{"id":35370,"date":"2019-01-16T10:41:51","date_gmt":"2019-01-16T18:41:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=35370"},"modified":"2019-01-16T10:41:51","modified_gmt":"2019-01-16T18:41:51","slug":"barr-or-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2019\/01\/16\/barr-or-not\/","title":{"rendered":"Barr or Not?"},"content":{"rendered":"

William Barr will almost surely be confirmed by the Senate as our next Attorney General.  I have severe reservations about him, but the best Democrats can hope to accomplish is to delay his nomination through procedural means.  Is it worth the effort to do so, or should we hold our limited political capital in the Senate for more critical matters?  Here are concerns from his hearing.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"0116Barr\"<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump\u2019s efforts to exert control over the Justice Department \u2014 one of the few bodies left that can assert a real check on his power and corruption \u2014 have been an ongoing crisis and scandal during his time in office. In that context, his nomination of former Attorney General William Barr to retake the top position at the head of the department warrants extreme scrutiny.<\/p>\n

And given the fact that Barr crafted a 20-page memo<\/a> over the summer purporting to argue that Special Counsel Robert Mueller\u2019s theory of how the president obstructed justice \u2014 a theory Barr can\u2019t, in fact, have had any reliable information about \u2014 looks so dubious. He passed the memo along to both Justice Department officials and Trump\u2019s legal team, a move that appears suspiciously like an application for the attorney general position on the basis that he would counter Mueller\u2019s and others\u2019 potential attempts to expose the president\u2019s wrongdoing.<\/p>\n

But his history as attorney general on President George H.W. Bush and his standing as a respected conservative legal mind give him credibility among Senate Republicans, all but assuring that his nomination will be successful.<\/p>\n

Given the likelihood that he will be approved, here are 10 disturbing moments from his testimony on Tuesday:<\/p>\n

1. Barr doesn\u2019t pledge to follow the ethics officials\u2019 advice on recusing himself from investigations.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In perhaps the biggest takeaway of the day, Barr confirmed an answer he had already given to the Senate in writing: While he will consult with ethics officials about whether to recuse from investigations, including those involving the president, he did not pledge to follow their guidance.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnder the regulations, I make the decision,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

This is particularly disturbing because Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker<\/a>, who clearly appeared to be appointed in an effort for the president to gain control over the Mueller probe, reportedly refused an ethics official\u2019s recommendation to recuse from it.<\/p>\n

2. He did not commit to making Mueller\u2019s report public.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Barr\u2019s comments on the so-called \u201cMueller report\u201d were somewhat complicated because, as he correctly pointed out, Mueller is not directed to release a report under the special counsel\u2019s guidelines. Instead, Mueller will submit a report to the attorney general, and the attorney general may or may not then decide to release a public version of a report. Barr said he would try to get out as much information as is possible under the regulations.<\/p>\n

But when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked specifically if he would \u201ccommit to make public all of the Mueller report\u2019s conclusions, even if some of the evidence supporting the conclusions can\u2019t be made public?\u201d Barr only hedged, saying \u201cThat\u2019s certainly my goal and intent.\u201d<\/p>\n

3. He said he didn\u2019t know what the Constitution\u2019s Emoluments Clause says.<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the enduring violations of the Trump presidency has been his flouting of the Constitution\u2019s Emoluments clause, which forbids public officers from taking forms of payment from foreign governments. Lawsuits are currently progressing against the president and the administration in this matter, but when pressed about the issue, Barr implausibly expressed ignorance.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think there\u2019s a dispute about what the Emoluments Clause relates to,\u201d Barr said. \u201cI had not personally researched the emoluments clause. I can\u2019t even tell you what it says at this point.\u201d… [emphasis original<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Alternet<\/a>><\/font><\/p>\n

I shared only the first three concerns in Barr’s testimony.  Click through for the other seven.<\/font><\/p>\n

The following video<\/a> is an excerpt from Barr’s questioning by Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT].<\/font><\/p>\n