QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD WILLIAM P. BARR NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR HIRONO 1. At your hearing you both told Senator Graham that you don’t believe Robert Mueller would be involved in a “witch hunt,” and expressed to me that you had sympathy for Donald Trump’s calling it that. You said, “the President is one that . . . has denied that there was any collusion and has been steadfast in that. . . . But I think it is understandable that if someone felt they were falsely accused, they would view an investigation as something like a witch hunt, where someone like you or me who does not know the facts, you know, might not use that term.” If you don’t believe that Mr. Mueller would conduct an unfounded investigation, and if you know about the numbers of indictments and guilty pleas entered so far, why would you express sympathy for the President’s insulting characterization of the Special Counsel’s work? RESPONSE: Neither Members of Congress, the public, nor I know all of the facts. That is why I believe that it is important that the Special Counsel be allowed to complete his investigation. As I testified at the hearing, President Trump has repeatedly denied that there was collusion. It is understandable that someone who felt like he or she was being falsely accused would describe an investigation into him or her as a “witch hunt.” If confirmed, I will ensure that the Special Counsel finishes his work, and that all of the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial decisions are based on the facts, the applicable law and policies, the admissible evidence, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution (Justice Manual § 9-27.000), and that they are made free of bias or inappropriate outside influence. 2. You mentioned that you had lunch with Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein and tried to sell him on your theory that a President can never obstruct justice if his actions are among those properly delegated to the Chief Executive, even if they have a corrupt intent. You described his reaction as “sphinx-like.” Did you think that reaction was improper, given the fact that you were not a Department official and had no basis to be involved in the case? Are you implying he should have reacted more positively to you? Why? 181 RESPONSE: While your characterization of my position is not accurate, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s response was entirely proper and commendable. 3. To explain why you provided unsolicited input to narrow the scope of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation – efforts that you noted were resisted by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein – you asserted that you also “weighed in repeatedly to complain about the idea of prosecuting Senator Menendez” when your “friend . . . was his defense counsel.” a. Do you think it is proper for non-Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, including former Attorneys General, to weigh in to seek to influence law enforcement decisions, particularly when such decisions have a personal benefit? RESPONSE: Yes. Whether the former official is paid or unpaid—and I was not paid in either of these instances—it can be appropriate and is not unusual for former Department officials to provide their views to current Department officials on pending matters through a variety of means, including personal conversations, legal memoranda, editorial articles, white papers, and law review articles. b. Should you be confirmed, how will you respond when others give you unsolicited input or seek to influence Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation? RESPONSE: I will consider the views raised and proceed in an appropriate manner. 4. In the 19-page unsolicited memo addressed to Justice Department officials that you distributed to Donald Trump’s private and White House Attorneys, you argued that “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction” and that “[i]t is inconceivable to me that the Department could accept Mueller’s interpretation of §1512(c)(2). It is untenable as a matter of law and cannot provide a legitimate basis for interrogating the President.” Despite making such strong and unequivocal assertions, you claimed you did not know many facts about Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. You testified at your hearing that you “do not recall getting any confidential information about the investigation.” Please review your emails, notes, and any other relevant materials. Having reviewed those materials, did you receive any confidential information about Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation? Do you recall getting any information whatsoever about the investigation from anyone? If you did, who gave it to you? RESPONSE: I based my memo on information available to the public at the time through news media reports. To the best of my recollection, I did not receive any non-public or confidential information regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation. 182 5. At your hearing, you mentioned two meetings you had with Donald Trump. a. Are those two meetings that you mentioned at the hearing the only times you have met with Donald Trump? If not, when else have you met with him? Where? b. Have you had any telephone conversations with Donald Trump? If so, where? When? c. Please tell us the details of all of your meetings and telephone calls with the President, including the following:  Where were the meetings?  Who was present for the meetings and the phone calls?  How long did each meeting or phone call last?  What was discussed?  What promises, if any, did the President ask you to make?  Did the President ask for your loyalty?  Did he make any threats?  Do you have any notes from any of the meetings or phone calls?  Did anyone else in the meetings or on the phone calls take notes? RESPONSE: As I described in my testimony, in summer 2017, I met briefly with the President at the White House. Prior to the meeting, and again during the meeting, I indicated that I was not in a position to represent him in connection with the Special Counsel’s investigation. During the meeting, the President reiterated his public statements denying collusion and describing the allegations as politically motivated. I did not respond to those comments. The President also asked my opinion of the Special Counsel. As I testified, I explained that I had a longstanding personal and professional relationship with Special Counsel Mueller and advised the President that he was a person of significant experience and integrity. On November 27, 2018, I met with the President and then-White House Counsel Emmet Flood to interview for the position of Attorney General. After the President offered me the job, the conversation turned to issues that could arise during the confirmation process. I recall mentioning that I had written a memorandum regarding a legal issue that could arise in the Special Counsel’s investigation, and that the memorandum could result in questioning during my confirmation hearing. I do not remember exactly what I said, but I recall offering a brief, one-sentence description of the memorandum. The President did not comment on my memorandum. There was no discussion of the substance of the investigation. The President did not ask me my views about any aspect of the investigation, and he did not ask me about what I would do about anything in the investigation. On December 5, 2018, following President Bush’s funeral, President Trump asked me 183 to stop by the White House. We spoke about a variety of issues, and were joined for much of the discussion by then-White House Counsel Emmet Flood and Vice President Pence. We have also spoken via phone several times as part of the selection and nomination process for the Attorney General position. In all of these conversations, there was no discussion of the substance of the Special Counsel’s investigation. The President has not asked me my views about any aspect of the investigation, and he has not asked me about what I would do about anything in the investigation. The President has never sought any assurances, promises, or commitments from me of any kind, either express or implied, and I have not given him any, other than that I would run the Department of Justice with professionalism and integrity. The President has never asked for my “loyalty,” nor has he made any “threats” to me. 6. The former head of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, believes you were wrong in your testimony about government ethics rules. You testified that you would seek the opinion of ethics officials about whether or not you should recuse yourself from the Special Counsel’s investigation, but that you would not necessarily follow it. You reserved the right to ignore their advice and decide for yourself. Mr. Shaub points to 5 C.F.R. 2635.502(c), which requires you to follow the guidance of your designated agency ethics official. Is Mr. Shaub correct? If not, why not? RESPONSE No. Under the governing regulations, the Attorney General, as the head of an agency, makes the final decision on whether to recuse under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502. See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.102 (“Any provision [of this part] that requires a determination, approval, or other action by the agency designee shall, where the conduct in issue is that of the agency head, be deemed to require that such determination, approval or action be made or taken by the agency head in consultation with the designated agency ethics official.”). In addition, Mr. Shaub is citing a regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(c), which applies only to appearance problems arising from a financial interest or a covered relationship. When other circumstances may raise a question regarding an employee’s impartiality, the employee follows the procedures of section 2635.502, but the ultimate recusal decision is left to the employee himself. See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a)(2). 7. In light of 5 C.F.R. 2635.502(c), will you commit to following the opinion of career ethics officials on whether or not you should recuse yourself from the Special Counsel’s investigation? RESPONSE: If confirmed, I will consult with the Department’s career ethics officials, review the facts, and make a decision regarding my recusal from any matter in good faith based on the facts and applicable law and rules. 8. You testified at your hearing that you think former FBI Director James Comey “is an 184 extremely gifted man who has served the country with distinction in many roles,” although you disagreed with some actions he took in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails. What do you think about the President’s insults of Mr. Comey? The President has referred to the former FBI Director as “Leakin’ James Comey,” called him a liar multiple times, a “bad guy,” a “slime ball,” “slippery,” and “shady.” RESPONSE: As I stated during my hearing before the Committee, I agreed with the conclusions in Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s memorandum regarding former FBI Director Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. As a general matter, I do not believe that it is the role of the Attorney General to comment on, criticize, or censor the President’s public statements. 9. At your hearing, you testified to Senator Cornyn that you “completely agree with” the memo Rod Rosenstein wrote justifying former FBI Director James Comey’s firing. But do you believe Donald Trump really fired James Comey because he was too harsh on Hillary Clinton, or because he didn’t follow Department of Justice guidelines? Do you discount the other explanations Donald Trump has given – specifically, that he told Lester Holt of NBC on air that he fired Mr. Comey because of “this Russia thing;” and that he told the Russian Ambassador and Russian Foreign Minister in the Oval Office that he fired Mr. Comey, referring to the former FBI Director as “crazy, a real nut job,” and saying, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”? RESPONSE: I do not know whether the President’s decision to remove former FBI Director Comey is an aspect of the Special Counsel’s ongoing investigation. If confirmed, it is possible that I will be supervising that investigation as Attorney General under applicable regulations. Accordingly, as a nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to answer your question. 10. You told Sen. Feinstein at your hearing that you would “[a]bsolutely” commit “to ensuring that Special Counsel Mueller is not terminated without good cause consistent with Department regulations.” Would the President’s displeasure with a lawful action by Special Counsel Mueller taken in accordance with Justice Department regulations constitute good cause? RESPONSE: No. 11. You told Senator Durbin at your hearing that there is nothing wrong with an Attorney General taking a policy position that happened to have a political benefit to it. But do you agree that an Attorney General should not formulate policies just BECAUSE they are politically advantageous? 185 RESPONSE: Yes. 12. At your hearing, you told Senator Whitehouse that with respect to finding out the sources of payments to Acting Attorney General Whitaker, “my first consideration always is where do you – where do you draw the line, and also what are the implications for other kinds of entities because, you know, there are membership groups and First Amendment interests . . . .” Why is that your FIRST consideration? What about transparency and confidence in the system? Shouldn’t they be your first considerations in addressing conflicts of interest by the nation’s top law enforcement official? RESPONSE: The public’s interest in “transparency and confidence in the system” are important considerations when considering conflict-of-interest issues, as are American’s constitutional rights, including those guaranteed by the First Amendment. 13. I asked you at your hearing whether you believe birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. You said you had not looked at the issue and that you would ask the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to advise you on “whether it is something that is appropriate for legislation.” In 1995, Walter Dellinger, then-Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel testified in the House Judiciary Subcommittees on Immigration and Claims and on the Constitution that to change birthright citizenship the Constitution would have to be amended. See https://www.justice.gov/file/20136/download. Now that you have had a chance to look at the Constitution, and read Mr. Dellinger’s testimony, do you believe that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? RESPONSE: As I said at the hearing, I have not had an opportunity to study the issues raised by this question in detail and therefore do not have an opinion on the matter at this time. If confirmed, and if the issue arose, I would consult with the Office of Legal Counsel and others before forming my own conclusion. 14. When you were Attorney General for President George H.W. Bush, you recommended that he pardon people implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal. You told the Miller Center about it, saying, “I went over and told the President I thought he should not only pardon Caspar Weinberger, but while he was at it, he should pardon about five others. I favored the broadest — There were some people arguing just for Weinberger, and I said, ‘No, in for a penny, in for a pound.’ Elliot[t] Abrams was one I felt had been very unjustly treated.” 186 President Bush issued the pardons you recommended, and they were widely viewed as having the effect of protecting the President and others from having to testify in any related cases. At the time the pardons were issued, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, criticized them, and said, “The Iran-Contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.” a. Why did you recommend the Iran-Contra pardons? RESPONSE: President George H.W. Bush issued an eloquent proclamation explaining why he believed those pardons were required by “honor, decency, and fairness.” Among his reasons were that the United States had just won the Cold War and the individuals he pardoned had long and distinguished careers in that global effort. As President Bush explained, the individuals he pardoned had four common denominators: (1) they acted out of patriotism; (2) they did not seek or obtain any profit; (3) each had a long record of distinguished service; and (4) they had already paid a price grossly disproportionate to any misdeeds. b. If confirmed, will you recommend that Donald Trump pardon any of the people who have already been convicted or have pleaded guilty under Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation or in related cases? RESPONSE: The decision to issue a pardon is a highly individualized determination that takes into account myriad factors. Depending on the facts and circumstances, the decision can take into account the seriousness of the crime, remorse expressed by the individual, any mitigating factors involved in the crime, harm to victims, evidence of rehabilitation, the nature and severity of the sentence imposed, and countless other factors. If confirmed, I would advise the President to carefully consider these and other appropriate factors in exercising his pardon power. c. Would you agree that pardoning anyone who is subject to a current indictment or will be subject to a future indictment by the Special Counsel could be seen as undermining the Special Counsel’s investigation and an abuse of the President’s pardon power? RESPONSE: To my knowledge, the President has not pardoned anyone subject to a current or future indictment in connection with the Special Counsel’s investigation. As the nominee for Attorney General, I do not believe that I should address hypotheticals that may relate to the ongoing investigation. d. Do you believe it is proper for the President to use his pardon power to pardon his family members or any associates, businesses, foundations, campaigns, or organizations in which he has a personal interest? RESPONSE: The President has an obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and to exercise his authority in the best interests of the country. 187 Please also see my answer to Question 14(b) above. e. Will you recommend Donald Trump pardon any of the people convicted, indicted, or under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller or any of the related cases in other districts that relate to President Trump’s business, foundation, campaign, inauguration, administration, family, or associates? RESPONSE: I am not familiar with the facts and circumstances of the cases of those who have been convicted in connection with those investigations apart from media reports. I am not in a position to speculate about how I might advise the President in such circumstances. 15. At your hearing, you stated, “I will vigorously enforce the Voting Rights Act.” The Trump administration has not brought a single lawsuit to enforce the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, the administration has actually withdrawn the Justice Department’s claim against a Texas voter ID law that a federal district court judge found was enacted with discriminatory intent and reversed its position in a case by defending Ohio’s voter purge efforts that Justice Sotomayor recognized “disproportionately affected minority, low- income, disabled, and veteran voters.” In fact, career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division did not sign the amicus brief defending the voter purge efforts as they did the prior brief. a. Since you agreed that you would “vigorously enforce the Voting Rights Act,” should you be confirmed, will you commit to asking the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division to present to you all the instances where the Justice Department has been asked to initiate Section 2 claims under the Voting Rights Act and allowing the career attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to bring claims where appropriate? RESPONSE: If confirmed, I am firmly committed to protecting and upholding the civil rights and voting rights of all Americans. As with all matters, any decisions regarding whether to bring Section 2 enforcement actions will be based on a thorough analysis of the facts and the governing law. b. Similarly, if confirmed, will you commit to investigating, evaluating, and reviewing those states and jurisdictions—including any that were formerly covered under the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance system—that have passed voting laws that tend to hinder voter turnout to determine if they are, in fact, discriminatory, and to bring Section 2 claims under the Voting Rights Act for any that are found to have a discriminatory impact or purpose? RESPONSE: If confirmed, I am firmly committed to protecting and upholding the civil rights and voting rights of all Americans. As with all matters, any decisions regarding whether to bring Section 2 enforcement actions will be based on a thorough analysis of the facts and the governing law. 188 c. Should you be confirmed, will you commit to working with Congress to support a fix to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was nullified by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder? RESPONSE: If confirmed, I will be pleased to work with Congress regarding legislation that supports the Department’s mission and priorities. d. If confirmed, will you commit to reviewing the decisions by the Justice Department to switch positions in the following two cases to determine whether customary processes for changing the government’s position in a case were followed and what, if any, improper influences impacted those decisions? The two cases are: (1) Veasey v. Abbott, where the Department withdrew its claim that a Texas voter ID law was enacted with a discriminatory intent, despite a finding of discriminatory intent by a federal district court, and (2) Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, where the Department reversed its position by defending Ohio’s voter purge efforts under the National Voter Registration Act, even though Justice Sotomayor recognized such efforts “disproportionately affected minority, low-income, disabled, and veteran voters.” RESPONSE: If confirmed, I am firmly committed to protecting and upholding the civil rights and voting rights of all Americans. I understand from publicly available information that Veasey v. Abbott did not involve a change in legal position by the Department. Rather, it involved a change in law by the Texas Legislature. In particular, in 2017 the Texas Legislature amended the challenged voter ID law to largely incorporate the interim remedy that the federal courts had put in place for the 2016 election. In its most recent decision in this case in 2018, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the Department that this amendment was sufficient to remedy the alleged defects in the original law. I also understand from publicly available information that the Supreme Court upheld the Department’s position in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute. 16. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, many states passed voting restriction laws based on claims of going after voter fraud. But a 2014 study found a total of 31 credible allegations of voter fraud between 2000 and 2014 out of more than 1 billion votes cast. a. Are you aware of any credible study that confirms that there was massive voter fraud, not election fraud, in either the 2016 or 2018 election? b. Do you agree that voter fraud is incredibly rare in the context of the number of votes cast? RESPONSE: I have not studied this issue and therefore have no basis to reach a conclusion on it. 189 17. In a 2017 report entitled The Civil Rights Division’s Pattern and Practice Police Reform Work: 1994-Present, the Civil Rights Division explained that “its experience demonstrates that court-enforceable consent decrees are most effective in ensuring accountability, transparency in implementation, and flexibility for accomplishing complex institutional reforms. Federal court oversight is often critical to address broad and deeply entrenched problems and to ensure the credibility of the reform agreement’s mandates.” But last November, just before leaving the Department, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo that drastically limited use of consent decrees to bring police departments into compliance with the Constitution. At your hearing, you stated that you agreed with Mr. Sessions’s memo and questioned whether the policy changes in the memo would make it tougher to enter into consent decrees for pattern or practice violations. a. Do you agree with the Civil Rights Division’s report that based on its experience, “court- enforceable consent decrees are most effective” in accomplishing complex institutional reforms in a transparent way that ensures accountability? RESPONSE: I am not familiar with this study and, beyond what I have seen reported in the media, have no knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding these issues. As a result, I am not in a position to comment on this matter. b. Despite the Civil Rights Division’s finding regarding the historical effectiveness of consent decrees, Mr. Sessions’s memo warns that “the Department should exercise special caution before entering into a consent decree with a state or local governmental entity.” Among other changes, it requires any consent decrees to be approved not only by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights or the U.S. Attorney, but also by the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General. Would you now agree that that Mr. Sessions’s memo imposes more stringent requirements for the Civil Rights Division to pursue consent decrees, making it harder to enter into consent decrees for pattern or practice violations? If not, please explain. RESPONSE: Please see my response to Question 18(a) above. c. At your hearing, you recognized that “the Department has a role in pattern and practice violations.” Please specify what role you believe the Civil Rights Division should play in pattern or practice violations. RESPONSE: In its discharge of its legal obligations, the Department should investigate all allegations that fall within the Department’s jurisdiction. If confirmed, I would work vigorously to uphold and enforce the federal laws within the Civil Rights Division’s jurisdiction. 18. Former Attorney General Sessions eliminated a highly effective program handled by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services—also known as the COPS Office—that allowed local police departments to voluntarily work with Justice Department officials to 190