WASHINGTON -- The House Judiciary Committee is launching an investigation of Attorney General William Barr and the Justice Department, demanding briefings, documents and interviews with 15 officials as it tries to determine whether there has been improper political interference in federal law enforcement.
Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., on Friday sent Barr a letter listing a series of matters that the committee finds "deeply troubling," including Barr's involvement in the case of President Donald Trump's longtime confidant Roger Stone.
Stone was convicted in November of lying to Congress and other charges. Barr overruled prosecutors who had recommended that Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison, leading the four top prosecutors on the case to step down from it.
Nadler also is questioning Barr about his involvement in other cases related to friends and associates of Trump and about internal investigations into department employees who investigated Trump after the 2016 election.
"Although you serve at the President's pleasure, you are also charged with the impartial administration of our laws," Nadler wrote to Barr. "In turn, the House Judiciary Committee is charged with holding you to that responsibility."
The committee is asking for briefings on the issues listed and interviews with 15 Justice Department officials involved in those matters, including the four prosecutors who resigned from the Stone case.
It is unclear whether the department, which declined to comment on Nadler's letter, will cooperate with any part of the probe.
Barr has already agreed to testify before the committee on March 31. It will be the first time he has appeared before the panel since he became attorney general a year ago. Since Barr was sworn in, House Democrats have questioned whether he was too close to Trump.
In the letter, Nadler asked for a broad swath of documents, including communications between Trump and the Justice Department. The committee is unlikely to get any of those documents, as a president's personal conversations are generally considered privileged by the courts.
Information for this article was contributed by Mary Clare Jalonick and Michael Balsamo of The Associated Press; and by Nicholas Fandos of The New York Times.
A Section on 02/29/2020