This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/house-democrats-barr-mueller.html

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Democrats Threaten Barr With Contempt After He No-Shows House Hearing Pelosi Accuses Barr of Law-Breaking as Democrats’ War With Attorney General Boils Over
(about 7 hours later)
WASHINGTON — House Democrats, decrying what they called an erosion of American democracy, threatened on Thursday to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress after he failed to appear at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee and ignored a subpoena deadline to hand over Robert S. Mueller III’s full report and evidence. WASHINGTON — House Democrats’ feud with Attorney General William P. Barr boiled over on Thursday, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the nation’s top law enforcement officer of lying to Congress and the Judiciary Committee threatened to hold him in contempt if he did not promptly hand over a complete version of Robert S. Mueller III’s report.
They seized on a letter from Mr. Mueller to the attorney general in which he took Mr. Barr to task for the way he had characterized the special counsel’s conclusions on whether President Trump had obstructed justice. At two hearings, before the House and Senate, Mr. Barr indicated he had been unaware of such discontent. The escalation between the legislative and executive branches of government, a day after Mr. Barr mounted an aggressive self-defense in the Senate, was as abrupt and emotionally charged as any in decades.
“What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America was not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters on Thursday, referring to a House hearing in which he said he was unaware that the special counsel had protested his portrayal of his conclusions. “That’s a crime.” The Justice Department had ignored a Wednesday deadline to provide an unredacted version of the report by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, and the investigative materials used to compile it. Then, on Thursday morning, Mr. Barr failed to appear at a House hearing on Mr. Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference, and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump, because of a dispute over who would be allowed to question the attorney general.
Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, fired back, “Speaker Pelosi’s baseless attack on the attorney general is reckless, irresponsible and false.” But it was a newly revealed letter from Mr. Mueller to the attorney general that most provoked Ms. Pelosi’s ire.
Convening in a nearly empty hearing room despite his absence, the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, called on Republicans to join Democrats in standing up for the rights of Congress against an administration that he said was systematically thwarting its constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch. In the letter, the special counsel took Mr. Barr to task for the way that the attorney general had initially summarized his findings, leaving “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.” That appeared to undercut Mr. Barr’s claims at a House hearing on April 9 that he was not aware of any such discontent.
But mostly he trained his ire at the attorney general, who objected to Mr. Nadler’s insistence that staff lawyers be allowed to ask questions at the hearing. “What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America was not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters. “That’s a crime.”
“The attorney general must make a choice,” he said. “Every one of us must make the same choice. That choice is now an obligation of our office. The choice is simple: we can stand up to this president in defense of the country and the Constitution we love, or we can let the moment pass us by. ” The Justice Department and Republicans on Capitol Hill fired back; Kerri Kupec, a department spokeswoman, called Ms. Pelosi’s comments a “baseless attack” that was “reckless, irresponsible and false.”
The challenge for Mr. Nadler and other House committee leaders is now to figure out how to secure the material they need for their work. Mr. Nadler said afterward that he would give Mr. Barr “one or two more days” to relent on producing the full Mueller report and the evidence gathered to compile it before initiating contempt proceedings. Committee Democrats were preparing to make the Justice Department a formal counteroffer. Mr. Barr had offered his own defense on Wednesday, telling senators that his comments about not knowing the feelings of the special counsel’s office referred to the investigators — not Mr. Mueller himself.
But with no cooperation in sight, House Democrats would then have to choose between the different options they have to escalate their case. Dozens of Democrats in Congress, including some running for president, seized on Mr. Mueller’s letter to the attorney general and called for Mr. Barr to resign. The calls for Mr. Barr to be held in contempt of Congress stem not from Mr. Mueller’s letter or his refusal to appear in front of the committee on Thursday. Instead, they follow the Justice Department’s decision not to honor the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for Mr. Mueller’s report without redactions and all the evidence his investigators collected.
Some lawmakers are arguing for opening an impeachment inquiry, which grants the House clearer powers to command information from the executive branch. Though not necessarily punitive, a vote to hold Mr. Barr in contempt would put a mark on his record and could push the dispute into the courts. House Republicans chose that route in 2012 when they held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over internal Justice Department documents. In a letter to lawmakers, the department said that sharing the information would put the integrity of its investigations at risk.
In a private meeting with members of her leadership team, Ms. Pelosi called Mr. Barr a “lap dog” for President Trump and an “enabler” of his obstruction of justice, according to a congressional aide in the room. Democrats were not ready to accept that answer.
At her weekly news conference, the speaker referred to Mr. Barr’s testimony to Congress on April 9 when he told Representative Charlie Crist, Democrat of Florida, that he was not aware of Mr. Mueller’s concern about the way he had presented the special counsel’s conclusions. Convening in a nearly empty hearing room, the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, called on Republicans to join Democrats against an administration that he said was systematically thwarting the constitutional duty of Congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch.
The letter from Mr. Mueller to Mr. Barr, released by the Justice Department on Wednesday, showed that before that House hearing, the special counsel had laid out concerns about how Mr. Barr had communicated his findings to the public. Mostly, though, he trained his ire at the attorney general, who had objected to Mr. Nadler’s insistence that staff lawyers be allowed to ask questions at the hearing.
“He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” the speaker said. “Being the attorney general does not give you a bath to go say whatever you'd like.” “We will have no choice but to move quickly to hold the attorney general in contempt if he stalls or fails to negotiate in good faith,” Mr. Nadler said. “But the attorney general must make a choice. Every one of us must make the same choice. That choice is now an obligation of our office.”
But privately, Ms. Pelosi continued to hold her line against impeachment. “Impeachment is too good for him,” she said of Mr. Trump, according to the aide. “The choice is simple: We can stand up to this president in defense of the country and the Constitution we love, or we can let the moment pass us by,” he said.
Officially, Mr. Barr refused to show for the Judiciary Committee hearing because Democrats had insisted that he sit for questioning from Democratic and Republican staff lawyers. In a statement on Wednesday, Ms. Kupec called Democrats’ demands “unprecedented and unnecessary.” She said Mr. Barr would be happy to come testify if Democrats would drop that demand. The practical challenge for Mr. Nadler and other House committee leaders — who had hoped to hold Mr. Trump accountable without formal impeachment proceedings — is to decide how respond to an administration that has refused to cooperate with any of their investigations.
In the Judiciary hearing room, where the committee convened for only about ten minutes, there were moments of levity, too. Before the hearing even began, Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, munched on Kentucky Fried Chicken on the dais as press cameras clicked. The highest law enforcement officer in the country, he said, was a gobbler. Mr. Nadler said he would give Mr. Barr “one or two more days” to produce Mr. Mueller’s entire report before initiating contempt proceedings. Committee Democrats were preparing to make the Justice Department a formal counteroffer to stave off another escalation of hostilities.
Democrats, seeking to dramatize the attorney general’s absence, set out an empty chair with a name card for Mr. Barr. But with no cooperation in sight, House Democrats could soon have to choose from a handful of paths to raise the pressure.
“What is he hiding under here?” Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island, said, miming confusion as he moved the chair around. “Just checking.” Some lawmakers want to open an impeachment inquiry of Mr. Trump, effectively turning the House into a grand jury. That would give the legislative body clearer powers to command information from the executive branch, including secretive grand jury material.
Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the committee, lit into his Democratic colleagues for making “ludicrous” demands of the attorney general, and accused the committee’s chairman of manufacturing a conflict instead of trying to get at the truth. In a private meeting with members of her leadership team, Ms. Pelosi called Mr. Barr a “lap dog” for Mr. Trump and an “enabler” of obstruction of justice, according to a congressional aide in the room. But she continued to hold her line against impeachment.
“The reason Bill Barr is not here today is because the Democrats decided they did not want him here today,” Mr. Collins said, his rapid-fire Georgia rat-a-tat winding up in indignation. “Impeachment is too good for him,” she said of Mr. Trump, according to the aide.
When Republicans tried to prolong the brief session with parliamentary objections, Mr. Nadler gaveled out, cut the microphones, and walked out of the hearing room. A contempt proceeding, though not necessarily punitive, would put a mark on Mr. Barr’s record and could push the dispute into the courts. House Republicans chose that route in 2012 when they held Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over internal Justice Department documents on a botched gunrunning investigation called Fast and Furious.
It was a stark contrast to just a day before, when Mr. Barr testified for five hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a hearing largely spent defending his handling of the special counsel’s report. Democrats could begin the proceedings as soon as next week if they cannot budge Mr. Barr, but it would take at least months for the process to play out.
The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee provided a more friendly venue for Mr. Barr to take his first congressional questions since the report’s release, but it was by no means a tranquil session. Democrats are also trying to secure testimony from Mr. Mueller. And it is unclear if Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel whom the committee subpoenaed to testify this month, will show up.
Democrats pressed Mr. Barr on the newly revealed letter in which Mr. Mueller complained about Mr. Barr’s initial summary of his findings. They asked him to explain why he did not view specific actions by Mr. Trump to thwart investigators as obstruction of justice. And they excoriated Mr. Barr as “purposely misleading” Congress and the public and even lying to Congress, all in service of insulating Mr. Trump from the consequences of his actions. Democrats are not alone in their unhappiness over how the nearly two-year special counsel investigation is coming to a close.
Mr. Barr took the punches and did not give ground, agreeing with Republicans that the time had come to review the conduct of investigators and move on. In a letter to Mr. Barr that was dated April 19 but released on Thursday, a top White House lawyer, Emmet T. Flood, complained that the special counsel had violated the regulations governing his appointment by failing to reach a prosecutorial decision on obstruction of justice. Mr. Flood described Mr. Mueller’s findings as a 182-page discussion of evidence that were “part ‘truth commission’ report and part law school exam paper.”
He called Mr. Mueller’s letter “a bit snitty” and professed amazement that it should even matter after he released, voluntarily, a lightly redacted 448-page report. He defended his legal determinations around obstruction of justice and aspects of Mr. Trump’s behavior. The Justice Department’s job, he said, is to make charging decisions, not to police right and wrong. Congress or voters, he said, are welcome to look at the evidence themselves and pursue other recourse. Echoing Mr. Trump’s complaints about the “deep state,” though couching them in legalese, Mr. Flood accused unnamed officials of “a campaign of illegal leaks” to damage the president. He said James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, who was not named in the letter, had talked to reporters about his encounters with Mr. Trump to engineer the appointment of a special counsel.
“Two years of his administration have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false,” Mr. Barr said. “And, you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller report had found the opposite.” “That the head of our country’s top law enforcement agency has actually done so to the president of the United States should frighten every friend of individual liberty,” Mr. Flood wrote.
Democrats have still been unable to secure testimony from Mr. Mueller himself. Mr. Nadler said on Wednesday that they were hoping to hold a hearing on May 15, but were still “seeking to firm up the date” with the Justice Department. It is also unclear if Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel whom the committee subpoenaed to testify this month, will show up. [Read Mr. Flood’s letter here.]
Mr. Flood cautioned the attorney general that despite choosing against exerting executive privilege over material contained in the report, the president maintained the right to conceal raw evidence collected by the special counsel and to block witnesses from appearing before Congress.
In the House Judiciary Committee hearing room on Thursday, where the panel convened for only about 10 minutes, there were some moments of levity, too. Before the hearing began, Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, munched on Kentucky Fried Chicken on the dais as press cameras clicked.
Officially, Mr. Barr refused to show for the Judiciary Committee hearing because Democrats had insisted that he sit for questioning from Democratic and Republican staff lawyers. In a statement on Wednesday, Ms. Kupec called Democrats’ demands “unprecedented and unnecessary.” She said Mr. Barr would be happy to testify if Democrats would drop that demand.
Mr. Cohen was not having it. “Chicken Barr should have shown up today and answered questions,” he told reporters. “An attorney general who’s picked for his legal acumen and his abilities would not be fearful of attorneys questioning him for 30 minutes.”
Seeking to dramatize the attorney general’s absence, Democrats set out an empty chair with a name card for Mr. Barr and insisted it was their prerogative to decide how to run their hearings.
“The so-called attorney general is abrasive, evasive and unpersuasive,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the No. 5 House Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee. “He is a disgrace to the office that he currently holds.”
Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the committee, lit into his Democratic colleagues for making “ludicrous” demands and accused Mr. Nadler of manufacturing a conflict instead of trying to get at the truth.
“The reason Bill Barr is not here today is because the Democrats decided they did not want him here today,” Mr. Collins said, his rapid-fire Georgia accent winding up in indignation.
When Republicans tried to prolong the brief session with parliamentary objections, Mr. Nadler gaveled out, cut the microphones and walked out of the hearing room.
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.