Referring to Matt Stieb at the New Yorker:
The immediate logic is obvious. Barr, a ruthlessly competent partisan, testified before the Senate committee, where he would enjoy the aid of its chairman, Lindsey Graham. With Democrats running the show in the House, the line of questioning would be even less forgiving. Barr cited the House committee’s vote to allow staff lawyers to question him for an additional hour as the reason for his cancellation. The Justice Department defended Barr’s decision, claiming that it would be inappropriate for congressional staffers to grill a member of Trump’s Cabinet...
Which is, by the way, bullshit. Congressional staffers have questioned Cabinet members before as W. Neil Eggleston explains in Slate:
Of particular relevance to the current dispute between the attorney general and the House Judiciary Committee, witnesses who testified at the hearings were first questioned on television and in open hearings not just by the members of Congress but by lawyers on the committees’ staff. As I recall, the House and Senate committees divided the witnesses over which committees’ staff would be the first questioner. If the Senate lawyer was the first questioner, the House lawyer would take a turn at the conclusion of the Senate lawyer’s questioning. Only then did the senators and members of the House begin their questioning. There was no serious outside challenge of whether committee lawyers would conduct the questioning or members of Congress would perform that role: Both did.
Barr is essentially try to excuse his way out of getting grilled by House Democrats who will cut him no slack over every lie and sabotage he's committed while defending trump from the Mueller Report.
And Barr did lie. During his April 9th appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, he was asked about complaints from Mueller's investigation team about Barr's infamous 4-page letter that misstated Mueller's conclusions. Barr claimed he had no knowledge. Now it turns out Mueller himself sent a letter just after Barr's making those complaints known and before Barr's April 9th testimony.
I think it falls under the US Code: 18 USC 1001 - Fraud and False Statements:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
I'm not a legal expert so I might be wrong here... but his false statements fall under SOME rule that says lying to Congress is a BAD IDEA.
In the meantime, Barr is willing to confront a Contempt of Congress charge. That's under 2 USC 192:
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
I hope the House Democrats take this seriously and pursue the jail time aspect of the law. Barr's being snitty here, and deserves to get that word shoved down his throat.
1 comment:
"...imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."
Oakland City Jail is about as common of a jail as you're likely to find, and last time I was there, there was plenty of room...
-Doug in Oakland
Post a Comment