William Barr’s only ‘flaw’ is that he was nominated by Trump

When former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was fired by President Trump a few months ago, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the firing was bringing the country a step closer to a constitutional crisis because of fears that Sessions’ replacement would undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into:

• Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election;
• allegations of collusion with Russia by Trump campaign officials; and
• whether Trump obstructed justice when he fired former FBI Director James Comey.  

When Matt Whitaker was appointed as the acting attorney general to fill the vacancy created by Sessions’ departure, many critics claimed it was a constitutional crisis because before he was named Sessions’ chief of staff and acting AG, he made statements in the media that were critical of the Mueller investigation. 

{mosads}Remarkably, since the firing of Sessions and the appointment of Whitaker, the “constitutional crisis” has not erupted, and the Republic has not fallen. Moreover, there is no evidence that the special counsel investigation has been halted or curtailed.  

Hearings in the Senate began on Tuesday to consider President Trump’s nomination of William Barr, who is a worthy successor to Jeff Sessions. In terms of track record, his is about as strong as you could ask for. 

During President George H. W. Bush’s administration, Barr served as attorney general, deputy attorney general and assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Counsel. After government service, he became the general counsel at Verizon, and he has served on the board of TimeWarner. 

His is a career marked with distinction and accomplishment. In his prepared testimony, Barr wrote that he was not anxious to be nominated, but he stated, “I believe in public service, I revere the law, and I love the Department of Justice and the dedicated professionals who serve there.” 

In a time when everything is viewed through a partisan lens, a nominee like William Barr is the ideal choice to oversee the Department of Justice. 

The first day of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Barr nomination focused on the special counsel investigation. Barr said:

• he did not believe Mueller was leading a witch hunt;
• he would not be bullied by the president;
• he would not fire Mueller without good cause, and it would be “unimaginable” that that would happen; and
• he favored transparency with regard to the special counsel report and would be in favor of releasing as much of it as allowed by law. 

This should be music to the ears of Trump’s critics. One would hope that the stale claim of “constitutional crisis” could be retired. If President Trump’s goal was to derail the special counsel investigation by nominating William Barr, he has failed miserably. 

But, Judiciary Committee Democrats, some of whom aspire to run for president in 2020, were not mollified.

The root of their objections is a memorandum Barr wrote last summer to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in which he expressed skepticism about the merits of the obstruction of justice aspect of the Mueller investigation and his refusal to agree with Democratic Senators that his authorship of the memorandum requires that he recuse himself from overseeing the special counsel. 

Is this the true reason for opposing Barr’s nomination? Barr’s real problem is not that he wrote the memorandum or refuses to recuse himself for no reason. Barr’s problem is that he was nominated by Trump. 

Let’s look at some numbers for recent attorney general nominees: Obama Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee with a vote of 17-2, and the full Senate vote was 75-21, with many Republicans joining in support. 

Obama Attorney General-nominee Loretta Lynch was approved by the committee with a vote of 12-8, with three Republicans in support, and the full Senate vote was 56-43 with 10 Republicans in support. 

In comparison, Jeff Sessions received a committee vote of 11-9, with no Democrats in support, and the full Senate vote was 52-47 with only one Democrat in support. Will the outcome for Barr be any different? Let’s hope so. 

It would be disappointing and further evidence of Washington dysfunction if one of the most qualified attorney general nominees ever does not receive strong bipartisan support. Call your senators and tell them to vote for William Barr.

Matthew Heiman is a visiting fellow at the National Security Institute at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law. Previously, he was a lawyer with the Department of Justice’s National Security Division and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Iraq.