I'm a vehement Trump opponent, but I support William Barr

Ross E. Mitchell, BridgeTower Media Newswires

Since he first came down that shiny escalator in 2015, I have been convinced of the existential threat to our democracy posed by Donald Trump. Recent events have only confirmed the validity of my concerns. So, it has surprised and confounded virtually all of my friends and family that I support Attorney General William Barr and believe he has consistently acted in what he believes to be the country’s best interest.

Barr’s Nov. 9 letter authorizing investigations of potential election impropriety was just one more example of why I hold this view.

Notwithstanding the departure from prior Department of Justice policy to hold off on investigations until after votes are certified, the fact that the entire election is being challenged by President Trump made it necessary to give prosecutors the ability to investigate these claims of systemic fraud earlier, so that “all of the American people, regardless of their preferred candidate or party, can have full confidence in the results of our elections.”

Imagine that mail-in ballots had been counted first, giving Biden a large lead on election night, but then, after the in-person votes were tabulated, he lost the election by a small but substantial amount. If Biden supporters had suspected massive fraud, under the existing DOJ policy their allegations could not have been investigated until after the votes were certified by the states, giving them no opportunity to have their claims addressed even if the fraud would have changed the outcome of the election. That’s why it is necessary for the DOJ to be able to investigate credible evidence of massive fraud in such a situation.

And that’s precisely what Barr enabled when he authorized the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys “to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections.” He limited this authority only to “clear and apparently-credible allegations” and only if they could “impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.”

Barr also cautioned that the DOJ should “exercise appropriate caution and maintain the Department’s absolute commitment to fairness, neutrality and non-partisanship.” And he made clear that “specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries” and that nothing in his letter “should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any election.”

So, it came as no surprise to me that, following this investigation, Barr told the Associated Press on Dec. 1 that federal prosecutors and the FBI had “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” These are not the words of a sycophant.

For people who believe Barr has been corruptly doing Trump’s bidding throughout his term as attorney general, all facts will seem to support that view. Already my friends are saying that “Barr just sees the writing on the wall, and wants to save himself,” or that the lack of evidence of voter fraud “was too overwhelming to attempt warping.”

If you are like them, it’s unlikely that I have convinced you either. However, if you evaluate the facts of Barr’s conduct dispassionately and with a presumption of good faith, perhaps you might agree that Barr’s letter was not only appropriate, but necessary for him to subsequently state that sufficient fraud has not been found to overturn the election.

As Barr now prepares to leave office on Dec. 23, it’s important to remember that were it not for his decision to authorize investigations, we would be unable to say with confidence that our Justice Department has determined that the widespread fraud alleged by Trump and his cronies simply did not exist. We have William Barr to thank for that.

—————

Ross E. Mitchell is admitted to the bar in California and Massachusetts.