It is hard not to rush to Attorney General William Barr’s defense against the usual Democratic partisan cheap shots in Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Nonetheless, Barr himself did some cheap shooting and misdirection of his own.
The result: Barr really does sound ever more like President Trump’s wingman than like the independent law enforcement chief he is supposed to be.
The line of Barr’s that is making immediate headlines is his dismissal of a letter from special counsel Robert Mueller as “snitty.” And for good reason. Barr should look in the mirror. The “snittiness” is his own.
Mueller, as the leader of a two-year investigation, wrote a respectful letter to Barr memorializing his reasons for wanting Barr to provide an early release for Mueller’s own report conclusions, to add context to Barr’s own summary of those conclusions. Mueller had every right and good reason to do so. If someone thinks his work is being misunderstood, it is entirely appropriate to ask that the misimpression be corrected. By so contemptuously treating Mueller’s respectful request, Barr made himself sound like the petty one.
Meanwhile, Barr overstated the level of the Trump team’s moral innocence. He repeatedly claimed, wrongly, that Mueller’s report “proved” that the Trump team did not collude with Russian nationals. It did no such thing. It said the investigation “did not establish” proof of such collusion. It proved nothing either way, although certainly the burden is and has been on his accusers throughout.
To note Barr’s overstatement would be mere nitpicking, however, were it not for the overall context and effect of Barr’s statements. The upshot of Barr’s message was almost that Trump was innocent as a lamb, not just legally but ethically. Mueller’s report says otherwise. Mueller wrote that Trump’s campaign knew about and “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
Moreover, as has been long known, top Trump officials and intimates — son Donald Jr., campaign manager Paul Manafort, and son-in-law Jared Kushner — all acted on at least one occasion with the absolute intent to conspire with Russian nationals. They agreed to the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting under the clear understanding that they would receive material which supposedly was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Just as was the case with the lack of irrefutable proof that Trump himself illegally obstructed the investigation, the Trump Tower meeting quite probably showed illegal intent that was kept from becoming prosecutable only because others failed, or refused, to provide or carry out the means of illegality.
Barr’s tone was that of someone portraying Trump as a victim. But Trump was no victim. He and his team brought legitimate suspicion on themselves. A fair investigation declined, probably correctly, to find obviously prosecutable offenses. It did not, however, paint Trump in a good light, and it did not excuse his occasional ill intent.
Barr should not have suggested otherwise.
