In the above video The Guardian collects some of the most contentious moments from Attorney General Barr's testimony earlier this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kamala Harris is getting rave reviews, at least from Democrats, for her examination of the witness, a portion of which is shown toward the end of the clip.
There is a performance-art skill to conducting an examination of a hostile witness that Harris no doubt honed in her previous life as a big-city prosecutor: it was on display in her questioning of Barr and will be an asset for her in her presidential campaign. I don't intend "performance-art" as a pejorative. A criminal trial is ideally a vehicle for uncovering the truth and the job of a prosecutor is sometimes to wring it out of someone who'd prefer it remain hidden. The techniques of what I've called an "art" aren't necessarily glamorous and often amount simply to being careful and doing your homework. In other words, be prepared and informed. Consider Harris's abrupt opening question to Barr:
Attorney General Barr, has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?
It's pretty straightforward, but Barr, after stammering around for a few seconds, asks her to repeat the question. Possibly he's stalling for time as he tries to formulate a non-perjurious lie. He might also be hoping for a slightly different form of the question--one that he can respond to without damaging Trump or (technically) lying. If the latter, he's disappointed, because Harris repeated the question, using exactly the same words. The significance of this, I believe, relates back to a similar hearing in which, a week or two before, Barr had answered questions before a House committee. One of the Democrats on the committee had asked him whether anyone on Mueller's team had expressed to him dissatisfaction with the accuracy of his summary of the Mueller report. Barr, who of course was under oath, answered in the negative. But we now know that by then he had received a letter from Mueller himself wherein Mueller states that Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." Democrats therefore have charged that Barr lied to the Committee, and his defense has been, in part, that the question referred to unnamed members of Mueller's team, which would not include Mueller himself.
My purpose is not to litigate the "truth-value" of Barr's answer but to point out that Harris learned from a colleague's mistake--or, more likely, is just better at this kind of work. Her question refers pointedly to "the President or anyone at the White House." The phrase "asked or suggested" is similarly intended to close off any escape route to someone who is practiced in the art of deceiving while under oath. That she succeeded may be seen in the details of Barr's stumbling "answer." He repeats, as if troubled, the phrase "the President or anyone else" and a few seconds later, to account for his stammering, says he's "trying to grapple with the word 'suggest.'" None of his normal subterfuges are available. Anyone can see that what he's really grappling with is how to avoid answering, truthfully, "Yes."
I wonder who the political people at the White House think the Justice Department ought to investigate? Seems like an abuse of power.
Comments