The Daily - William Barr Under Oath

Episode Date: January 16, 2019

In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, William P. Barr, the nominee for attorney general, vowed to protect the Justice Department and seemed to tell senators what they wanted to hear. But was it what the president wanted to hear? Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security and federal investigations for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the president's nominee for attorney general vowed to protect the Justice Department and seemed to tell senators what they wanted to hear to ensure his confirmation.

But is that what the president wanted to hear? It's Wednesday, January 16th. I've only listened to it four times. Yeah, and I've only listened to it 25. Hey, Mike, I have this confession to make, and I don't know what your reaction is going to be. When I was in the Washington Bureau to interview Chuck Schumer, the interview happened kind of suddenly, and I was caught sport jacket-less.

And so I had to borrow a sports jacket from the office that would fit me and that would look appropriate for a Chuck Schumer interview. And your gray J. Crew jacket fit perfect. But I didn't tell you, and I should have.

And I regret it. Oh, that's... I'm flattered, actually. Yeah. It's a great jacket. I'm going to go home and put it on and listen to that song, that jingle. Now I can send you the selfie I took in it. Awesome. Okay. Here we go.

Mike Schmidt, how did this hearing start? It starts with Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, gaveling the hearing to order. Graham has just taken over as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So happy new year, new Congress, and we'll see how this goes. And right off the bat, he's trying to set a new tone. The times in which we live are very difficult times. I don't see them getting better overnight, but I do see them getting better if we all want them to. The reason why that's significant is the last time that we were all focusing on this committee,

it was during the Kavanaugh hearings. And there was a dramatic fight between the Democrats and Republicans on the panel about his confirmation. Lindsey Graham was one of the most vocal people to try and move the nomination ahead. Right. There was that famous moment where he's kind of screaming at the Democrats on the committee, boy, y'all want power. God, I hope you never get it. It sort of told the story

of the state of American politics. But then... I want us to do better and I'll be as measured as possible. The immigration Lindsey will show up, but the other guys there too. And I don't like him any more than you do. On Tuesday, Graham comes out trying to hit the reset button. And he's basically trying to say, hey, look, guys, like, we've got a lot ahead of

us. This is the beginning of a new Congress. Let's try and work together. Raise your right hand, please. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give to this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So up you go. I do. So Barr then gives his opening statement. It's a privilege to come before you today, and I'm honored that President Trump has nominated me for the position of Attorney General.

And he's known for weeks what the Democrats' concerns are about him. Now let me address a few matters I know are on the minds of some of the members of this committee. And he basically goes right after them. He says, look, First, I believe it is vitally important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation. I'm going to let Mueller finish his report. complete his investigation. I'm going to let Mueller finish his report. Second, I also believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work. My goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law. I'm not going to succumb to the White House pressure of this. I will let this play out

and be able to stand between the president and Mueller if there's a real issue. Above all else, if confirmed, I will work diligently to protect the professionalism and integrity of the department as an institution, and I will strive to leave it and the nation a stronger and better place. Thank you very much for your time today, and I look forward to answering your questions. It begins with Graham as the chairman doing the first round of questioning. And unlike his opening statement, where he tried to strike a new tone, he almost immediately

goes for the Republican talking points about the investigation. Are you familiar with the January 11th New York Times article about FBI open inquiry into whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russians. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Right, and he does that, Mike, by focusing on your reporting from last week. Correct. Have you ever heard of such a thing in all the time you've been associated with the Department of Justice? I have never heard of that.

And why is this of interest and really related to the nomination of an attorney general? What's this line of inquiry from Graham really about? Well, Barr will be overseeing Mueller, who inherited that counterintelligence investigation. Are there rules about how you can do counterintelligence investigations? I believe there are, Mr. Chairman. So if you want to open up one against the president, are there any checks and balances? Not outside the FBI. Okay. Well, we need to look at that. In terms of people who are actually enforcing the law, don't we want to make sure they don't have an agenda? That's right, Mr. Chairman. So essentially, Graham is trying to figure out what Barr thinks about an investigation into the president that Republicans, including Graham, think is pretty out there, unfair, and essentially represents the politicization of the Russia investigation.

