Palmer Report has written about Attorney General William Barr and the low expectations he has set for justice coming out of his DOJ, at least when it comes to the president, Donald Trump. Barr is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee this week to discuss the Mueller Report and Special Counsel investigation. The odds of him appearing seem to be dwindling, as Barr does not like the format that House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler has proposed for the questioning.
The procedure Nadler proposed is pretty straightforward, with the end goal being to actually learn about the report itself and not be the normal five-minute grandstanding or obstructing (depending on which side of aisle a Congressperson is on for the particular witness). Nadler proposed the following:
Five minutes of questioning for each member of the committee; an additional round for each side to question Barr for an additional 30 minutes, with committee counsels being able to ask Barr questions; and a closed session to discuss the redacted portions of the Mueller Report.
Barr insisted that would not be appropriate, stating, “The Attorney General agreed to appear before Congress. Therefore, Members of Congress should be the ones doing the questioning. He remains happy to engage with Members on their questions regarding the Mueller report.”
Nadler replied to Barr’s insisted format change, making it clear the House Judiciary Committee alone would determine the outcome, stating, “The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period.”
Barr has set a low bar for expecting any justice. In a different move, Barr brought obstruction of justice charges against two government officials for interfering in a federal investigation, demonstrating that his Department of Justice is a political hatchet job group doing Trump’s bidding. The indictment is against Judge Shelley Richmond Joseph, a Massachusetts district court judge, and Officer Wesley MacGregor, a Massachusetts trial court officer, for allegedly interfering in an ICE proceeding when they refused to permit ICE to arrest an individual who was arrested on state charges and attended an arraignment hearing in the court over which the judge presided. So, Barr has a concept of obstruction – just not when Corruptus Maximus is the one committing it.