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/2019/05/06/us/politics/house-contempt-attorney-general-barr.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
House Judiciary Committee to Vote Wednesday to Hold Barr in Contempt House Judiciary Committee to Vote Wednesday to Hold Barr in Contempt
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee will vote Wednesday to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress, after the Justice Department appeared to miss a Monday deadline to negotiate the delivery of Robert S. Mueller III’s full report, along with key evidence collected by the special counsel. WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee will vote Wednesday to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress, after the Justice Department appeared to miss a Monday deadline to negotiate the delivery of Robert S. Mueller III’s full report and evidence he collected.
Democrats said the vote could still be avoided if the Justice Department changes course, but Monday’s announcement sets up another dramatic escalation in a growing dispute between the legislative and executive branches. If the full House follows suit and votes to hold Mr. Barr in contempt of Congress, it would be only the second time in American history that a sitting member of a president’s cabinet has been penalized by lawmakers that way. Democrats said the vote could still be avoided if the Justice Department changes course, and just hours after the committee announced the vote, a deputy to Mr. Barr wrote to hold out that possibility, offering to meet Wednesday afternoon “to negotiate an accommodation that meets the legitimate interests of each of our coequal branches of government.”
The Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, said the vote would occur at 10 a.m. A 27-page report accompanying the vote notice on Monday recommends that Mr. Barr “shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.” It was unclear if the offer would prompt Democrats to delay the vote. A contempt vote would dramatically escalate a growing dispute between the legislative and executive branches. If the full House follows suit and votes to hold Mr. Barr in contempt of Congress, it would be only the second time in American history that the nation’s top law enforcement official has been penalized by lawmakers that way.
The Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, had scheduled the vote for 10 a.m. on Wednesday. A 27-page report accompanying the vote notice on Monday recommends that Mr. Barr “shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.”
[Read the contempt resolution here.][Read the contempt resolution here.]
The Democratic-controlled panel almost certainly will vote in favor of contempt unless the Justice Department meets the Democrats’ demands before Wednesday. The full House would then have to hold a vote. It is unclear when that would occur. If the Judiciary Committee proceeds with the vote, the full House would still have to hold a vote. It is unclear when that would occur.
“Even in redacted form, the special counsel’s report offers disturbing evidence and analysis that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “Congress must see the full report and underlying evidence to determine how to best move forward with oversight, legislation, and other constitutional responsibilities.”“Even in redacted form, the special counsel’s report offers disturbing evidence and analysis that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “Congress must see the full report and underlying evidence to determine how to best move forward with oversight, legislation, and other constitutional responsibilities.”
Among those “other responsibilities,” Mr. Nadler’s accompanying report said, was determining “whether to approve articles of impeachment with respect to the president or any other administration official, as well as the consideration of other steps such as censure or issuing criminal, civil or administrative referrals.”Among those “other responsibilities,” Mr. Nadler’s accompanying report said, was determining “whether to approve articles of impeachment with respect to the president or any other administration official, as well as the consideration of other steps such as censure or issuing criminal, civil or administrative referrals.”
The dispute over access to the work of Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, is only one of a growing number of confrontations between House investigators and President Trump and his administration that are threatening to boil over into court and stall Democratic investigations.The dispute over access to the work of Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, is only one of a growing number of confrontations between House investigators and President Trump and his administration that are threatening to boil over into court and stall Democratic investigations.
Mr. Trump said Sunday that he objected to Mr. Mueller testifying before the Judiciary Committee — again pressing Mr. Barr, who had previously expressed willingness to let the special counsel appear, to run interference for the president.Mr. Trump said Sunday that he objected to Mr. Mueller testifying before the Judiciary Committee — again pressing Mr. Barr, who had previously expressed willingness to let the special counsel appear, to run interference for the president.
The Treasury Department is also expected on Monday to tell the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, its reason he cannot access Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which Mr. Neal requested under a provision in the tax code.The Treasury Department is also expected on Monday to tell the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, its reason he cannot access Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which Mr. Neal requested under a provision in the tax code.
The Judiciary Committee had set a Monday deadline last week for the material to be handed over under a subpoena, but the Justice Department declined to meet it, citing concerns about political interference in its investigations and questioning whether the committee had a valid legislative purpose. Democrats got some backup on Monday when more than 375 former Justice Department officials and federal prosecutors from across the country signed a letter asserting that Mr. Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice, based on the findings in the Mueller report, if he had not been protected by a Justice Department policy that says a sitting president cannot be indicted.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting president, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the letter said.
The signatories, who worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations, said that the report lays out conduct that could be charged as obstruction, including Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire Mr. Mueller and falsify evidence about that effort, his efforts to limit the scope of the investigation, and his attempts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with the inquiry.
