Will Barr Be The First Attorney General To Be Impeached? Or Is Pelosi Too Tired?

Pre-Trump, historians have considered the two worst Attorneys General to be Wilson's A. Mitchell Palmer and his successor, Harry Daugherty, who was appointed by Warren G. Harding and also served, briefly, under Calvin Coolidge. Daugherty, a career criminal, was complicit in the Teapot Dome Scandal and was indicted and tried twice, although shenanigans in the Justice department led to hung juries and dismissals. The House Judiciary Committee also took up impeachment charges against him (1922) but partisan politics intervened and he was never impeached. That was the closest any Attorney General has come to impeachment.

If Memphis, Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen has his way, William Barr, will be the first to actually be impeached. Pelosi and his clique oppose impeachment-- not because they believe he doesn't deserve to be removed from office, but because they feel it's too big a hassle before the election. Former Austin City Attorney Mike Siegel, a candidate for Congress (TX-10) feels strongly that Cohen is doing the right thing by moving forward. "The Attorney General has proven himself to be a threat to democracy and the rule of law," Siegel told me yesterday, "and I thank Congressman Cohen for pushing forward and making a record of Barr’s unlawful and incredibly damaging actions. The corruption of the Trump Administration is pervasive and never-ending, but it remains important that we draw clear lines about what is acceptable in a democratic nation."

On Friday, Cohen said "Even if the ultimate trier of the Senate is impotent to see the truth and to exercise discretion in keeping with the American public and the rule of law, we should pursue impeachment of Bill Barr because he is reigning terror on the rule of law." He wrote to his colleagues that he intends "to introduce a resolution laying out many instances of Attorney General Barr’s misconduct and urging the Judiciary Committee to continue its investigations into these instances, evaluate the evidence, and to determine if this constitutes impeachable conduct." Most Democrats are afraid to get on Pelosi's bad side and aren't joining Cohen's request for an inquiry, although Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Joe Neguse (D-CO) have both called on Barr to resign. New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell tweeted out his support for Cohen last week.

Pelosi said the solution to the "mess" that Barr is, would be the election. "He is contemptible; there’s no question about that. But at this point, let’s solve our problems by going to the polls and voting on Election Day, 131 days from now." Members of Congress make $174,000 a year. The majority and minority leaders of both the House and Senate make over $193,000 a year. And the Speaker-- Pelosi-- makes $223,500. Is that what she gets all that extra money for-- shoving her responsibilities off to the voters in 131 days. Barr can-- and, no doubt will-- cause irreparable damages in the next 131 days.

Yesterday, law professor Jennifer Taub penned an OpEd for Newsweek, William Barr Is Not America's Attorney General. Barr, she wrote, was activated by Trump "to do his personal and political bidding." John Elias, who works in the anti-trust division at DOJ, "testified that Barr is bending justice to serve Trump. As one example, Elias said that in August 2019, the antitrust division's leadership unjustifiably directed staff to investigate the world's four largest automakers to appease Trump. A month earlier, California announced that Ford, Volkswagen of America, Honda and BMW had each agreed to follow the state's emissions standards, which were far more stringent than what would be required under Trump's planned rollback. The deal humiliated Trump, and he lashed out on Twitter. The day after those tweets, the investigation began, said Elias, who explained that this was inappropriate in any case, as there are long-standing legal doctrines that make both state action of this type and joint efforts by private businesses to influence policy lawful."

She wrote that former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer "was the moral conscience of the hearing and gave perhaps the most overt condemnation of Barr. 'I believe that Attorney General Barr is a major threat to our legal system and to public trust in it,' he said. Barr has worked 'to free the president from accountability under a broad range of checks and balances that have played a critical role in our system for many decades,' Ayer testified. 'He has also grossly misused his powers as attorney general to advance the president's personal and political interests, and to protect his friends.'"

The bottom line is this: Barr is yet another public resource that the president is using for his private benefit. A tool. Even the witness invited by the Republican leadership, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, did not deny the pressure Trump exerts on the attorney general. With Barr, Trump has the entire criminal justice apparatus in his hands to target his enemies and reward his family and friends.

But here's the good news. Congress created the position of the attorney general in 1789 with the Judiciary Act. Over the centuries, statutes have further fleshed out the attorney general's powers and duties. Congress still has the authority to shape this role, fund the Justice Department and, of course, impeach. It is long past time to use these powers. Our nation's top law enforcement officer must serve the public interest of justice, not the whims of a corrupt, authoritarian president.

But Pelosi wants to leave him to keep behaving this way for 131 days because... it's inconvenient? "Frankly," said Ayer, "my worry is he’s going to do it more and more in the weeks and months ahead as we get closer to the election." Ironically, House Republicans agree with Pelosi that there should be no impeachment hearings. Gym Jordan (R-OH): "Bill Barr is trying to do the Lord’s work to clean it up, so it doesn’t happen again."

Jordan set the tone. Barr, with his “exemplary record,” was “restoring integrity” within the department, said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). The hearing was a “farce,” said Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), with Democrats knifing Barr for “trying to clean up and clear up messes made by the previous administration.” Most ominously, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) told the three witnesses that “history will not judge you kindly in the days ahead… whether we get to continue this experiment in self-government or not.” A spokesperson did not respond to a question about whether Gohmert believes the American republic is in danger of collapse.

It was the most foursquare defense of Barr from Hill Republicans yet. Their support for Trump, post-Russiagate and post-impeachment, is compulsory at this point. But on Wednesday, they went beyond allegiance to Trump to affirmatively portray Barr as the one out to drain the swamp.

  They did so days after perhaps the lowest point in Barr’s brief tenure. On Friday, Barr lied that the U.S. attorney in New York had resigned, prompting a weekend standoff over ousting Geoffrey Berman before Barr partially backed down. It remains unclear if Barr will himself testify before the House committee, but he knows he has a GOP firewall if he does.

Against all that, Democrats had rhetoric. Their leadership doesn’t want to impeach Barr. Their caucus is internally divided on what to do about him. Their response, which frequently overshadowed their focus on the substance of Elias and Zelinsky’s testimony, was to hurl invective at Barr. Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called him Trump’s “fixer.” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) called the politicization of the Justice Department “worse than Watergate, worse than Nixon.” Referring to Barr’s violent suppression of the June 1 protest in Lafayette Square, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) said that to the attorney general, friends of the president get pardons and reduced jail time, but “if you’re peacefully protesting brutality, you get tear-gassed.”

Jerry Nadler, who at first toed the Pelosi line about not impeaching Barr, now says he's considering it, telling reporters who asked if there will be impeachment hearings that "We're looking into that; we may very well. I think the weight of the evidence and of what's happened leads to that conclusion. More than one solid progressive, each of whom would love to see Barr impeached, told me they thought that Cohen should wait to drop the resolution until after Barr testifies... or if he refuses to testify. That takes away the argument of Republicans that the Democrats were already biased against him.