This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/may/01/william-barr-testimony-mueller-report-donald-trump-live-latest-news
The article has changed 23 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 5 | Version 6 |
|---|---|
| Barr grilled by Democrats over 'purposefully misleading' Mueller report summary – live | |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said US military action in Venezeula is possible amid the escalating crisis there. | |
| “The president has been crystal clear and incredibly consistent—military action is possible—if that’s what’s required—that’s what the United States will do,” he told Fox Business Network on Wednesday. “We are trying to do everything we can to avoid violence… We’d prefer a peaceful transition of government there where Maduro leaves and a new election is held.” | |
| Republican senators have been spending a lot of their time at the William Barr hearing talking about Hillary Clinton. | |
| Some context from the Washington Post on the narrative pushed by Senator Lindsey Graham in his opening statement. | |
| The White House sent a request to Congress for $4.5 billion in emergency spending for the US-Mexico border, the Washington Post reports. | |
| The request includes $3.3 billion for humanitarian assistance and $1.1 billion for border operations. | |
| The request is in addition to the billions Trump has vowed to spend on a border wall without Congressional approval through an emergency declaration. | |
| Alabama Senator Doug Jones, one of three Democrats who voted to confirm William Barr as attorney general, told CNN he is “incredibly disappointed” in Barr and “getting close” to losing confidence in him. | |
| Sen. Doug Jones, one of three Dems to vote for Barr, told me that he’s “incredibly disappointed” with Barr’s handling of the Mueller report and that “I’m getting close” to losing confidence in Barr but he wouldn’t say if he regrets his vote yet. | |
| Among white evangelical Protestants, 55% say they prefer to see Donald Trump as the Republican party’s nominee in 2020, according to a new Morning Consult poll - 16 percentage points less than the share of self-identified Republicans who said the same. | |
| The poll offered the options of Trump, Mike Pence, or some other Republican. 18% of evangelicals picked Pence, 8% said they’d prefer a different Republican, and 20% were not sure. | |
| While the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Attorney General William Barr - now on an hour-long break - the House Judiciary Committee voted to allow an additional hour of questioning for Barr’s scheduled testimony there tomorrow, according to NBC News. | |
| BREAKING: @HouseJudiciary has voted to allow an additional hour of questioning at tomorrow’s scheduled hearing with AG Bill Barr. The vote permits committee lawyers from both sides to question Barr. DOJ objects to the format. Still not clear if Barr will appear. | |
| The extra hour would be dedicated to questioning by lawyers from both parties, and is the subject of dispute with Barr, who has threatened not to show up if staff are allowed to ask questions. | |
| Chairman Jerry Nadler said: | |
| “According to the Special Counsel’s letter, the Attorney General’s mischaracterization of the Report before releasing it to the public, created ‘public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.’ The Special Counsel went on to write that ‘this threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.’ In light of this news, it is critical that we question the Attorney General on the Committee’s terms. | |
| “Committee staff questioning has long been an important, if underutilized, aspect of Congressional oversight that is in accordance with House rules and past precedent. The House Judiciary Committee has permitted Committee staff to question witnesses in the past, under both Democratic and Republican majorities, during both public hearings and private transcribed interviews. | |
| “For example, Committee staff participated in questioning witnesses during impeachment inquiries into President Nixon, President Clinton, and Judge Thomas Porteous. And last Congress, during the Republican-led investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, Committee staff questioned several FBI and DOJ officials, including then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Director James Comey, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. | |
| “Some have expressed the concern that it is somehow inappropriate for Committee staff to question a sitting Attorney General. There is ample House precedent, however, for Committee staff to question sitting cabinet level and Senate-confirmed officials during a hearing. | |
| “The most salient precedent for this occurred in 1987, during the House and Senate Hearings on the Iran Contra scandal, when Committee staff questioned sitting Attorney General Ed Meese. Committee staff also questioned Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz. | |
| “I would also note that in 1997, under a Republican Majority, at a hearing held before the House Oversight Committee with Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh that Committee agreed to proceed under the rules to permit ‘the chairman and ranking minority member [to] allocate time to committee counsel, as they deem appropriate, for extended questioning.’ | |
| “On a final note, there are reports that the Attorney General will refuse to appear tomorrow if this Committee proceeds with staff questioning. In spite of all the precedent I have cited, I would note that Congress does not need to justify to the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, or any other part of the Executive Branch the manner in which it chooses to conducts its own proceedings. And no witness can simply dictate to this Committee the manner in which he or she is questioned when it is fully in accordance with House rules.” | |
| Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asked Attorney General William Barr about his claim that there was “spying” against Donald Trump’s campaign. | Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asked Attorney General William Barr about his claim that there was “spying” against Donald Trump’s campaign. |
| “I’m not going to abjure the use of the word spying,” Barr said, noting he previously worked for the CIA. “I don’t think the word spying has any pejorative connotation at all.” | “I’m not going to abjure the use of the word spying,” Barr said, noting he previously worked for the CIA. “I don’t think the word spying has any pejorative connotation at all.” |
| “Spying is a good English word that in fact doesn’t have synonyms,” Barr said, explaining that it encompasses “all forms of covert intelligence collection.” | “Spying is a good English word that in fact doesn’t have synonyms,” Barr said, explaining that it encompasses “all forms of covert intelligence collection.” |
| “I’m not suggesting any pejorative, and I use it frequently,” he said. | “I’m not suggesting any pejorative, and I use it frequently,” he said. |
| Whitehouse pointed out that the term “spying” is not typically used by the Justice Department to refer to authorized surveillance. “It’s commonly used by me,” Barr replied. | Whitehouse pointed out that the term “spying” is not typically used by the Justice Department to refer to authorized surveillance. “It’s commonly used by me,” Barr replied. |
| Senator and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand proposed a plan for public financing of elections. | Senator and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand proposed a plan for public financing of elections. |
| The plan would give every voter up to $600 in “Democracy Dollars” which they could donate to federal candidates of their choice, NBC News reports: | The plan would give every voter up to $600 in “Democracy Dollars” which they could donate to federal candidates of their choice, NBC News reports: |
| Under Gillibrand’s plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time. Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices. | Under Gillibrand’s plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time. Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices. |
| There would be strings attached for both donors and candidates. The money could go only to elections in the donor’s state, although they could be used for House candidates outside the voter’s district. | There would be strings attached for both donors and candidates. The money could go only to elections in the donor’s state, although they could be used for House candidates outside the voter’s district. |
| Politicians would face much tighter limits on donations. To be eligible to receive “Democracy Dollars,” a candidate would have to voluntarily agree to forgo any contributions larger than $200 per donor. That’s a big drop from the current maximum of $2,800 per primary cycle and $2,800 for the general election. | Politicians would face much tighter limits on donations. To be eligible to receive “Democracy Dollars,” a candidate would have to voluntarily agree to forgo any contributions larger than $200 per donor. That’s a big drop from the current maximum of $2,800 per primary cycle and $2,800 for the general election. |
| Attorney General William Barr compared Robert Mueller’s frustrations to a prosecutor who feels the verdict of a trial did not reflect all his great work. | Attorney General William Barr compared Robert Mueller’s frustrations to a prosecutor who feels the verdict of a trial did not reflect all his great work. |
| “My answer to that is I’m not trying to capture everything, I’m just trying to state the verdict,” he said. | “My answer to that is I’m not trying to capture everything, I’m just trying to state the verdict,” he said. |
| Senator Dick Durbin pressed him again on why he denied knowing about the Mueller team’s concerns. “It was clear he had genuine concerns about what you had said and done,” Durbin said. | Senator Dick Durbin pressed him again on why he denied knowing about the Mueller team’s concerns. “It was clear he had genuine concerns about what you had said and done,” Durbin said. |
| In tense questioning w/Durbin, Barr says past testimony focused on his phone call with Mueller, sidesteps concerns raised in Mueller letter. "My understanding [Mueller's concerns] were not the accuracy of the findings in my letter" but he wanted "additional context out there" | In tense questioning w/Durbin, Barr says past testimony focused on his phone call with Mueller, sidesteps concerns raised in Mueller letter. "My understanding [Mueller's concerns] were not the accuracy of the findings in my letter" but he wanted "additional context out there" |
| Atty General Barr compares Special Counsel Mueller's concerns about Barr summary not reflecting substance of his report, to a lawyer frustrated about a trial verdict not reflecting all his great work | Atty General Barr compares Special Counsel Mueller's concerns about Barr summary not reflecting substance of his report, to a lawyer frustrated about a trial verdict not reflecting all his great work |
| Barr also left open the possibility Donald Trump would invoke executive privilege to prevent former White House counsel Donald McGahn from testifying before Congress. “That’s a call for the president to make,” he said. “I assume he’d be testifying about privileged matters.” | Barr also left open the possibility Donald Trump would invoke executive privilege to prevent former White House counsel Donald McGahn from testifying before Congress. “That’s a call for the president to make,” he said. “I assume he’d be testifying about privileged matters.” |
| Senator Patrick Leahy asks Barr why he testified that he did not know about special counsel Robert Mueller’s team’s concerns about the summary of his report, when he had spoken to Mueller about those concerns. | |
| Barr makes another fine distinction here: he was talking about press reports that members of Mueller’s team were expressing frustration about the summary, as opposed to Mueller’s own concerns. “I don’t know what that refers to at all. I talked directly to Bob Mueller, not members of his team,” he said. | Barr makes another fine distinction here: he was talking about press reports that members of Mueller’s team were expressing frustration about the summary, as opposed to Mueller’s own concerns. “I don’t know what that refers to at all. I talked directly to Bob Mueller, not members of his team,” he said. |
| “I feel your answer was purposely misleading,” Leahy said. | “I feel your answer was purposely misleading,” Leahy said. |
| Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Bill Barr on the episode documented in the Mueller report where Donald Trump told White House counsel Don McGahn to have Mueller removed from his post, and then told McGahn to deny it. | Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Bill Barr on the episode documented in the Mueller report where Donald Trump told White House counsel Don McGahn to have Mueller removed from his post, and then told McGahn to deny it. |
| Barr says this does not add up to obstruction of justice, relying on the distinction between ordering Mueller’s firing and ordering him to be removed for conflicts of interest. The difference, he claims, is that Mueller would have been replaced with a new special counsel if he were removed for conflicts. | Barr says this does not add up to obstruction of justice, relying on the distinction between ordering Mueller’s firing and ordering him to be removed for conflicts of interest. The difference, he claims, is that Mueller would have been replaced with a new special counsel if he were removed for conflicts. |
| This sounds like splitting hairs but Barr is making a distinction between President Trump telling Don McGahn "Go fire Mueller" and "Go have him removed because of a conflict." Barr says the second one doesn't break any laws. | This sounds like splitting hairs but Barr is making a distinction between President Trump telling Don McGahn "Go fire Mueller" and "Go have him removed because of a conflict." Barr says the second one doesn't break any laws. |
| So...Barr's explanation is that Trump wasn't ordering McGahn to have Mueller fired because he wanted the investigation to end, but was politely suggesting that McGahn have Rosenstein examine Mueller's conflicts of interest and appoint a *new* special counsel.Really?? | So...Barr's explanation is that Trump wasn't ordering McGahn to have Mueller fired because he wanted the investigation to end, but was politely suggesting that McGahn have Rosenstein examine Mueller's conflicts of interest and appoint a *new* special counsel.Really?? |
| As Attorney General William Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, minority leader Chuck Schumer is questioning his fitness for office. | As Attorney General William Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, minority leader Chuck Schumer is questioning his fitness for office. |
| There may not be a member of this Administration with more to answer for than the Attorney General. His confirmation occurred only a few months ago. Yet in that short time, Barr’s conduct has raised damning questions about his impartiality and fitness. https://t.co/TzjWCEFt2d | There may not be a member of this Administration with more to answer for than the Attorney General. His confirmation occurred only a few months ago. Yet in that short time, Barr’s conduct has raised damning questions about his impartiality and fitness. https://t.co/TzjWCEFt2d |
| Attorney General William Barr, testifying before the Senate, says he offered special counsel Robert Mueller the chance to review Barr’s letter summarizing his report. “He declined,” he said. | Attorney General William Barr, testifying before the Senate, says he offered special counsel Robert Mueller the chance to review Barr’s letter summarizing his report. “He declined,” he said. |
| In a subsequent phone call, Mueller pushed him to release executive summaries of sections of the report, which Barr declined to do. “He was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report,” Barr said. | In a subsequent phone call, Mueller pushed him to release executive summaries of sections of the report, which Barr declined to do. “He was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report,” Barr said. |
| Barr said he was “frankly surprised” when Mueller told him he would not reach a conclusion on whether Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice. | Barr said he was “frankly surprised” when Mueller told him he would not reach a conclusion on whether Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice. |
| “We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision,” Barr said, adding that Mueller did not clarify. | “We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision,” Barr said, adding that Mueller did not clarify. |
| He said that he and deputy AG Rod Rosenstein then decided they would reach a conclusion on their own. | He said that he and deputy AG Rod Rosenstein then decided they would reach a conclusion on their own. |
| “It’s a binary decision: is there enough evidence to show a crime, and do we believe a crime has been committed,” he said. “We don’t conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public. We do so to make a decision.” | “It’s a binary decision: is there enough evidence to show a crime, and do we believe a crime has been committed,” he said. “We don’t conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public. We do so to make a decision.” |
| Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said in his opening remarks that the Mueller report found there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. | Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said in his opening remarks that the Mueller report found there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. |
| In fact, Mueller’s report makes clear that he is not weighing in on the concept of “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Instead, he investigated whether there was criminal conspiracy, and did not find sufficient evidence to establish that there was one. | In fact, Mueller’s report makes clear that he is not weighing in on the concept of “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Instead, he investigated whether there was criminal conspiracy, and did not find sufficient evidence to establish that there was one. |
| Brian Williams just broke into @MSNBC's coverage of the Barr hearing to correct Lindsey Graham: "The chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said that Mueller found there is no collusion. That is not correct." | Brian Williams just broke into @MSNBC's coverage of the Barr hearing to correct Lindsey Graham: "The chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said that Mueller found there is no collusion. That is not correct." |
| Graham went on to devote much of his opening to discussing the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton. As for Mueller’s findings, which he acknowledged he had not read in full, he said: “For me it is over.” | Graham went on to devote much of his opening to discussing the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton. As for Mueller’s findings, which he acknowledged he had not read in full, he said: “For me it is over.” |
| Lindsey Graham is reading quotes from FBI officials saying anti-Trump things in 2016 … much like the anti-Trump things Graham was saying in 2016. "I think Donald Trump is a con man,” he said then. | Lindsey Graham is reading quotes from FBI officials saying anti-Trump things in 2016 … much like the anti-Trump things Graham was saying in 2016. "I think Donald Trump is a con man,” he said then. |