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.

Indiana Doesn't Elect Many Democrats Statewide These Days... But That May Change This Year-- At Least For Attorney General

-by State Senator Karen Tallian
Candidate, Attorney General

Headlines in the Indiana newspapers have been consistent and recurring for more than 18 months. The story has even made national news. Curtis Hill, the Republican Indiana Attorney General, was accused of being extremely drunk at a party held at the close of legislative session, and groping 4 women: 3 young staff members and one legislator. Republican leadership called for his resignation but he refused. The Inspector General did an investigation, and found that the allegations were true but did not rise to the level of a criminal prosecution. A Disciplinary hearing, lasting 4 days, saw a multitude of witnesses confirming the allegations. The hearing officer, former IN Supreme Court Justice Myra Selby, recently recommended that Mr. Hill be suspended from the practice of law for 60 days, WITHOUT automatic re-instatement. That recommendation is now before the Indiana Supreme Court, which will issue the final determination.

The Curtis Hill story, which has become well-known household knowledge in Indiana politics, is an embarrassment to the State and the office, and has caused the Republican Party here to become unglued. Mr. Hill, who represents the very right wing of that party, has become a pariah.

All of which leaves a great opportunity for the Democratic party. Indiana, arguably a 45 D /55 R state, is not nearly as Red as the gerrymandered legislature would have you believe. Democrats have been successful in state-wide office, especially when there is a problematic opponent. Witness the defeat of the notorious Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett (R) by the out-of-nowhere Glenda Ritz (D). Or the victory of Joe Donnelly in the U.S. Senate race against the right wing Richard Murdock, who took out the well-loved Richard Lugar. And of course, Indiana went blue for Barack Obama.

Curtis Hill is a very vulnerable target.

Who am I ?

Factually, the basic stats are these:

BA, University of Chicago, 1972 with a degree in philosophy and psychology. I come from the left-wing liberal progressive school of thought that prevailed there at that time. Recall that Bernie Sanders was there just 8 years before me.

JD, summa cum laude, Valparaiso Law School, 1990. Practiced law in Northwest Indiana for 29 years, most of which was trial practice.

State Senator, Indiana District 4, from 2005 to present. Currently I am the Caucus Chair for the Senate Democrats, the Ranking Minority Member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, the State Budget Committee, and the Courts & Criminal Code Committee; also serving on Energy & Environment, and Pensions & Labor Committees.

My Career in the Senate:

This is easily paralleled by the 3 Governors who have dominated the second floor of our statehouse.

My first legislative session, I cut my teeth fighting Governor Mitch Daniels, who had pushed through a very controversial proposal for a 75 year lease of the Indiana Tollway, which runs through my district. I became the attorney freshman who had actually read the Lease document and was the Voice against the plan. During the next few years of that administration, I continued to fight him as he pushed a union-busting agenda against AFSCME, teachers, and, his parting shot, Right to Work. As the Ranking Minority Member of the Pensions & Labor Committee, I was the Senate Voice for labor.

Mike Pence then took the Governor’s position, and I spent all 4 years fighting the furthest right wing organizations who supported him. Again, on the Senate floor, I fought as the administration defunded Indiana Planned Parenthood, passed one after another anti-choice bill, and pushed for RFRA. I was one of the most vocal opponents of that measure, arguing against the constitutionality of those measures. As part of Senate leadership, we eventually got them to “take it back” just weeks after the Governor had eagerly signed the RFRA, memorialized in what is now an infamous photograph. (By the way, one of the Republicans who is challenging Hill is one of the people hovering over Mike Pence as he signed that law). Mike Pence also continued Daniels’ legacy, completing his anti-labor agenda by repealing the protections of the Common Construction Wage (aka, Prevailing Wage). Again, I was labor’s Voice.

Now, Eric Holcomb is the Governor. Although trying to stay away from “social issues,” he continues to be a Big Tall Wall, standing in the way of positive change. His administration has blocked Hate Crimes legislation. (I was a co-author of that bill). He also adamantly refuses to consider any marijuana reform legislation. I am well known state-wide as the Senator who initiated and continues to push for marijuana reform for nearly a decade. I have been thwarted by the last 3 Governors.

I can win.

And, I suggest, I am the only candidate who can win. Over my 15 years in the legislature, I have built coalitions of many diverse groups. As champion of women’s issues (health care access, choice, FMLA), I have the support of women’s groups that my male primary challenger can never get: NOW, Planned Parenthood, Hoosier Women Forward, Indiana Democratic Women...

As the Voice of Labor for 15 years, all the labor unions know and respect me, and have always unanimously supported me in the past. This year, some of his local organizations have supported my opponent, but on balance, the union support is largely with me. This includes teachers, with whom I have worked statewide during my entire career.

And, of course, I have the support of everyone who ever wanted to legalize, medicalize, or de-criminalize marijuana in the state of Indiana. This is not insignificant. For many people, including those people who normally characterize themselves as Republican or Libertarian, this is a driving issue. I expect significant cross-over vote from this group. They constantly tell me that. And the Veterans for Medical Cannabis gave me a Legislator of the Year award for my work on that issue.

My Democratic opponent has good credentials. He was a legislator for a few years, and the prior mayor of Evansville, Indiana from 2002-2010. He is a conservative southern Democrat, and likes to taut that. However, he will not say where he stands on Choice, marijuana reform, or a number of other such topics. This is simply no longer acceptable to what is a growing progressive, Bernie-supporting, group of younger people in the Democratic party.

I am their voice.

I need your help.

Worst Attorney General In History?

AG Bill Barr by Nancy Ohanian

When Bernie and Elizabeth and a handful of other senators called on Barr to resign as Attorney General last week, people rolled their eyes. But this morning over a thousand former Department of Justice employees signed this letter demanding exactly the same thing. Trump and Barr have politicized the Just Department unlike any other pair of crooks have done in history. And Barr is a worse AG than Jeff Sessions, Harry Daugherty, John Ashcroft, John Mitchell or even A. Mitchell Palmer.

We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.

As former DOJ officials, we each proudly took an oath to support and defend our Constitution and faithfully execute the duties of our offices. The very first of these duties is to apply the law equally to all Americans. This obligation flows directly from the Constitution, and it is embedded in countless rules and laws governing the conduct of DOJ lawyers. The Justice Manual-- the DOJ’s rulebook for its lawyers-- states that “the rule of law depends on the evenhanded administration of justice”; that the Department’s legal decisions “must be impartial and insulated from political influence”; and that the Department’s prosecutorial powers, in particular, must be “exercised free from partisan consideration.”

All DOJ lawyers are well-versed in these rules, regulations, and constitutional commands. They stand for the proposition that political interference in the conduct of a criminal prosecution is anathema to the Department’s core mission and to its sacred obligation to ensure equal justice under the law.

And yet, President Trump and Attorney General Barr have openly and repeatedly flouted this fundamental principle, most recently in connection with the sentencing of President Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone, who was convicted of serious crimes. The Department has a long-standing practice in which political appointees set broad policies that line prosecutors apply to individual cases. That practice exists to animate the constitutional principles regarding the even-handed application of the law. Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case. It is even more outrageous for the Attorney General to intervene as he did here-- after the President publicly condemned the sentencing recommendation that line prosecutors had already filed in court.

Such behavior is a grave threat to the fair administration of justice. In this nation, we are all equal before the law. A person should not be given special treatment in a criminal prosecution because they are a close political ally of the President. Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.

We welcome Attorney General Barr’s belated acknowledgment that the DOJ’s law enforcement decisions must be independent of politics; that it is wrong for the President to interfere in specific enforcement matters, either to punish his opponents or to help his friends; and that the President’s public comments on DOJ matters have gravely damaged the Department’s credibility. But Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign. But because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.

For these reasons, we support and commend the four career prosecutors who upheld their oaths and stood up for the Department’s independence by withdrawing from the Stone case and/or resigning from the Department. Our simple message to them is that we-- and millions of other Americans-- stand with them. And we call on every DOJ employee to follow their heroic example and be prepared to report future abuses to the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and Congress; to refuse to carry out directives that are inconsistent with their oaths of office; to withdraw from cases that involve such directives or other misconduct; and, if necessary, to resign and report publicly-- in a manner consistent with professional ethics-- to the American people the reasons for their resignation. We likewise call on the other branches of government to protect from retaliation those employees who uphold their oaths in the face of unlawful directives. The rule of law and the survival of our Republic demand nothing less.

These professionals didn't buy into the transparent kabuki-theater Barr and Trump staged last week-- Barr fake-scolding Trump for not letting him do his job. He's very much doing his job: being Trump's Roy Cohn, which is what he was hired to be. And that's the problem for the Department of Justice and for the American people.

Is There Someone In Trump World Even More Dangerous To American Democracy Than Stephen Miller? Meet William Barr, The Nominee Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin And Doug Jones Voted To Confirm

William Barr by Nancy Ohanian

Historians generally agree that the worst Attorney General in American history was A. Mitchell Palmer, an outright fascist who was appointed by Woodrow Wilson in 1919. The monstrosity after Palmer was nearly as bad-- Warren G. Harding's campaign manager Harry Daugherty, one of the most overtly corrupt attorneys general ever (see Ohio Gang); he was indicted and tried twice but never imprisoned. and then there was Nixon's John Mitchell, who was imprisoned. Cultural warrior and religious extremist William Barr, who served George H.W. Bush as Attorney General for two years and now the man who Trump thinks of as his Roy Cohn. Barr is known as an AG who literally promotes lawlessness and injustice on a level commensurate with Palmer, Daugherty and Mitchell. The House held him in contempt after he refused to comply with a subpoena about monkey business with the 2020 census. (The contempt resolution passed 230-198. Only 4 faithless Democrats from the Republican wing of their party voted against it:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Conor Lamb (PA)
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ, now an outright Republican)

Earlier, when Trump nominated Barr, the Senate Democrats filibustered the nomination. Conservatives Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Joe Manchin (WV) and Doug Jones (AL) voted to end the filibuster. (Rand Paul joined the Democrats is warning about Barr's lawlessness and was part of the filibuster. Two days later Barr was confirmed 54-45, with Sinema, Jones and Manchin crossing the aisle to guarantee Barr would become Attorney General. (Again, Rand Paul voted NO.) Should these Republican senators plus Sinema, Jones and Manchin be held responsible for Barr's tenure as one of the worst attorneys general in history?

On Monday, the New Yorker published an exhaustive piece-- William Barr, Trump's Sword and Shield-- by author David Rohde. His point is that as the effort to remove the illegitimate president has gathered strength, "Barr’s and Trump’s political interests have converged. Both men combine the pro-business instincts of traditional Republicans with a focus on culture clash and grievance. Both believe that any constraint on Presidential power weakens the United States. Eleven months after being sworn in, Barr is the most feared, criticized, and effective member of Trump’s Cabinet. Like no Attorney General since the Watergate era, he has acted as the President’s political sword and shield... Barr maintains that Article II of the Constitution gives a President control of all executive-branch agencies, without restriction; in practice, this means that Trump would be within his rights to oversee an investigation into his own misconduct."

Throughout the House’s impeachment inquiry, Trump dismissed subpoenas for documents and testimony from Administration officials-- a step taken by no other President. Barr and Pat Cipollone, a White House lawyer who once worked as Barr’s speechwriter, have also rejected subpoenas, flouting a congressional power plainly delineated in the Constitution. Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under George H. W. Bush, said, “They take the position that they don’t even have to show up. That’s totally outrageous. It’s denying the legitimacy of another branch of government in the name of executive supremacy.” Ayer described Barr’s ideas about Presidential power as “chilling” and “deeply disturbing.” If Trump survives a trial in the Senate, a President’s ability to resist congressional oversight will vastly expand. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, warned that Barr’s and Trump’s efforts could permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of American government. “If those views take hold, we will have lost what was won in the Revolution-- we will have a Chief Executive who is more powerful than the king,” Tribe said. “That will be a disaster for the survival of the Republic.”

At the age of sixty-nine, Barr is grayer, heavier, wealthier, and more combative than he was when he served as George H. W. Bush’s Attorney General, twenty-eight years ago. But his ideology has not changed much, according to friends and former colleagues. “I don’t know why anyone is surprised by his views,” Jack Goldsmith, a law professor who headed the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush Administration, told me. “He has always had a broad view of executive power."

...When Barr was an undergraduate, at Columbia, his classmates marched against the war in Vietnam. Barr wanted instead to buttress American power. He had told a guidance counsellor that he hoped one day to lead the C.I.A., and, during breaks from school, he spent two summers as an intern there. In 1973, he finished a master’s degree in Government and Chinese Studies and returned to the C.I.A. as an intelligence analyst. At the time, a Senate investigation-- known as the Church Committee-- was uncovering decades of abuses at the C.I.A., and laws were being passed to curtail them. Barr later recalled the effort as a kind of assault, delivering “body blows” to the agency.

...When George H. W. Bush ran for President in 1988, Barr, who was then thirty-eight, seized an opportunity to continue the mission of the Reagan years. He joined the campaign as an adviser, and, after Bush won, he was appointed to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the President and all federal agencies.

Barr immediately produced a memo, arguing that Congress was a menace to the Presidency. He urged Administration officials to be alert to legislative encroachment, and cited ten recent examples, from “Micromanagement of the Executive Branch” to “Attempts to Restrict the President’s Foreign Affairs Powers.” He wrote, “Only by consistently and forcefully resisting such congressional incursions can executive branch prerogatives be preserved.” Barr began chairing meetings in which the general counsels of executive-branch departments drafted a strategy to work against Congress. He recalled in 2001 that the President supported the mission: “Bush felt that the powers of the Presidency had been severely eroded since Watergate and [by] the tactics of the Hill Democrats.” But Bush favored an incremental approach, saying, “I don’t want you stretching-- I think the way to advance executive power is to wait and see, move gradually.”

...As Attorney General, Barr increased sentences for drug-related crimes and cracked down on illegal immigration. In 1992, rioting erupted in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers who had been videotaped beating the motorist Rodney King. Barr deployed two thousand federal agents on military planes to stop the unrest. He later argued that civil-rights charges should have been brought-- not just against the offending officers but also against the rioters on the streets of L.A. “We could have cleaned that place up,” he lamented in 2001. “Unfortunately, we just brought the federal case against the cops and never pursued the gangsters.”

During his tenure, Barr turned down multiple requests to name prosecutors to examine potential executive-branch abuses. “The public integrity section told me that I had received more requests for independent counsel in eighteen months than all my predecessors combined,” Barr recalled. “It was a joke.” In one case, Barr opposed the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Administration’s dealings with Iraq before the invasion of Kuwait. Even some conservatives objected; William Safire, The Times columnist, called him “cover-up general Barr.”

AND NOW THE REASON TRUMP DUG BARR UP AND APPOINTED HIM A.G.

After Bush lost the 1992 Presidential election, to Bill Clinton, he blamed the defeat on Lawrence Walsh, the lead prosecutor in the Iran-Contra affair. Four days before the election, Walsh had filed a new criminal charge against former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, and revealed an entry from Weinberger’s diary that cast doubt on Bush’s long-running claim that he opposed trading arms for hostages. Bush was furious, Barr later recalled: “He felt that that indictment had cost him the election.” On Christmas Eve, 1992, Bush pardoned four former officials whom Walsh had prosecuted, and two more who were awaiting trial-- a decision that Barr supported. In a statement accompanying the pardons, Bush complained of “the criminalization of policy differences,” and wrote that criticisms of the President should be expressed in “the voting booth, not the courtroom.”

To Democrats, the pardons were outrageous; officials had defied Congress to carry out a dangerous and illegal scheme, which provided arms to an avowed enemy of the U.S. Barr dismissed those concerns and suggested that Walsh’s investigation had unfairly hobbled the Bush Presidency. “It was very difficult because of the constant pendency of the Iran-Contra case and Lawrence Walsh, who I thought was a-- I don’t know what to say in polite company,” he recalled in 2001. “He was certainly a headhunter and had completely lost perspective.”

Trump has plans-- and he knows he'll need help in pardoning... all the crooks who have worked for him.

Barr was late to join the Trump revolution. In the nineties and the early two-thousands, he donated more than half a million dollars to Republican candidates, mostly such mainstream figures as George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. (Barr even supported Jeff Flake, the Arizona senator whose occasional criticisms of Trump ended up turning constituents against him.) In 2016, Barr gave twenty-seven hundred dollars to Trump’s campaign-- and about twenty times that amount to support Jeb Bush.

After Trump won, though, Barr demonstrated a convert’s enthusiasm, writing op-eds for the Washington Post in which he endorsed Trump’s controversial positions. When Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General, refused to carry out a ban on travellers from predominantly Muslim countries, Barr accused her of “obstruction,” and assailed news coverage of the situation. “The left, aided by an onslaught of tendentious media reporting, has engaged in a campaign of histrionics unjustified by the measured steps taken,” he wrote. In another article, Barr criticized Robert Mueller for hiring prosecutors who had donated to Democratic politicians-- but did not disclose his own donations to Republicans.

In February, 2017, Trump appointed his first Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and quickly grew disenchanted. When Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation, Trump asked, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?”-- a reference to his former personal lawyer, who was a close aide to Senator McCarthy during the Red Scare of the fifties. According to Bob Woodward’s reporting, Trump lambasted Sessions as a “dumb southerner” and “mentally retarded.” (Trump has denied this.) That fall, Sessions ignored Trump’s demand to appoint an independent counsel to investigate a debunked theory about Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale of uranium to Russia. The Times contacted ten former Attorneys General for comment, and Barr was the only one to reply. “There is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation,” he said. Barr added that he saw more basis for an investigation in the uranium deal than in any supposed collusion between Trump and Russia. “To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he wrote.

Barr has said that he wasn’t interested in the position of Attorney General. But in June, 2018, he sent an unsolicited, nineteen-page legal memo to Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, who was overseeing the Mueller investigation. He spent much of the letter elaborating an argument that a President’s Article II powers rendered him essentially incapable of obstructing justice. He acknowledged that such blatant acts as destroying evidence and encouraging perjury were impermissible. But, he wrote, “Mueller’s core premise-- that the President acts ‘corruptly’ if he attempts to influence a proceeding in which his own conduct is being scrutinized-- is untenable.” Benjamin Wittes and Mikhaila Fogel, of the blog Lawfare, described the memo as “bizarre.” Barr, without firsthand knowledge of the facts in the case, had devised a legal theory of obstruction, attributed it to Mueller, and then declared it “fatally misconceived.”

Barr had strong advocates. Cipollone, his former speechwriter and fellow board member at the Catholic Information Center, lobbied on his behalf. Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host, added her support. After the midterm elections, Trump forced out Sessions and nominated Barr, calling him “my first choice since Day One.”

On January 15, 2019, Barr arrived on the Hill for confirmation hearings, accompanied by his wife and daughters. Many Democrats in Congress, particularly those who hadn’t studied Barr’s record, hoped that he would be an institutionalist who would curb Trump’s legal excesses. They also faced a stark political reality: they did not have the votes to block his nomination. Ignoring the advice of some aides, Democrats did not dwell on Barr’s statements regarding criminal justice, or on whether his religious beliefs might affect his views.

Most of the hearings focussed on how Barr would handle the release of the Mueller report. In his opening statement, he repeated a reassuring pledge that he had made at his confirmation hearings as Bush’s nominee: “The Attorney General must insure that the administration of justice-- the enforcement of the law-- is above and away from politics.” He testified that he believed that Mueller, a longtime associate whom he described as a “good friend,” should be allowed to complete his investigation. But he also signalled skepticism about the idea that Trump had colluded with Russia, and repeatedly expressed support for the President’s policies. Four weeks later, he was confirmed, in a largely party-line vote, as Trump’s second Attorney General.

On February 14, 2019, Barr took over a Justice Department plagued by dissension and low morale. Trump’s public attacks on Sessions and Mueller had unnerved staffers. And though career employees supported Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation, some staffers said that he was distant and seemed over his head in meetings. “When he got confused or distracted, which seemed pretty often, he would tell some story about a bank robbery in Mobile,” a former department official said. “He was a nice enough man, but I don’t think he had any idea what we did for a living.

Current and former Justice Department officials told me that the main problem was not Sessions but Trump, whose Administration required them to defend contorted legal positions. Under Sessions, the department defended the travel ban, a prohibition on transgender people joining the military, a policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, and a dismissal of claims that the President had violated the emoluments clause. Several career officials declined to put their names on legal memos. “Morale has been low since Trump came in,” Matthew Collette, a former senior official who worked for thirty years at the Justice Department, told me. “The incredibly controversial and difficult cases started and kept coming.”

When past Presidents resisted sending materials to Congress by claiming “executive privilege,” Justice Department lawyers tried to help resolve the disputes. Under Trump, that practice has stopped, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse told me. As Brett Kavanaugh was going through confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Congress requested documents describing his work in the George W. Bush Administration. The White House refused access to more than a hundred thousand pages of them. Blank sheets of paper arrived on Capitol Hill stamped “Constitutional privilege,” a category that members of Congress said they had never heard of before.

Rather than avoiding the partisanship of the Trump era, Barr’s actions have placed his department at its center. One divisive fight has been over immigration. In March, 2018, the Administration announced that it intended to add a citizenship question to the forthcoming national census-- a measure that liberals said was designed to disadvantage Hispanics. The effort fuelled bitter division in the department. Collette said that lawyers were comfortable with implementing a new Administration’s policy priorities, but not with “twisting legal views to fit the personal views or needs of the President.”

Barr has steadfastly supported Trump’s crackdown on immigrants. He directed judges to deny some migrants the opportunity to post bail, and restricted migrants’ ability to claim asylum based on connections to family members who face threats of violence. The Justice Department is trying to reverse a recent court decision that helps protect people from fast-track deportations. It has also sued “sanctuary cities,” in California and other states, which offered to protect migrants fleeing the crackdown.

After months of fierce legal battles, the Supreme Court ruled against the Administration in its bid to add a citizenship question to the census. In a 5–4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the “sole stated reason” for the change “seems to have been contrived.

” Trump responded to the defeat by issuing an executive order, giving the President the ability to collect the citizenship data by other means. Legal experts widely dismissed the order as a pointless fig leaf, but, in a Rose Garden ceremony, Barr declared it a triumph. Standing a few feet from Trump, he said, “Congratulations again, Mr. President, on taking this effective action.”

Barr showed no sign of tempering Trump’s instincts. Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, told me, “I think he was nominated for his ability to protect Trump. His belief in executive power was his primary qualification.” In high-profile cases, Barr has repeatedly aided Trump politically. When Barr issued his summary of the Mueller report, he quoted part of a sentence saying that no conclusive proof of collusion had been found, but left out the rest, which suggested that Russia and the Trump campaign had worked at arm’s length toward similar goals. He mentioned that the report identified potential incidents of obstruction of justice, but did not enumerate or describe them. (There were ten, including Trump’s firing of the F.B.I. director James Comey, who had declined to promise him loyalty.)

Three days later, Mueller wrote Barr a letter, complaining that the summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his report and had created “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.” Mueller had prepared an introduction and executive summaries, and he urged Barr to release them. Barr declined, and took another three weeks to redact the full report, allowing Trump’s claim of “total exoneration” to dominate the news.

When Barr finally released the report, in April, he held a press conference before journalists had access to it, which prevented them from asking detailed questions about its contents. Barr repeated four times that no collusion had been found and argued that “the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his Presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fuelled by illegal leaks.” Four days later, congressional Democrats subpoenaed Don McGahn, the White House counsel, who had witnessed some of Trump’s potential acts of obstruction; the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that he was not required to testify.

Trump has often advanced a revisionist view of the 2016 election, claiming that Ukraine interfered and playing down Russia’s role. In his telling, the F.B.I.’s inquiry was a secret effort, endorsed by Barack Obama, to spy on his campaign. A government official, who asked not to be named, told me that, while Barr does not believe that the “deep state” is plotting to force Trump from power, he is convinced that there was something nefarious in the F.B.I.’s conduct of its investigation. Last April, Barr spoke about the matter before a Senate subcommittee. “Spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” he said. “I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated.”

By then, the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, had spent thirteen months on an investigation of the F.B.I.’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe. But Trump directed Barr to begin his own investigation, and also to look into the intelligence assessment that Russia aided his candidacy. Trump gave Barr a far-reaching power: to unilaterally declassify top-secret documents in order to review the work of the country’s intelligence agencies.

To conduct the probe, Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, who, during the Obama Administration, investigated the C.I.A.’s use of torture against suspected terrorists. Barr and Durham made trips to the U.K., Italy, and Australia, where they asked officials for evidence of misconduct by the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, who has served on the Intelligence Committee since 2001, told me that Barr was ignoring Justice Department norms: “He is flying around the world trying to get evidence that would confirm these bizarre conspiracy theories and exonerate Russia.” Intelligence officials worried that the trips would make longtime allies hesitant to share information with the U.S., for fear of being drawn into a partisan fight.

David Laufman, a former senior counter-intelligence official at the Justice Department who helped investigate Russian interference, said that the probe has also sent a clear message to U.S. officials: challenge Trump at your peril. “We’re into Crazy Town,” Laufman told me. The investigation, he said, was “evocative of regimes in history that conduct purges for perceived disloyalty.”

...Barr likes to describe Trump as the heir to Ronald Reagan. But in some ways his Administration, with its fixation on enemies and its willingness to bend laws for political gain, is more reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s. In September, Honda, Ford, Volkswagen, and BMW agreed with California to observe emissions standards tougher than those endorsed by the White House. After the Administration derided the move as a “P.R. stunt,” the Justice Department opened an antitrust investigation of the automakers. Barr’s work on the President’s behalf extends to keeping his tax returns secret. Last year, Trump’s personal lawyers argued that his financial records should not be given to New York City prosecutors, who were investigating whether he had made an illegal payment to the adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford. The Justice Department filed an amicus brief, arguing that turning over the records would “impose substantial burdens on the President’s time, attention, and discharge of his constitutional duties.” Stephen Gillers, the legal-ethics professor, argued that Barr was failing to challenge Trump when he should. “We don’t have an Attorney General now,” he said. “We have an additional lawyer for the President.”

Last September, an explosive news story involving Barr strained the distinction between these roles. An unnamed whistle-blower had filed a complaint, based on a phone call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine. In the call, Trump urged Zelensky, who was dependent on U.S. military aid, to investigate Biden for links to corrupt behavior. He suggested that he talk to his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani-- and also to Barr.

Barr denied any role in the matter and said that he had never spoken with Zelensky. Meanwhile, the Justice Department halted the whistle-blower’s complaint. First, the Office of Legal Counsel ruled that the complaint was not an “urgent concern” and therefore did not need to be handed over to congressional oversight committees. Then the department’s Criminal Division dismissed the whistle-blower’s allegation that the President had broken a federal law forbidding candidates to solicit support from foreigners. The department reasoned that a publicly announced Ukrainian investigation into Biden’s conduct cannot be a campaign contribution, because there is no way to precisely enumerate its value.

On November 15th, Marie Yovanovitch, the former Ambassador to Ukraine, testified before the House about being forced out of her position, by what she described as a “smear campaign.” As she spoke, Trump simultaneously assailed her on Twitter, an experience that she described as “very intimidating.” That same day, Barr gave a fiery speech to the Federalist Society. “In waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war of resistance against this Administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law,” he said. He portrayed the President as a victim of “encroachment” by the other branches of government. “There is a knee-jerk tendency to see the legislative and judicial branches as the good guys, protecting the people from a rapacious would-be autocrat,” Barr said. “This prejudice is wrongheaded and atavistic.”

