[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 72 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Senate]
[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.)