CBS News interviewed Attorney General Bill Barr this week when he elegantly crushed Mueller’s investigation. It was also revealing in that we finally found out what John Huber, the Jeff Sessions appointee, has been doing. Nothing! He’s been doing almost nothing!
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in a letter (pdf) on March 29, 2018, that he had assigned Huber to investigate a list of potential crimes outlined by Republicans in Congress. We all thought he was slow but at least working on the investigation.
Republican lawmakers wrote to Sessions asking for a second special counsel to review evidence of bias by federal government employees, including how decisions to charge or not charge people with crimes were made, and whether the surveillance of the Trump campaign was “appropriate and devoid of extraneous influence.”
Huber was the ineffective Sessions’ alternative to shut people up, in our humble opinion.
JEFF SESSIONS’ APPOINTEE HUBER DIDN’T DO MUCH
According to Bill Barr in his CBS interview, John Huber was appointed to look at the FISA applications and the spying, but “stood back” and “put that on hold.” He was on “standby.”
Huber “hasn’t been active on this front in recent months,” Barr said.
Does anyone remember how many times Rep. Mark Meadows or Rep. Jim Jordan tried to get an update from Huber?
Huber did something concerning Hillary, but don’t hope for much.
JAN CRAWFORD: Um, what’s the status of Huber’s investigation in Utah? I think the former Attorney General Sessions had asked him to look at this.
WILLIAM BARR: Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would’ve been normal for the department. And he was essentially on standby in case Mr. Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role. The other issues he’s been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully, we’ll be in a position to bring those to fruition.
JAN CRAWFORD: So he won’t be involved in this really at all then?
WILLIAM BARR: No.
JAN CRAWFORD: This is his role, it’s done?
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: And now Durham is going to pick up–
WILL BARR: Yes, right.
ANOTHER SLAM AT MUELLER’S HANDLING OF HIS REPORT/VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Another point about Bill Barr’s casually devastating testimony minimizing Mueller and team is a comment he made about Mueller’s seeming referral of the obstruction case to Congress for impeachment.
Yesterday, we explained that Barr dismissed the faulty analysis of the Mueller’s lawyers on obstruction.
There is something else to be said about it as well.
The interviewer, Jan Crawford asked what Mueller meant by not making a decision on obstruction and suggesting he was leaving it to Congress.
Barr responded, saying Mueller could have reached a conclusion and he didn’t know what he was suggesting when he mentioned another venue for this, namely Congress. Barr then clearly delineated the powers of the Justice Department and Congress adding, Justice doesn’t act as an “adjunct” to Congress. They don’t farm out their work.
In other words, Mueller was handing his job to Congress and we don’t do that.
JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would’ve stopped him in the regulations or in those…that opinion itself, he could’ve — in your view, he could’ve reached a conclusion?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could’ve reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.