Yeah, but what Graham was saying was much more along the lines of Graham trying to make points than it was Graham trying to get Barr to answer questions. When he does confront Barr and question him, it's about trying to get Barr to agree to investigate how this investigation started. It's not as much about sort of the underlying question of Russian collusion. It's more like, wasn't there something wrong here? Would you promise me and this committee to look into this and tell us whether or not, in the appropriate way, a counterintelligence investigation was opened up by somebody at the FBI slash Department of Justice against President Trump? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think there are a number of investigations, as I understand it, going on in the department. This kind of seems like the Democratic nightmare, right?

That an attorney general comes in and focuses not on potential wrongdoing by the president, but on potential wrongdoing by the FBI. The Republicans' playbook on the Mueller investigation for some time has been to try and investigate the investigators and use that tactic as a way of undermining the credibility of the investigation. The problem is, is that the Republicans have not always found a helpful ally at the top of the Justice Department. ally at the top of the Justice Department. So for Democrats, if Barr were to come in and commit himself to investigating the investigators, that would be their worst nightmare. Barr doesn't go that far, but he does agree to come back and tell the committee what he's found about whether the investigation to the president was done properly. And I think the attorney general's job is both. It is both to protect against interference, but it's also to provide oversight to make

sure that in each individual case, the same rule that would be applied broadly is being applied to the individual. So then it's the Democrats' turn, right? And where do they focus first? The Democrats, starting with Dianne Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Six quick yes or no questions. Try and get Barr to make a series of commitments there, under oath, on the record, about how he'll handle the Mueller investigation.

Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds, and time needed to complete his investigation? Yes. Will you commit to ensuring that Special Counsel Mueller is not terminated without good cause, consistent with department regulations? Absolutely. Because the Democrats know that if issues come up

and if things go off the rails, they want to have something to come back to Barr on and say, hey, remember when you committed to this? Remember when you said you would do that? You need to follow what you told us. Huh. So there's a value to things said under oath, even if they seem kind of rote and predictable as questions. We do not know how the Mueller investigation will play out, but we do know that serious questions will come up inside the Justice Department about how to handle it. So if the president does something to try and smother the investigation or stop certain information from coming out, they will have something to try and hold Barr accountable to,

his own words. And do you think that Feinstein was satisfied by the answers that she got from Barr? I think that Barr said the right things to convince the Democrats that he will be a good steward of that. But then... In your June 2018 memo about obstruction of justice to the Mueller investigation, you repeatedly referred the president's lawyers over a year ago. And I had no facts, and none of us really outside the department have facts. But I read a lot of news reports suggesting that there were a number of potential obstruction theories that were being contemplated.

What we know is that Barr sat down by himself, he says, and laid out a case for why an obstruction investigation of the president had little merit. One theory in particular that appeared to be under consideration under a specific statute concerned me because I thought it would involve stretching the statute beyond what was intended and would do it in a way that would have serious adverse consequences for all agencies that are involved in the administration of justice, especially the Department of Justice. And I thought it would have a chilling effect going forward over time. And Barr took that memo, and he gave it to the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who's overseeing the investigation. General Rod Rosenstein, who's overseeing the investigation.

And he did not respond and was sphinx-like in his reaction, but I expounded on my concerns. He gave it to the president's lawyers. He gave it to some of his friends. And he made a series of arguments about executive power that have sort of become part of the president's argument for why he did nothing wrong. And I think it was entirely proper. It's very common for me and for other former senior officials to weigh in on matters that they think may be ill-advised and may have ramifications down the road.

That the president firing his FBI director, Jim Comey, is something well within his right. And that wouldn't amount to obstruction of justice because it's the president's right and power to fire James Comey. Correct. But Barr is reassuring senators in this hearing that a legal belief in presidential power doesn't necessarily equate to having prejudged this situation or really any situation that could involve the president. And he's admitting that he does not have all the facts. I was speculating. I freely said at the beginning, I was writing in the dark,

and we're all in the dark. Every lawyer, every talking head, everyone who thinks about or talks about it doesn't have the facts. He has not been given a brief by Bob Mueller about what the special counsel's office has found. He doesn't know the full extent of what is being looked at on the president in regards to our report the other day. How did the New York Times get that information? I don't know, Senator. Well, did it have to come from the FBI, the Department of Justice? I just can't say. I don't know how they got it, and I don't know

