Two congressional Democrats on Friday urged the bar associations in Washington and Virginia to launch an ethics investigation into Attorney General William Barr's public comments of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.
Y.) — both former prosecutors — say they believe Barr "at best misled Congress" and "at worst perjured himself" when he told lawmakers this week he was unsure why some members Mueller's team were reportedly dissatisfied with his public portrayal of Mueller's report.Barr had exclusive access to the report for nearly a month and publicly contended it had proven the president was "falsely accused" of colluding with Russia. Barr also dismissed evidence suggesting Trump had obstructed Mueller's investigation, ruling that it was insufficient to support a criminal charge even though Mueller at times described the evidence as "substantial."
"By deceiving Congress and the American people, who vested their trust in both the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice at large, Attorney General Barr must be subject to a professional review for the sake of the legal profession and the public," Lieu and Rice wrote in a letter to the bar associations.
The two Democrats say the rules of the Virginia and D.C. bars require "candor" toward official tribunals and that engaging in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation ... reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.
"Spokeswomen for the two bar associations did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment as well.
Democrats are enraged about two particular exchanges in which Barr did not disclose Mueller's apparent dissatisfaction with his handling of the report. In an exchange with Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) on April 9, Crist asked Barr if he knew why news reports had reflected dissatisfaction among Mueller's team with Barr's handling of the report. "No, I don't," Barr replied.
The following day, when asked by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) whether Mueller supported his findings that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude the president obstructed justice, Barr replied, "I don't know."
Barr allies have defended his statements as accurate based on the way the questions were posed by lawmakers. But Democrats say Barr should have used the opportunity to reveal Mueller's concern, which was captured in a letter Mueller sent to Barr on March 27, several days after Mueller submitted his final report. In the letter, Mueller said Barr's public depiction of the report did not "fully capture the context, nature and substance" of the final report.
Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he spoke with Mueller by phone and that Mueller had indicated his displeasure was not with the accuracy of Barr's representation but with the coverage of his findings by the news media. But Mueller's letter, which was made public on Tuesday, did not reflect that complaint.
The attack is no less than the seventh effort by Democrats to squeeze Barr for his handling of the Mueller report. They already subpoenaed him to produce Mueller's unredacted findings and underlying evidence to Congress — a subpoena Barr ignored by a May 1 deadline.
Barr also skipped a May 2 hearing called by the House Judiciary Committee to discuss the Mueller report. The committee's chairman has been authorized to subpoena Barr a second time to compel his testimony, but he instead may move to a contempt proceeding as soon as Wednesday over Barr's rejection of the first subpoena.
Other Democrats have demanded Barr's impeachment, suggested fining him for not complying with a congressional demand, are planning to fight his resistance in court and have suggested referring him to his own Justice Department on criminal charges.
On Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused Barr of committing a crime by lying to Congress, an allegation that the Justice Department rejected as "reckless, irresponsible, and false."
Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine