A post in two parts on William Barr’s shenanigans regarding the Mueller Report. [April 20 update: I’ve added a third part.]
- What did Barr do?
In William Barr’s notorious 4-page summary, he quotes from the Mueller report: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The complete sentence (Mueller Report, Introduction to Volume I, pp. 1-2) reads:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
From his summary letter on March 24, through his “spying” testimony before Congress last week, to his news conference an hour or so before releasing his redacted version of the Mueller report – Bill Barr’s intent to mislead and distract has been abundantly clear.
No fewer than five times in his news conference he says some variation of this: “In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s hacking.”
Those ‘other words,’ of course are a familiar Donald Trump refrain. Never mind that collusion – outside of anti-trust law – is not a legal concept Barr learned at the George Washington University Law School, or during his tenure as U.S. Attorney General, or anytime or anyplace else during his decades-long legal career in either government or private practice. It is a Trump talking point.
The Mueller Report, in contrast, clearly explains that “collusion” is not a federal crime and thus was not addressed at all in the investigation (Introduction to Volume I, p. 2):
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[ e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
Barr’s
references to collusion include this statement from his news conference, which
seeks to undermine the basis for the investigation and minimize Trump’s
attempts to obstruct it with excuses about the President’s unsettled emotional state.
Said Barr:
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
Barr throws up so much chaff here, it is hard to see or breathe. Yes, Trump was in “an unprecedented situation,” having won election with the aggressive covert assistance of the Russian government. “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion.” (Introduction to Volume I, p. 1)
Yes, “federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct” with sufficient evidence of a national security threat to obtain a FISA warrant. Yes, there was “relentless speculation … about the President’s personal culpability,” based in great measure on the conduct in plain sight of Trump personally, and of Trump’s campaign and associates – and of their misdirection and lies to cover up their culpability. No, it is not a fact that “there was in fact no collusion.” And, grant that “the President was frustrated and angered,” does that earn him a pass on bad conduct?
Mueller’s report adds to abundant public evidence of Trump’s capacity for lying, which calls into question why we should be moved by references to the man’s “sincere belief.” While Barr’s assertion that “the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” is belied by the President’s refusal to sit down for an interview with the Special Counsel or to answer even in writing questions about obstruction of justice.
If the President “took no act in fact” that thwarted the investigation, it was not for lack of trying. For example, after firing Comey and learning learning that an obstruction-of-justice investigation into his own conduct had begun, Trump “attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between the Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government.” (Volume II, II. Factual Results Of The Obstruction Investigation, L. Overarching Factual Issues, 2.b., p. 158)
Finally, “Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.” I’ll note, simply, that the Mueller Report has page after page of evidence of corrupt intent – and obstructive actions by the President of the United States.
2. What’s the point?
In my March 27 post, I suggested that Barr’s 4-page letter was designed to lock-in a false narrative prior to releasing the (redacted) Mueller report. The letter led to several days of reporting that Mueller had found no collusion, nor convincing evidence of obstruction. Barr’s news conference – an hour or so before release of the report – kept up the charade. Why bother, especially only an hour or two before folks could see for themselves that Barr was again spinning furiously?
Certainly Barr (as with many Trump associates inside and outside of government) knows how to play to an audience of one on TV. But far more significant to Barr was a much wider audience. Barr is acting as a prominent leader of the Republican Party (that is to say, his Tribe). He is signaling to Trump defenders – wherever they may be – that, regardless of how solid or extensive the evidence of corruption, instability, and wrongdoing is, the party line is unchanged: this was a witch hunt, his enemies spied on the president, they’ll use any means necessary to bring him down, and Trump defenders must continue to push back.
From Fox News Channel to Mitch McConnell to GOP Congressional backbenchers to the grassroots: Barr has a loud, proud message. He has stayed on message consistently, regardless of the logic or the facts. He has endured criticism and a diminishing reputation. So be it.
William Barr is demonstrating the remorseless tribal politics of the Republican Party circa 2019.
3. Barr as “Coverup-General” in the George H.W. Bush administration.
This just came to my attention, though it is hardly news, since it took place when Bill Barr served as A.G. the first time (1991-1993), under George H.W. Bush: he has a history of covering up for Republican presidents and cabinet members.
Noah Feldman at Bloomberg reviewed this history in January: “The most significant single act of Barr’s career in the Department of Justice was to advise President George H.W. Bush to pardon six officials from Ronald Reagan’s administration, including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, for crimes associated with the Iran-Contra affair. At the time, Barr was — you guessed it — attorney general. His recommendation gave Bush the cover he needed to issue the pardons.”
Even before this episode, which garnered a banner page one headline in the New York Times, William Safire had dubbed Barr “the Coverup-General” (while the headline mocked him as The Patsy Prosecutor) for his role in resisting appointment of an independent counsel in yet another Bush administration scandal.
So, insofar as Barr has damaged his reputation (as I suggested above), it may be only because folks have poor memories that Barr’s reputation was not in tatters even before his shenanigans regarding Robert Mueller’s report. Certainly this history puts things in perspective.
(NPR and Slate also reported on this history earlier this year.)