whether that's an accurate report. Right. So he's trying to say, look, I was some guy sitting in my basement putting a memo together based on what was out there. And I don't have any inside information. And I don't know the other things that are being looked at. And I will come at it with clear eyes when I'm asked to evaluate the facts. I'm not in a position to, you know, make a judgment about it because I don't know what the predicate was for it. I think I said, you know, it's strange to have a counterintelligence investigation of a president, but, you know, I just don't know what the predicate is, and if I'm confirmed, I assume I'll find out. So there's this other interesting topic that comes

up during the hearing, which is why does Barr want this job, given the circumstances, given what happened to the last person to hold the job? So as Barr is being questioned by Chuck Grassley, Graham interrupts. I'll take the time away from my second round. I'm very curious about the conversations you had about personal representation. And asks Barr about his relationship with the president. And Barr tells this story. Yeah, so in June of 2017, middle of June, David Friedman, who is the U.S. ambassador to Israel,

who I didn't know, I knew that he was a top-tier lawyer in New York and apparently a friend of the president's, he reached out to me and we talked one evening. He gets this call from the president's ambassador to Israel, who's not even on the legal team. He asked me a number of questions like, you know, what have you said about the president publicly? Do you have any conflicts and so forth? And the ambassador's like, hey, you want to join the legal team? And Barr says—

I told him that I didn't think I could take this on. You know, thanks, but no thanks. And I said that my wife and I were sort of looking forward to a bit of respite, and I didn't want to stick my head into that meat grinder. And the ambassador, David Friedman, says to Barr, he says, he asked me if I would nonetheless briefly go over the next day to meet with the president. And Barr says, sure. So it was a very brief meeting where essentially the president wanted to know. He said, oh, you know Bob Mueller. How well do you know Bob Mueller? Trump asked him about Mueller.

And funny enough. I told him how well I knew Bob Mueller and how, you know, the Bars and Mullers were good friends and would be good friends when this is all over and so forth. Muller had worked for Barr when he was Attorney General. Muller was the head of the criminal division at the Justice Department. And I said, Bob is a straight shooter and should be dealt with as such. And so he asked me for my phone number. I gave it to him, and I never heard from him again. Until, you know, later. But about something different,

which was the attorney general position. I would think, though, that being the president's defense lawyer is one version of sticking your head in the meat grinder, to quote William Barr. But I would think that being the attorney general is a much more extreme version of that. So if he didn't want to do one of those, why would he want to do the other?

So Barr is 68 years old. He's got as good a reputation as you can have as a lawyer in Washington. There's a big risk in him doing something here that really undercuts the Justice Department and would really hurt his reputation. But there is also a huge potential upside for Barr. Because if he is the person that is able to allow Mueller to finish his report

and allow things to play out as they should under Justice Department guidelines, then he could go down as a potential hero who walked into this enormous storm and was able to guide the ship in the direction it was supposed to go. Here's the problem, though. Lots of people who've walked into Trump's world as he's been president have thought they could be that person. They were going to be the one that straightened things out and kept them on the rails. And there are a lot of folks that have suffered in that process. Just look at the previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions. When you consider what Jeff Sessions went through as the Attorney General for President Donald Trump,

where he was subjected to unrelenting criticism, primarily because, as a matter of conscience, he decided he had a conflict of interest and should remove himself from any decisions by the special counsel concerning the Russia investigation. When you consider that this president has lashed out on a personal basis against federal judges who ruled against his administration, when you consider the criticism which he has leveled at the chief law enforcement investigative agency of the Department of Justice, the FBI, as well as our intelligence agencies. When you see the exit lanes glutted, those leaving the White House at every single level, why do you want this job?

Well, because I love the department and all its components, including the FBI. I think they're critical institutions that are essential to preserving the rule of law, which is the heartbeat of this country. It's interesting, Mike, because it feels like there's this brand of proud government man in Washington who seems to see it as a kind of duty to serve in the Trump administration and believes that the fate that befell everyone before him will somehow not befall him. It can seem almost deluded.

