Judiciary Committee, who have threatened to subpoena the attorney general to compel his testimony.
It also comes as tensions rise over Barr because of Robert Mueller‘s written criticisms of how the attorney general handled the special counsel’s report on his nearly two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential obstruction of justice.

View the complete May 1 article by Olivia Beavers and Morgan Chalfant on The Hill website here.

Amy Klobuchar prosecutes Bill Barr with dozens of pieces of evidence from the Mueller report Brendan Skwire

Minnesota Democratic senator and presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar essentially prosecuted Attorney General Bill Barr at Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, using evidence from the Mueller report to score point after point at Barr’s expense.

“I asked you if a president or any person convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction of justice, and you said yes,” Klobuchar began. “The report found that Michael Cohen’s testimony to the House, before it, that the president repeatedly implied that Cohen’s family members had committed crimes. Do you consider that evidence to be an attempt to have a witness change its testimony?”

“No. I don’t think that that could pass muster. Those public statements he was making, could pass muster as subornation of perjury,” Barr began, but Klobuchar cut him off

View the complete May 1 article by Brendan Skwire on the Raw Story website here.

Recap: AG Bill Barr’s Senate testimony on the Mueller report

Attorney General Bill Barr is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian interference in the 2016 election — a day after it was revealed that Mueller sent him a letter objecting to his March 24 characterization of the report’s findings.

Catch up quick: Barr told Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that if Mueller felt as if he could not make a prosecutorial decision on the question of obstruction of justice, then he “shouldn’t have investigated it. That was the time to pull up.” When pressed on his March 24 letter clearing Trump of obstruction, Barr said: “I didn’t exonerate. I said that we did not believe there was sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction offense, which is the job of the Justice Department.”

On the process of releasing the report:

Barr said that he told Mueller in a phone call that he “wasn’t interested” in putting out the special counsel’s prepared summaries in a “piecemeal” fashion, despite Mueller’s requests.

View the complete May 1 article by Zachary Basu on the Axios website here.

Dems hammer Barr over Mueller in four-hour grilling

Senate Democrats were fully unleashed in their grilling of Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday, accusing the top Department of Justice official of bungling the release of the Mueller report in an attempt to defend President Trump.

During the four-hour hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats seized on the explosive revelation that special counsel Robert Mueller had criticized Barr’s summary of his report in writing. Some suggested he was no longer fit to serve as attorney general.

“I think history will judge you harshly, and maybe a bit unfairly,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told Barr.

View the complete May 1 article by Jacqueline Thomsen and Brett Samuels on The Hill website here.

Barr defends handling of Mueller report

Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday defended his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report at a tense Senate hearing, explaining in detail his contacts with Mueller, who had objected to his description of the report’s findings on obstruction.

In sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr said he wanted to release the report’s bottom-line conclusions as quickly as possible because the public was in a “high state of agitation” over the results of Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and potential coordination between President Trump’s campaign and Moscow.

“Former government officials were confidently predicting that the president or members of his family would be indicted,” Barr told senators in his opening remarks.

View the complete May 1 article by Morgan Chalfant and Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.