Attorney general causes stir with ‘spying’ comments

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr sought to “please add one point of clarification” at the end of his testimony Wednesday before a Senate appropriations subcommittee — and the veteran law enforcement official needed it.

Cable news and social media were abuzz with one of Barr’s earlier word choices, when he told senators that he would look into the work of U.S. intelligence agencies directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election because “spying did occur.”

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, pointedly had given Barr an opportunity to rephrase that, “because when the attorney general of the United States uses the word ‘spying’ it’s rather provocative and in my view unnecessarily inflammatory.”

Then Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Moran, R-Kan., had asked Barr to explain the basis for reaching a conclusion that spying or unauthorized surveillance on the Trump campaign was possible.

“Um, did you say that I said that it occurred?” Barr had replied.

So just before the hearing ended, Barr seemed to realize that maybe he had created a mess he needed to clean up, one that dealt with one of the most contentious and inflammatory subjects in politics during the Trump administration.

“I just want to make it clear thinking back on all the different colloquies here, that I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred,” Barr offered at the close of the hearing. “I am saying I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.”

Barr’s comments on the spying topic went sideways about 90 minutes before that in a response to a question from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the subcommittee’s top Democrat.

Barr confirmed to Shaheen that he would review the “genesis and conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016,” noting that the Justice Department inspector general’s office was already looking at a substantial portion of it.

“One of the things I want to do is pull together the information from all the various investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and in the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed,” Barr said.

Shaheen asked why he needed to do that. “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr replied.

“You’re not suggesting, though, spying occurred?” Shaheen said.

Barr stammered a bit. “I don’t, well, I guess you could, I think spying did occur, yes. I think spying did occur,” Barr said.

Five seconds of silence filled the hearing room after that, and Barr continued: “The question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated, and I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that. I think it’s my obligation.”

That second part of the answer — which can be unpacked only with some deep familiarity with the origins of the intelligence probe, the requirements of getting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants, and whether those warrants count as “spying” — was somewhat lost behind Barr’s verbiage.

Barr’s answer fit in with the views of President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers, who have called for an investigation into the intelligence agencies and whether a warrant was obtained against a Trump campaign official, an American citizen, with unverified information.