Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S2580-S2581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Barr Hearing
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Attorney General Barr's performance in
yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing was abysmal. It raised all
types of questions about his willingness to be a faithful steward of
the law. Of the several outlandish claims, one stood out. One of them
should send shivers down the spine of anyone who believes in this
democracy. It would probably send shivers down the spines of the
Founding Fathers if they were to hear this Attorney General say what he
said. Attorney General Barr said yesterday that the President could not
have obstructed justice because he believed he was falsely accused. He
even went further. He made a broad principle.
Here is what he said:
[[Page S2581]]
[If an investigation is] based on false allegations, the
president does not have to sit there constitutionally and
allow it to run its course. The president could terminate
that proceeding and not have it be corrupt intent because he
was falsely accused.
What a statement. If the President himself believes he has been
falsely accused, he can terminate any investigation or proceeding
against him. Any at all? Is that the determination in the President's
own head and in nobody else's? I am sending a letter to the Attorney
General this morning and am asking him a whole bunch of questions based
on that awful, confounding statement.
First, we know he had a theory of the unitary executive. He issued
that letter before he was chosen as Attorney General, and many believe
that is why he was chosen. Yet this is the first time he had stated it
so crassly and so baldly as Attorney General. Does he stand by that or
was it a mistake? That will be my first question.
Does he stand by the statement that he said yesterday, based on false
allegations, that the President does not have to sit there
constitutionally and allow it to run its course? ``The president could
terminate that proceeding and not have it be corrupt intent because he
was being falsely accused.'' He could terminate the proceeding. So who
is the determiner of what a false allegation is? Is it the President
himself solely? I am going to ask Attorney General Barr that question.
What about other proceedings and investigations? Let's say one of the
President's family members is being investigated. If the President
determines that it is based on false allegations, does he have the
unilateral power to terminate the proceeding? What if it is one of the
President's business associates, and the President believes they are
false allegations? Does he have the ability to terminate? What if it is
one of his political allies? Again, does he have the ability to
terminate?
I will also ask him: Does that mean that Richard Nixon, who certainly
believed he was falsely accused, could have simply dismissed the entire
Watergate investigation? Is that what the Attorney General believes?
I mean, my God, what President doesn't believe he is being falsely
accused? If this were to become the actual standard, then no President
could be guilty of obstructing a Federal investigation, and every
President would have the right to terminate any investigation--
certainly, about that President and maybe about many others who would
have some relationship to the President.
Attorney General Barr's comments are as close as they can get to
saying the President should be above the law. So I will be writing him
a letter and sending it to him this morning, asking him explicitly
these questions and asking him if he stands by his statements. If he
does, he should not be Attorney General. I will await his answers. I
hope he doesn't stonewall as he has been doing over in the House.
(Mrs. HYDE-SMITH assumed the Chair.)