And I feel that I'm in a position in life where I can provide the leadership necessary to protect the independence and the reputation of the department and serve in this administration. But isn't it possible that Barr knows it won't be different for him, that he won't be the exception, that this will be a meat grinder, but that if somebody has to suffer in this position, he thinks it should be him, given his qualifications, given his integrity, rather than somebody who has no business being in this position. Somebody, for example, like Matt Whitaker, the acting attorney general. If you're someone who believes in the Justice Department as much as Barr does, this situation is sort of the ultimate call to duty where you will step in and jump on this grenade of the Mueller investigation and say, look, I'll take it. And if it taints me, but it saves, look, I'll take it. And if it taints me,

but it saves the department, I'll do it. A number of my colleagues on both sides have asked, and I'll bet you'll hear more, questions along the line of what would be your breaking point? When would you pick up and leave? When is your Jim Mattis moment when the president has asked you to do something which you think is inconsistent with your oath? Doesn't that give you some pause as you embark on this journey? It might give me pause if I was 45 or 50 years old, but it doesn't give me pause right now because I had a very good life. I have a very good life. I have a very good life. I love it. But I also want to help in this circumstance. And I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong. And I will not be bullied

into doing anything I think is wrong by anybody, whether it be editorial boards or Congress or the president. I'm going to do what I think is right. It feels like an overall theme of this hearing, Mike, was kind of hitting the reset button. Lindsey Graham opens this whole thing by essentially trying to reset the Senate Judiciary Committee. William Barr makes the case for resetting the relationship between the attorney general and the Russia investigation. But I'm struck that the same two people are still at the center of all this.

President Trump and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Is it possible to hit reset on this situation, given that? So Barr may be earnest in his desire to come at this as a clear-eyed attorney general who's going to follow the facts and allow the process to play out. But at the same time, that's not the type of attorney general that Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he wants. that Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he wants. He has wanted an attorney general whose top priority was to be loyal to him and not the rule of law.

He has said that. So while Barr may move forward with trying to play a straight AG, Trump still sits there with his view of things, and Mueller continues his investigation. From everything we know about how Donald Trump views his attorney general, he had to be sitting there today saying, is this really what I signed up for. This is not exactly someone who advertises himself as one of my allies. He's allied with the Justice Department in their view of the world. And what Congress thinks is the appropriate way for this to play out. And that's not necessarily what Trump has said he

wants. And yet he's very likely to be confirmed. Because he said the things that Congress wanted to hear. Michael, thank you very much. Thanks for having me. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. The ayes to the right, 202. The noes to the left, 432.

In London on Monday, the British House of Commons overwhelmingly rejected a plan from Prime Minister Theresa May to withdraw from the European Union. The legislative defeat, by a historic margin of 230 votes, was a public humiliation for May, who has spent the past two years trying to sell her plan for leaving the EU to a sceptical British public. It's clear that the House does not support this deal, but tonight's vote tells us nothing about what it does support. Nothing about how, nothing about how or even if it intends to honour the decision the British people took in a referendum Parliament decided to hold. the British people took in a referendum Parliament decided to hold. As a result, Britain is headed toward a March 29th deadline

for leaving the EU without an orderly plan for withdrawal. People, particularly EU citizens who've made their home here, and UK citizens living in the EU, deserve clarity on these questions as soon as possible. And... Madam Speaker, this resolution stands for one very simple proposition. White nationalism and white supremacy are hateful expressions of intolerance that have no place in the United States of America.

Unfortunately, what should be an obvious statement in 2019 has been challenged in recent days, and not for the first time by one of our own colleagues. On Tuesday, in its latest attempt to reprimand Congressman Steve King of Iowa, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning white nationalism and white supremacy, just days after King was quoted in The Times questioning why either are considered offensive. in The Times, questioning why either are considered offensive. The resolution passed 424 votes to one, with King himself voting for it, despite the fact that the resolution was explicitly intended to rebuke him. King, who has a history of demonizing immigrants and mourning the replacement

of white culture, told Times reporter Tripp Gabriel, quote, white nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization. How did that language become offensive? I don't think there's a room for Steve King's comments in polite company or in the Republican Party or for that matter in Congress.

Those remarks, which King has said were taken out of context, prompted House Republican leaders to remove him from the three committees on which he served and led to several prominent Republican leaders, including Senator Mitt Romney, to call for King's resignation. I think you ought to step aside, and I think Congress ought to make it very clear he has no place there. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.