William Barr testimony: Graham says ‘it’s over’ as Democrats call for attorney general’s resignation
Follow along from our coverage of Mr Barr's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.William Barr has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, doubling down on his interpretation of the Mueller report and claiming that he never misled Congress about the special counsel's frustrations.
The testimony came just after the public release of a March letter from special counsel Robert Mueller to the attorney general, in which the investigator expressed frustration with how Mr Barr had presented the findings of the Trump-Russia report ot the public.
Mr Barr had released a four page summary of the report to Congress, which said that the nearly two year investigation found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016, and that there was not sufficient evidence to charge Donald Trump with obstruction.
But, Mr Barr was met with criticism from Senate Democrats who expressed amazement that Mr Barr had told a Congressional committee in April that he had not been aware of any frustration from the special counsel or his team related to his presentation of the summary. The recently released letter, Democrats said, showed that Mr Barr had been directly confronted on the issue, even though Mr Barr claimed that he called Mr Mueller personally after receiving the letter.
The hours-long testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee ended with committee chairman Lindsey Graham — a prominent Trump supporter — telling reporters that the issue is "over", and that he had no intention of asking Mr Mueller to testify before his committee. Democrats meanwhile, pushed for that testimony in the Senate, while the House announced Mr Mueller would testify there.
Since the report's release, Mr Trump and the right-wing media have hailed the findings of the report as a “total exoneration”, despite Mr Mueller declaring the opposite and the report painting a highly unflattering portrait of Mr Trump and his inner circle.
Mr Barr, during his testimony, stood by his determination not to charge Mr Trump for obstruction — arguing that, since there was no collusion or conspiracy, that the president could not have obstructed justice by firing former FBI director James Comey and then repeatedly attempt to get others to fire Mr Mueller.
When pushed on whether it was appropriate for Mr Trump to lie to the American people about contacts between his campaign and Russians, about his intentions with regards to Mr Mueller's employment as special counsel, and other questionable instances surfaced by the report, Mr Barr said that his job is not to determine who is behaving well or not.
"I'm not in the business of determining wether lies were told to the American people," Mr Barr said of the president. "I'm in the business of determining whether crimes were committed."
Mr Barr will return to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Please allow a moment for our liveblog to load
Hello and welcome to The Independent's rolling coverage of the Donald Trump administration.
FBI special counsel Robert Mueller has finally had his silence broken on the outcome of his 22-month investigation into possible collusion between the Trump camp and Russia after The Washington Post published an account of a letter he wrote to US attorney general William Barr on 27 March to accuse him of misrepresenting the "context, nature and substance" of his report.
Barr released a four-page summary of the 448-page dossier on 24 March before releasing a redacted version on 18 April, with President Trump and the right-wing media hailing the assessment as a “total exoneration” despite Mueller declaring the opposite and the report painting a highly unflattering portrait of Trump and his inner circle.
Mueller found no evidence of collusion with the Kremlin but 10 counts of instances in which the president might have obstructed justice. He elected not to pass judgement himself, leaving that up to recent Trump-appointee Barr and outgoing deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who moved quickly to give President Trump a free pass, prompting weeks of boasting and crowing from the commander-in-chief and his cronies, promising revenge.
Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker sums it up nicely here.
For a fuller account, here's the Buncombe Report.
News of Mueller's letter came the night before Barr begins two days of testimony before the Senate and House judiciary committees, where he is expected to face tough questions on the Mueller report and his decision-making surrounding it, with Democrats likely to accuse him of spinning the dossier to President Trump's advantage.
Barr's appearance on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee - taking place at 3pm GMT (10am EST) - is expected to highlight the partisan schism around Mueller's report and the Justice Department's handling of it. It will give the attorney general his most extensive opportunity to explain the department's actions, including a press conference held before the report's release and for him to repair a reputation bruised by allegations that he's the president's protector.
A major focus of the hearing is likely to be last night's revelation that Mueller expressed frustration to Barr, in a letter to the Justice Department and in a phone call, with how the conclusions of his investigation were being portrayed.
Barr is also invited to appear on Thursday before the Democratic-led House Judiciary panel, but the Justice Department said he would not testify if the committee insisted on having its lawyers question the attorney general.
His appearance Wednesday will be before a Republican-led committee chaired by a close ally of the president, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is expected to focus on concerns that the early days of the FBI's Russia investigation were tainted by law enforcement bias against Trump.
Democrats are likely to press Barr on statements and actions in the last six weeks that have unnerved them. The tense relations are notable given how Barr breezed through his confirmation process, picking up support from a few Democrats and offering reassuring words about the Justice Department's independence and the importance of protecting the special counsel's investigation.
The first hint of discontent surfaced in late March when Barr issued his four-page statement that summarised what he said were the main conclusions of the Mueller report. In the letter, Barr revealed that he and Rod Rosenstein had cleared Trump of obstruction of justice after Mueller and his team found evidence on both sides of the question but didn't reach a conclusion.
Barr is likely to defend himself by noting how he released the report on his own even though he didn't have to under the special counsel regulations and that doing so fulfilled a pledge he made at to be as transparent as the law allowed. Barr may say that he wanted to move quickly to give the public a summary of Mueller's main findings as the Justice Department spent weeks redacting more sensitive information from the report.
