Lindsey Graham

Page: 5

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, encouraged Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday to skip his hearing with the House Judiciary Committee if Democrats don’t back off a format the Justice Department opposes.

Barr is threatening to pull out of the Thursday hearing in objection to Chairman Jerry Nadler’s choice of format. Nadler, D-N.Y., would have Barr face questions from not only members but also the counsel for each party.

Jordan, a member of the committee, argued this strategy is a covert way to start impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

“I think there are a couple of things going on,” Jordan told Fox Business host Lou Dobbs. “One, we have to understand the Democrats already start impeachment proceedings. They are just not calling it that. And the reason they’re not calling it that is because they know it is not justified and they know the American people do not want it. But that is what they are doing and that’s why they want the staff to ask Bill Barr questions because that is how it works in the impeachment process.”

With Barr under intense scrutiny for his rollout of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, Jordan said Democrats are being unfair to the attorney general.

“Second, Bill Barr shouldn’t come,” he said. “Look, you cannot trash the attorney general for the last three weeks like Democrats have done and then change the format in the last few days like they are trying to do. And expect the attorney general to show up. Let the members ask the questions if they’re willing to do it the way its always done. Bill Barr will be there. If they’re not, he shouldn’t show up. And I’m 100% for him not showing up if they don’t do it the right way.”

Nadler has said he will not back down to Justice Department pressure. “The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period,” Nadler told CNN on Sunday. If Barr does not comply, Nadler said, “Then we will have to subpoena him, and we will have to use whatever means we can to enforce the subpoena.”

Nadler’s Senate counterpart, Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Monday that Nadler was going “way over the top” with the terms of the hearing. Noting how Mueller found no conspiracy between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Kremlin, Graham added, “This is political revenge. The House is on a witch hunt — truly a witch hunt to try to make something out of nothing.”

Barr is scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the Mueller investigation on Wednesday.

Lindsey Graham

Sen. Lindsey Graham (shown) and Rep. Doug Collins have seen the less-redacted version of the special counsel’s report. | Alex Edelman/Getty Images

On the eve of Attorney General William Barr’s testimony on a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, only two lawmakers have set eyes on the secret information that Barr withheld from public view.

Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans. But as of Tuesday afternoon, only Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opted to view it. A third, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he planned to review the report later Tuesday.

Story Continued Below

Collins and Graham told POLITICO that what’s underneath the redactions had no bearing on what Mueller ultimately concluded: that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge any American with conspiring with Russians to influence the 2016 election, and that Justice Department guidelines prevented Mueller from reaching a legal conclusion on whether President Donald Trump obstructed Justice.

“It didn’t change anything,” Collins said. “Some of the redactions could actually be implied from other parts of the report that were not redacted.”

Graham, whose committee will hear from Barr on Wednesday, said he wasn’t clear why some of the information was redacted at all. Like Collins, Graham said that after viewing it, “nothing changed for me.”

“I don’t know why they redacted half of what they redacted,” he added.

Collins declined to discuss the specifics of the redacted portions of Mueller’s report or to characterize the nature of the 12 ongoing matters that Mueller referred to other prosecutors. He also swiped at Democrats for refusing to view the less-redacted report.

The six Democrats whom Barr offered access to the report boycotted en masse, complaining that Barr should have provided a fully unredacted report to a broader set of lawmakers investigating Trump’s conduct. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler has subpoenaed Barr and the Justice Department for the full report as well as Mueller’s underlying evidence. The deadline for compliance is May 1.

When Barr released the public version of Mueller’s report earlier this month, he withheld four categories of material: classified information, material related to ongoing investigations, information that could damage the reputation of “peripheral third parties” and evidence collected by Mueller’s grand jury. Barr’s less-redacted report for the 12 lawmakers allowed them access to each category except grand jury material.

Under the terms offered by Barr, each lawmaker granted access would also be allowed to designate one staff member to view the report. The report was made available at Justice Department headquarters last week and is available for lawmakers and aides to review in a secure room on Capitol Hill this week. Information could not be shared with other lawmakers.

“While the Department will permit notetaking, the Department asks that all notes remain at the Department in its secure facility,” assistant attorney general Stephen Boyd wrote to lawmakers earlier this month, outlining the terms of their access. “Department officials will transfer notes to and from Capitol Hill for in camera review sessions that take place there.”

Barr is slated to testify to the Senate Wednesday and the House Thursday on the findings in Mueller’s report and his handling of its release, which has infuriated Democrats who say he misrepresented the damaging evidence Mueller found that Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation.