In December, Michael Horowitz released a report on his investigation of the F.B.I., which Barr and his allies hoped would support their argument. For months, Trump and Fox News commentators had predicted that Horowitz’s report would find clear political bias. Instead, it concluded that Trump’s allegations of an F.B.I. “coup” were false.

The report-- based on more than a hundred and seventy interviews and a million-plus pages of documents-- did find misconduct, most of it involving applications to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. During the campaign, low-level F.B.I. officials had asked for permission to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump foreign-policy adviser. While doing so, a lawyer falsified an e-mail to make it appear that Page was not coöperating with the C.I.A., when the opposite was true. Agents also withheld concerns about the reliability of allegations against Trump compiled by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

Horowitz’s work showed that the government’s secretive surveillance process requires significant reform. But the report found that the opening of the probe was legally justified, and that the officials’ failures did not induce leaders to commit improper acts. “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions,” Horowitz wrote. (A separate investigation into Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent who had sent scornful text messages about Trump, came to a similar conclusion.) James Baker, the former general counsel of the F.B.I., told me that the Bureau began the investigation before receiving a copy of the Steele dossier and before the Page e-mail was altered. At the time, Democratic Party communications stolen by Russia were circulating online, and Trump had publicly called for Russia to steal and release Hillary Clinton’s e-mails; several of his campaign officials had been in contact with Russian officials and with suspected intelligence operatives. “We have an obligation to protect the United States from Russia,” Baker said. “Presented with the same facts, I would open the investigation again.”

Barr released a response to the report, disputing Horowitz’s conclusions. Despite the core finding that the investigation was initiated properly, Barr argued that the report “makes clear that the F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions.” Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed to carry out a separate investigation, suggested that he and Barr had gathered evidence that contradicted Horowitz. “We advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened,” he said. This statement violated a Justice Department practice of not commenting on investigations until they are finished.

Trump went further, suggesting that Horowitz was part of a cabal formed in the previous Administration. “Remember that I.G. Horowitz was appointed by Obama,” he tweeted. “There was tremendous bias and guilt exposed, so obvious, but Horowitz couldn’t get himself to say it. Big credibility loss. Obama knew everything!”

Christopher Wray, the F.B.I. director, immediately admitted the Bureau’s errors and announced forty reforms designed to prevent improper surveillance. But, in a television interview, he pushed back about other false claims. When asked about Trump’s calls for an investigation into Ukraine’s meddling in the election, Wray replied, “We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered.” Wray also urged Americans to vet their sources of information. “There’s all kinds of people saying all kinds of things out there,” he said. “And I think part of us being well protected against malign foreign influence is to build together an American public that’s resilient, that has appropriate media literacy, and that takes its information with a grain of salt.”

After Wray defended the F.B.I., Trump attacked him as well. “I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me,” he tweeted. “With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!”

Wray is still in his job, but others have faced significant consequences. One of these is Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence, a moderate Republican who publicly questioned some of Trump’s claims. Last summer, after months of pressure, Coats resigned, and Trump suggested replacing him with John Ratcliffe, a congressman from Texas who has trafficked in conspiracy theories. (After evidence suggested that Ratcliffe may have exaggerated his résumé, the White House withdrew the nomination; the position remains vacant.) Trump also revoked the security clearance of the former C.I.A. director John Brennan, who has criticized him. Agents recognized the implications; many intelligence officials, after years of low-paying government work, rely on their security clearances to obtain private-sector jobs when they retire. More recently, the President denounced the whistle-blower in the Ukraine case, who has subsequently received many death threats. When the threats spike, armed agents drive him to and from work.

In dozens of interviews, current and former law-enforcement and intelligence officials said that three years of Trump’s Twitter attacks, conspiracy theories, and high-profile firings have left their leaders wary of speaking in public, testifying before Congress, or talking to reporters. They know that they will be asked about Trump’s false claims. If they respond accurately, they risk being fired for contradicting the President.

The country’s intelligence agencies continue to produce private assessments that counter Trump’s specious assertions. They affirm that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election and predict that it is likely to meddle again in 2020, according to members of the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees. The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. have also assessed that white nationalists and isis members represent continued threats, issues that Trump has downplayed. But agency directors believe that they can best protect their institutions by keeping such concerns private. “Survival is victory,” the government official told me. “If you are able to go out on your own terms, or go out last, it’s a victory for the institution.”

If Barr’s inquiry results in criminal charges, it would be a radical departure from past practice. When Durham investigated C.I.A. officers for torture, he pressed no criminal charges. Previous investigations into intelligence failures that cost American lives-- such as missing warning signs before the 9/11 attacks or wrongly concluding that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction-- carried no possibility of criminal sanction. James Clapper, who was the director of National Intelligence in 2016, cautioned that the election assessment is a work of analysis. “If a prosecuting attorney is investigating analysts for their intelligence judgments, that’s not good,” Clapper said. James Baker worried that Trump’s intimidation of investigators would have consequences at the F.B.I. “It could reduce the willingness to give frank assessments or to pursue controversial cases,” he said, adding, “I’m nervous about the institution.”

In private gatherings, current and former F.B.I. agents and Justice Department officials register exhaustion at Trump’s attacks on the F.B.I. Recent retirees told me that they were surprised by how little they missed working at the Bureau.

Some agents have embraced Wray’s admonition to do their work and ignore the political brawl around them. After two and a half years on the job, Wray, a low-key former prosecutor and corporate lawyer, has inspired loyalty for handling a difficult situation gracefully. The Bureau, like the country, is deeply divided; even some agents who find Trump personally distasteful say that they support his policies. Comey was a popular director, but agents complain that his calls for people to vote against Trump play into conspiracy theories about the Bureau. The clearest sentiment is disdain for the political class. Last winter, during the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, the Bureau’s thirteen thousand agents and twenty thousand support staffers struggled to pay their bills. After employees walked into supervisors’ offices in tears, agents set up impromptu food banks to help colleagues. Trump caused the shutdown by demanding that Congress fund his border wall with Mexico, but many agents argued that politicians on both sides were responsible. “They didn’t do their job,” Tom O’Connor, a retired F.B.I. agent, told me.

The political combat of the Trump era was breeding apathy and disgust. F.B.I. and Justice Department officials said that if Trump was reëlected there would be an exodus of employees. Some retired agents fear that the institution will not survive another four years.

Stephen Gillers suggested that Trump’s attacks were part of a drive for increased power. “One way that Trump seeks to maximize control is minimizing the disclosure of information and undermining the credibility of information,” he said. “The Congress needs information to do its job, and the President has frozen it out-- especially in the impeachment investigation. Another check is the media, and the President’s use of the term ‘fake news’ can cause people to lose faith in the media. What remains are the courts, which are slow and cumbersome.”

Donald Ayer, the former Bush Administration Deputy Attorney General, warned that Barr’s interpretations of executive power could be validated. “The ultimate question is what happens when these reach the Supreme Court, which has two Trump appointees,” he said. “There is a real danger that he succeeds.” Some legal analysts believe that Barr is overplaying his hand. Benjamin Wittes, of Lawfare, predicted that the Supreme Court would reject Barr’s extreme positions, creating precedents that ultimately reduce the power of the Presidency. “The idea that the President gets to assert executive privilege over material that has already been made public is laughable,” Wittes told me. “I think they are very likely to lose a lot of this.”

Chuck Cooper, the conservative litigator, disagreed. He said that Barr’s tenure represented the achievement of the legal project launched during the Reagan Administration. “He is building and extending on a foundation,” Cooper said. “It was popularized and very robustly advanced by the Meese Justice Department.” Last October, in the Oval Office, Trump awarded Meese the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country’s highest civilian honor. Barr attended, and Meese thanked him for carrying on his legacy: “You’ve risen to continue the string of great Attorneys General in this country.”

As Barr insists on expanded Presidential power, Republican voters are starting to agree. According to the Pew Center, forty-three per cent of Republicans believe that “presidents could operate more effectively if they did not have to worry so much about Congress and the courts.” That number has increased from fourteen per cent when Trump took office. A House G.O.P. report about Ukraine endorsed his singular authority; slightly misquoting John Marshall, it argued that Trump was, “constitutionally, the ‘nation’s sole organ of foreign affairs,’ ” and thus had unlimited latitude in his dealings with Ukraine.

Ayer fears that Barr has combined a Reagan-era drive to dismantle government with a Trump-era drive to politicize it. As the White House succeeds in holding off congressional attempts at removing Trump from office, Barr is winning his long war on the power of the legislative branch. In the 2020 campaign, Trump will argue that he alone can protect the country from the dangers posed by the left, immigrants, and other enemies. And Barr’s vision of Presidential power will be the Party’s mainstream position. “Barr sought out the opportunity to be Donald Trump’s Attorney General,” Ayer said. “This, I believe, was his opportunity-- the opportunity of a lifetime-- to make major progress on advancing his vision of an all-powerful Chief Executive.”

Just think what will happen if Trump manages to grab a second term (and keeps Barr on). That's it for American law enforcement and legitimate, unpoliticized intelligence gathering. And, generally, for the democratic experiment.