Eleanor Finch
In 2019, the House Judiciary Committee threatened to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to release a full, unredacted version of the Mueller Report. Barr's refusal to comply with the subpoena prompted the Committee to initiate contempt proceedings, marking the first time Democrats sought to punish an official of the Trump Administration for non-compliance with a subpoena. While Barr did release a redacted version of the report, the Committee argued that a full copy was essential to their push for an investigation into whether Trump abused his powers. The Justice Department offered a less redacted version, but Democrats insisted on the full report. This incident raises questions about Barr's conduct as Attorney General and whether he is constitutionally bound to speak with Congress.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Attorney General | William P. Barr |
| Congress | House of Representatives, Senate Judiciary Committee |
| Report | Mueller Report |
| Subpoena | Subpoena duces tecum |
| Contempt | Contempt of Congress |
| Redacted | Yes |
Explore related products
$33 $156
What You'll Learn
Barr's refusal to comply with a subpoena
On April 18, 2019, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee signed a subpoena duces tecum compelling the Attorney General, William Barr, to produce an unredacted version of the Mueller Report as well as all underlying documents. The following day, the subpoena was served to Barr.
Barr had previously released a redacted version of the Mueller Report to Congress and the public on April 18, 2019. However, the Committee argued that the redacted report did not provide sufficient details for them to perform their constitutional duties and engage in a thorough independent investigation. They believed it was imperative to have access to all of the facts contained in the full Mueller Report, as well as the evidentiary and investigatory materials cited in the report, and other materials produced and collected by the Special Counsel's office.
Barr refused to comply with the subpoena, and the Committee recommended that the House of Representatives find him in contempt of Congress. On May 8, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress. This was not the first time an Attorney General had been held in contempt of Congress; in 2012, Eric Holder faced a similar situation.
The House Judiciary Committee's vote to hold Barr in contempt set up a potential court battle. If the full House approved the contempt recommendation, the citation would be forwarded to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, which could seek an indictment from a grand jury. However, federal prosecutors are under no legal obligation to pursue a contempt charge against the Attorney General. Additionally, prosecution of criminal contempt of Congress is rare.
In the event that criminal charges were rejected by the Justice Department, the House could seek civil enforcement in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. This path, however, could result in a lengthy legal battle, as demonstrated by the Holder case, which was contested in the courts for seven years.
USS Constitution: Fighting Piracy on the High Seas
You may want to see also
Barr's redaction of the Mueller Report
On April 18, 2019, Attorney General William Barr released a redacted version of the Mueller Report to Congress and the public. Barr testified that he was color-coding the redactions to indicate the basis for each of them. He identified four categories of redactions, which are essentially equivalent to four Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions. These included redactions related to ""matters occurring before the grand jury", which is information that a government lawyer may not disclose per Rule 6(e)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Barr's redactions in the Mueller Report have been criticized as unwarranted and a blemish on his record and the credibility of the Justice Department. Some have argued that he should have sought to disclose as much of the report as possible, redacting only what was absolutely necessary. Barr has defended his actions, stating that he wanted to release the report's conclusions promptly so that Congress and the American people could draw their own conclusions. He also maintained that he would not release additional portions of the report in a piecemeal fashion, as it could lead to public debate over incomplete information.
Barr has committed to providing a less redacted version of the Mueller Report to certain members of Congress. However, he has refused to release an unredacted version to all members, citing the need to protect sensitive information and comply with the law. The House of Representatives has passed a resolution recommending that Barr be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena for the full Mueller Report and related materials.
The debate surrounding Barr's redactions to the Mueller Report highlights the tension between the public's interest in transparency and the legal and ethical obligations to protect certain information. While some have called for greater disclosure, others recognize the validity of certain redactions, particularly those related to grand jury proceedings.
Understanding the Constitution's Eighth Amendment
You may want to see also
Barr's objection to releasing the full Mueller Report
On April 18, 2019, Attorney General William Barr released a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Congress and the public. Barr had previously testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would allow Mueller to finish his investigation without interference and would release his report to Congress and the American public.
Barr's decision to release a redacted report was met with criticism and accusations of distorting the facts. The House Judiciary Committee chair subpoenaed the full Mueller report, and the House of Representatives passed a resolution recommending that Barr be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the subpoena.
Barr's objections to releasing the full Mueller Report centred on his belief that certain information should be kept confidential and that releasing the report in a piecemeal fashion would lead to public debate over incomplete information. He also stated that it was not in the public interest to release additional portions of the report and that his main focus was on promptly releasing a public version of the report so that Congress and the American people could draw their own conclusions.
In addition, Barr argued that it was "long-standing" practice to share such types of confidential information with the White House and that these reports were not supposed to be made public. He also suggested that he had wide authority to release a special counsel's report only in situations where it "would be in the public interest."
However, critics pointed out that Barr had already decided to clear Trump of obstruction before seeing the Mueller Report and that his letter was a deliberate mischaracterization of the report's findings. They also accused him of attempting to spin the media narrative to undermine Mueller's investigation.
Constitution's Trade Regulation: Fixing Unfair Trade Practices
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Barr's conduct as Attorney General
William Barr, a private citizen with no formal ties to the US government at the time, sent an unsolicited memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in June 2018. In it, Barr criticized Robert Mueller's investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Barr was particularly concerned about the possibility of Mueller pursuing an obstruction of justice case against then-President Donald Trump regarding the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Barr argued that the firing was a "facially-lawful" exercise of "Executive discretion".
Barr's memo came to light in December 2018, after Trump nominated him to succeed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. During Barr's confirmation process, congressional Democrats raised concerns about the memo. Barr, as Attorney General, would have oversight of an investigation that he had previously characterized as "fatally misconceived". Barr's longtime association with Time Warner was also scrutinized. The Justice Department had tried to block the company's acquisition by AT&T on antitrust grounds, and Barr had received over $1.7 million in cash and stock options as a result of the deal.
Barr served as Attorney General under Trump from 2019 to 2020. He was the second person in US history to hold the position twice, having previously served under President George H.W. Bush from 1991 to 1993. Barr was seen as an advocate for Trump, enthusiastically supporting his political agenda. He repeated Trump's claim that those investigating him had engaged in spying and defied congressional subpoenas. Notably, Barr refused to provide Congress with an unredacted version of the Mueller Report, which investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In December 2019, Barr claimed in an interview that the Russia investigation was "completely baseless". He also refused to refute the conspiracy theory of Ukrainian interference in the same election. The following month, a bipartisan group of over 2,000 former DOJ employees called for Barr's resignation. In February 2020, Barr declared that there would be a review of the criminal case of Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security advisor, who had pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian ambassador. Barr also prohibited the start of counterintelligence investigations related to presidential campaigns without his and the FBI's approval.
In May 2020, Barr appointed US attorney John Bash to investigate the unmasking issue during the 2016 election. The investigation was quietly closed five months later, with no findings of improper conduct. Barr's firing of Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, was widely condemned as the district was investigating several people and companies associated with Trump. In June 2019, Barr pressured Berman to drop an investigation, in violation of Department of Justice policy.
A Constitution: Foundation of a Nation's Stability and Progress
You may want to see also
Barr's contempt of Congress
On April 18, 2019, Attorney General William Barr released a redacted version of the Mueller Report to Congress and the public. The Mueller Report was an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The next day, on April 19, 2019, Chairman Nadler issued a subpoena to Barr for the full Mueller Report, all materials referenced in the report, and all materials obtained or produced by the Special Counsel's office.
Barr was accused of spinning Mueller's findings and lying to Congress. On May 8, 2019, the House Democrats on the
The next step in the proceedings would be a vote on the House floor. If the full House approves the contempt citation, they will have to decide how to enforce it. The House has three options: criminal contempt, civil contempt, and inherent contempt. Criminal contempt is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison. For civil contempt, the House can sue in civil court and ask a judge to enforce the citation, but this could take years. Inherent contempt involves the House sending its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the defiant individual and throw them in prison. However, this hasn't been done since the 1930s and is unlikely to be revived.
While Barr is the first administration official facing contempt proceedings, the vote to hold him in contempt was along party lines. Some argue that partisanship is the main problem, with Congress being an "appendage of the executive branch." Recent contempt of Congress charges against executive branch officials have not led to consequences because courts are reluctant to enforce them, leaving Congress' contempt power with no teeth.
Jefferson's Vision: Updating Constitution Every Two Decades
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, Barr is not constitutionally bound to speak with Congress. However, Congress can issue a subpoena to compel testimony or the production of documents. If an individual refuses to comply with a subpoena, Congress can draw up contempt of Congress citations.
Yes, in 2019, House Democrats held Barr, the Attorney General, in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena for the full, unredacted Mueller Report.
The House or Senate can draw up contempt of Congress citations when their subpoenas are denied. Upon issuing the citation, the power to prosecute the individual goes to the executive branch. Congress can also file a civil suit to enforce a subpoena.
Yes, in 2012, a Republican-controlled House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to provide documents for a congressional inquiry into an operation called "Fast and Furious."
Yes, in 2023, the New York City Bar Association urged Congress to commence formal inquiries into Barr's conduct, citing concerns about his impartiality and potential bias.