In addition to Collins, Graham and McConnell, Barr offered access to the report to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.

Others granted access include the top Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, Nadler and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

Burr told POLITICO Tuesday morning he hadn’t seen the less-redacted report. And McCarthy said he had no intention of viewing it.

“I trust what Barr put forward,” he said. “I’m satisfied right now with what I know.”

FILE PHOTO: Federal Reserve Board building on Constitution Avenue is pictured in Washington
FILE PHOTO: Federal Reserve Board building on Constitution Avenue is pictured in Washington, U.S., March 19, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis

April 30, 2019

By Richard Cowan and Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Doubts mounted on Tuesday over U.S. President Donald Trump’s pick to fill a vacant seat at the Federal Reserve, with one Republican senator saying she was “very unlikely” to back economic commentator Stephen Moore and another calling his nomination “very problematic.”

The remarks, from U.S. Republican Senators Joni Ernst and Lindsey Graham, respectively, signaled growing resistance to Trump’s bid to put a loyalist on the Fed’s policy-setting panel after remarks denigrating women, made over nearly two decades of writing and commentating, were widely reported last week.

Moore did not immediately reply to a voicemail and email from Reuters requesting comment. He has apologized in recent days for some of his past remarks about women, explaining that some were attempts at humor.

Trump, who on Tuesday reiterated his call for a Fed interest rate cut, announced he would pick Moore for the Fed post just over a month ago, but has not formally nominated him.

“Very unlikely that I would support that person,” Ernst, who represents Iowa, told reporters on Tuesday, adding that she had spoken to the White House about her position. If a vote took place in the Senate today, “I don’t think” he would be confirmed, she said, according to CNN.

“It will be a very problematic nomination,” said Graham, a close ally of Trump. Asked if he would oppose Moore if nominated, Graham said he would study the pick.

Republican Senator Richard Shelby on Monday expressed concern about the “drip by drip” of negative news stories about Moore. Shelby is on the Fed’s banking committee, the first stop in any confirmation process for a Fed seat.

WOMEN’S PAY

Republicans hold a 53-to-47 majority in the Senate, and given that Democrats are expected to oppose Moore’s nomination, he can only lose the support of three Republican senators and still be confirmed.

Among his writings that have drawn scrutiny is a 2014 column in the National Review in which he worried about male wages and suggested a society in which women earn more than men could be “disruptive to family stability.” Earlier Tuesday on CNBC he reiterated his concern over trends in male earnings, not women’s pay.

Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia “has not made a decision on whether or not she would support Stephen Moore’s confirmation if he were nominated for the Federal Reserve board, but she has said she has questions about some of his previous statements,” a spokeswoman told Reuters on Tuesday.

Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson “will reserve judgment until he’s had the opportunity to meet” with Moore once nominated, according to his spokeswoman.

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, one of four Senators who opposed Trump’s other pick for the Fed, Herman Cain, before Cain withdrew, told reporters Tuesday she planned to talk to the White House directly about Moore but would not tell reporters what she thought and repeatedly declined to say if she thought he should withdraw.

U.S. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the White House should immediately withdraw Moore from consideration for the seat.

    “I think neither his politics nor his views of women are very funny. The White House ought to immediately withdraw his nomination. He didn’t belong on the Fed even before these writings came out disrespecting women, all the more reason that the nomination should be withdrawn,” Schumer told reporters.

The White House still backs Moore for a seat on the Fed, Trump’s top economic adviser said on Monday. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters on Monday the White House was reviewing Moore’s past comments.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Amanda Becker and Susan Heavey, writing by Ann Saphir; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Tom Brown)

Source: OANN

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks to the media on Capitol Hill in Washington.
FILE PHOTO: Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks to the media after Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 25, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

April 30, 2019

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican and Democratic U.S. senators blasted President Donald Trump’s proposal for a 23 percent cut in the U.S. budget for foreign aid and diplomacy as “insane” and “short-sighted” on Tuesday, and said it would not pass.

“We’re not going to approve this budget reduction. It’s insane. It makes no sense,” said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the State Department and foreign aid budget.

“I don’t know who writes these things over in the White House, but they clearly don’t understand the value of soft power,” the Republican senator, a close Trump ally on many issues, told a subcommittee hearing on the foreign aid budget.

Graham also called the plan “short-sighted” and said the Appropriations panel would restore funding to previous levels, rather than enacting the 23 percent cut Trump proposed earlier this year.

Graham also asked Mark Green, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, to send Congress a plan for how it would assist Venezuela in case of a change in government in the troubled South American state. [nL1N22C1PL]

The hearing took place on Tuesday against a backdrop of upheaval in Venezuela, where Washington’s desire to ship in millions of dollars in foreign aid has been a central theme of the Trump administration’s push for a change in government. [nL1N22C07O]

The Senate subcommittee’s top Democrat, Senator Patrick Leahy, also opposed the cuts, citing the importance of “soft power” like foreign aid to U.S. influence around the world.

“Our soft power should not be a partisan issue, it should be an American issue and we’re going to try to keep it that way,” Leahy said at the hearing, at which Green testified on Trump’s proposed budget.

Graham asked if Trump’s administration had a plan in place to help the Venezuela people if President Nicolas Maduro’s government were to fall. Graham suggested that the administration submit an emergency funding request for Venezuela to his committee, including a plan.

“I think most members of this committee would gladly help you with some resources to stabilize Venezuela when Maduro falls, not if. In that regard, we would very much appreciate any advice you give us about what a good response would look like,” Graham said.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by James Dalgleish)

Source: OANN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday will face lawmakers’ questions for the first time since releasing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report, in what promises to be a dramatic showdown as he defends his actions before Democrats who accuse him of spinning the investigation’s findings in President Donald Trump’s favor.

Barr’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to highlight the partisan schism around Mueller’s report and the Justice Department’s handling of it. It will give the attorney general his most extensive opportunity to explain the department’s actions, including a press conference held before the report’s release, and for him to repair a reputation bruised by allegations that he’s the president’s protector.

Barr is also invited to appear Thursday before the Democratic-led House Judiciary panel, but the Justice Department said he would not testify if the committee insisted on having its lawyers question the attorney general.

His appearance Wednesday will be before a Republican-led committee chaired by a close ally of the president, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is expected to focus on concerns that the early days of the FBI’s Russia investigation were tainted by law enforcement bias against Trump.

Democrats are likely to focus on Barr’s statements and actions in the last six weeks that have unnerved them. The tense relations are notable given how Barr breezed through his confirmation process, picking up support from a few Democrats and offering reassuring words about the Justice Department’s independence and the importance of protecting the special counsel’s investigation.

The first hint of discontent surfaced last month when Barr issued a four-page statement that summarized what he said were the main conclusions of the Mueller report. In the letter, Barr revealed that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had cleared Trump of obstruction of justice after Mueller and his team found evidence on both sides of the question but didn’t reach a conclusion.

Barr is likely to defend himself by noting how he released the report on his own even though he didn’t have to under the special counsel regulations, and that doing so fulfilled a pledge he made at his confirmation hearing to be as transparent as the law allowed. Barr may say that he wanted to move quickly to give the public a summary of Mueller’s main findings as the Justice Department spent weeks redacting more sensitive information from the report.

After the letter’s release, Barr raised eyebrows anew when he told a congressional committee that he believed the Trump campaign had been spied on, a common talking point of the president and his supporters. He also equivocated on a question of whether Mueller’s investigation was a witch hunt, saying someone who feels wrongly accused would reasonably view an investigation that way. That was a stark turnabout from his confirmation hearing, when he said he didn’t believe Mueller would ever be on a witch hunt.

A person familiar with Barr’s thinking has said that Barr, a former CIA employee, did not mean spying in a necessarily inappropriate way and was simply referring to intelligence collection activities. The FBI did obtain a secret surveillance warrant in 2016 to eavesdrop on the communications of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.

Then came Barr’s April 18 press conference to announce the release of the Mueller report later that morning.

He repeated about a half dozen times that Mueller’s investigation had found no evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia, though the special counsel took pains to note in his report that “collusion” was not a legal term and also pointed out the multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia.

In remarks that resembled some of Trump’s own claims, he praised the White House for giving Mueller’s team “unfettered access” to documents and witnesses and suggested the president had the right to be upset by the investigation, given his “sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.”

It remained unclear Tuesday whether Barr would appear before the House committee. That panel’s Democratic chairman, Rep, Jerrold Nadler of New York, said witnesses could too easily filibuster when questioned by lawmakers limited by five-minute time limits. Having lawyers do the questioning enables the committee “to dig down on an issue and pursue an issue.”

“And it’s not up to anybody from the executive branch to tell the legislative branch how to conduct our business,” Nadler said.

