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 3 Version 4
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 and evidence he collected. WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee, barring a last-minute accommodation by the Justice Department, plans to vote on Wednesday to recommend that the House hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena for Robert S. Mueller III’s full report and evidence.
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 contempt vote would raise the stakes in a standoff between the legislative and executive branches of government, triggered after the Justice Department disregarded a series of deadlines to hand over material that Democrats insist is central to the House’s ability to fully investigate the president’s behavior detailed in the report of Mr. Mueller, the special counsel. House Democrats say they need the material to determine whether to pursue impeachment or other forms of punishment.
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.]
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. Democrats were grappling, too, on Monday with other new obstacles to congressional oversight that seem to be thrown in their way almost daily. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told the House Ways and Means Committee Monday evening that it would not grant access to President Trump’s tax returns as requested, saying the demand “lacks legitimate legislative purpose.”
“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.” And the Judiciary Committee was preparing to raise the pressure on Donald F. McGahn II, a former White House counsel and chief witness in the special counsel investigation, if he misses a Tuesday deadline to hand over key documents that the White House says are subject to executive privilege.
But Mr. Barr, who refused to testify before the Judiciary Committee last week because of a dispute over format, has earned special ire, serving as a kind of surrogate punching bag for Democrats frustrated with Mr. Trump but leery of impeachment. If the full House follows suit and votes to hold Mr. Barr in contempt, it would be only the second time that the nation’s top law enforcement officer has been penalized by lawmakers that way.
The Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, said the Wednesday vote could still be avoided if the Justice Department changes course. Hours after Democrats announced their plan, a deputy to Mr. Barr wrote to hold out that possibility, kicking off a new round of exchanges with an uncertain outcome.
The deputy, Stephen E. Boyd, said that the department was willing to meet Wednesday afternoon — after the scheduled contempt vote — “to negotiate an accommodation that meets the legitimate interests of each of our coequal branches of government.”
In the meantime, Democrats had compiled a 27-page contempt report documenting their interactions with the attorney general and the scope of their own investigation of obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
“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 separate 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 Democrat-controlled panel almost certainly will vote in favor of contempt unless the Justice Department meets its demands. It is unclear when a full House vote would occur, and the interlude could allow another opportunity for negotiation.
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. Barr himself has kept out of the public eye since a hearing in the Senate last week, where he offered an unflinching defense of his decision not to charge Mr. Trump with obstruction of justice, despite evidence gathered by Mr. Mueller. His aides have argued that Democrats are being unreasonable. The attorney general, they say, voluntarily released the 448-page report on the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia and possible obstruction of justice with minimal redactions and offered to testify voluntarily before the Judiciary Committee.
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 attorney general has taken extraordinary steps to accommodate the House Judiciary Committee’s requests for information regarding the special counsel’s investigation,” a spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said on Monday. Mr. Nadler, she added, had not lived up to his end of the bargain.
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. The dispute over gaining access to Mr. Mueller’s work is only one of a growing number of confrontations between House investigators and Mr. Trump and his administration that are threatening to boil over into court and stall Democratic investigations. Party leaders, who counseled investigations over impeachment after the Mueller report, are now considering whether to change course in the face of administration stonewalling without giving the president the impeachment fight he seems to want.
Democrats got some backup on Monday when more than 375 former Justice Department officials and federal prosecutors who had worked for Republican and Democratic administrations released a letter asserting that Mr. Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice, based on the findings of 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.“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. Meantime, the president’s provocations continued.
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.” He said Sunday that he objected to Mr. Mueller testifying before the Judiciary Committee, and he urged the country to move on from an investigation that did not result in criminal charges. The grounds and weight of his objection were unclear, but it could easily stall a hearing, which Democrats had hoped to hold as soon as next week.
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. Mr. Trump has likewise said Mr. McGahn ought not cooperate with the committee’s request for testimony or with its subpoena for documents related to key episodes of possible obstruction laid out by Mr. Mueller. Democrats were preparing for another possible court fight should the president try to assert executive privilege to block Mr. McGahn from discussing their private conversations, including when Mr. Trump tried to use Mr. McGahn to fire Mr. Mueller and alter records of their conversation.
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. Democrats say the first step is still to see Mr. Mueller’s entire report and the evidence that he collected. On Friday, Mr. Nadler wrote to the attorney general one last time to open the door to possible concessions in an effort to revive discussions on the documents. The department did not respond until Monday afternoon.
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.” In his response letter, Mr. Boyd chastised Democrats for their decision not to view a less redacted version of the 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 that they must sign a nondisclosure agreement and leave their notes with the department.
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. Mr. Boyd now says he is open to reconsidering that arrangement and would be willing to discuss prioritizing the sharing of certain raw evidence collected by Mr. Mueller.
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. Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the Judiciary Committee’s top Republican, welcomed the Justice Department’s invitation and blasted Democrats’ “illogical and disingenuous” demands
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. “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.
“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 or longer, 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. When House Republicans chose to pursue contempt in 2012 against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., in connection with requests for information about the botched “Fast and Furious” gun-trafficking investigation, litigation took several years, though Congress ultimately prevailed.
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.
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.
The Obama administration complied with those rulings rather than appealing its losses, but the process took years to play out.