ZCZC
BFF-10
US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-BARR
House Speaker Pelosi says US attorney general lied to Congress
WASHINGTON, May 3, 2019 (BSS/AFP) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday
accused the top US law-enforcement officer of committing a crime by lying to
Congress, escalating the showdown between Donald Trump’s administration and
the Democrats investigating him.
Pelosi levelled the rare charge after Attorney General Bill Barr skipped
out on his scheduled testimony before a House of Representatives panel eager
to probe his handling of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian
interference in the 2016 election.
Infuriated Democrats quickly threatened to censure him for contempt.
Barr, in the job since February, had been grilled a day earlier in the
Republican-led Senate, where Democrats accused him of whitewashing Mueller’s
report in order to protect Trump.
But he was a no-show at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee,
after its leadership announced it would have lawyers cross-examine him
following a round of questioning by the panel’s elected members.
Barr’s absence appeared to antagonize Pelosi, Trump’s Democratic nemesis in
Congress, who accused the attorney general of misleading lawmakers.
“He lied to Congress,” Pelosi said, apparently referring to Barr’s
testimony under oath before lawmakers in April. “That’s a crime.”
In that hearing, Barr claimed not to know whether Mueller supported his
controversial memo summarizing the report and said he did not know why
members of Mueller’s team would be frustrated over the summary.
It emerged on Tuesday, however, that when Barr said this, he was already in
possession of a March 27 letter from Mueller outlining the special counsel’s
frustrations.
“If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” Pelosi said.
“Nobody is above the law, not the president of the United States, and not the
attorney general.”
– ‘Chicken Barr’ –
Mueller’s report, the culmination of a 22-month probe yielding charges or
convictions of 34 people and three companies, confirmed that Russian
operatives tried to help Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The investigation found that Trump’s campaign knew of the sabotage attempt
but did not deliberately reach out to conspire with the Russians.
The report detailed numerous occasions in which Trump attempted to thwart
the investigation, leading to several Democrats calling for his impeachment.
Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler threatened Barr with contempt of
Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena demanding delivery of the
full, unredacted 448-page report.
He also blasted Barr’s failure to appear as part of a wholesale obstruction
by the Trump administration of Democrat-led inquiries.
“The challenge we face is that the president of the United States wants
desperately to prevent Congress, a co-equal branch of government, from
providing any check whatsoever to even his most reckless decisions,” Nadler
said.
“The system of limited power, the system of not having a president as a
dictator, is very much at stake.”
The brief hearing was notable for Barr’s empty seat.
Democrat Steve Cohen mocked the attorney general’s absence, bringing a
bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken to the proceedings.
“Chicken Barr should have shown up today,” Cohen said.
Judiciary’s top Republican Doug Collins pushed back fiercely, calling the
witness-less hearing a “circus” and all but challenging the House leadership
to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump.
If the House approves a contempt motion, it would open Barr to
congressional punishments including fines.
Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyer Emmet Flood accused Mueller and his special
counsel’s office (SCO) of politicizing their report when they wrote that “we
are unable to reach that judgment” that the president did not commit
obstruction of justice.
“Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any
more than they are in the business of ‘exonerating’ investigated persons,”
Flood wrote in a mid-April letter to Barr that was published by US media
Thursday.
“The SCO’s inverted-proof standard and ‘exoneration’ statements can be
understood only as political statements.”
BSS/AFP/GMR/0850 hrs