The committee will vote on allowing staff to question Barr at a separate meeting on Wednesday, at the same time Barr takes questions from the Senate.

The top Republican on the House Judiciary panel, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, sharply criticized the plan. Nadler “has taken a voluntary hearing and turned it into a sideshow,” Collins said.

The Justice Department’s stance appears consistent with the Trump administration’s broader strategy of “undermining Congress as an institution,” said Elliot Williams, who previously served as deputy assistant attorney general in the department’s legislative affairs office in the Obama administration and as a Democratic staff lawyer on the enate Judiciary Committee.

He said if he were still advising an attorney general, he would resist the idea of staff questioning a Cabinet official. “It’s a rational response to not want them questioning the attorney general,” Williams said.

But, he added, “it’s an incredibly common practice in the House of Representatives and was a practice long before President Trump or William Barr took their offices and will be a practice long after they’re gone.”

An examination of the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation will “find nothing” on the White House, according former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes.

Attorney General William Barr is “reviewing the conduct” of the FBI’s initial investigation into the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, following allegations by GOP lawmakers that there was a politically motivated effort to undermine President Trump. Some of Trump’s staunchest allies have speculated that former President Barack Obama himself was personally involved in some sort of “deep state” effort to hinder his successor, but Rhodes dismissed this notion outright.

“Look. I can’t be clear enough about this. We didn’t know that there was an FBI investigation of Trump. I didn’t. And President Obama didn’t,” Rhodes said in an interview that was published Friday on PJ Media.

“We actually abided by the firewalls between — if there were any investigations that took place, those were decisions that were made in the Justice Department and in the FBI, not the White House,” he added. “They will find nothing that suggests there was any political White House involvement in any of that.”

Rhodes said he personally learned of the investigation from a Washington Post report.

Republican investigators have long questioned if there was some secret effort by the White House to offer direction to the FBI. In seeking more information last year, Sen. Chuck Grassley, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, cited a particular text message to the Justice Department between former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that said the “White House is running this.” referring to an unspecified investigation.

Rhodes, who served as Obama’s deputy national security adviser, also distanced the Obama White House from the infamous Trump dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele.

“We had nothing to do with that,” he said, noting that he hadn’t learned of it until January 2017 — when Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were briefed on its unsubstantiated claims that Russia had compromising information on Trump.

Republicans have alleged the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to obtain warrants to spy on onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page by using the dossier without mentioning its Democratic benefactors and Steele’s anti-Trump bias.

Beyond Barr’s investigation, the Justice Department inspector general is looking into possible surveillance abuse, as is Lindsey Graham, who is now the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Rhodes insisted their efforts are wasted.

“I’m not an investigator. I haven’t even read this whole dossier. I mean, you guys are all fixated on this. Like, have fun. Have your witch hunt. Like, we did not initiate this. You know this to be true! So I don’t know why you’re asking me these questions,” he said.

The House Judiciary Committee is going “way over the top” with the terms of this week’s hearing with Attorney General William Barr, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Monday.

Barr is set to testify about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees this week, but his appearance before the House panel is in jeopardy over a disagreement about the parameters.

In an interview with Fox News, Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said his counterpart in the House, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is going too far by demanding Barr be subject not only to member questions but also queries from each party’s counsel in a second round of questioning.

With the Justice Department warning Nadler that Barr could back out of the hearing, Graham said, “I can understand his concern.”

“What the House is doing is way over the top. Mueller is the final word on this,” Graham said. “I fought like hell to make sure Mueller could do his job without interference. I introduced legislation so that he couldn’t be fired without cause.”

Noting how Mueller found no conspiracy between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Kremlin, Graham added, “This is political revenge. The House is on a witch hunt — truly a witch hunt to try to make something out of nothing.”

Trump often called Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt.”

Barr released a four-page summary of Mueller’s report last month, days after the special counsel investigation came to a close, which said Mueller did not find evidence of conspiracy. The summary also took a partial quote from Mueller that said he did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed justice. Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined no such crime had been committed.

Barr’s summary has come under heavy scrutiny. Following the redacted release of Mueller’s report, the New York Times published an analytical piece comparing excerpts from Barr’s summary to Mueller’s findings. Critics have slammed Barr’s decision to hold a press conference as a ploy to spin the special counsel’s findings and pointed to instances in the past in which he wrote summaries they view as obscuring the truth.

Democrats have rallied around the report, which lays out nearly a dozen instances of possible obstruction of justice and signals the question should be left up to Congress to answer, as a cornerstone for more investigations into the president.

Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Despite Barr’s opposition to answering counsel questions, Nadler is moving ahead with the plan.

“The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period,” Nadler told CNN on Sunday. If Barr does not comply, Nadler said, “Then we will have to subpoena him, and we will have to use whatever means we can to enforce the subpoena.”

Republicans are fighting back against a series of attacks about the conduct of President Donald Trump detailed in the report by special counsel Robert Mueller, The Hill is reporting.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas said the efforts by congressional Democrats are all about the 2020 campaign.

“If this were legitimate oversight, that would be one thing, but I think this is more like harassment and it’s all politics,” Cornyn said

“Obviously Democrats were very disappointed in the Mueller report and they’re not willing to accept the conclusions and move on.”

And Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa said House subpoenas and demands for senior administration staffers to testify are unnecessary since “the president already gave a million pages to oversight.” His comments referred to the president’s order to the Justice Department and the director of national intelligence to declassify Russia-related documents, according to The Hill.

And he noted: “Any conversation that a president has with anybody is between him and his colleagues.” 

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., slammed Democrats saying they are out for “political revenge.”

“This is political revenge,” he told Fox News. “The House is on a witch hunt…”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had challenged GOP lawmakers to take action as a result of Mueller’s report.

“What are my Republican friends going to do with it?” he asked on the Senate floor.

Source: NewsMax Politics

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. slammed Democrats, saying their multiple investigations in the House dealing with President Donald Trump are the result of “political revenge.”

Graham made his remarks on Monday evening during an interview on the Fox News show, “The Story with Martha MacCallum.”

Graham maintained the report by special counsel Robert Mueller should be the “final word” on the Russia investigation

“What the House is doing is way over the top. Mueller is the final word on this. I fought like hell to make sure Mueller could do his job without interference. I introduced legislation so that he couldn’t be fired without cause.

“And I told everybody in the country, if the president colluded with the Russians, that would be horrible and terrible, but I don’t believe he did. And Mueller said he didn’t. This is over.

“This is political revenge, the House is on a witch hunt, truly a witch hunt, to try to make something out of nothing.”

Graham maintained if Democrats in the House continue to pursue this “it’s because they’ve gone crazy when it comes to Trump.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is threatening to subpoena Attorney General William Barr if he does not show up for a hearing later this week to testify about Mueller’s final report.

Source: NewsMax Politics

Attorney General William Barr will have to answer for his four-page summary on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Wednesday’s hearing with Barr will focus on whether Barr misrepresented the findings from the 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by President Trump.

“Well, he gave a four-page summary. Does the report support his summary? Does the report actually indicate there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians?” Graham said during a “Face the Nation” interview Sunday on CBS.

Barr released a four-page summary of Mueller’s report last month, days after the special counsel investigation came to a close, which said Mueller did not find evidence of conspiracy. The summary also took a partial quote from Mueller that said he did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed justice. Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined no such crime had been committed.

Barr’s summary has come under heavy scrutiny. Following the redacted release of Mueller’s report, the New York Times published an analytical piece comparing excerpts from Barr’s summary to Mueller’s findings. Critics have slammed Barr’s decision to hold a press conference as a ploy to spin the special counsel’s findings and pointed to instances in the past in which he wrote summaries they view as obscuring the truth.

Democrats have rallied around the report, which lays out nearly a dozen instances of possible obstruction of justice and signals the question should be left up to Congress to answer, as a cornerstone for more investigations into the president.

Graham dismissed the possibility of obstruction outright.

“I think the idea that this President obstructed justice is absurd,” Graham said. He turned over a million documents to the special counsel. Almost everybody around him testified. I can’t think of one thing that President Trump did to stop Mueller from doing his job. He never claimed executive privilege. From my point of view I’ve heard all I need to really know. Now I want to look at it and find out how all this happened.”

He was specifically asked to comment on the report’s excepts about Trump ordering former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller. “I think it’s just all theater. It doesn’t matter. I don’t care what he said to Don McGahn. It’s what he did. And the president never obstructed,” Graham said.

Graham also discounted the possibility of asking for testimony from McGahn and Mueller. “I’m not going to re-litigate it,” Graham said.

Barr also has hearing on the Mueller report scheduled with the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, which is now in doubt due to disagreement over parameters. “Discussions are still ongoing, to be picked back up tomorrow,” a Justice Department official told the Washington Examiner.


[There are no radio stations in the database]