Follow our live coverage.<\/b>
\nAttorney General William P. Barr is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday to discuss special counsel Robert S. Mueller III\u2019s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
\u25cfBarr has faced questions about his decision in the days after Mueller\u2019s investigation ended to distill the inquiry down to two principal conclusions: that the special counsel did not find that Trump coordinated with Russia to interfere in the campaign and that he had not come to a decision on whether the president obstructed justice.
\u25cfThe Washington Post reported Tuesday night that Mueller complained to the attorney general about that depiction, asserting in a letter that Barr \u201cdid not fully capture the context, nature, and substance\u201d of the special counsel\u2019s findings. Read the letter here.
\u25cf In a subsequent phone call, Mueller told Barr that he was concerned in particular that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and created public misunderstandings about the office\u2019s work, according to Justice Department officials. Barr has asserted several times that in that call, the special counsel said that he was not upset with the accuracy of Barr\u2019s summary but rather \u201cthat he wanted more out there to provide additional context.\u201d
\u25cf The attorney general has also told senators that he has assigned staff to review allegations that there was \u201cspying\u201d conducted against the Trump campaign before the 2016 election and that the \u201clack of professionalism in the Clinton email investigation\u201d is something that should be scrutinized.
The hearing began about 10 a.m. Here is The Washington Post\u2019s live coverage:
2:03 p.m.: Barr says social media giants are doing better
Barr told senators that what Russia was able to do in the 2016 campaign posed a \u201cfar more insidious danger\u201d to democracy than past attempts by foreign powers to influence U. S. campaigns, because of the Kremlin\u2019s mastery of social media and other ways that Americans communicate with each other.
His comments came as he and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) voiced agreement that the Russians did interfere in the campaign \u2014 a key finding of the special counsel\u2019s report but one that Trump has at times doubted. Barr said that the FBI has an aggressive task force to counter foreign influence in the U. S. system. And in a comment sure to please Silicon Valley, Barr said that he thinks private companies such as Facebook and Twitter are \u201cstepping up their game and being more responsible\u201d in addressing the problem.
2 p.m.: \u2018I don\u2019t recall,\u2019 Barr says, when asked whether he discussed ongoing probes with the White House
The attorney general repeatedly told senators \u201cI don\u2019t recall\u201d when asked whether he had conversations with the White House regarding the 14 ongoing probes that grew out of the special counsel\u2019s investigation.
Barr said he was sure he had not had any \u201csubstantive\u201d discussions about those investigations, under questioning from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). But, he added: \u201cIt\u2019s possible that the name of a case was mentioned.\u201d
\u201cMy recollection is I have not discussed them,\u201d Barr said. \u201cI can say very surely I did not discuss the substance of them.\u201d
Democrats have leaped on several Trump administration officials for claiming to have had memory lapses about their actions and discussions regarding everything from conversations with Russian officials to interactions with the White House about matters sensitive to federal investigations of the president.
After Barr claimed not to remember which investigations he might have discussed with the White House, Blumenthal asked if he would agree to recuse himself from the investigations. Barr refused.
1:55 p.m.: Barr says he will review origins of Russia investigation and make results public
Barr said Wednesday that he hoped to make public whatever conclusions he draws from his review of the origins of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
The assertion came in response to questions from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Asked whether he had explored the FBI\u2019s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation into Trump\u2019s campaign, Barr responded, \u201cI am looking into it, and I have looked into it.\u201d
He said he would seek to reveal publicly what he had found.
\u201cAt the end of the day, when I form conclusions, I intend to share it,\u201d Barr said.
1:50 p.m.: Barr says campaigns that receive offers of help from foreign intelligence services should report it
Future political campaigns that receive offers of assistance or dirt on their opponents from foreign intelligence services should report such contacts immediately to the FBI, Barr told senators Wednesday.
His statement came in response to questioning from Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), who described how one of Trump\u2019s sons was offered dirt that he was told was part of a Russian government effort to help elect his father, and how the son responded, \u201cI love it.\u201d
If a future campaign received an offer of help from a foreign adversarial power \u2014 Coons proposed North Korea as a hypothetical \u2014 should they report it, Coons asked. Barr at first paused and appeared to be contemplating whether such an offer needs to be reported. Ultimately, he answered a more narrow question, regarding an offer of assistance specifically from a foreign intelligence service.
1:40 p.m.: Barr dodges defining legal standard to avoid potential campaign infiltration in the future
Barr avoided getting into specifics under questioning from Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who challenged him to define \u201cwhat is legal and illegal about foreign intelligence services being involved in U. S. elections\u201d \u2014 expressing the fear that a foreign adversary could try to influence future campaigns by infiltrating them.
Sasse\u2019s key example was Paul Manafort, who was \u201con the payroll\u201d of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, whom Sasse defined as \u201ca bad dude. He\u2019s a bottom-feeding scum-sucker.\u201d
Barr stressed that if the employee of a foreign adversary were being paid \u201cfor the purpose of participating in the campaign,\u201d that would be illegal. But he had no answer for a situation in which campaign chairmen on the payroll of a foreign operative might just choose to volunteer for a campaign, calling it \u201ca slippery area.\u201d
Sasse\u2019s line of questioning was aimed at establishing safeguards to deter foreign influence in future elections. But it highlighted the disconnect many lawmakers \u2014 mostly Democrats \u2014 have identified between the report\u2019s finding of no criminal conspiracy and the questionable actions by Trump campaign operatives it details.
\u201cI think it would be helpful for us to have a shared understanding as we head toward the 2020 election, of what campaign operatives should understand is beyond the pale,\u201d Sasse told Barr. \u201cI think there are a bunch of counterintelligence investigations happening right now in the United States where campaigns don\u2019t really understand what the laws are, and I think we need a lot more clarity about it.\u201d
1:37 p.m.: \u2018I wasn\u2019t hiding the ball\u2019
Barr has said that his letter summarizing Mueller\u2019s principal conclusions was clear because he acknowledged that Mueller had specifically written that his team had not exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice. \u201cI wasn\u2019t hiding the ball,\u201d Barr told Coons.
Coons countered that Barr\u2019s letter left out key details of Mueller\u2019s work on obstruction, meaning the public did not learn of them for what Coons termed a \u201ccritical\u201d three-week period. That prompted a quick retort from Barr, who interrupted to ask: \u201cWhy were they critical?\u201d
Coons then offered a succinct description of Democrats\u2019 concern \u2014 a political analysis more than a legal one. \u201cMy concern is that gave President Trump and his folks an open field to say, \u2018I was completely exonerated,\u2019 \u201d Coons explained. Barr did not respond.
1:30 p.m.: New Trump campaign video claims Obama \u2018dropped the ball\u2019 on Russian interference
As Barr was parrying lawmakers\u2019 questions Wednesday, the Trump campaign provided some counterprogramming in the form of a new video accusing former president Barack Obama of ignoring Russian interference during the 2016 campaign.
The two-minute video includes footage of Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and other Democrats criticizing the Obama administration for not doing more on the issue. Trump tweeted earlier Wednesday on the topic, claiming that Obama \u201cdid NOTHING, and had no intention of doing anything,\u201d when told about Russian interference before Election Day 2016.
Trump has long sought to counter scrutiny of his campaign\u2019s response to Russia\u2019s efforts by turning the focus to Obama. Philip Bump has a helpful rundown of The Washington Post\u2019s reporting on what Obama did do, didn\u2019t do and couldn\u2019t do in response to Russian interference.
1:25 p.m.: Klobuchar, the first presidential candidate to question Barr, focuses on obstruction and election security
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the first of those on the Judiciary Committee running for president to question Barr, pressed the attorney general for his support of legislation to improve U. S. election security, then sparred with him on how he came to decide that Trump could not be charged with obstruction.
As has been the case throughout the hearing, Barr proved difficult to pin down. He said he was not familiar with Klobuchar\u2019s legislation \u2014 which would mandate backup paper ballots, among other things \u2014 but he would examine it.
\u201cI will work with you to enhance the security of our election, and I\u2019ll take a look at what you\u2019re proposing,\u201d he said. \u201cI\u2019m not familiar with it.\u201d
And, as he has with other lawmakers, Barr steadfastly defended his decision to declare that Trump could not be charged with obstruction of justice \u2014 even as Klobuchar ticked through, episode by episode, the detailed case Mueller had laid out.
\u201cYou look at the totality of the evidence,\u201d Klobuchar said, as Barr dismissed each incident. \u201cThat\u2019s what I learned when I was in law school.\u201d
\u201cThere\u2019s ample evidence on the other side of the ledger,\u201d Barr countered later.
1:17 p.m.: Barr told Mueller he wasn\u2019t interested in releasing more detailed summaries
Barr told senators that he \u201cwasn\u2019t interested\u201d in honoring Mueller\u2019s request to put out the executive summaries from his report ahead of time because they would have needed redacting, and he \u201cwas not in the business of putting out periodic summaries.\u201d
Mueller registered complaints about how Barr\u2019s four-page letter had portrayed the findings of his investigation, but the attorney general repeated Wednesday that what the special counsel felt \u201cwas inaccurate was the press coverage\u201d \u2014 not Barr\u2019s determinations.
\u201cI thought what we should do is focus on getting the full report out as quickly as possible, which we did,\u201d Barr added.
Barr\u2019s comments were in response to questions from Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.), who suggested that Barr could resolve much of the political wrangling over his motivations and those of other FBI and Justice Department officials by just releasing all of their documents pertaining to the 2016 elections.
\u201cJust release them, instead of us going through all this spin and innuendo and rumors,\u201d Kennedy said. \u201cLet\u2019s just let the American people see them.\u201d
1:15 p.m.: Warren is the latest 2020 White House hopeful to call for Barr to resign
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) became the latest Democrat seeking the party\u2019s presidential nomination to call for Barr\u2019s resignation.
\u201cAG Barr is a disgrace, and his alarming efforts to suppress the Mueller report show that he\u2019s not a credible head of federal law enforcement,\u201d she said in a tweet. \u201cHe should resign\u2014and based on the actual facts in the Mueller report, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the President.\u201d
Earlier Wednesday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) wrote on Facebook that \u201cAmericans cannot trust William Barr to serve as our nation\u2019s top law enforcement officer\u201d and called for him to \u201cresign immediately.\u201d
Several other Democratic contenders have also called in recent days for Barr to step side, including former Obama Cabinet member Juli\u00e1n Castro, Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
1:09 p.m.: \u2018Then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.\u2019
Former FBI director James B. Comey has penned a new and exceptionally harsh op-ed in the New York Times, attempting to address, as he puts it, \u201cWhat happened to the leaders in the Trump administration, especially the attorney general, Bill Barr, who I have said was due the benefit of the doubt?\u201d
Comey\u2019s conclusion, which he says is based on his own four months working for Trump, is that proximity to an \u201camoral leader\u201d (a.k.a. Trump) reveals what he calls a \u201cdepressing\u201d truth about people: \u201cAccomplished people lacking inner strength can\u2019t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from.\u201d
He says this is true because \u201cMr. Trump eats your soul in small bites.\u201d He describes how Trump first lies privately, in an unending stream of talk, while his aides remain silent and thus complicit. Later, he writes, Trump requires acts of public fealty. He suggests (though does not state outright) that he himself fell prey to Trump\u2019s pressure before he was fired as FBI director in May 2017 \u2014 failing to correct him in private or adequately defend institutions he had held dear while Trump attacked them publicly. He notes that many who work for Trump secretly believe that \u201cin a time of emergency, with the nation led by a deeply unethical person,\u201d they must find a way to remain in their jobs, playing a \u201clong game for your country, so you can pull it off, where lesser leaders have failed and gotten fired by tweet.\u201d
So people stay and use Trump\u2019s language (like Barr, he writes) and praise his leadership and tout his commitment to values (like Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein).
\u201cAnd then you are lost,\u201d Comey concludes. \u201cHe has eaten your soul.\u201d
12:14 p.m.: House majority leader says lawmakers need to hear from Mueller, stops short of impeachment call
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday that Barr\u2019s handling of Mueller\u2019s report is a \u201cvery serious matter\u201d and that the House needs to hear from him.
But Hoyer stopped short of saying Barr should be censured or impeached, as other Democrats have called for.
House Democrats have focused on Barr\u2019s congressional testimony. In back-to-back hearings April 9 and 10, Barr disclaimed knowledge of the thinking of Mueller and members of his team of prosecutors investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.
\u201cNo, I don\u2019t,\u201d Barr said, when asked by Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) whether he knew what was behind reports that members of Mueller\u2019s team were frustrated by the attorney general\u2019s summary of their top-level conclusions.
These statements resurfaced after the revelation that Mueller had sent a letter to Barr two weeks earlier objecting to the attorney general\u2019s characterization of the probe.
12:02 p.m.: \u2018It was my baby,\u2019 Barr says of Mueller report
In a testy exchange with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R. I.), Barr suggested that Mueller\u2019s opinions as to whether and how his report should be summarized or released publicly didn\u2019t matter. Barr explained that Mueller was acting in the role of a U. S. attorney, under Barr\u2019s supervision. Once Mueller submitted his report, Barr said his task had ended and it became Barr\u2019s choice about what to do next.
\u201cIt was my baby,\u201d Barr told senators.
In response to Whitehouse\u2019s comments, Barr separately said that he regularly refers to appropriate government surveillance activities as \u201cspying\u201d and does not consider the word pejorative. He added that there has been \u201cfaux outrage\u201d over his use of the word to describe activities performed against the Trump campaign.
11:50 a.m.: Barr calls counterintelligence investigation \u2018fairly anemic\u2019 \u2014 unless more is there
The attorney general told senators that he hoped his review of the FBI\u2019s conduct would turn up more intelligence collection than \u201ca single confidential informant and a FISA warrant\u201d \u2014 suggesting it was \u201canemic\u201d to rely on just that much information in a counterintelligence probe.
\u201cIt strikes me as a fairly anemic effort, if that was the counterintelligence effort designed to stop the threat as it\u2019s been represented,\u201d Barr said.
Barr told Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that he did not know whether former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had been under surveillance while he was working for the Trump campaign. The surveillance applications for Page that have been reported began after Page left the Trump campaign.
Barr refused to go into more detail about the FBI\u2019s surveillance practices, \u201cbecause that\u2019s currently under investigation\u201d by the Justice Department\u2019s inspector general.
Earlier, Barr also affirmed Chairman Lindsey O. Graham\u2019s (R-S. C.) conviction that the \u201clack of professionalism in the Clinton email investigation\u201d is also something that should be scrutinized.
11:46 a.m.: Barr suggests that president could block Don McGahn\u2019s testimony
Among the Mueller witnesses lawmakers are eager to hear from is former White House counsel Donald McGahn, who was at the center of the episodes of possible obstruction of justice that Mueller explored. But Barr suggested Wednesday that they should not count on his testimony.
Barr noted of McGahn that the White House had not \u201cwaived executive privilege\u201d \u2014 even though McGahn was allowed to talk extensively to Mueller\u2019s team about potentially privileged matters, and Trump allowed the material he provided to be revealed in Mueller\u2019s report. Barr would not commit to saying that the former White House lawyer would be allowed to testify.
\u201cThat\u2019s a call for the president to make,\u201d Barr said.
11:45 a.m.: Barr says Mueller was upset about media coverage, not the accuracy of his characterization of special counsel\u2019s work
In a tense exchange with Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Barr tried to assert that Mueller was more upset with media coverage of his work than the attorney general\u2019s characterization of it.
The suggestion seems to run counter to the frustrated letter Mueller wrote Barr after Barr released what he termed Mueller\u2019s \u201cprincipal conclusions\u201d March 24. Barr, though, said that in a phone call with Mueller after he received the letter, \u201cBob told me that he did not have objections to the accuracy.\u201d
\u201cMy understanding was his concern was not the accuracy of the statement of the findings in my letter, but that he wanted more out there to provide additional context to explain his reasoning and why he didn\u2019t reach a decision on obstruction,\u201d Barr said.
Barr also said that Mueller\u2019s letter followed days of negative media coverage about the report, and suggested that there might be a connection.
\u201cMy view of events was that there was a lot of criticism of the special counsel for the ensuing few days, and on Thursday, I got this letter,\u201d he said.
11:44 a.m.: Barr maintains Mueller had no complaint with his findings
Barr insisted to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) that Mueller never complained about how he chose to present the findings \u2014 and that it was only media reports that portrayed members of the special counsel\u2019s team as being upset by his summary.
\u201cI certainly am not aware of any challenge to the accuracy of the findings,\u201d Barr said, adding that he directly asked Mueller whether he thought Barr had presented matters in a way that was misleading, and \u201che indicated that it was not.\u201d
\u201cMueller had never told me that the expression of the findings was inaccurate,\u201d Barr said. \u201cThe question was relating to unidentified members who were expressing frustration.\u2026 I talk directly to Bob Mueller, not members of his team.\u201d
Barr added that even if unidentified members were frustrated with the limited information he initially publicized, \u201cit wasn\u2019t my purpose to put out more information.\u201d
Leahy also challenged Barr about how he could have concluded that the president had been cooperative, given the number of times he asked aides to orchestrate firing former FBI director James B. Comey, or to persuade former attorney general Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself.
\u201cI don\u2019t see any conflict between that and fully cooperating with an investigation,\u201d Barr said.
11:40 a.m.: Dossier allegations might be Russian disinformation, Barr says
Barr said it was possible that elements of the dossier of allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele could be disinformation provided by Russians.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) asked whether Barr could state with confidence that the dossier was not part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
\u201cNo, I can\u2019t state that with confidence and that is one of the areas that I\u2019m reviewing and I\u2019m concerned about it, and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s entirely speculative,\u201d Barr replied.
The exchange highlighted a key feature of Wednesday\u2019s hearing \u2014 Republicans pressing the attorney general on possible misconduct among investigators, both on the Russia investigation and the prior FBI probe into Hillary Clinton\u2019s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
11:35 a.m.: Barr disagreed with Mueller\u2019s assertion that he should not make an obstruction recommendation
Barr told senators that he disagreed with Mueller\u2019s decision not to determine whether Trump obstructed justice.
In his report, Mueller wrote that he believed a Justice Department guidance memo that says a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime should be interpreted to mean that prosecutors should not state whether the president broke the law and therefore would face charges if he were not in office. Barr appeared skeptical of that reasoning, indicating that his confusion as to how Mueller came to that conclusion led him to omit that finding from his March 24 letter summarizing Mueller\u2019s primary conclusions.
\u201cI didn\u2019t try to put words in his mouth,\u201d Barr said.
Barr said he thought that if Mueller did not think he could state whether he thought the president committed a crime, then he should not have investigated whether the president committed a crime. \u201cThat was the time to pull up,\u201d he said.
In his report, Mueller explained that he thought it was appropriate to investigate to \u201cpreserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.\u201d
11:30 a.m.: Barr says he is likely to report to Congress about Trump campaign \u201cspying\u201d allegations
Barr told senators that he has already assigned members of his staff to review allegations that there was \u201cspying\u201d conducted on the Trump campaign before the 2016 election and that he anticipates reporting to Congress at the conclusion of that inquiry.
