Misleading Congress and public

Dems accuse Barr of misleading Congress and public

By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY

Democrats were apoplectic and demanding consequences Thursday after it became clear that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report undercut some of Attorney General William Barr’s key claims about the obstruction of justice investigation into President Donald Trump.

“Turns out Bill Barr lied through his teeth,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which intends to hear from Barr on May 2.

Democrats on the powerful panel, and other congressional investigators, say Barr repeatedly misled them and the public for nearly a month about Mueller’s obstruction inquiry, most notably on whether the special counsel intended to leave the tricky determination to Congress.

“It’s not a difference of interpretation. He was just wrong and he knew it,” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), another Judiciary member, said in an interview. “And for that, there’s got to be some accountability.”

One, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), called for Barr’s resignation. Another, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), said Barr should be censured. And others simply excoriated the attorney general.

“Essentially Bill Barr has already resigned,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary panel. “He’s acting like a federally paid public defender.”

Democrats are particularly incensed that Barr seemed to indicate publicly that Mueller had not intended for Congress to resolve the thorny legal questions surrounding whether a president can obstruct justice. The Judiciary Committee has already launched its own obstruction inquiry, and Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) plans to issue a subpoena for all of Mueller’s underlying evidence and grand jury information that could be used as part of the congressional probe.

“Special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress,” Barr said at a news conference Thursday morning before the report was made public. “I hope that was not his view, because we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.”

Nadler, though, said it was clear to him that Barr was “disingenuous and misleading” in his public statements and his four-page summary of the Mueller investigation, which was released nearly a month ago. He vowed to charge ahead with his committee’s obstruction investigation.

“I think [the report] was probably written with the intent of providing Congress a roadmap,” added Nadler, who earlier Thursday formally invited Mueller to testify before his committee.

In his report, Mueller repeatedly referenced Congress’ authority to write obstruction laws that can apply to the president‘s otherwise lawful actions. In a rebuttal to Trump‘s legal arguments that a president‘s lawful authority could not constitute obstruction, Mueller concluded that “Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office.”

“We concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a president’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” Mueller wrote.

Though Democrats indicated this language suggested Mueller wanted Congress to weigh in on the thorny, unresolved obstruction question, Republicans said this was a reference to Congress‘ lawmaking authority — not its impeachment or investigative powers.

“The report doesn’t say Congress should investigate obstruction now,” said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “It says Congress can make laws about obstruction under Article I powers.”

In a separate statement later Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Barr “deliberately distorted significant portions” of Mueller’s report.

One top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, though, said that Barr had acted appropriately and that Mueller’s report should end the conversation about the president’s actions.

“Bob Mueller chose not to indict. That’s the bottom line,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said. “Congress should be focused on the fact that this thing started on a faulty premise.”

“This attorney general has handled himself in exactly the way the American people want,” Jordan added. “He has followed the law.”

But discrepancies between Barr’s public statements and testimony continued to rankle Democrats.

For example, in a March 24 letter to lawmakers, Barr suggested that Mueller presented innocent explanations for every possible example of obstruction of justice. In fact, in several instances in Mueller’s report, the special counsel presented evidence that Trump had met the legal standards for obstruction, with no mitigating evidence or alternative explanations. Those include his description of Trump’s effort to get the White House counsel at the time, Don McGahn, to fire Mueller, and his efforts to pressure then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to intervene in and constrain Mueller’s investigation.

In addition, Mueller’s report laid out, in painstaking detail, evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct his investigation, but said his team opted not to “draw ultimate conclusions” because of Justice Department guidelines that prohibit criminally charging a sitting president.

Barr, though, downplayed the suggestion that those guidelines played a significant role in Mueller’s analysis.

“We specifically asked him about the [DOJ guidelines] and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the [DOJ guidelines],” Barr said Thursday morning, referring to the department’s Office of Legal Counsel. “And he made it very clear, several times, that that was not his position.”

But Mueller’s report made a painstaking legal case suggesting that he had predetermined not to level an obstruction allegation against Trump because he would be unable to formally charge him. An unchargeable allegation, he said, could unfairly taint Trump’s ability to govern and deprive him of the legal protections afforded to criminal defendants, who get a chance in court to clear their names.

“When the attorney general mischaracterizes the report in that way, he does a disservice to the country,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Swalwell, a Judiciary Committee member, said Barr should resign.

“He’s embedded deeply into the Trump team, and that affects the credibility that the attorney general must have,” Swalwell said in an interview on MSNBC.

It’s also possible for the committee to launch an impeachment proceeding against Barr. But Cohen said such an inquiry would be futile because the Republican-controlled Senate isn’t likely to support it. Cohen suggested a censure, which amounts to a formal admonishment in the House.

“If there’s such a tactic, a means, a process that can be used for the House to show it’s concern, disdain and disapproval,” Cohen said, “I think we should do it.”

Congress is slated to view a less redacted version of Mueller’s report as soon as next week.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told lawmakers on Thursday that the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary committees, in addition to members of the so-called “gang of eight” and certain staffers, will be able to read the fuller report this month at the Justice Department headquarters and in “secure spaces” of the Capitol.

Grand jury information will still be redacted in that version of the report, but lawmakers will be permitted to view sensitive classified information and other evidence related to ongoing investigations and private citizens who were not mentioned in the public report.

“Special Counsel Mueller’s fact-gathering has concluded,” the Democratic chairs of six key House committees said late Thursday in a joint statement. “It is now Congress’ responsibility to review and assess the evidence.”