After the letter's release, Barr raised eyebrows anew when he told a congressional committee that he believed the Trump campaign had been spied on, a common talking point of the president and his supporters.
He also equivocated on a question of whether Mueller's investigation was a witch hunt, saying someone who feels wrongly accused would reasonably view an investigation that way. That was a stark turnabout from his confirmation hearing, when he said he didn't believe Mueller would ever be on a witch hunt.
Then came Barr's 18 April press conference to announce the release of the Mueller report later that morning. He repeated a half dozen times that Mueller's investigation had found no evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia, though the special counsel took pains to note in his report that "collusion" was not a legal term and also pointed out the multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia.
In remarks that resembled some of Trump's own claims, he praised the White House for giving Mueller's team "unfettered access" to documents and witnesses. He suggested the president had the right to be upset by the investigation, given his "sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks."
It remains unclear at present whether Barr will appear before the House committee on Thursday. That panel's Democratic chairman, Jerrold Nadler of New York, said witnesses could too easily filibuster when questioned by lawmakers restricted by five-minute time limits. Having lawyers do the questioning enables the committee "to dig down on an issue and pursue an issue."
"And it's not up to anybody from the executive branch to tell the legislative branch how to conduct our business," Nadler said.
The committee will vote on allowing staff to question Barr at a separate meeting Wednesday, at the same time Barr takes questions from the Senate.
The top Republican on the House Judiciary panel, Georgia representative Doug Collins, sharply criticised the plan.
Nadler "has taken a voluntary hearing and turned it into a sideshow," Collins said.
The Justice Department's stance appears consistent with the Trump administration's broader strategy of "undermining Congress as an institution," said Elliot Williams, who previously served as deputy assistant attorney general in the department's legislative affairs office in the Obama administration.
He said that if he were still advising an attorney general, he would resist the idea of staff questioning a Cabinet official. "It's a rational response to not want them questioning the attorney general," Williams said.
That said, Williams added, "It's an incredibly common practice in the House of Representatives and was a practice long before President trump or William Barr took their offices and will be a practice long after they're gone."
Calls our already growing for William Barr to face action as a result of Mueller's letter given that the attorney general testified before the Senate on 10 April: "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."
Given that Mueller's letter was dated 27 March, this would indicate Barr knew full well that Mueller did not support his conclusion and therefore lied to Congress.
Jerry Nadler has already demanded a copy of a letter due this morning, due at the same moment his subpoena for the full, unredacted Mueller report specified that should be delivered by.
Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who asked the question of Barr, has already called for his resignation, saying the attorney general "totally misled me, the Congress, and the public. He must resign".
The idea that Rod Rosenstein might have leaked the letter on his way out of the door has already been suggested, as have impeachment proceedings.
All this and we've hardly found time for dear old Donald. How are you sir? It feels like we never talk anymore.
Yesterday, he hung out with NASCAR champion Joey Logano at the White House, which he clearly enjoyed...
...And had some strong words for Cuba, threatening the island with "highest-level sanctions" should it continue to support Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro as the situation in Caracas intensifies.
Here's national security adviser John Bolton on Venezuela.
And here's more on Trump's threat from Andrew Buncombe.
President Trump also met with Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to talk infrastructure for 90 minutes yesterday afternoon and reportedly agreed a $2 trillion (£1.5 trillion) plan to modernise America's highways, transit systems and airports, although no details have yet been released.
"It's clear that both the White House and all of us want to get something done on infrastructure in a big and bold way," Schumer told reporters afterwards.
The last time the trio met during the shutdown to discuss border wall funding, President Trump walked out and dismissed it as "a waste of time" but negotiations were "excellent and productive" on Tuesday, according to a chirpy Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
"The United States has not come even close to properly investing in infrastructure for many years, foolishly prioritising the interests of other countries over our own," she said in a statement. "We have to invest in this country’s future and bring our infrastructure to a level better than it has ever been before."
A source told USA Today immigration, trade and prescription drug pricing were also discussed and that Trump was in such friendly mood he offered Pelosi a Tic Tac.
Before the meetings, White House officials had warned House Democrat-led investigations into the president could scupper the talks.
Trump's acting homeland security secretary Kevin McAleenan, who replaced Kirstjen Nielsen in April, testified before Congress for the first time on Tuesday.
Appearing before the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, McAleenan was warned about the scale of his new job in no uncertain terms by Democrats Nita Lowey and David Price, who likened the department to "a car driving off a cliff" and its activities in cracking down on impoverishing asylum seekers at the southern border "heartless, aggressive and un-American".
The "shadowy White House aide" Price alludes to is, of course, the odious Stephen Miller.
Another Democrat with harsh words for the administration was California's Maxine Waters, chair of the House Financial Services committee, who attacked President Trump over his efforts to shut down investigations into his personal and business affairs through legal recourse.
The Trump family filed a federal lawsuit on Monday in New York against Deutsche Bank and Capital One to block subpoenas that Waters and representative Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had issued to the banks.
Since saying the above, she has also added her voice to the calls for William Barr to be impeached or resign as a result of the Mueller letter.
"He lied... It is outrageous, he should go," she told MSNBC's Chris Hayes.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments