Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in just a matter of hours, we are expected to vote on the nomination of William Barr to be Attorney General of the United States. This office is one of paramount importance to the people of this country, and as a former U.S. attorney, the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut, I have deep respect--indeed, reverence--for this office and the legal authority it commands and the moral powers it embodies.
So the stakes of this nomination, especially at this point in our history, could not be higher.
I believe William Barr should not be confirmed, and it has more to do with the role of the Attorney General of the United States than with his specific positions or policies on issues where we may disagree.
I do disagree with William Barr on positions he has taken on civil rights, women's healthcare, reproductive rights, and the powers of the Presidency.
At this moment in time, at this hour of our history, an imperial Presidency, such as envisioned by many of the doctrines that William Barr has espoused, in my view, would be an absolute catastrophe. Giving the President the power, in effect, to override statutes or refuse to enforce them or disregard Supreme Court precedent, especially with this President, would be a recipe for disaster.
An imperial Presidency at any point in our history is unwise. At this moment in our history, it would be catastrophic. That view of a unitary Executive and all that comes with it is one of the reasons I would have reservations about this nominee, but for me, the transcendent issue--as it was with Jeff Sessions, our former colleague--is whether this nominee will be the people's lawyer or the President's lawyer. Will he put first the interests of the American people or of President Donald Trump? Will he have foremost in mind the public interests or the personal interests of the President who appointed him?
Unfortunately, I am left with deep concerns, doubts, and questions that are disqualifying. The best example is his position on the release and disclosure of the special counsel's report. There were doubts--and there continue to be--among some of my colleagues about whether he will, in fact, allow the special counsel to do his job. He said that he would resist firing the special counsel and that he would allow Robert Mueller to finish his investigation, but he was pretty careful to avoid specifically committing that he would permit subpoenas to be issued, indictments to be brought, resources to be provided, and other essential factors that go into the effectiveness of the special counsel.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt on those issues, there remains his refusal to commit that he will provide the evidence and findings of the special counsel directly to Congress and directly to the American people. For me, that refusal to commit is one of the factors that are disqualifying.
The American people want transparency for the special counsel, as they do in their government generally. Just yesterday, the Washington Post released a poll indicating that 81 percent of Americans believe the Mueller report should be released. That number includes 79 percent of Republicans. The simple, stark fact is, the public has a right to know. The American people paid for the special counsel's report. They deserve to know everything that is in it, and they deserve not only the conclusion but also the findings of fact and his prosecutorial decisions and the underlying evidence that he considered in making those decisions. The clear specter arises that he will choose to bring no indictment against the President or other officials and that there will be no disclosure of the report, which would be tantamount to a coverup. What we may be watching is the Saturday Night Massacre in slow motion.
The reason this issue is of such paramount importance to this nomination relates to the obligation that the Attorney General has to promote transparency. In his responses to me, he said he would follow all the rules and regulations without delving into all the words and technical issues relating to those rules and regulations. The simple fact is, they provide near complete discretion to the Attorney General.
The American public has a right to see the Mueller report, not the Barr report. We have a right to see not what William Barr in his discretion permits us to know but, in fact, what the findings and evidence are--the Mueller report, not the Barr report. My fear is that despite his very vague references to wanting transparency, his refusal to commit to making that report public reveals his state of mind: that he will abridge, edit, conceal, redact parts of the report that may be embarrassing to the President. In effect, he will act as the President's lawyer, not as the people's lawyer.
During a hearing, I asked William Barr point blank, if he were presented with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed a crime, would he approve an indictment. He declined to answer the question directly or clearly. He pointed to two Office of Legal Counsel opinions saying that a sitting President cannot be indicted. I asked what he thought, not what the OLC thought. Would he permit an indictment against a President if presented with incontrovertible evidence of criminal wrongdoing? And he said he saw no reason to change the policy embodied in those OLC memos. The assumption is wildly held that Robert Mueller will follow those OLC memos, and William Barr confirmed those assumptions.
There is also Department of Justice policy that prosecutors do not speak publicly about people they are investigating but are not prepared to indict. I followed those policies as U.S. attorney. I know them well. In the normal case, they are fully applicable, but these two policies taken in combination lead to a truly frightening outcome: If the President cannot be indicted but has committed crimes, the American people may never know. That is, in effect, tantamount to a coverup. The American people may never know about that proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They may never see those findings in evidence. They may never have the benefit of the full report. Even though it may leak in dribs and drabs, in parts, they will never have the full and complete picture.
That is why I believe so strongly in the legislation that Senator Grassley and I have offered to require transparency. It is called the Special Counsel Transparency Act. It would require that there be a report. If the special counsel is transferred or fired or if he resigns or at any point completes his investigation, there would be a report, and it would be required that that report be provided to the American people. It would be mandatory, not discretionary.
I believe this issue is a transcendent one in this era--the public's right to know the truth about the 2016 election and the President's responsibility for any obstruction of justice or any collusion with the Russians. Again, it is about the public's right to know and about the Attorney General's responsibility for enabling the public's right to know. His answers were evasive and deeply troubling, and instead of providing straightforward and forthcoming answers, he was, in effect, evading and avoiding the question.
In addition to the special counsel's investigation, there are at least two U.S. Attorney's Offices--the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia--that have concurrent investigations into Trump campaign activities during this same period of time and beyond. In the Southern District of New York, the President has been essentially named as an unindicted coconspirator. He is individual No. 1, an unindicted coconspirator. That is a distinction he shares with only one other President--Richard Nixon.
The unencumbered continuation of these investigations is of vital public interest. That is why I asked Mr. Barr whether he would impose any restrictions on these prosecutors. Again his answer was evasive and deeply troubling. Instead of issuing a simple no, he stated that the Attorney General has the responsibility and discretion to supervise U.S. attorneys, and he declined to say that he would defer to them. He declined in the hearing, and he did again in our private meeting. That answer gives me no confidence that, if confirmed, William Barr will avoid interfering in the investigations now underway in those two additional jurisdictions, where, in fact, they may pose an even more dire danger that his culpability will be revealed and perhaps prosecuted. It should not give the public any greater degree of confidence either.
On other issues--the emoluments clause, for example. When I asked him, he said: I haven't even looked up the word ``emolument.'' That is a direct quote. There are a number of very high-profile cases against the President involving the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution because the President has been violating it. The chief anti-corruption provision in Federal law is the emoluments clause. Litigation is underway. Decisions have been rendered in the district courts in favor of the standing of 200 of us Members of Congress who have challenged the President's lawbreaking. I am proud that that case--Blumenthal v. Trump; Blumenthal and Nadler v. Trump--is proceeding. William Barr has a responsibility to know about that case and to say whether he would recuse himself from it since he was appointed by the defendant in that case, and if not, what justification there can be for continuing to make decisions about it.
Again, William Barr is a distinguished attorney. He has a strong background and qualifications. He served in this position before. He has very impressive credentials. He and I differ on issues of policy, but the main question relates to disclosure and transparency, to fidelity and priority, to the American people's interests--putting them unquestionably above the President's. Because I have such deep reservations and concerns about his determination to do so, I will oppose him as Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source