Surprising nobody — but appalling to anyone who cares about Rule of Law and democratic process — yesterday Barr gave the same defense of Trump that Trump surrogates (Dershowitz, Giuliani, etc.) have been making all year.
c-span.org/event/?459922/…
💠Trump is head of the executive branch;
💠Trump therefore has “constitutional” control over the executive branch;
💠If Trump believes an executive branch investigation is based on false claims, he has the right to shut it down. . .
💠Trump is permitted to shut down an investigation he thinks is “ill-founded” or “based on false accusations” out of concern for the effect the “false accusations” might have on his administration;
💠This includes investigations into himself.
This “defense” partly explains the right-wing obsession (and lies) about how the investigation started.
There are a few obvious problems with the "a president can exonerate himself" defense.
💠The GOP doesn't offer this “defense” to all presidents. It didn’t apply to Clinton. And of course, just imagine if Obama had tried to shut down the Benghazi investigation.
So this isn’t a general rule as in Rule of Law.
It's a cynical way to shield a GOP president.
💠The Mueller probe was (among other things) an investigation into Russia’s attack on our election. Mueller uncovered a “sweeping and systematic” criminal foreign attack on our election.
Barr argued it would have been OK for Trump to shut that down.
Fortunately, the drafters of the Constitution were smart enough not to give the executive branch the task of deciding whether executive officers are guilty.
(Consider where we’d be if the GOP still controlled the House. The situation is clearly improving.)
Again, this prevents the president from appointing the people who would decide his guilt.
Thus the advantage of Congress deciding is that the judges and jurors are not appointed by the president. The disadvantage . . .
This is partly why Trump isn’t worried about whether his defense has legal merit.
Barr did two things yesterday:
#1: He declared Trump not guilty
#2: He stonewalled Congress
Today Barr is refusing to be questioned by the House—an outrageous act of defiance.
The DOJ is refusing to honor Congressional subpoenas.
This is where we are in the current crisis: Congress in battle with the Executive Branch.
This raises the problem of how the House should respond to the lying and stonewalling of Attorney General Barr.
Let’s consider their options.
They can declare Barr in contempt. @RDEliason talks about the problems with this. . .
Personally, I’m in favor of impeaching Barr. It’s clear he lied to Congress when he said that he didn’t know whether Mueller approved of his conclusions. Lying to Congress is a crime.
What if McConnell refuses to hold a trial?
That will mean that Barr remains impeached. The Senate is more likely to hold a trial and acquit him (they will probably acquit) to "clear" his name.
vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/d…
But I agree with her suggestion.
It will re-establish Congress as a co-equal branch of government.
It will discourage others from thumbing their nose at Congress.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…