I’m sorry, I’m not impressed. He can say “I promise to respect Mueller’s probe, keep my hands off it and not report back to Trump”. Then he can take all that back once he becomes Attorney General. None of that is legally binding.
We started off with Jeff Sessions lying about his contacts with Russia and he remained the AG. What does that say when you have the head of your entire justice system lying to Congress in their confirmation hearing?
Someone should ask him what his current thinking is on wholesale pardons as a method of quashing investigations. Personally, I think I’d start by asking “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?” That should put him on the defensive right there.
I heard on MSNBC (?) that Barr and Mueller are real life BFF’s; example - Mueller went to Barr’s daughter’s wedding or some such thing.
Only thing that gives me a scintilla of comfort that perhaps he’s not a complete traitorous weasel.
It ain’t much, I know.
Ask Barr if lying to Congress in a confirmation hearing is a high crime or misdemeanor that warrants impeachment and removal from office under Article II, Section 4.
I will swear on the Holy Bible and on his Constitution that I will be loyal to Trump and Trump only.
More simply, “Mr, Barr whose Department of Justice is this, the people’s or the President"s?”
Anyone qualified for the position of AG (and I think Barr is qualified), unless already complicit in or subject to kompromat in the Russia conspiracy, would really be putting her/his reputation and career at risk if s/he decided to not fully protect the integrity of the Mueller investigation and report. As ill-conceived and questionable as portions of his memo to DOJ were, I don’t think Barr has a reason to give in to Trump’s demands or pressure, especially as the evidence of Trump’s criminality and acting as a Russian agent - or, at least, agent of influence - continue to build. The newer revelations actually support the parts of Barr’s memo as to evidence necessary to hold the president accountable for actions beyond exercising his power to fire someone for reasons that are permissible on their face without getting into the president’s state of mind. Many of Trump’s actions that have come more in focus do not require getting into his state of what’s-left-of-his-troubled-and-diseased-mind.
ETA: Although, considering his stance on Iran-Contra, if he still is of a like mind, perhaps I should qualify the above with “Anyone, except Barr, qualified …” But with McConnell and the Republicans in charge of the Senate, Barr will get confirmed. Dems need to pin him down and get him to commit to as much as possible.
Let’s face it, Barr, like Kavanaugh, is as good as confirmed already. Let’s focus on seeing the Mueller report and let the GOP try to rebut its findings. Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, at least, and probably under the command of a foreign government. That’s spelled t-r-e-a-s-o-n.
This whole discussion reminds me of an old Vaudeville song:
’How could you believe me when I told you that I loved you when you know I’ve been a liar all my life?'
These Trump nominees have proven time and again their loyalty is to no one and nothing other than Trump.
He’ll be a good little Nazi and answer all the questions and, once confirmed, go about doing what he planned to do all along.
I don’t believe anything. I haven’t heard anything yet under oath and I STILL don’t believe him.
Just ask him how many Russian clients he’s had in the last decade. That should answer all the other questions.
They should DEMAND HE WITHDRAW HIS NAME FROM CONSIDERATION.
Ask him whether, knowing what he knows now about the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, he would still write his piece saying that Mueller’s investigation had no legal basis.
Ask him how he feels being part – even unwittingly – of a criminal conspiracy directed by an unfriendly foreign power.
Have we seen any of his vetting material at all?
I have a bad feeling about this guy. He already got off on the wrong foot with that unsolicited letter to DOJ. Not so much that he seems to be a corrupt guy, but his seeming belief that presidents shouldn’t be questioned would dovetail nicely with Individual 1’s views. (Oh, and also Kavanaugh’s views).
I don’t know what to make of his friendship with Mueller. Could that help? Maybe. Maybe not. 
I have not read that Barr thinks the President immune to constitutional impeachment, conviction and removal from office. He may still think it debatable whether the President is immune from statutory criminal indictment while in office…but he has not seen the evidence yet. It seems unlikely he’d want to or get away with stooling to the White House afterwards the way Nunes did.
Absolutely. The problem is that reputations seem to inhabit separate ecosystems, realities, career streams. Your idea of a reputable AG would be one who upholds the law, plays it by the book, is independent from the executive. A Republican’s idea of reputable is one who sticks it to the Dems and stands by his party leader at any cost. And overturning the rule of law would not be regarded as a cost but a benefit.
I love that question, not least because its referent is so much else in this Maladministration rather than (necessarily) Barr himself.
The questions posed in this forum are more specific and better than those alluded to in the article IMO.