Barr\u2019s comments came in response to questions from Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who asked whether the Justice Department has begun a review to determine whether surveillance conducted of anyone associated with Trump\u2019s campaign was properly predicated.
In a previous congressional appearance, Barr made waves when he said he agreed that there had been \u201cspying\u201d on Trump\u2019s campaign. Barr indicated that he has assigned staffers to review the issue, as well as more broadly how the FBI decided to begin a counterintelligence investigation related to Trump\u2019s campaign in summer 2016.
Asked to commit to sharing the results of the review with Congress, Barr said \u201cit\u2019s a little early,\u201d but indicated that \u201cI envision some kind of reporting at the end of this.\u201d
11:21 a.m.: Barr says Trump\u2019s trying to get Mueller removed did not constitute obstruction
One of the most explosive episodes detailed in Mueller\u2019s report had to do with former White House counsel Donald McGahn, and the president\u2019s attempt to have McGahn order Mueller\u2019s removal from office. By McGahn\u2019s telling \u2014 which the special counsel found credible \u2014 Trump told McGahn to contact Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and have him fire Mueller over alleged conflicts. Trump then tried to get McGahn to write a statement saying that did not happen, according to Mueller\u2019s account.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pressed Barr: How could that episode \u2014 effectively trying to get a witness to lie \u2014 not constitute obstruction? Barr was unequivocal.
\u201cWe felt that episode, the government would not be able to establish obstruction,\u201d he said.
By Barr\u2019s telling, McGahn had alleged that Trump wanted to have Rosenstein remove Mueller because, in his view, Mueller had a conflict of interest. He noted that the president disputes that he actually wanted Mueller removed. But no matter the case, Barr said, Trump\u2019s wanting to remove Mueller over conflicts would not necessarily be legally problematic.
\u201cThere\u2019s something very different between firing a special counsel outright\u2026 and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests you\u2019re going to have another special counsel,\u201d Barr said.
Barr also said the president did not think he was telling McGahn to effectively write a false statement, noting that McGahn had already talked to Mueller\u2019s investigators when Trump is said to have made the request of him.
\u201cYou still have a situation where the president essentially tries to change the lawyer\u2019s account in order to prevent further criticism of himself,\u201d Feinstein said.
\u201cWell, that\u2019s not a crime,\u201d Barr responded.
\u201cSo you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie?\u201d Feinstein said.
\u201cTo be obstruction of justice, the lie has to be tied to impairing the evidence in a particular proceeding,\u201d Barr said.
Barr\u2019s telling of the facts was very favorable to Trump. He suggested that \u201cif the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the allegations against him were false,\u201d firing Mueller would not necessarily be problematic.
\u201cThat is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel,\u201d Barr said.
11:17 a.m.: Barr was \u2018surprised\u2019 Mueller left the obstruction question to him, but stands by his decision \u2018absolutely\u2019
Barr told the Senate judiciary panel that he was \u201csurprised\u201d Mueller had left the decision on whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice to him, noting that the special counsel had been appointed \u201cfor the purpose of making that judgment.\u201d
Barr added that he found it \u201cconfusing\u201d that Mueller had extended and expanded the scope of his probe to look into \u201cadditional episodes \u2026 involving the president.\u201d
\u201cWhy were those investigated if at the end of the day you weren\u2019t going to reach a decision on them?\u201d Barr said.
The attorney general added that he was \u201cabsolutely\u201d confident in his decision not to pursue Trump for obstruction of justice and how he presented the report \u2014 though he suggested that Mueller had disagreed with \u201ca few judgment calls\u201d about redacting information to protect the reputation of unindicted figures.
Barr\u2019s testimony suggested deeper rifts between the attorney general and special counsel than he has previously indicated existed.
He also affirmed Sen. Lindsey O. Graham\u2019s conviction that there should be an investigation of a \u201clack of professionalism\u201d at the FBI during its probe of Hillary Clinton\u2019s emails, and scrutiny of whether the FBI abused the surveillance application process.
11:03 a.m.: Judiciary Democrats still unsure whether Barr will show for Thursday hearing
Across the Rotunda, House Judiciary Committee Democrats were still unsure Wednesday morning whether Barr would show for his scheduled Thursday hearing before their panel. In a pair of private meetings Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, they discussed holding him in contempt if he does not, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
The idea of impeaching Barr came up as well, but panel Democrats agreed that they should stay focused on Trump, these people said.
Barr had threatened last week to skip the hearing over objections to its format \u2014 namely allowing staff attorneys to question him at the end of his testimony before lawmakers. The panel was expected to vote Wednesday morning to allow staff attorneys to do just that over the objections of Republicans.
\u201cI don\u2019t know what he is afraid of from questioning by staff counsel,\u201d said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N. Y.), during a hearing that escalated into shouting matches between the two sides.
Republicans decried the move as unprecedented and against the rules, and blasted Nadler for refusing to recognize some of their objections.
House Democrats also began accusing Barr on Wednesday of perjuring himself when he told Congress in early April that he had no knowledge of whether Mueller and his team were frustrated by his four-page summary. In fact, a letter from Mueller to Barr expressing his discontent with the summary Barr gave Congress, they say, would have been a clear indication of Mueller\u2019s objections.
11:02 a.m.: Despite the language of Mueller\u2019s letter, Barr says special counsel was unhappy with media coverage
In concluding his opening remarks to senators, Barr offered his first explanation of his interactions with Mueller in the days before Barr publicly released Mueller\u2019s report. By Barr\u2019s account, he and Mueller spoke by phone after Mueller submitted a letter complaining that a March 24 letter from Barr announcing Mueller\u2019s \u201cprincipal conclusions\u201d had failed to \u201cfully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office\u2019s work and conclusions.\u201d
In that phone call, Barr maintained that Mueller was \u201cvery clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report.\u201d Instead, according to Barr, Mueller\u2019s real complaint was with the media, which he felt had over-interpreted Barr\u2019s letter. Mueller\u2019s letter, however, did not mention the media at all but instead said it was Barr\u2019s letter that had caused Mueller concern. Barr\u2019s comments are likely to increase pressure for Mueller to testify and explain his own views to the public.
Barr said that Mueller continued to push for the immediate release of his team\u2019s executive summaries to clear up any public confusion, but that Barr decided that it would be better to wait and release the entire report at once.
10:46 a.m.: Barr suggests Mueller is to blame for delay of public release of his report
In opening remarks, Barr suggested that Mueller and his team are partly to blame for a delay in the public release of his report.
Barr told senators that on arriving at the Department of Justice, he immediately told other officials there that he believed that Mueller\u2019s team should submit the report in a pre-redacted form, with material already marked that came from the grand jury and would be illegal to release. Barr said he then made the same suggestion directly to Mueller when the two men met on March 5.
But, he told senators, when Mueller submitted the report, \u201cunfortunately, it did not come in that form.\u201d He said that, as a result, it took three to four weeks to redact the report for public release. It is now clear that while that process unfolded, Mueller requested that Barr immediately release summaries that had been written by his team about their work. Barr declined.
10:38 a.m.: Senate Judiciary chairman on Trump probe: \u2018For me, it is over\u2019
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S. C.) opened Barr\u2019s hearing with kind words for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III \u2013 and a clear message that he intended to turn the panel\u2019s focus away from Trump and toward his former presidential rival, Hillary Clinton.
\u201cAfter all this time and all this money, Mr. Mueller has concluded there was no collusion,\u201d Graham said. \u201cFor me, it is over.\u201d
Graham offered a passing defense of Barr\u2019s actions, pointing out that Mueller left it for Barr to decide how to publicize his findings, and \u201cMr. Barr did.\u201d Graham also endorsed Barr\u2019s decision not to charge Trump with obstructing justice, since the investigation did not find an underlying crime of conspiracy with the Russians to sway the 2016 election.
On several occasions, a smiling Graham told the assembled audience that they could read the Mueller report for themselves \u2013 while admitted he hadn\u2019t quite finished it. And he stressed that the thoroughness of Mueller\u2019s work was itself a reason to investigate how the FBI had handled its Trump and Clinton probes before the special counsel was appointed \u2013 recalling how two of the officials on those investigations shared anti-Trump text messages.
\u201cCompare them to Mueller,\u201d Graham said. \u201cThis committee is going to look long and hard at how this all started\u2026 I can tell you this, if you change the names, y\u2019all going to look too. Everything I just said, just substitute Clinton for Trump.\u201d
10:32 a.m.: Feinstein: \u2018We saw why Mueller was concerned\u2019
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the committee\u2019s highest-ranking Democrat, signaled in her opening statement that she plans to inquire aggressively about the disconnect between Mueller\u2019s report and Barr\u2019s summary of it to Congress.
Citing Washington Post reporting, Feinstein noted that Mueller himself had objected to the way Barr has characterized his work in a March 27 letter. When the special counsel report was released, she said, \u201cWe saw why Mueller was concerned.\u201d Trump, she noted, had used Barr\u2019s summary to claim vindication \u2013 when that summary did not paint a complete picture.
\u201cContrary to the declarations of the total and complete exoneration,\u201d Feinstein said, \u201cthe special counsel\u2019s report contained substantial evidence of misconduct.\u201d
Feinstein then ticked through some of the most damaging of the report\u2019s revelations for Trump \u2013 both on coordination with Russia, and on whether Trump obstructed justice. She said she hopes senators will be able to hear from Mueller himself, and has requested the chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S. C.) permit that to happen.
10:10 a.m.: Mueller requested Barr release investigative summaries immediately
A letter sent to Barr by Mueller in late March shows the extent of Mueller\u2019s displeasure with how Barr had handled the public release of his report.
[Read Mueller\u2019s complete letter to the attorney general]
The Washington Post first reported on the existence of the letter and quoted from it on Tuesday but the full text has now been released. It shows that Mueller complained to Justice Department officials nearly immediately after Barr released a four-page letter about Mueller\u2019s report on March 24.
In his dispatch, Mueller wrote that Barr\u2019s letter did not \u201cfully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office\u2019s work and conclusions.\u201d Mueller wrote that he first communicated this concern the very next morning after Barr released his letter, on March 25. Mueller\u2019s letter, formalizing his concerns, was submitted two days later, on March 27.
Mueller\u2019s letter also emphasizes the extent to which the special counsel\u2019s team had intended for its work to speak for itself and not for the attorney general to summarize its efforts. Mueller wrote that he had stated in a meeting on March 5 and reiterated again on March 24 that \u201cthe introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office\u2019s work and conclusions.\u201d
Mueller wrote that release of those would \u201calleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.\u201d
10:06 a.m. Read Mueller\u2019s entire letter to Barr
You can read the entire letter that Mueller sent to Barr complaining about the characterization of his investigation here.
10:05 a.m.: The hearing is underway
The hearing began shortly after 10 a.m. with comments from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S. C.), the committee\u2019s chairman.
9:17 a.m.: Rep. Adam Schiff calls on Barr to resign
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday morning became the highest-profile member of his chamber to call for Barr\u2019s resignation.
\u201cLook, there\u2019s no sugarcoating this. I think he should step down,\u201d Schiff said during an appearance on \u201cCBS This Morning.\u201d
Schiff pointed to Barr\u2019s exchange in a committee meeting with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in which Barr said he didn\u2019t know whether Mueller supported his conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to accuse Trump of criminal obstruction of justice.
The Post reported Tuesday that Mueller had written a letter to Barr expressing his displeasure with how Barr was characterizing the special counsel\u2019s findings.
\u201cI think his statement is deliberately false and misleading, and yes, most people would consider that to be a lie,\u201d Schiff said. \u201cIt\u2019s hard, I think, for the country to have confidence in the top law enforcement official in the country if he\u2019s asked a direction question as he was and he gives a directly false answer.\u201d
9 a.m.: Did Barr lie to Congress in previous testimony?
Congressional Democrats reacted swiftly and fiercely to The Post\u2019s report Tuesday night that Mueller had written a letter to Barr expressing his displeasure with how Barr was characterizing the special counsel\u2019s findings. Among the most forceful was Van Hollen, who tweeted that Barr should \u201cresign immediately,\u201d and asserted that the attorney general had \u201ctotally misled me, the Congress, and the public\u201d in previous congressional testimony.
Van Hollen pointed to an exchange he had with Barr during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in April over the attorney general\u2019s decision to declare that there was insufficient evidence to accuse Trump of criminal obstruction of justice. Mueller had declined to make such a declaration, writing in his report that because of previous Justice Department guidance saying that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, he could not even say in a private report whether charges would be warranted.
\u201cDid Bob Mueller support your conclusion?\u201d Van Hollen asked Barr.
\u201cI don\u2019t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion,\u201d he responded.
The exchange raises questions that Barr will almost certainly have to answer Wednesday. At the very least, he knew that Mueller objected to how the attorney general was characterizing his report.
That, however, does not by itself present a clear-cut case that Barr was lying to Van Hollen. As the entire exchange makes clear, the senator was asking in particular about Barr\u2019s decision that the law and the facts did not support bringing an obstruction case against Trump. Barr may have been walking a fine line \u2014 conveying that he did not know Mueller\u2019s view of that legal conclusion, although he knew Mueller objected to how his findings on obstruction were being characterized.
[\u2018I don\u2019t know\u2019: Barr\u2019s professed ignorance prompts calls for his resignation after Mueller letter]
Barr was similarly asked by Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) at a recent House Appropriations Committee hearing whether he knew what media reports last month were referring to when they revealed frustration among some members of Mueller\u2019s team about the limited information Barr had made available about their work.
\u201cNo, I don\u2019t,\u201d Barr replied. \u201cI think \u2014 I think \u2014 I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize, because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being underinclusive or overinclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once.\u201d
That answer, too, is likely to be scrutinized, although Barr seemed to concede the Mueller team wanted more information put out.
8:30 a.m.: \u2018This threatens to undermine a central purpose\u2019
Mueller\u2019s letter to Barr complaining about the characterization of the special counsel\u2019s findings will undoubtedly drive much of the questioning Wednesday. The memo reported by The Post on Tuesday revealed for the first time the extent of the disagreement between the two longtime colleagues and friends, and offered fuel to Democratic lawmakers who had long asserted that Barr was misrepresenting Mueller\u2019s work.
\u201cThe summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office\u2019s work and conclusions,\u201d Mueller wrote. \u201cThere is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.\u201d
Mueller also asked that Barr release his full report\u2019s introductions and executive summaries, and made initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials.
In the wake of The Post\u2019s reporting on the letter, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N. Y.) said he had demanded that the department give him a copy by 10 a.m. Wednesday. He also said he would renew his efforts to press for Mueller\u2019s testimony.
\u201cThe Special Counsel\u2019s concerns reflect our own,\u201d Nadler said in a statement. \u201cThe Attorney General should not have taken it upon himself to describe the Special Counsel\u2019s findings in a light more favorable to the President. It was only a matter of time before the facts caught up to him.\u201d
Nadler might have a chance to ask Barr about the matter personally on Thursday, if the attorney general testifies. And his Democratic colleagues in the Senate will almost certainly press his concerns at Wednesday\u2019s hearing.
[\u2018I don\u2019t know\u2019: Barr\u2019s professed ignorance prompts calls for his resignation after Mueller letter]
8:15 a.m.: In written remarks, Barr seeks to steer Justice Department out of political fight over Mueller\u2019s work
In written remarks released before the hearing, Barr defended his handling of the special counsel investigation, saying that Mueller never had a decision vetoed in the course of his work and that his final report was released with minimal redactions.
Barr also sought to distance the Justice Department from the burgeoning political fire sparked by Mueller\u2019s work, as lawmakers continue to debate whether impeachment of Trump is now warranted.
\u201cFrom here on, the exercise of responding and reacting to the report is a matter for the American people and the political process,\u201d Barr said in the remarks. \u201cAs I am sure you agree, it is vitally important for the Department of Justice to stand apart from the political process and not to become an adjunct of it.\u201d
Barr repeated in the remarks what he has described previously as Mueller\u2019s principal conclusions: that Mueller did not find Trump coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 election, and that the special counsel declined to reach a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice.
It is now known that Mueller bristles at that bare-bones characterization of his team\u2019s work, which Barr first offered in a four-page letter in the days after the investigation was concluded.
Barr continued to defend his letter in his remarks and explained why he argued against Mueller\u2019s request to release the special counsel\u2019s more comprehensive summaries.
\u201cI did not believe that it was in the public interest to release additional portions of the report in piecemeal fashion, leading to public debate over incomplete information\u201d Barr said. \u201cMy main focus was the prompt release of a public version of the report so that Congress and the American people could read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.\u201d
Barr said that Mueller had \u201ccompleted his investigation as he saw fit,\u201d and the public could now see the fruits of that labor. According to one analysis, he said, just 8 percent of the public report was redacted, and less than 2 percent was withheld from a different version available to certain congressional leaders.
He said that the redactions were made in close consultation with lawyers from Mueller\u2019s office, and that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein \u201cdid not overrule any of the redaction decisions, nor did we request that any additional material be redacted.\u201d
8 a.m.: An unusual news conference
About 1\u00bd hours before Mueller\u2019s report was made public, Barr gathered reporters on the Justice Department\u2019s seventh floor to provide an overview of what would soon be released and to answer questions about his interactions with the White House.
Democrats had criticized the media event even before it happened \u2014 saying Barr was trying to spin Mueller\u2019s work in a way that was overly favorable to Trump. Some felt their fears were realized when Barr declared that investigators had found no \u201ccollusion\u201d between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller, too, had previously been concerned about how Barr was characterizing his team\u2019s work.
The news conference was particularly notable because, about a week earlier, Barr had sought to explain to lawmakers why he did not want to summarize Mueller\u2019s report before it was released in full.
Any \u201csummary,\u201d the attorney general told the House Appropriations Committee, \u201cnot only runs the risk of being under-inclusive or over-inclusive but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should have weighed everything coming out at once.\u201d
That comment came as Barr was defending how he revealed Mueller\u2019s principal conclusions in a terse, four-page letter to Congress, but did not say more. But it could raise more questions for senators on Wednesday. If Barr worried that a summary would trigger premature discussion and analysis, why did he offer one at a news conference before releasing Mueller\u2019s report? What was his rationale for holding the news conference, if not to color the public\u2019s perception of what they were about to read? And why, particularly, would he hold it if Mueller already was frustrated with how his work was being characterized?
7:30 a.m.: Barr will testify before the Senate, but House appearance remains uncertain
Barr was initially supposed to meet this week with two congressional committees \u2014 the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, and the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. But the status of the second hearing is in doubt.
Justice Department and House Judiciary officials have this week been arguing over the terms of his appearance, and \u2014 if they remain at an impasse \u2014 it is possible that he won\u2019t show up.
[Justice Dept., House Democrats at an impasse over Barr\u2019s hearing on Mueller report]
Democrats want to have committee lawyers question the attorney general, and Barr has been resistant to the idea. In recent history, lawmakers themselves have generally done the public questioning of witnesses, although questioning by committee staff was more common decades ago.
House Democratic staff members have threatened to subpoena Barr if he doesn\u2019t show up, though it is possible they\u2019ll come to an agreement before then.
John Wagner, Rachael Bade and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.<\/p>\n