Blog No. 222. Bill Barr: The AG as Chief Witch Hunter

On May 31, Attorney General Bill Barr gave a lengthy interview to Jan Crawford of CBS. The first part of the interview was taken up by a discussion of Robert Mueller’s Report and Barr’s interpretation of the Report and Mueller’s statement on May 29. Those who watched the interview learned little new about the differing views of Mueller and Barr. The more significant, indeed disturbing, portion of the interview was the latter half in which Crawford attempted to explore Barr’s review of the origins of the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. On that subject, Barr adopted a more moderate tone than President Trump’s reckless rhetoric (“treason” and “coup”), but he left little doubt that he largely shared the latter’s perception that the Trump Campaign had been the victim of serious misconduct at the hands of the FBI. Like Trump, however, Barr offered no evidence to support that claim.

Barr stated flatly that “There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign,” and he defended his use of the term “spying” to describe those activities. But what were those activities? Barr did not indicate, even in general terms. There have been only two matters cited by Trump supporters, neither of which amounted to counterintelligence “against the Trump campaign.” In one instance, an undercover agent was sent to meet with George Papadopoulos after an Australian diplomat reported to the FBI that Papadopoulos had told him that Russians had offered to provide “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Barr himself made light of this minor effort in the course of criticizing the FBI for not undertaking a more robust investigation of Russian interference: “Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.”

The other matter, and one that has been the subject of much debate, was the obtaining of a FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser who had left the campaign before the warrant was obtained or any surveillance conducted. The criticism has focused on the fact that the application for the warrant was partially based on the controversial Steele Dossier. Whatever the merits of that criticism–and they have never appeared to be substantial–surveillance of a former campaign aide can hardly be considered spying on the campaign.

Nevertheless, Barr implied that he has in mind something broader and sinister. Indeed he asserted that improper activity by the FBI would be “just as dangerous” as Russian interference in the election:

And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that’s bad for the republic. But by the same token, it’s just as, it’s just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections.

Barr attempted to convey the impression of keeping an open mind by saying that his concern was whether surveillance of the Trump Campaign had an adequate “predicate.” Yet he clearly implied that there had been some unspecified misconduct: and, without naming names left little doubt as to whom he regarded as culprits

I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that – that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.

* * * *

JAN CRAWFORD: What suggests to you there was a failure in the upper echelon at the FBI?

WILLIAM BARR: Because I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the – probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level. Out of head quarters–

What “activities” Barr finds troubling remains a mystery. And it is a particularly troubling mystery in the context of Trump’s claims of treason. For example in a May 17 tweet:

My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail sentences, and this was TREASON!

As numerous observers pointed out, the claim of “treason” is ludicrous: the Constitution provides a narrow definition of treason as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Barr distanced himself from the President’s term—but no further than he had to. While he acknowledged that leaders of the FBI had not committed treason “as a legal matter,” he carefully left open the possibility that their conduct met the “colloquial” definition of the term:

JAN CRAWFORD: [T]he president has tweeted and said publicly that some in the upper echelon, Comey, McCabe, etc., committed treason. I mean do you agree with that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I – as a lawyer I always interpret the word treason not colloquially but legally. And you know the very specific criteria for treason – so I don’t think it’s actually implicated in the situation that we have now. But I think what he–

JAN CRAWFORD: Legally.   

WILLIAM BARR: Right.  

JAN CRAWFORD: You don’t think that they’ve committed treason?

WILLIAM BARR: Not as a legal matter, no.

Ms. Crawford did not inquire what might fit within the colloquial definition of treason or whether it would justify “long jail sentences.” It is unlikely, however, that Trump will be satisfied with anything less, and how far Barr will go to satisfy his boss remains to be seen. The prospect of “show trials” to satisfy Trump’s Stalinist instincts cannot be ruled out.

There is no room to doubt that Barr’s loyalty to Trump is undiluted. It was illustrated in the following brief soliloquy with which Barr concluded the interview:

I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.

I would be pleased to furnish the Attorney General a bill of particulars on how Donald Trump is attempting to shred our institutions, but that will have to await another day and another blog. Also to await another blog is Trump’s dangerous delegation to Barr of broad authority to declassify intelligence material—with only a limited requirement for consultation with the heads of intelligence agencies.

As more than one observer has noted, attempting to chronicle the misadventures of the Trump administration is like trying to drink from a fire hose.