William Barr Has Reached That Point Where House Dems Explore 'All of the Options'
The U.S. attorney general skipped a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday, and now Democratic leaders are raising the specter of a contempt action.
May 02, 2019 at 01:42 PM
5 minute read
On Thursday, an empty chair and a name card stood as the latest symbols of the Trump administration's defiance of House Democrats.
In the House Judiciary Committee's hearing room, lawmakers convened as scheduled for a hearing with Attorney General William Barr knowing full well he would not take that seat behind the card emblazoned with his name. In the same room the day before, the committee voted along party lines to allow staff to conduct some of the questioning of Barr, an approach the Justice Department cited Wednesday as the reason the attorney general would refuse to appear.
The absence punctuated a particularly tense stretch in the Trump administration's dealings with House Democrats, coming a day after the Justice Department refused to comply with a subpoena seeking a full, unredacted copy of Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's report on the Russia investigation. Last week, two Trump administration officials failed to appear for House depositions as Trump declared his opposition to current and former White House aides testifying before Congress.
All of it was noted by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on Thursday as he raised the specter of holding Barr in contempt. Such a move would not be without precedent: Under the Obama administration, the House held then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over the Justice Department's refusal to turn over internal records about a gun-running sting called Operation Fast and Furious.
“The challenge we face is the president of the United States wants desperately to prevent Congress, a coequal branch of government, from providing any check whatsoever to even his most reckless decisions. He is trying to render Congress inert as a separate and co-equal branch of the government,” Nadler said in opening remarks. “The challenge we face is, if we don't stand up together today, we risk forever losing the power to stand up to any president in the future.”
Within 15 minutes, Nadler adjourned the hearing, cutting off microphones and leaving the room as Republicans attempted to raise parliamentary objections.
Barr is resisting to testifying at any hearing where committee staff would be allowed to question him. Main Justice officials contend only members should be allowed to ask questions of Barr. That committee staff would be permitted to question Barr is not without precedent, as a former Obama-era White House counsel, W. Neil Eggleston, noted in a column this week.
In a press conference after Thursday's hearing, Nadler said he plans to hold further discussions with the Justice Department but would seek to hold Barr in contempt if the two sides remain at an impasse at the end of the week. He described the Trump administration's approach as “across the board defiance.”
“This is indefensible and is part of the attack on democracy by this administration. We will make one more good faith attempt to negotiate and to get the access to the report that we need, and then if we don't get that, we will proceed to hold the attorney general in contempt and go from there,” Nadler said.
A compromise appeared unlikely.
House Democrats said they would not budge on their format for the hearing with Barr. Nadler said staff-led questioning—conducted in an hour split between the Democratic and Republican sides—would allow for committee counsel to “bat clean-up, so to speak” for lawmakers and effectively cross-examine Barr.
“Obviously, the attorney general is afraid to face that kind of questioning,” Nadler said.
Also, Democrats said they would not allow an administration to dictate the terms of a congressional hearing.
Barr has volunteered to testify, but Main Justice officials said he will not consent to staff-led questioning. A Justice Department spokesperson called the proposed format “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,” spokesperson Kerri Kupec said Wednesday in a statement.
Nadler and other Democrats raised the possibility of holding Barr in so-called “inherent contempt” and fining him.
“We will explore all of the options, and inherent contempt is certainly one of the options,” he said.
The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, U.S. Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said the Democrats had themselves to blame for Barr's absence Thursday, calling their demands of the attorney general “ludicrous.”
“The reason Bill Barr is not here today is because the Democrats decided they did not want him here today,” Collins said Thursday.
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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