(CNN) — Democrats launched a large-scale assault on the Attorney General of U.SWilliam Barr, at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, repeatedly clashing with the secretary as the audience leapt from topic to topic.
Here are the main conclusions of Barr’s first appearance before the judicial panel in his 17 months as Secretary of Justice.
Democrats sought blood
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York, and the Democrats on the panel did not offer Barr any of the courtesies that congressional witnesses routinely receive. Democrats repeatedly cut Barr’s answers, accused him of being wrong or lying, and made it clear they were not interested in the explanations he was giving. Barr was not allowed additional time that witnesses typically receive at the end of the five-minute period from each legislator to answer questions, forcing Republicans to use their time to allow Barr to reject the Democratic allegations.
The effort was clearly part of a Democrats’ strategy to demonstrate that they had already delivered their verdict on Barr’s work as attorney general, and nothing he could say would influence that. Democrats accused Barr of putting the interests of the president Donald Trump ahead of the country and attacked the Secretary of Justice for his participation in the prosecution of cases involving associates of Trump, his response to the police protests, his response to coronavirus, his dismissal from a prosecutor and many more issues.
The last Democrat to question, Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, accused Barr of refusing to keep his oath and uphold the Constitution, prompting Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio to verbally protest the accusation while Nadler ended the audience.
LOOK: William Barr rejects accusations of politicizing US justice in favor of Trump
Black lawmakers accuse Barr
Some of the most powerful moments in Tuesday’s hearing came from black Democrats on the panel, who questioned Barr’s assessments of systemic racism in the police and the response to protests nationwide after the murder of George Floyd at the hands. of the police in Minneapolis.
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas, urged Barr to acknowledge institutional racism in the police when she said he disagreed that it existed in police departments.
“I hope the Justice Department will focus on systemic institutional racism,” replied Jackson Lee. “That is what we need for you to join us, Mr. Secretary of Justice, and to recognize that institutional racism exists, and until we accept that we will not finish our work or achieve the goals and aspirations of our iconic John Lewis.”
Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond criticized Barr for invoking Lewis, the Georgia Democratic congressman who died earlier this month, in his opening statement about not having black people on his staff.
“That, sir, is systemic racism. That is what John Lewis spent his life fighting for, so I would suggest that actions speak louder than words and keep the name of the honorable John Lewis out of the mouth of the Department of Justice, ”said Richmond.
The Louisiana Democrat also took apart Barr’s argument that 11 white people and eight black people were killed by police this year, noting that it was actually an “obvious disparity” when 85% of the population in the United States was white and 15% was black.
Republican Party underscores attacks on police
Republicans had their own strategy before Tuesday’s hearing: show the attacks that have occurred against police officers.
Jordan ended his opening statement with a lengthy video It joins the descriptions of “peaceful protesters” with scenes of violence and riots that have occurred in recent weeks, including attacks on police officers.
Jordan asked Barr at one point if St. John’s Church outside the White House would still be standing if it weren’t for the police response, and otherwise if the Portland court would be if federal agents didn’t. were guarding. Republicans also questioned Barr over his comments that antifa is an internal terrorist threat while criticizing Democrats’ descriptions of antifa and the protests.
Barr joined the criticism and questioned why Democrats did not condemn violence.
“This intolerance when attacking people. I was very concerned about that. And now we have seen it devastate the country in this way. And I hope that the Democratic Party takes a position against violence, “Barr said.
Barr says he is independent but shows his political tendencies
In his opening statement, Barr stated that he was independent of Trump, but also showed some political tendencies during the hearing.
Barr was repeatedly pressured on the government’s response to the coronavirus, dodging questions about Trump’s action and inaction to combat the pandemic. When asked by Florida Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell if Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis was doing an “incredible” job as Trump had said in March, Barr swerved to go against a Democratic governor.
“Cuomo did an amazing job?” Barr said of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Barr also blamed the Obama administration on Tuesday for problems with the covid-19 tests, saying it was “a sign of President Obama’s mismanagement at the CDC.” It’s a bogus claim made by Trump and other Republicans – the initial flawed coronavirus test was developed this year.
And Barr’s explanation of his knowledge of what the President wanted seemed to increase and decrease during the hearing.
When asked about Trump’s tweets about Roger Stone, with whom the president criticized Stone’s recommendation for sentencing hours before Barr promoted a lower recommendation, Barr said he did not read the president’s tweets.
“At that time I found out about the president’s tweet because I don’t control the president’s tweets,” Barr said.
Barr later said of the president’s tweets: “I don’t pay attention to that. Unless they catch my eye. “
Barr previously said that Trump’s tweets play a much bigger role in his day-to-day responsibilities, and in an interview in February after the Stone decision he said the president’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
Barr defended his actions with Stone and in the decision to drop the charges against Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. And he challenged his critics to show him an instance in which one of Trump’s political enemies had been charged.
Of course, while the Justice Department has not charged Trump’s enemies, prosecutors are investigating Trump opponents and critics of the Obama administration, including the FBI’s investigation into Russia led by US Attorney John Durham who is investigating former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan.
The Justice Department has guidelines for not taking action that could influence an election. Barr on Tuesday refused to agree to refrain from releasing the Durham findings before November 2020.
Barr’s dubious claims about the vote
Another key instance Barr has endorsed Trump is about voter fraud linked to voting by mail, which Trump has falsely claimed will lead to massive fraud and a rigged election. Barr said at Tuesday’s hearing that a full vote-by-mail election has a “high risk” of significant voter fraud.
But those claims faded under closer scrutiny. When Representative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania Democrat, asked Barr to provide evidence that voting by mail ran the risk of foreign countries producing forged ballots, one of Barr’s key allegations of fraud, Barr did not I can do it.
“No, I don’t, but I have common sense,” Barr said.
LEE: ANALYSIS | You have two options for president, only two
Barr also struggled with other election-related questions, saying he had not investigated whether Trump could change the election date and initially responding that “it depends” when asked if it was appropriate for presidents to accept foreign electoral assistance. After a second attempt, he said it was never appropriate.
When asked what he would do if Trump lost the election but refused to leave office – a scenario Democrats have raised and Trump has encouraged by refusing to say he will accept the election results – Barr replied: “If the results are clear, I would leave the office.
–
