Trump Weighs Bringing Back William Barr as Attorney General

WASHINGTON — President Trump can be strongly considering nominating William P. Barr, who served as attorney general during the first Bush administration through 1991 to 1993, to return for a second stint as head of the Justice Department, according to people close to Mr. Trump.

Mr. Barr, a Republican along with corporate lawyer, has long advanced a vision of sweeping presidential powers. Mr. Trump’s growing focus on him comes amid a rocky reception for Matthew G. Whitaker, whom the president installed last month as acting attorney general after ousting Jeff Sessions through the post.

With Democrats vowing oversight hearings into Mr. Whitaker when they take over the House in January, the president can be said to be under pressure — including through allies like Republican senators Charles E. Grassley of Iowa along with Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the departing along with incoming chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee — to quickly nominate a viable successor to Mr. Sessions.

Mr. Barr can be seen as the leading candidate for the nomination if Mr. Trump does not decide to stay with Mr. Whitaker for an extended period, several Justice Department officials said This kind of week. along with while Mr. Trump can be known for changing his mind capriciously, he likes to poll advisers along with confidants about potential nominees along with has asked several people about Mr. Barr recently.

In some of those conversations, Mr. Trump has also repeatedly asked whether the next pick might recuse himself through overseeing the special counsel investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russia in its interference from the 2016 election, several people said. Mr. Sessions recused himself early in his tenure, souring his relationship with Mr. Trump, who wanted a loyalist managing the inquiry.

Mr. Barr declined a request for comment. Mr. Trump’s interest in him was reported earlier by The Washington Post.

Mr. Barr has criticized aspects of the Russia investigation, including suggesting which the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, hired too many prosecutors who had donated to Democratic campaigns. Mr. Barr has also defended Mr. Trump’s calls for a brand-new criminal investigation into his defeated 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, including over a uranium mining deal the Obama administration approved when she was secretary of state.

“There can be nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation,” Mr. Barr told The brand-new York Times last year. “Although an investigation shouldn’t be launched just because a president wants the idea, the ultimate question can be whether the matter warrants investigation.”

Mr. Barr added then which he saw more basis for investigating the uranium deal than any supposed conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s associates along with Russia. “To the extent the idea can be not pursuing these matters, the department can be abdicating its responsibility,” he said.

In a November 1992 speech, Mr. Barr put forward the ideal of an attorney general whose primary loyalty can be to the rule of law, not to the president who appointed him — saying which he must provide “unvarnished, straight-through-the-shoulder legal advice” with no regard to political considerations like what conclusions the White House might prefer.

“The unique position of the attorney general raises special considerations,” Mr. Barr said. “The attorney general’s oath to uphold the Constitution raises the question whether his duty lies ultimately with the president who appointed him or more abstractly with the rule of law. I said in my confirmation hearings, along with have said repeatedly since, which the attorney general’s ultimate allegiance must be to the rule of law.”

Still, he also said which in his experience, he confronted no conflicts between his duty to uphold the law along with his policy allegiance to the president.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr. Barr developed a reputation as a proponent of a sweeping theory of the president’s constitutional authority to act without congressional permission or in defiance of statutes.

In July 1989, shortly after his appointment to the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Barr sent an apparently unsolicited 10-page memo to top agency along with department lawyers across the executive branch urging vigilance in pushing back against ways in which Congress might try to intrude on what he saw as the rightful powers of the president. the idea covered topics such as “attempts to gain access to sensitive executive branch information” along with efforts to limit a president’s power to fire a subordinate official without a not bad cause.

“the idea can be important which all of us be familiar with each of these forms of encroachment on the executive’s constitutional authority,” Mr. Barr wrote. “Only by consistently along with forcefully resisting such congressional incursions can executive branch prerogatives be preserved.”

Years later, in 2005, after the leaking of a secret George W. Bush administration memo blessing the torture of terrorism detainees despite anti-torture laws along with treaties, Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who worked from the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, pointed back to Mr. Barr’s 1989 memo as a precursor to the torture memo’s vision of unfettered executive power.

“Never before had the Office of Legal Counsel, known as the O.L.C., publicly articulated a policy of resisting Congress,” Mr. Kinkopf wrote in a Legal Affairs essay. “The Barr memo did so with belligerence, staking out an expansive view of presidential power while asserting positions which contradicted recent Supreme Court precedent.”

He added, “Bridging a 15-year gap, the Barr memo provides the theoretical along with strategic foundations for the torture memo.”

Many proponents of strong presidential powers nevertheless say which Congress can check the presidency through its power over government spending. although at a 1990 symposium, Mr. Barr invoked a constrained understanding of lawmakers’ ability to cut off funds for government actions they oppose, declaring which “Congress cannot use the appropriations power to control a presidential power which can be beyond its direct control.”

along with when issues of war power came up — like Mr. Bush’s 1989 invasion of Panama, the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War or the 1992 deployment of troops to Somalia — Mr. Barr repeatedly told Mr. Bush which he could deploy American troops without specific prior authorization through Congress.

One drawback through Mr. Trump’s perspective may be which in 1992, Mr. Barr decided to trigger the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate whether senior Bush administration officials had committed a crime by searching Bill Clinton’s passport file while he was a presidential candidate. The prosecutor took three years to finish which investigation, ultimately concluding which no crime had been committed along with which he should not have been appointed.

although at a 1997 panel discussion on the independent counsel law, Mr. Barr criticized the statute along with expressed concern about using the criminal justice system to prosecute high-level executive branch officials over minor offenses, saying such conduct should be checked by politics. The context was allegations which the vice president at the time, Al Gore, had made political fund-raising calls through inside the White House.

“I’m not going to prosecute the vice president of the United States because he made all 5 phone calls to raise money through the White House — the idea’s ridiculous. the idea’s not from the public interest,” Mr. Barr said, adding: “Let the attorney general take the heat, if there can be heat, publicly for the idea.”