Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Attorney General William Barr offered a combative defense of his
Speaker 1: independence from President Donald Trump and his role as Attorney
Speaker 1: General as he testified yesterday before a committee in the
Speaker 1: Democratic controlled House. Over more than four hours of testimony.
Speaker 1: The Democrats pressed Bar. The exchanges over bars controversial decision
Speaker 1: to overrule his own prosecutors to reduce a recommended prison
Speaker 1: sentence for Trump ally Roger Stone were particularly combative. Here's
Speaker 1: bars exchange with Democratic Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson. You change
Speaker 1: that recommended the night before, the night before, I'm asking, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm telling my story. That's what I'm here to do.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm here. Well, I'm here to tell my story.
Speaker 1: Joining me is National Security Attorney Bradley Moss, a partner
Speaker 1: Mark Zade. How would you describe bars testimony and the
Speaker 1: questioning by the Democrats and Republicans? The whole situation was
Speaker 1: a complete disastrous circus, and nobody came out of this
Speaker 1: looking pretty good. Republicans ran irrelevant talking points to Jordan,
Speaker 1: you know, particularly amongst them trying to deflect from the situation.
Speaker 1: The Democrats looked somewhat petty with their constant reclaiming the time,
Speaker 1: you know, parliamentary procedure, and the Attorney General dragged out answers,
Speaker 1: Stall procrastinated and constantly appeared to be unaware of factual
Speaker 1: details that everybody on the plane at this point seemingly
Speaker 1: already knew about situations in places like Portland or in
Speaker 1: Michigan back in the spring. In the contents of the
Speaker 1: President's tweets and comments on stuff such as the Roger
Speaker 1: Stone prosecution of the Michael Flynn prosecution, it was not
Speaker 1: what we tend to think of anymore as an actual
Speaker 1: oversight hearing, because it wasn't an oversight hearing. It was
Speaker 1: a political circus. And it's rather disturbing that this is
Speaker 1: what it's come to. Let's talk about some of the
Speaker 1: different points. There were allegations that he basically abandoned the
Speaker 1: Justice Department's political independence to back President Trump, and one
Speaker 1: of the most controversial moves was overruling his own prosecutors
Speaker 1: to reduce a recommended prison sentence for Trump ally roger Stone.
Speaker 1: How did he respond to that? YEA, So it was
Speaker 1: kind of a mixed bag. I mean, one of the
Speaker 1: things that the Attorney General raised in response was to
Speaker 1: say that, you know, this is a sixty six year
Speaker 1: old man, first time offender, non violent offense. It's not
Speaker 1: a meeting potatoes kind of crime. Trying to, you know,
Speaker 1: basically play the role of defense attorney for roger Stone
Speaker 1: almost um in trying to mitigate any real sense that
Speaker 1: there should have been a punishment. He then, you know,
Speaker 1: obviously deflect from that by saying, I still thought it
Speaker 1: was the righteous prosecution. I thought some jail time was warranted,
Speaker 1: and that is what the judge ultimately granted before the
Speaker 1: President commuted the sentence. But basically, the Attorney General kind
Speaker 1: raised some mitigating factors that on their own wouldn't usually
Speaker 1: in any other case of someone other than roger Stone,
Speaker 1: have been enough to warrant such a reduction in the
Speaker 1: rent sensing recommendation from the Justice Department. And as the
Speaker 1: Attorney General noted, is the first time, as far as
Speaker 1: he's aware, that he's ever otherwise, you know, in intervened
Speaker 1: to overrule a sensing recommendation at that stage. I thought
Speaker 1: that was the most telling part of his answer to
Speaker 1: the roger Stone questions was that he had never done
Speaker 1: this before, and the Democrats brought out that one point,
Speaker 1: but as for the rest of it, didn't seem that
Speaker 1: they really brought out the egregiousness or the departure from
Speaker 1: standards of what he did. Yeah, well, and so this
Speaker 1: is where, you know, and listening to some of the
Speaker 1: answers given by the Attorney General, he lives apparently in
Speaker 1: this world of blissful ignorance of everything else going on
Speaker 1: around him that the rest of us see on a
Speaker 1: regular basis. He's seemingly unaware of the president's weeks and
Speaker 1: the president's public remarks on these things. He's unaware of
Speaker 1: the media attention on it, and he wants us to
Speaker 1: believe that all of these decisions he made, in particular
Speaker 1: to intervene in this context, was made in a complete vacuum,
Speaker 1: and that nothing else, you know, influenced his thinking on this,
Speaker 1: and that he chose intervened for the very first time
Speaker 1: in a matter like this with what just happened to
Speaker 1: be the president's longtime personal friend who was publicly commenting
Speaker 1: on the fact that he never broke he never turned
Speaker 1: on the president, and seemingly Bill Barr was unaware of
Speaker 1: any of these quotes. Either he just happened to be
Speaker 1: in this lovely little, you know, blissfully ignorant vacuum deciding
Speaker 1: to intervene. There weren't as many questions about the dropping
Speaker 1: of the prosecution of Michael Flynn. Yeah. I think part
Speaker 1: of the reason that may have not been pushed on
Speaker 1: as much by the Democrats was simply for the fact
Speaker 1: that if I were Attorney General Barr and the question
Speaker 1: was posed to me, I would have largely deflected on
Speaker 1: the argument that this is a matter of ongoing litigation
Speaker 1: and not going to comment, And that would have been
Speaker 1: somewhat consistent with past practices for Democrats and Republicans serving
Speaker 1: an Attorney General and testifying before and oversight committee that
Speaker 1: because the matter was still the subject of ongoing litigation
Speaker 1: and that matter is a subject on an appeal right
Speaker 1: now to this full DC circuit, that they can't comment
Speaker 1: because it would prejudice or otherwise undermine the Justice Department's position.
