William Barr, Refusing Testimony, Picks Fresh Fight With House Democrats
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler: “I understand why he wants to avoid that kind of scrutiny, but when push comes to shove, the administration may not dictate the terms of a hearing in our hearing room.”
May 01, 2019 at 07:40 PM
6 minute read
As U.S. Attorney General William Barr faced Senate Democrats on Wednesday, defending his rollout of Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's report on the Russia investigation, a separate storm brewed in a House hearing room half a mile away.
In preparation for a Thursday hearing with Barr, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to allow Republican and Democratic staff to question the attorney general. It was just the move the Justice Department warned would deter Barr from appearing. Hours after his Senate testimony, Barr announced he wouldn't be showing up Thursday.
In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson described the conditions set by the committee's chairman, U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, as “unprecedented and unnecessary.”
“Congress and the executive branch are co-equal branches of government, and each have a constitutional obligation to respect and accommodate one another's legitimate interests. Chairman Nadler's insistence on having staff question the attorney general, a Senate-confirmed cabinet member, is inappropriate,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said. “Further, in light of the fact that the majority of the House Judiciary Committee—including Chairman Nadler—are themselves attorneys, and the chairman has the ability and authority to fashion the hearing in a way that allows for efficient and thorough questioning by the members themselves, the chairman's request is also unnecessary.”
Nadler responded that the committee would still convene “as planned” Thursday morning.
“Although we have worked around the clock to address his concerns, Attorney General Barr has informed us that he will not attend tomorrow's hearing. Given his lack of candor in describing the work of the special counsel, our members were right to insist that staff counsel be permitted to question the attorney general,” he said. “I understand why he wants to avoid that kind of scrutiny, but when push comes to shove, the administration may not dictate the terms of a hearing in our hearing room.”
Barr's move only further escalated tensions between the Trump administration and House Democrats. In recent weeks, Trump has decried House Democrats' subpoenas and other demands for information as partisan and stated publicly that he is opposed to current and former White House officials testifying before Congress.
Last week, two Trump administration officials skipped depositions with the House Oversight and Reform Committee. In both cases, the officials cited objections to a House rule that prevents administration lawyers from sitting in on depositions of government officials.
On Wednesday, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee criticized the move to allow staff to question Barr, saying it would be make the hearing resemble an impeachment proceeding. Staff-led questioning would, in fact, not be without precedent: As former Obama White House counsel Neil Eggleston, now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, noted Tuesday, congressional staff conducted questioning in hearings in 1987 concerning the Iran-Contra affair.
In a statement earlier this week, Nadler said the House has permitted staff “to question witnesses in the past, under both Democratic and Republican majorities, during both public hearings and private transcribed interviews.”
On Wednesday, Republicans appeared to goad Democratic members of the committee. Their question to Democrats: Why not handle the questioning yourselves?
“You can do this,” said U.S. Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the committee. “If a staff member wants to ask questions, run for Congress. Put your money down, take a chance and run for Congress.”
The Democrats' question to Republicans: What is Barr afraid of?
“Attorney General Barr publicly committed to being transparent regarding the special counsel investigation. He should welcome the opportunity to speak candidly and at length before the House Judiciary Committee and the American people,” Nadler said. “I don't know what he's afraid of from questioning by staff counsel.”
Nadler's format said lawmakers would first get to question Barr, followed by an additional hour of questioning that would be evenly split by Democratic and Republican staff. The format, he said, would foster a more in-depth conversation about Mueller's findings on Russia's interference in the 2016 and instances of possible obstruction by Trump.
In his office's 448-page report, Mueller determined the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Kremlin to interfere in the election, but he did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump sought to obstruct the investigation. Mueller said that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, acting on their own, formally rejected any obstruction charge against Trump.
Though vocal in their opposition to staff questioning, House Republicans on Tuesday supported a proposal to provide an additional hour split between the Republican and Democratic sides. Lawmakers appeared to welcome the prospect of posing questions without a five-minute time limit.
As U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, put it, “The five-minute rule sucks.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 2Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 3Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 4Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 5Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250