The Corner

White House

No, Bill Barr Didn’t Lie or Mislead

Attorney General William Barr testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., May 1, 2019. (Clodagh Kilcoyne/Reuters)

The alleged Russia collusion scandal has become the alleged Bill Barr scandal. There are now calls for him to resign or be impeached because he supposedly mislead Congress about Robert Mueller’s discontent, expressed in a letter first reported by the Washington Post last night, over his letter making his summary of conclusions from the probe. But this is nonsense.

Read the supposedly damning exchange with Sen Chris Van Hollen. Barr is never asked whether Mueller is unhappy with his letter, just whether he’s unhappy with his conclusions, meaning his decision not to charge the president with obstruction:

VAN HOLLEN: Mr. Attorney General, the thing is you put this out there. I mean the President went out and tweeted the next day that he was exonerated. That wasn’t based on anything in the Mueller report, with respect to obstruction of justice. That was based on your assessment. That was on March 24th. And now you won’t elaborate – at all, as to how you reached that conclusion. Because I’m not asking you what is in the Mueller report, I’m asking you about your conclusion. Let me ask you this–

BARR: It was the conclusion of a number of people, including me and I obviously am the Attorney General. It was also the conclusion of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

VAN HOLLEN: I understand. I’ve read your letters–

BARR: And I will discuss that decision after the report is out–

VAN HOLLEN: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?

BARR: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.

There’s another exchange with Rep . Charlie Crist that people are also focusing on. Barr is asked about anonymous officials from the Mueller probe telling the press they are unhappy with his summary letter. Barr, correctly, says he doesn’t know their discontents (he presumably didn’t talk to any of them about this, and wouldn’t know anyway since they were anonymous), but then adds they are probably about more information not being released:

During a House Appropriations Committee, the St. Petersburg Democrat asked: “Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the Special Counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?”

Barr said: “No, I don’t.”

“I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize,” he added.

Here’s the video for even more context.

It’s true that Barr could have revealed the Mueller letter in this exchange, but he also might have considered their back-and-forth private (although the letter was clearly written to leak ).

In sum, this is all a non-scandal that shows how small the Russia controversy has gotten—from alleged treason to a squabble over a summary of a report that was released in full.

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 

Most Popular

Film & TV

The Manly Appeal of Ford v Ferrari

There used to be a lot of overlap between what we think of as a Hollywood studio picture (designed to earn money) and an awards movie (designed to fill the trophy case, usually with an accompanying loss of money). Ford v Ferrari is a glorious throwback to the era when big stars did quality movies about actual ... Read More
Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More