Speaker 1: That's certainly going to be something I think in the
Speaker 1: end here after the election and once that particular litigation
Speaker 1: is dealt with, we'll get more details on as to
Speaker 1: what really went on here. I mean, that was a
Speaker 1: completely unprecedented maneuver for the just Department to come in
Speaker 1: and pull the prosecution after they already gotten the guilty
Speaker 1: plate based off the technicality about notes on when jurisdiction
Speaker 1: was and was not existing for the investigation. I've never
Speaker 1: seen that the Justice Departments provided no evidence that they've
Speaker 1: ever done that before. It doesn't mean they can't do it,
Speaker 1: but it reached just reaped a favoritism. Coming up next
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Law Bars take on mail and valoting and
Speaker 1: the residential election. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: I've been done to Brad Moss of Mark's a about
Speaker 1: Attorney General William Barr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: He was questioned about the aggressive use of federal force
Speaker 1: in response to protests in Washington, d C. And Portland, Oregon.
Speaker 1: He didn't seem to back down from his assertions that
Speaker 1: federal intervention was needed and they did everything correctly. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: this is a very much Bill Barr's view on federal
Speaker 1: authority and particularly in law enforcements for decades. I mean
Speaker 1: there's memos that have come out now from the late
Speaker 1: eighties or the nineties of how he wanted to deploy
Speaker 1: federal law enforcement when there were riots in the wake
Speaker 1: of the Rodney King incident. Who has can all remember
Speaker 1: way back to the early nineties with that saga. So
Speaker 1: a lot of what is being pursued here is sort
Speaker 1: of his fever dream from decades ago that he finally
Speaker 1: has the ability to implement with the President who's willing
Speaker 1: to give him that latitude, and a Department of Homeland
Speaker 1: Security that's run by acting leaders who have no will
Speaker 1: ability to countermintenment. So DHS has been turned into what
Speaker 1: it was never supposed to be. It is now the
Speaker 1: you know, the equivalence of what we think of as
Speaker 1: an interior ministry in authoritarian countries, where we have the
Speaker 1: federal law enforcement that comes in decked out like their
Speaker 1: military uniform as if they're operating in Kabul or Fallujah
Speaker 1: and they're using military style tactics to confront protesters. Have
Speaker 1: there been violent protesters, Absolutely, And I think everybody's agreed
Speaker 1: if you engage in that violence, if you deface federal property,
Speaker 1: if you assault federal officers, you can be prosecuted and
Speaker 1: convicted for that. But too many times we've seen in
Speaker 1: these videos and this reportment's come out of these federal
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers, way getting over their skis, way going
Speaker 1: beyond the issue of trying to protect federal property and
Speaker 1: protect themselves, which they're entitled to do, and going after
Speaker 1: what are otherwise peaceful protesters who are gathering in large
Speaker 1: number burs including with you know, you've got the wall
Speaker 1: of Moms. You get all these different individuals who were
Speaker 1: not engaging in violence. If that's the concern, is that
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is using this opportunity to employ measures that
Speaker 1: otherwise would never have been permitted. He was questioned about
Speaker 1: whether he's talked with President Trump about the use of
Speaker 1: troops and whether that would happen in elections. He evaded
Speaker 1: the question, but he also indicated that there had been talking.
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is nothing if not a very crafty old
Speaker 1: school lawyer, and he knew how to kind of dodge
Speaker 1: and deflect around the question. I didn't necessarily take the
Speaker 1: answers he did provide as indicating or confirming that he
Speaker 1: had specifically discussed with the President in the context of
Speaker 1: the re election fight, the idea of deploying troops in
Speaker 1: support of that idea and to order to push that agenda.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean he didn't. The answers he gave were
Speaker 1: vague enough that he can kind of maneuver around it.
Speaker 1: But I think we're seeing with you know, not with
Speaker 1: the locations. I mean, we just got a new announcement
Speaker 1: that Operation Legend, which is the code, which is the
Speaker 1: operation name for this whole effort by federal law enforcement,
Speaker 1: is now getting deployed to three battleground states, Michigan, Ohio,
Speaker 1: and Wisconsin. It just so happens to be areas where
Speaker 1: they're high areas higher numbers of Liberals and Democrats who
Speaker 1: happened to be in those areas, and that's where these
Speaker 1: federal law enforcements getting deployed. Is there a legitimate reason
Speaker 1: for it? There might be in certain respects, but it's
Speaker 1: very interesting to note that this is where they're choosing
Speaker 1: to deploy their resources. Whether or not it's being done
Speaker 1: appropriately is something that's going to be scrutinized heavily in
Speaker 1: the coming months. An area that was of concern to
Speaker 1: Democrats and I think to a lot of people looking
Speaker 1: towards the elections is the fairness of the elections. He
Speaker 1: was asked about that and to justify his repeated warnings
Speaker 1: about the risks of mail in balloting. Yeah, and this
Speaker 1: is somewhere where I wish you would really stick to
Speaker 1: his own lane. For lack of a better and at
Speaker 1: the Beltway phrase, this is not really his job. That's
Speaker 1: a job for the FEC and other entities from the
Speaker 1: US government to oversee. It's not his job to be
Speaker 1: commenting on mail and balloting procedures. And his answer was
Speaker 1: that he didn't have any actual evidence, you know, for example,
Speaker 1: that foreign governments were going to print off fake ballots
Speaker 1: and submit them. He just said, I have common sense. Well, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: for US real lawyers, you need more than that. You
Speaker 1: need evidence, and he admits he has none. The President
Speaker 1: has admitted he has none. These are various paranoid theories
Speaker 1: they have in their mind that they're concerned about because
Speaker 1: from a demographic standpoint, they're aware that if mail in
Speaker 1: balloting becomes far more expansive and extensive in this upcoming election,
Speaker 1: it is more likely to benefit Democrats, who are less
Speaker 1: likely to vote from times compared to Republicans, and that's
Speaker 1: not something they necessarily want to advocate for. Brad He
Speaker 1: was asked about what would happen if there were disputed elections,
Speaker 1: and he kept, I will follow the law. Why didn't
Speaker 1: that answer satisfy the Democrats on the committee? Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: because it becomes a question. But when he says follow
Speaker 1: the law, it's Bill Barr's view of what the law is,
Speaker 1: and Bill Barr's view of the law and the view
Speaker 1: of a lot of the rest of us doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: always tend to align. It's the same kind of issue
Speaker 1: with receiving assistance from a foreign government. He hadn't been
Speaker 1: owed around that issue too, and before he finally said no,
Speaker 1: they should not be accepting foreign assistant. So the way
Speaker 1: he's given this answer is kind of similar to how
Speaker 1: the presidents given the answer. And to be very candid,
Speaker 1: I hate this question being posed the political candidates or
Speaker 1: the senior officials because we don't know what the lecture
Speaker 1: will look like, and so do we have any reason
Speaker 1: to believe that they will refew that. You know, the
Speaker 1: presidents he were to lose and a you know, landslide,
Speaker 1: would refuse to concede. No, he'll leave. He'll concede defeat
Speaker 1: in whatever way he chooses fit, and he'll leave the
Speaker 1: White House in one they're gonna play up this game,
Speaker 1: though a little bit partially just because the president fit
Speaker 1: from a media perspective. He likes controversy in the news,
Speaker 1: it's what he does. But in the ultimate scheme of things,
Speaker 1: I don't like the question itself because any candidate, now
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, would be kind of a similar answer at points,
Speaker 1: because you just don't know what to look like on
Speaker 1: election night or election week, whatever it can become at
Speaker 1: this point, and you can't commit that you'll accept whatever
Speaker 1: it missually comes out because there are legal challenges. You
Speaker 1: mentioned his hesitation to say that a president shouldn't accept
Speaker 1: foreign help to get elected, and I found that confusing
Speaker 1: because that is out and out law. There is no
Speaker 1: question about that. It's not fuzzy. And he said, well,
Speaker 1: it depends on what kind of help. I don't understand
Speaker 1: why he didn't just say, of course not well, for
Speaker 1: one reason was most certainly is that he didn't want
Speaker 1: to brazenly contradict the president up front the way the
Speaker 1: FBI director had. We I'll remember from our pre COVID
Speaker 1: days there was a infamous interview between the President and
Speaker 1: George Stefanopolis over at ABC, and the President said the
Speaker 1: FBI director was wrong to say that it would be
Speaker 1: improper to receive foreign assistance in the context of the
Speaker 1: election of the president. Clear he'd welcome such information, he'd
Speaker 1: want to see it. So the Attorney General, trying to
Speaker 1: maintain some manner of you know, civility between itself and
Speaker 1: the president, didn't want to be quite as brazen as
Speaker 1: the FBI director is my assumption there. But where he
Speaker 1: was hemming and hawing. I think on the legal side
Speaker 1: is that it's unresolved what would qualify as assistant from
Speaker 1: a from a from a criminal standpoint, And this was
Speaker 1: some of what the Mueller teams struggled with. If you
Speaker 1: simply receive information, not money, is that going to be
Speaker 1: enough to violate campaign finance laws. There is no clear
Speaker 1: um ruling or standard on that because it's never happened
Speaker 1: before in that context, so no one really knows for
Speaker 1: sure how the law would play out. I think that's
Speaker 1: really ton of General was kind of dancing around the edges.
Speaker 1: The Democrats question him about Trump's response to the coronavirus,
Speaker 1: which you know, it doesn't seem to really be in
Speaker 1: the purview of the Attorney General and the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: and he blamed President Obama, which is something that we
Speaker 1: heard from the White House. That's another point where you
Speaker 1: just question why he's even being asked that. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: thought it was I thought it was a rather irrelevant
Speaker 1: question to have asked, and I thought his response was
Speaker 1: a rather political operative style answered just relying on White
Speaker 1: House talking point. It doesn't matter how many times things
Speaker 1: have been debunked. I don't know why that question was asked,
Speaker 1: because again, if I had been the Interney General and
Speaker 1: that question has been post to me in that context,
Speaker 1: would have largely deflected saying that's not my purview, that's
Speaker 1: the purview of DHS, that's purview of CDC, and you
Speaker 1: know entities like that, d o J is supporting them
Speaker 1: to extent needed. So that's not really what we handle.
Speaker 1: But Bill Barr has been a long time political operative.
Speaker 1: He was very clear on that when he came into
Speaker 1: this position again which he had held decade earlier, already
Speaker 1: once before, and so he chose to pursue a political
Speaker 1: agenda response. I didn't think it was really befitting of
Speaker 1: his position, but that's what he chose to do. He
Speaker 1: was questioned about systemic racism in the police. That questioning
Speaker 1: was a little more tailored, and the Democrats seem to
Speaker 1: do better in that area. Yeah, and I think that
Speaker 1: the Turning General gave what I would characterize at the
Speaker 1: very Trump party line response, which is to minimize any
Speaker 1: incidents like what happened with George Floyd as the result
Speaker 1: of a few bad apples and not reflective of a
Speaker 1: larger problem. And this becomes sort of the philosophical debate
Speaker 1: between the two parties here as to whether there is
Speaker 1: a larger issue at place or whether or not what
Speaker 1: we're seeing here is just minor and isolated incidents. When
Speaker 1: this happens where there's you know, police violence, I gain
Speaker 1: someone like George Floyd, the Tney General will say, well,
Speaker 1: that's just a few bad apples. But and there are
Speaker 1: a few rioters amongst the largely peaceful protest crowd in
Speaker 1: support something like black Lives Matters. It's they're all violent
Speaker 1: extremists and arsenists and anarchists. They have they have no
Speaker 1: problem painting with a broad brush when they feel it's
Speaker 1: most appropriate to them. And that was some myst been
Speaker 1: my issue with the White House's response on this and
Speaker 1: the Attorney General um serving as that you know, ultimate
Speaker 1: spokesperson for the Justice Department. So finally, at the end
Speaker 1: of the hearing, Bar got a wrist bump from one
Speaker 1: of the Republican congressmen. Was Bar the winner here? I
Speaker 1: think if you have to truly declare a winner, I
Speaker 1: think you'd have to give Bar just a slight edge
Speaker 1: because Democrats didn't really land any true knockout blows on him.
Speaker 1: He used the ultimate political inside fighter. He drew them
Speaker 1: to a draw. He looked petty, they looked petty. But
Speaker 1: he didn't need to quote unquote win. He just needed
Speaker 1: to get through it without imploding or without giving in
Speaker 1: too much. So did they get what they we needed
Speaker 1: out of him? No, And so for that reason I'd
Speaker 1: say he wins. Thanks Brad. That's Bradley Moss Apartment, Mark Zaid,
Speaker 1: And that's it for the edition of Bloomberg Law. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grosso. Thanks so much for listening, and remember to
Speaker 1: tune to The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
Speaker 1: pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio.