Worst fears

The worst fears about William Barr are proving correct

Aaron Blake

When William Barr was being confirmed as attorney general, some Democrats took solace in the idea that he was at least a mainstream Republican and not necessarily a Trump loyalist. In doing so, they overlooked past commentary that suggested he favored conspiracy theories involving the Clintons and the Russia investigation.

When Barr appointed U.S. attorney John Durham to look into President Donald Trump's allegations about the origins of that Russia probe, those same Democrats took solace in the fact that Durham had a reputation as a respected, nonpartisan straight shooter. In doing so, they set aside Barr's comments about the FBI having "spied" on Trump, along with Durham's past skepticism of the FBI's methods.

It's getting difficult for them to find solace in much of anything involving Barr.

The Washington Post's Devlin Barrett, Shane Harris and Matt Zapotosky reported Monday that Barr has been traveling overseas to seek help from top allies for Durham's probe, including Great Britain and multiple trips to Italy. The Trump administration has also made requests of Australia, whose officials played a key role in alerting U.S. officials to Russian interference. Signs indicate that the Aussies have proven a receptive audience.

The new disclosures recall last week's news that Trump pressured Ukraine's president to launch two investigations that carried potential political benefits for him - including one involving the Russia probe's origins - yet they are somewhat different. It's one thing to lean on a country to launch their own probes; it's not quite the same thing to seek their cooperation on an American investigation.

But the news appears to fill out the picture of an attorney general who was suspicious of the Russia probe's origins from long before he took his office, has honed his talking points about it in a very Trump direction, and now appears to be spending significant time pressing top allies to give the administration what it wants.

Just because he's asking for it, of course, doesn't mean they'll give him damning evidence to support his and Trump's suspicions. It's entirely possible this will be handled aboveboard, with Durham asserting himself as the staid and reasonable prosecutor he is reputed to be.

But Barr's involvement portends all kind of uncertainty and lends itself to suspicion. The mere fact that he's apparently taking such an interest in this - to the extent that he's made repeated overseas trips - suggests this is a topic of significant concern for him. It perhaps indicates that it's not something he's pursuing just to edify Trump and check a box for the president who appointed him.

Of course, that shouldn't really be a surprise given Barr has been barking up this tree since 2017. Long before many Republicans were questioning the origins of the Russia investigation, Barr told the New York Times that there was more reason to investigate "various 'national security' activities carried out during the election" than there was to investigate potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. (He said the same of the Clinton Foundation and a debunked conspiracy theory involving the Clintons and Uranium One.)

Barr told The Post around the same time, "I don't think all this stuff about throwing [Clinton] in jail or jumping to the conclusion that she should be prosecuted is appropriate." Then he added, "But I do think that there are things that should be investigated that haven't been investigated."

He now appears to be facilitating one of those investigations - hard. The risk of such high-profile involvement from Barr is that top allies see him as applying pressure on behalf of Trump to get the answers Trump wants, rather than simply making sure they cooperate with the things Durham asks them to do. Barr is clearly not erring on the side of looking as if he has completely outsourced this whole thing to Durham and is a passive player.

Trump has frequently thrown his weight around on the world stage in the name of allies doing his bidding - most recently, we've found out, in the case of Ukraine - and it's very difficult to separate this from that. The danger is that these counties who rely upon their alliance with the United States get the same message the whistle-blower alleged Trump has sent to Ukraine: that they better "play ball," or else.

None of it is a signal of attorney general just checking a box and/or straining to avoid proving his detractors correct; it's a signal of an attorney general who has taken the kind of keen interest in this subject that his public comments should have made plainly obvious.