Senator Mark Warner (D., Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Thursday that former attorney general William Barr’s memo criticizing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation amounts to a “tacky” attempt to solicit the attorney general appointment.
Barr, who served as attorney general under president George H. W. Bush and has been nominated to once again lead the Department of Justice, sent a memo to deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein in June that was critical of the direction of Mueller’s investigation.
The 20-page memo, which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal after it was shared with lawmakers Wednesday night, concludes that Trump did not obstruct justice by indirectly asking then-FBI director James Comey to end the investigation into former White House national-security adviser Michael Flynn.
“I think its more than a little bizarre that a private attorney, Mr. Barr, would write this kind of memo and . . . give it to officials in the White House. Almost as an attempt to solicit this position, to say ‘hey Mr. Trump don’t worry I’ll have your back on the Mueller investigation,’” Warner told CNN’s Manu Raju.
“When he starts out with a belief that the president is in effect above the law, I think that’s not the appropriate legal precedent, I think it’s not the appropriate approach and the almost tacky way that he has used this memo as a way to solicit the position is at the very least unseemly,” he added.
Mark Warner, top Dem on Senate Intel, tells me that Trump should withdraw William Barr's nomination as attorney general after memo surfaced showing his concerns about Mueller probe. Warner also criticizes Whitaker move not recuse. And he discusses Senate Intel work w/Mueller team pic.twitter.com/5FAsgU13lX
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 20, 2018
In the memo, Barr argues that the president cannot obstruct justice in the course of exercising his executive authority and any attempt to unseat the president on those grounds would do enormous damage to the institutional integrity of the executive branch.
“As I understand it, his theory is premised on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law,” Barr wrote. “Moreover, in my view, if credited by the Justice Department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the Presidency and to the administration of law within the Executive branch.”