While each act could be defended in court, “these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they wrote. The idea that a prosecutor could not win an obstruction of justice conviction based on the evidence in the report, “runs counter to logic and our experience.”
The Judiciary Committee had set a Monday deadline last week for material from Mr. Mueller’s work to be handed over under a subpoena, but the Justice Department declined to meet it, citing concerns about political interference in its investigations and questioning whether the committee had a valid legislative purpose.
On Friday, Mr. Nadler wrote to the attorney general a final time trying to revive discussions and opening the door to possible concessions from Democrats. Democrats said his deadline came and went Monday morning without a meaningful response.On Friday, Mr. Nadler wrote to the attorney general a final time trying to revive discussions and opening the door to possible concessions from Democrats. Democrats said his deadline came and went Monday morning without a meaningful response.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on scheduling of the contempt vote. But the Justice Department said it had indicated over the weekend that a response would be forthcoming, and on Monday Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, wrote “we were disappointed that the committee took initial steps this morning toward moving forward with the contempt process.”
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee protested the Democrats’ plan. Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel’s top Republican, called it “illogical and disingenuous” and suggested that the Justice Department was still “working to negotiate.” Mr. Boyd chastised Democrats for what he described as a hasty subpoena and for their decision not to view a less redacted version of the 448-page report made available by Mr. Barr. Democrats had objected to doing so because the department only offered the arrangement to a dozen lawmakers and said they must sign a nondisclosure agreement and leave their notes with the department.
“Democrats have launched a proxy war smearing the attorney general when their anger actually lies with the president and the special counsel, who found neither conspiracy nor obstruction,” Mr. Collins said. Mr. Boyd signaled the department was now open to reconsidering that arrangement and to discussing prioritizing the sharing of certain raw evidence collected by Mr. Mueller.
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had protested the Democrats’ plan. Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel’s top Republican, welcomed the Justice Department’s invitation to meet.
“I appreciate the respect Attorney General Barr is showing our committee by responding to a deluge of perverse demands,” he said. “So far, he has honored Congress by being faithful to the laws we have enacted, and I look forward to a productive, bipartisan meeting this Wednesday.”
A contempt finding would do two things for Democrats: put a mark on Mr. Barr’s record and push the dispute into the courts where a judge could decide whether to force the administration to hand over the material. But that could take months, affecting the pace and scope of Democratic investigations.A contempt finding would do two things for Democrats: put a mark on Mr. Barr’s record and push the dispute into the courts where a judge could decide whether to force the administration to hand over the material. But that could take months, affecting the pace and scope of Democratic investigations.
The committee’s action has precedent. House Republicans chose to pursue contempt in 2012 when they sparred with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.The committee’s action has precedent. House Republicans chose to pursue contempt in 2012 when they sparred with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
In the Holder dispute, the House had subpoenaed Justice Department emails to examine internal deliberations about how to respond to congressional requests for information about the botched “Fast and Furious” gun trafficking investigation. President Barack Obama invoked executive privilege over the files, saying it would chill the candor of internal executive-branch deliberations if officials knew Congress could obtain their emails about such a matter.In the Holder dispute, the House had subpoenaed Justice Department emails to examine internal deliberations about how to respond to congressional requests for information about the botched “Fast and Furious” gun trafficking investigation. President Barack Obama invoked executive privilege over the files, saying it would chill the candor of internal executive-branch deliberations if officials knew Congress could obtain their emails about such a matter.
Rejecting that claim of privilege, the House asked the Justice Department to prosecute Mr. Holder, which it promptly declined to do. But the House also filed a lawsuit asking a judge to enforce the subpoena. In that litigation, the Obama administration lost several key rulings.Rejecting that claim of privilege, the House asked the Justice Department to prosecute Mr. Holder, which it promptly declined to do. But the House also filed a lawsuit asking a judge to enforce the subpoena. In that litigation, the Obama administration lost several key rulings.
First, the judge rejected its bid to withhold all the responsive documents with a blanket claim of privilege, rather than having to explain why each one met the standards. Then the judge ruled that executive privilege had been waived because the Justice Department’s inspector general had put out a public report that quoted many of the same emails Congress was seeking.First, the judge rejected its bid to withhold all the responsive documents with a blanket claim of privilege, rather than having to explain why each one met the standards. Then the judge ruled that executive privilege had been waived because the Justice Department’s inspector general had put out a public report that quoted many of the same emails Congress was seeking.
The Obama administration complied with those rulings rather than appealing its losses, but the process took years to play out.The Obama administration complied with those rulings rather than appealing its losses, but the process took years to play out.