Attorney General William Barr has earned his unprecedented bipartisan scrutiny

By Tom Coleman, Special to The Kansas City Star

It’s been a little over a year since William Barr was sworn in as President Donald Trump’s third attorney general. Many expected Barr to be a traditional head of the U.S. Department of Justice, having held the office during President George H.W. Bush’s administration. It didn’t take long for that view to be disabused after being undermined by Barr himself. The attorney general faces not only bipartisan criticism from Congress, but also from a federal judge in a case filed in the District of Columbia. How long he will be able to hold onto his job is seriously in doubt.

Barr has recently stepped up his questionable behavior, drawing increased attention from his critics. Here is a sampling of controversies in which Barr and, by extension, the Justice Department have become entwined:

• He intervened in the sentencing of Trump’s “fixer,” Roger Stone.
• He created a process whereby Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, provides the Justice Department information he gathers in Ukraine on Trump’s political opponents.
• He mischaracterized special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.
• He requested Congress give federal courts new emergency powers because of the coronavirus pandemic.

A closer look at each of these matters indicates a pattern of unorthodox, and possibly legally unethical (if not more sinister) behavior by an attorney general.

Stone was convicted last year on charges he lied to congressional investigators and threatened a witness. For these criminal acts, the Department of Justice attorneys handling the case requested he be given seven to nine years in prison, well within department guidelines.

Hours after the recommended sentence was filed and publicized, the president criticized the sentence and those who made it. The Department of Justice seems to have interpreted what the president wanted and issued a revised sentencing recommendation. The four Department of Justice prosecutors who had handled the case immediately withdrew from it, and one even quit his job.

Apparently following explicit or implicit orders from Trump, Barr has given the green light for Giuliani to have a direct pipeline into the Department of Justice, through which he can load whatever dirt he can find or fabricate on Trump’s main political rival and his family. Barr, in an attempt to gloss over this unique presidential smear campaign, says Giuliani is nothing more than a tipster. Except in this case, the informant may be under investigation for wrongdoing associated with campaign finance laws by the very department Barr oversees.

On March 5, a ruling from U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, in a case brought by the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center, excoriated Barr for a variety of misdeeds in his handling and characterization of the Mueller report. The suit was filed under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking release of an unredacted version of the report.

Here’s what the judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, stated in his opinion: that the Department of Justice “dubiously handled the public release of the Mueller report;” that Barr’s “attempts to spin the findings and conclusions of the report have been challenged publicly by the author of the Mueller report and (have) also been contradicted directly by the content of the Mueller report;” and that “there have been serious and specific accusations by other government officials about the improprieties in the (Department of Justice’s) handling and characterization of the Mueller report.”

Walton then unpacked these concerns and allegations pointing out that the special counsel himself took exception to Barr’s statement, saying the attorney general “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the special counsel’s office’s work and conclusions.” Furthermore, the court finds “Attorney General Barr distorted the findings of the Mueller report.” Walton indicated his concern about the “hurried release” of Barr’s letter outlining his take on the Mueller report well over a week before releasing to the public the redacted copy. This combination of speed and Barr’s failure “to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question whether Attorney General Barr’s intent was to create a one sided narrative about the Mueller Report — a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report”

Walton pulled no punches as he concluded the only way of knowing the truth is to review an unredacted version of the report in his chambers, something the law refers to as “in camera.” In coming to this conclusion, the judge “seriously question(ed) whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report.” He charged Barr with a “lack of candor” and calls into question Barr’s “credibility.” The judge hinted the redactions were made to allow Barr to engage in a cover-up of the truth that would be found in the unredacted version, and that it would clearly not be in the interests of Trump. The judge is currently reviewing the unredacted version of the report and will file an order when finished.

Now comes Barr attempting to take advantage of the current coronavirus health crisis. He has sent a letter to Congress requesting additional emergency powers for federal judges to stop court proceedings, including criminal cases and grand jury proceedings. Judges were requested to be given the power to pause “any statutes or rules of procedure” at every stage of the justice process from pre-arrest to post-trial. This blanket request would undermine all Americans’ civil liberties and constitutional rights.

I doubt if an attorney general has ever requested anything of this magnitude — something so damaging to our constitutional rights and the rule of law. Appropriately, legal experts and politicians on both sides of the aisle have condemned the request. But the fact the request was made in the first place is disturbing in its own right.

It will be interesting to see how Barr handles questions about these matters on Monday, when he is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. I believe he should be asked to resign at the hearing. Is it too much to hope it will be a bipartisan request?

Tom Coleman is a former Republican U.S. representative from Missouri.

03.27.20
OPINION: Attorney General William Barr has earned his unprecedented bipartisan scrutiny, The Kansas City Star

Photo credit: Alex Brandon, The Associated Press