It’s all in Barr’s court now
by digby
CNN is confirming yesterday’s Pete Williams NBC report that Robert Mueller is expected to deliver a report to William Barr as early as next week. I’m not shocked by this. I have to imagine if it’s true that he’s had it written for some time and was just waiting until the toadie Whitaker was gone and Barr was confirmed to turn it over.
If this is true, we’re at the point where all the questions about Barr are about to be answered so I thought it was a good day to reprise this piece I wrote when Barr was first nominated:
Monday, December 10, 2018
Will Bill Barr be Trump’s Roy Cohn? Or his Leon Jaworski?by digby
My Salon column this morning:Shortly after the Saturday Night Massacre in October, 1973 Texas lawyer Leon Jaworski received a call from the White House Chief of Staff, Alexander Haig. Haig simply said, “He wants you, Leon.” This wasn’t the first time the White House had reached out to him. He’d been offered the job earlier but had turned it down. Now the president was calling and he felt it was his duty to take the job at this important juncture.
He was nominally a Democrat but in those days, especially in Texas, that meant he was a conservative. And he’d supported Nixon from the beginning, voting for him both times. So the president felt he finally had an ally in the Special Prosecutors office, someone who wasn’t one of those pointy-headed Harvard types whom he always thought hated the poor kid from Whittier.
Jaworski had a reputation for rectitude. He’d famously prosecuted War Crimes after WWII. (The truth is a little murkier — he was plenty political.) But he did take himself and the law seriously. Jaworski took office, looked over the evidence the prosecutors had amassed and was appalled by what he saw. He later explained that when he heard the “smoking gun” tape in which Nixon was heard telling his henchman Haldeman to commit perjury, in his mind, “the president, a lawyer, coached Haldeman on how to testify untruthfully and yet not commit perjury… It amounted to subornation of perjury. For the No. 1 law enforcement officer of the country, it was, in my opinion, as demeaning an act as could be imagined.”
The reason I bring this up is that President Trump has finally nominated someone to replace Jeff Sessions permanently — William Barr who previously served as Attorney General under George H.W. Bush. There are some intriguing parallels between the Jaworski appointment and this one, although there’s no guarantee that the two cases will end up the same way.
This news of Barr’s appointment was received with relief by much of Washington, mostly because after the debacle of the Matt Whitaker temporary appointment, everyone had been afraid he was going to nominate someone from Fox News or a personal toady like Rudy Giuliani. At least this pick is qualified and (as far as we know) isn’t himself under investigation by the Justice Department.
Like Jaworski, Barr was also apparently interviewed earlier to be Trump’s personal lawyer. According to Yahoo News, the two met privately in 2017 to discuss Barr coming on a Trump’s personal defense attorney and Barr turned him down, citing other obligations. They came back to him after Trump’s lawyer John Dowd resigned in 2018 and he put hem off again. It seems that Trump truly believes this man is someone he wants on his team and since he is entirely self-centered it’s entirely likely he believes he’s finally found his Roy Cohn.
It’s not hard to see why Trump would believe this. Barr told the New York Times that he thinks the phony Clinton “Uranium One” scandal should be further investigated suggesting that he’s rather deep into right wing media conspiracy nonsense, which is not a good sign:
“There is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation,” said William P. Barr, who ran the Justice Department under President George Bush. “Although an investigation shouldn’t be launched just because a president wants it, the ultimate question is whether the matter warrants investigation.”
Mr. Barr said he sees more basis for investigating the uranium deal than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia. “To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he said.
Barr is also on record complaining that the Special Prosecutor’s office lacks balance because some prosecutors donated to Democrats. (I’m not sure who made the rule that all presidential investigations have to be run by Republicans but after Archibald Cox hey all have been: Jaworski, Iran-Contra Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, Ken Starr, and Robert Mueller. Apparently, they are not allowed to even have Democrats on their staff in order to be credible.)
And he defended Trump’s decision to fire James Comey as FBI Director in an op-ed, saying that Comey had mishandled the Clinton email investigation. Notably, he did not say that Clinton should have been indicted but rather that Comey’s decision to go beyond FBI authority to “explain” why the case was being closed and the subsequent political mess that decision created was a firing offense. He also expressed faith in the integrity of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, saying the Russia investigation would be unimpeded by the firing.
The fact that he’s been approached by the administration before and has made these public comments means he very well may be Trump’s big ally in the Department of Justice. The comments about the Uranium One non-scandal are pretty worrying in that regard because he had the cockamamie idea that there was evidence that demanded investigation when that just isn’t true. And the idea that a president can ask for an investigation but the Justice Department doesn’t have to do it is fatuous and he surely knows that. Presidents should not be demanding investigations of anyone, but particularly not of their political rivals. It’s an abuse of the office and the DOJ should not be put in the position of having to defy him.
The fact that he seems to have been cozying up to Trump from the beginning in a way that many other Washington lawyers have avoided suggests that he’s not the old school straight-arrow type like Jaworski or, for that matter, Robert Mueller. But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be. When you look at all of his comments together most of them aren’t as totally Trumpish as they may sound. And his history is that of an establishment institutionalist which means that while he may say that Trump has the freedom to do as he sees fit in most circumstances, he may also defend the Department of Justice as an agency with inherent independence and decision making power. If you look at his language in those op-eds and commentary, he is quite judicious in the way he speaks even when he’s defending Trump.
But it’s hard to imagine Trump would have selected him for the job without the kind of guarantee he expected from his previous attorney general, Sessions, or from Comey, the man he fired from the FBI. Would he have hired anyone who refused to be his Roy Cohn?
.
It’s possible that Mueller exonerates the president and his henchmen or, at least, concludes that there was no criminal intent in anything he did. And there is an equal chance that in that case, William Barr will decide that the report cannot be sent to congress or made public because it’s Justice Department procedure to keep confidential any reasoning behind a declination to prosecute. (Of course, the DOJ also states that a president cannot be prosecuted while in office, so the whole thing is a Catch-22.)
This policy is the correct one, of course. The DOJ should not be able to use their investigative power to smear citizens that have committed no crime but nonetheless may have done something stupid and wrong. This has been largely observed except in the case of Hillary Clinton where James Comey went public with the FBI’s belief that she had not committed a crime but nonetheless was “reckless” etc, exactly the sort of information that would be useful in an impeachment trial which has a broader scope than a criminal trial. The old Independent Counsel statute which the congress let lapse because of Ken Starr’s abuse, required a report in the case of a presidential investigation for precisely this reason.
It would be terribly ironic if the Mueller report proves that the president of the United States was a dupe and a stooge for a foreign adversary but because he is so dumb he didn’t know he was breaking the law so he can’t be charged with a crime and therefore the public will never know exactly how he and his henchmen sold out his country through sheer incompetence, greed, arrogance and stupidity.
It could happen. And he could even be re-elected.
.