The day Bill Barr made sure that history will judge him harshly

William Barr swung into the office of the Attorney General like a wrecking ball of shameless authoritarianism, breaking every democratic norm in his way and smashing the fickle wall of independence between the presidency and the Justice Department. Today, he defiantly defended his tenure with a gaslighting blend of misdirection and, in some cases, outright lies.

Barr just testified before the House Judiciary Committee for the first time. His misconduct could fill countless scrolls, but here's the shortlist: Barr misrepresented the Mueller report; refused to pursue the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community's Trump-Ukraine criminal referral; interfered in the criminal cases of President Trump's allies; fired the US Attorney at the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman; ordered the brutal clearing of peaceful protestors at Lafayette Square for Trump's bible-holding photo op; and made some controversial remarks about racism in America.

In today's hearing, the usually calm Barr repeatedly lost his cool under the pressure of tough questioning. The AG became visibly rattled and raised his voice on a number of occasions — even as Republicans loudly defended his actions, from unleashing federal forces in Portland to the commutation of Roger Stone's sentence.

In Barr’s written opening statement, he falsely called the "Russiagate" scandal "bogus," falsely claimed President Trump has never interfered in his work (Trump has done so publicly), defended unleashing brutality on protestors, and denied systemic racism in policing. As Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) would later say in this hearing, the statement "read like it was written by Alex Jones or Roger Stone.”

A lot happened in this hearing, but there were three main themes that were covered: the use of federal police forces to suppress protests; Barr's role as Trump's fixer; and Barr's denial of systemic racism. Let's start with the first one, given how worrying the images we've seen out of Portland have been.

One of the first notable moments of the hearing came after House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler's (D-NY) opening statement. Once Ranking Member Jim Jordan's (R-OH) Obamagate screed was over with, he played an extremely misleading propagandist video of violence and looting. Luckily, later in the hearing, Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) played a video to counter Jordan's, this time showing peaceful protests.

When pressed about what's happening in Portland, Barr generalized all the protestors as rioters laying siege to federal property but didn't acknowledge the peaceful veterans and moms who have been gassed and beaten by federal officers. He then went on to claim that forces in Portland are in a defensive mode around the courthouse and are fending off attacks, despite the fact that footage confirms the forces have cleared the streets and also attacked peaceful protesters. Barr also refused to condemn the use of chemical irritants against demonstrators.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) took Barr to task over the double standard where armed anti-lockdown protestors occupied the Michigan Capitol and no federal forces were deployed (in fact, their cause was supported through a DOJ-backed lawsuit.) In response, he simply repeated that the June 1 violent clearing of peaceful protestors in DC was done in order to move the perimeter and not for Trump’s photo-op. It was one of many bizarre excuses Barr deployed.

Perhaps the most effective line of questioning on Barr's corrupt protection of Trump's cronies came from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA). Swalwell came out swinging, immediately asking the Attorney General if he has ever recommended a reduced sentence for people who weren't President Trump's friends (predictably, Barr couldn’t think of a single instance). Swalwell followed this up by asking why the DOJ asked Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen to sign an agreement to not write his book or speak to the media before they re-imprisoned him. Barr didn't have an answer for this either. It was a tense but telling moment.

Then came the racial justice questions, which were the strongest of all. When asked by Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barr denied the existence of systemic racism in policing and opposed the end of qualified immunity for police. Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) asked about the double standard of use of force, the case of Elijah McClain, and the DOJ’s policies around chokeholds. Before pointing out that black people were three to five more times (depending on the study) likely to be killed by police than white people, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-CA) told Barr the DOJ should keep the name of John Lewis out of its mouth.

There were two loose threads from this hearing that raised numerous questions. Barr casually revealed there is another ongoing probe — separate from the Durham's review of the Mueller probe — going on in Texas by US Attorney John Bash, which concerns “unmasking.” Even Jim Jordan didn’t know about it. How many other probes do we not know about?

In another moment that raised a lot of eyebrows at the time but isn't getting much attention outside the room, Cicilline asked if it is ever appropriate for a president to accept or solicit foreign assistance in an election. First, Barr said it "depends" on what the assistance is. Cicilline asked again and rephrased saying foreign assistance of “any kind.” Barr then said no.

Not that we needed any more clarification, but it has never been clearer where Attorney General William Barr stands: on the wrong side of history, and oftentimes on the wrong side of the law. Specifically, Barr stands against equal justice under the law and on the side of cronyism and corruption. He stands against democracy and behind a president who is willing to erode it for personal gain. One thing is for sure: history will not be kind to William Barr — and neither will the voters on November 3rd.