Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

U.S. Attorney General William Barr listens to questions as he testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on 'the Justice Department's investigation of Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election' on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 1.

AARON P. BERNSTEIN/Reuters

Democrats are splintered by calls to impeach U.S. President Donald Trump. But they have found another common enemy and an alternate political foil in Attorney-General William Barr.

Calls for Mr. Barr’s resignation erupted across the Democratic Party this week after he testified before the Senate and rebuffed the House twice, first by denying Democrats a full, unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and then by skipping a hearing to review it. In response, Democrats threatened to hold Mr. Barr in criminal contempt of Congress – a lengthy legal process that could go on for months.

The feud with Mr. Barr has animated Democrats and temporarily shifted attention away from impeachment – and by extension, the party’s divisions over whether to pursue it. But with Mr. Trump resisting other congressional investigations, and testimony from Mr. Mueller likely on the horizon, the impeachment question seems unlikely to subside for long.

Story continues below advertisement

For now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who would lead impeachment proceedings, are putting their emphasis on investigating Mr. Trump, his business dealings and his administration. If Democrats do decide to impeach the President, they will have already made part of the case through oversight. Mr. Trump’s refusal to comply with their requests – with Mr. Barr just the latest example – will only strengthen the case.

“Impeachment is never off the table, but should we start there? I don’t agree with that,” Ms. Pelosi said Friday at an event in Medford, Massachusetts.

Ms. Pelosi hasn’t held back in her criticism of Mr. Barr, accusing him of committing a crime by lying to Congress about his communications with Mr. Mueller. Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec called Ms. Pelosi’s accusation “reckless, irresponsible and false.”

Other members of Ms. Pelosi’s caucus are going after the attorney-general in even stronger terms.

“This is serious misconduct, this is a serious effort by the administration to prevent Congress from doing its oversight, and in fact could form the basis by itself of articles of impeachment,” said Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, a member of the Judiciary panel, after Barr skipped the hearing Thursday.

Republicans say the Democrats are focusing on Mr. Barr as a substitute for impeachment, to avoid the political backlash that would come with official proceedings against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Nadler “can’t try to pacify his liberal base by pretending to do impeachment without actually taking the plunge,” said Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel.

Story continues below advertisement

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., called the strategy “impeachment in drag.”

The Barr saga appears destined to end up in court. Mr. Nadler threatened Friday to hold Mr. Barr in contempt if he did not comply with a final request to turn over the Mueller report and the relevant investigative materials. The Justice Department is unlikely to comply, likely prompting a vote of contempt in committee and then the full House.

“The committee is prepared to make every realistic effort to reach an accommodation with the department,” Mr. Nadler wrote to Mr. Barr. “But if the department persists in its baseless refusal to comply with a validly issued subpoena, the committee will move to contempt proceedings and seek further legal recourse.”

The Justice Department declined to comment on Mr. Nadler’s latest threat of contempt. But White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters that she believes “at no point will it ever be enough” for Democrats.

While a contempt vote would send a message, it wouldn’t force the Justice Department to hand over the report. Nor would it guarantee criminal charges against Mr. Barr: House approval of the contempt citation would send a criminal referral to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a Justice Department official who is likely to defend the attorney-general.

But if the U.S. attorney declines to prosecute, Democrats have other methods to force compliance with witnesses, like hefty fines for witnesses who fail to appear.

Story continues below advertisement

Even as Democrats struggle with Mr. Barr, they are in hot pursuit of Mr. Mueller’s testimony. Mr. Nadler said the panel was “firming up the date” for Mr. Mueller’s testimony and hoped it would be May 15. Mr. Trump signalled he won’t try to stop it. During a brief Oval Office session with reporters Friday, Mr. Trump deferred to Mr. Barr, saying, “I don’t know. That’s up to the attorney-general, who I think has done a fantastic job.”

It’s possible that Mr. Barr could block Mr. Mueller from appearing, since the special counsel is still a Justice Department employee. But Mr. Barr has said he has no objection to Mr. Mueller testifying.

On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, says he doesn’t need Mr. Mueller to testify to his panel. But he is willing to hear Mr. Mueller out on one, narrow matter. On Friday, he offered to let Mr. Mueller provide testimony “if you would like” as to whether he felt Mr. Barr misrepresented Mr. Mueller’s views at the Senate hearing.

Mr. Barr testified Wednesday that Mr. Mueller didn’t challenge the accuracy of his memo summarizing the principal conclusions of the special counsel’s report, including when they spoke on the phone. Mr. Barr made that assertion despite a letter he received in March from Mr. Mueller complaining Mr. Barr’s summary didn’t fully capture the “context, nature and substance” of his nearly 400-page report.

Mr. Graham invited Mr. Mueller to provide testimony “regarding any misrepresentation by the attorney-general of the substance of that phone call.” He did not specify whether he wanted Mr. Mueller to appear in person.

Follow related topics

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies