Bill Barr is the Honey Badger ft. Attorney General Bill Barr

Summary

The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson Episode: "Bill Barr is the Honey Badger ft. Attorney General Bill Barr" Release Date: June 25, 2020

Overview In this episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, host Michael Knowles sits down with the former Attorney General William Barr. The discussion delves into pressing national issues such as law enforcement amidst civil unrest, the role of big technology companies, the integrity of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and recent high-profile cases. Barr provides insights into federal strategies for maintaining order, critiques the influence of big tech on free speech, and reflects on his tenure in the DOJ.

---

1. Maintaining Law and Order Amidst Civil Unrest

Timestamp: 01:46 - 03:15

Michael Knowles opens the conversation by addressing the surge in riots, vandalism, and autonomous zones, questioning how to restore order in a time of perceived lawlessness.

William Barr emphasizes the necessity of collaboration between state, local, and federal governments. He explains that while federal agencies like the FBI are not deployed for everyday policing, they are pivotal in addressing significant outbreaks of violence through joint terrorist task forces.

"The federal government is best positioned to address this kind of violence and lawlessness after it occurs because we don't have FBI agents walking the beat." [01:46]

Barr highlights the establishment of 35 joint terrorist task forces across the country, which have already led to numerous indictments related to arson and destruction of federal property.

2. Evidence of Coordinated Violence and Extremism

Timestamp: 03:06 - 04:22

When asked about the nature of recent violent activities, Barr confirms strong evidence pointing towards coordination rather than spontaneous actions. He identifies groups associated with the Antifa movement as primary instigators aiming to undermine the country.

"Fundamentally, what you have here is you have demonstrators, some of them go there with the intent of demonstrating, but you have a group of provocateurs and agitators... They want to tear down the country." [03:15]

Barr notes the rapid planning and execution of these activities, often with little time for premeditation.

3. Protecting Federal Property and Policy Enforcement

Timestamp: 04:22 - 07:04

The discussion shifts to the President's stance on protecting federal property, highlighting a recent policy announcement on Twitter that mandates strict enforcement against the destruction of federal landmarks.

William Barr clarifies that this policy isn't a shift but a reinforcement of existing obligations to safeguard federal sites. With local authorities sometimes failing to act effectively, the federal government's role becomes crucial.

"We have right now about 500 investigations underway. So it's picking up pace and we are committed to holding accountable the people are engaged in this." [05:22]

Barr underscores the commitment to prosecute offenders, citing severe penalties such as up to 10 years in prison for attacking federal monuments.

"If you attack a monument on federal property, you're going to get prosecuted. 10 years, yep." [05:30]

4. Big Tech Censorship and Rule 230 Reform

Timestamp: 07:55 - 14:23

Michael Knowles raises concerns about the role of big tech companies in censoring political discourse, exemplified by Twitter's blocking of presidential tweets and Google's actions against conservative media outlets.

William Barr elaborates on the DOJ's antitrust investigations into major internet platforms, aiming to curb their monopolistic control over public discourse.

"These behemoths have gotten vast... strong control over the expression of views and public forum here in the United States." [07:55]

Barr criticizes the manipulation of Rule 230, a provision that grants immunity to online platforms for user-generated content. He advocates for modifying this rule to ensure platforms provide clear terms of service and justify content removal transparently.

"We want to modify Rule 230 so that they have to have clear terms of service... and they have to give notice and process to people whose content they take down." [09:45]

The conversation highlights the imbalance where big tech enforces stricter controls on external content while maintaining lax policies on their own subsidiaries like YouTube.

"YouTube is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google... You can find racist, you can find profane, you can find offensive comments all over YouTube." [12:05]

5. Autonomous Zones and DOJ's Stance

Timestamp: 14:02 - 14:47

Addressing the emergence of autonomous zones, Barr dismisses the notion that these areas are separate from the United States. He characterizes them as controlled by agitators who disrupt local communities without proper law enforcement support.

"Well, obviously, they're not separate from the United States. They're a bunch of agitators who have planted themselves in the middle of Seattle and are bullying the people who live there and the businesses that are there." [14:23]

6. Integrity and Politicization of the Department of Justice

Timestamp: 15:41 - 28:39

The conversation shifts to the politicization of the DOJ under previous administrations. William Barr criticizes former DOJ leaders for undermining democratic institutions, citing the DOJ's actions during the 2016 election as unprecedented and damaging.

"We had one of the largest frauds and injustices in American history conducted during the 2016 election by the Justice Department and the FBI right in the center of it." [16:28]

Barr discusses his efforts to rectify these issues by reopening cases like that of General Michael Flynn, arguing that previous prosecutions were politically motivated and lacked substantive evidence.

"We moved to drop the prosecution of General Flynn because... they didn't really have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation." [16:58]

7. Personal Anecdotes and Professional History

Timestamp: 22:25 - 26:39

Ted Cruz shares a personal story about meeting Barr 25 years prior, highlighting Barr's longstanding commitment to legal integrity. The conversation touches upon the proper form of address for the Attorney General, with Barr clarifying the traditional usage.

"The form of address in Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada is attorney. The form of address in the United States is general." [22:48]

8. Recent DOJ Actions: Firing of Jeffrey Berman

Timestamp: 29:17 - 31:36

Ted Cruz questions Barr on the DOJ's decision to fire Jeffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Barr explains that the dismissal was not personal but procedural, aimed at appointing a presidentally nominated Attorney General to the position.

"US Attorneys are assisting the president enforce the law, seeing that the laws are faithfully executed. So they are agents of the President in that respect, constitutionally." [30:00]

Barr emphasizes the importance of aligning U.S. Attorneys with the administration's priorities to ensure effective law enforcement.

9. Conclusion and Acknowledgments

Timestamp: 32:13 - 32:40

Michael Knowles wraps up the interview, expressing gratitude for Barr's candid insights and reinforcing the importance of his efforts in restoring the DOJ's integrity.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Federalism in Law Enforcement: The necessity of federal intervention when local authorities are overwhelmed or unwilling to maintain order.
• Combating Extremism: Identification and prosecution of coordinated violent activities, particularly those influenced by Antifa.
• Big Tech Regulation: The DOJ's push to reform Rule 230 to prevent censorship and reduce the monopoly power of major internet platforms.
• DOJ's Integrity: Barr's efforts to depoliticize the DOJ and address past abuses, ensuring the department serves justice impartially.
• Autonomous Zones: The government's rejection of claims that these zones are legally separate from the United States, calling for federal action against such agitators.
• Leadership and Accountability: The importance of aligning U.S. Attorneys with the administration to uphold the rule of law effectively.

Notable Quotes:

• "We are committed to holding accountable the people are engaged in this." — William Barr [01:46]
• "These behemoths have gotten vast... strong control over the expression of views and public forum here in the United States." — William Barr [07:55]
• "We had one of the largest frauds and injustices in American history conducted during the 2016 election by the Justice Department and the FBI right in the center of it." — William Barr [16:28]
• "He fired Jeffrey Berman because the President had not nominated his own attorney General for that position." — William Barr [30:20]

This episode offers a comprehensive look into the complexities of maintaining national security, upholding judicial integrity, and addressing the challenges posed by modern technology and political polarization. Attorney General William Barr's insights provide listeners with a deeper understanding of the federal strategies in place to navigate these turbulent times.

Transcript

[Ted Cruz]

Oh, oh, oh. O'Reilly.

[O'Reilly Auto Parts]

Check engine light on. Take the guesswork out of your check engine light with O'Reilly Veriscan. It's free and provides a report with solutions based on over 650 million vehicle scans verified by ASE certified master technicians. And if you need help, we can recommend a shop for you. Ask for O'Reilly Veriscan. Today.

[Ted Cruz]

Auto parts.

[Michael Knowles]

As riots, vandalism and even all out autonomous zones combine with calls to defund the police, we sit down with the nation's top cop, Attorney General William Barr. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. We will get to the attorney general in just one second. But first I want to thank all of you who have listened and watched the show. We've now hit over 10 million views. That is more than I think we thought was going to happen. So thank you so much. If you haven't already, please go over to Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Leave a five star review and subscribe. Now. We're in a new location today, not our usual studio. Senator, you have brought a friend. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here. You know, the news broke just moments ago that you will testify before the House Judiciary Committee next month. So we are honored that you would sit down with us first and very much appreciate it. I want to get right into this. Obviously, there's so much going on. And it occurs to me we have a man who writes the laws, we have the man who enforces the laws, and we have popular calls for utter lawlessness in the country. How do we restore order?

[William Barr]

Well, it's going to take both state and local government as well as federal government. The federal government is best positioned to address this kind of violence and lawlessness after it occurs because we don't have FBI agents walking the beat. And in fact, when the real violence started around May 25th, 6th and so forth, we started using our joint terrorist task forces around the country. And there are 35 of them around the country. It involves all state and local in those jurisdictions and all the federal agencies. And it's the system we designed to follow terrorists. And now they are starting to go full bore, cranking out investigations, indictments against the people who are involved in this violence. So we've had scores of indictments already for such things as arson, destruction of federal property, things like that. And we have right now about 500 investigations underway. So it's picking up pace and we are committed to holding accountable the people are engaged in this. But we still have to try to stop it before it happens. And that's where the burden is right now on state and local. And in many places they're not stepping up to the plate, they're not doing their job.

[Ted Cruz]

So I know it's early, but how much indications are y'all seeing of coordination and planning rather than spontaneous acts of violence?

[William Barr]

Right. We are seeing strong evidence of coordination in many of these violent episodes. Fundamentally, what you have here is you have demonstrators, some of them go there with the intent of demonstrating, but you have a group of provocateurs and agitators, sometimes a significant group, that try to convert those into violent activity. And they seem to be very well coordinated when they show up. A number of them are associated with the movement called Antifa, but they go by various names, but frequently anarchistic. They want to tear down the country. They're different than many traditional groups. And frequently the signs of coordination and activity are very close to the event itself, like the morning of or the day before. And things are very fast moving. But we definitely see signs out on the street of communication, of organization, of pre planning, pre positioning of things. So it's definitely organized activities.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, if you're calling in the terrorism task force, that means presumably that we're dealing with terrorism here. I know the president came out and said just a couple of days ago that this will not be tolerated on federal land. You cannot destroy federal property. And he's authorizing the government to go and hold people accountable. What will this mean in terms of a change of policy or an acceleration of a policy that was already in place?

[William Barr]

Well, it's not a change in policy in the sense that we've always had the obligation as the federal government to protect federal facilities and federal landmarks and monuments and so forth. But now, because in some places the local police are not doing an adequate job, we're going to have to step up the federal effort to do that. And there are two aspects to it. Obviously, we're going to prosecute right now all the videos involved in the attack on the president. Jackson's statute are being carefully reviewed, and we will go after people.

[Ted Cruz]

So if you attack a monument on federal property, you're going to get prosecuted.

[William Barr]

That's right. We have to hear. Yeah, but we're also going to.

[Ted Cruz]

And the criminal statute has serious jail time. I mean, 10 years.

[William Barr]

10 years, yep. And the other thing is, we have to do a better job of trying to stop these groups before they are able to do damage to these monuments and statues.

[Michael Knowles]

It's fine to Punish them afterward. But I think a lot of us would like the statues to remain up.

[William Barr]

Right.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, and we're seeing a lot of local, whether it's mayors or police departments or governors that may agree with the political agenda of the rioters standing by and allowing them to destroy, tear down monuments they don't like. And, you know, it started with Confederate war generals, but now they're tearing down or defacing Ulysses Grant. They're defacing Abraham Lincoln because, you know, Lincoln was a known confederate.

[Michael Knowles]

Famously, they're going after St. Junipero, Serra and Cervantes.

[Ted Cruz]

I mean it.

[William Barr]

Yep. It's anarchy is what it is. And it's, you know, from people who are very ignorant, don't care about history at all. I imagine they looked at U.S. grant's statute, didn't know who he really was. Wasn't sure what side he was on. But of course, old guy with a.

[Ted Cruz]

Beard, he's got to be bad.

[Michael Knowles]

He's a terrible guy.

[William Barr]

He was a great Republican president who did more for advancing the right of African Americans in this country probably than any single president. He crushed the Ku Klux Klan.

[Ted Cruz]

Came down, crushed the Klan. Yep. And I expect the protesters attacking him have no idea of that and don't care.

[William Barr]

But guess what, Ted. He used federal troops to do it. He brought out the regular army. He brought out the regular army to protect the rights of freemen.

[Ted Cruz]

And he did that before in something called the Civil War. There were kind of a whole lot of federal troops.

[Michael Knowles]

He played an important role in that one, too. You know, on this point of enforcing the law and going after these people who are causing violence. The place that the president announced this policy was, as one might expect, on Twitter. And then Twitter censored the president's tweet. So the president said, we are going to enforce the law against people committing crimes. And Twitter said, this violated the policy. I know, Senator, you have been talking about this kind of thing for years at this point. I think it ties into another question people are asking of the doj. What are we going to do about abuses at big technology companies?

[William Barr]

Well, there's sort of a couple of lines being pursued. You know, we have antitrust investigation of all the major Internet platforms or most of the major Internet platforms, and that's very much underway. I expect to be making decisions in the next few weeks about actions on that. So I think during the summer we'll see some developments. But this issue of censorship is very troubling because our country was based and the framers, as you know, believed in that the thing that would ultimately keep us free and keep a majority from oppressing a minority is a lot of diversity of voices out there in a robust marketplace. But these behemoths have gotten vast, you know, strong control over the expression of views and public forum here in the United States. And they got there, and I've said this is the biggest bait and switch in history. They got there by saying, hey, we're going to be open to all views. You know, come join us, because then you can have your view. So they built up this powerful network, very strong market power, based on the representation that they were sort of open to all as a sort of a bulletin board. But then when they got got that market power, now they're censoring views, just like the example you gave, and they're now censoring views. And so we're getting increasingly monolithic viewpoints being presented to the American people rather than the kind of robust debate. So one thing we're doing there is we're saying that Rule 230, which is a rule that gave immunity to companies for taking down. Taking down things and didn't therefore convert them into a publisher where they'd be responsible for everything that appears on their site. We want to modify that so that they have to have clear terms of service. They have to show that what they took down reasonably had reasonable grounds for saying it violated their terms of service, and they have to give notice and process to people whose content they take down. That's one of the things that we're proposing.

[Michael Knowles]

This is perfectly reasonable to me. And yet, Senator, I know when you've brought up Rule 230 people have harangued you for it and said, this is absolutely not the right way to go and just leave Twitter alone and leave Google alone and let them control the flow of information around the Internet.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, look, there's good news on this and that. I think there's growing and even bipartisan frustration with big tech that you've got a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires that are the new colossus, and they behave as if they're untouchable. And let's use the Twitter example from this week. You don't have to go back very far. So the President of the United States sent out a tweet that if violent anarchists try to set up a lawless autonomous zone in Washington, D.C. that law enforcement will stop them. Twitter blocked that tweet.

[Michael Knowles]

Yeah, yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

And said it was abusive for the President to say, we're not gonna let violent anarchists take over Our capitol. And this is, you know, I assume, you know, you've got a Silicon Valley billionaire on his yacht saying, no, no, silence, little one. And by the way, if they have the right to do that, if they can silence the president, if they can silence media outlets, what hope does an ordinary citizen have? I mean, look, the president at least has a pretty big megaphone. Even if they do silence him, he doesn't have difficulty being heard. How about the rest of us and the absolute brazenness of it. Another example from this week, Google went after the Federalists, a conservative media outlet called them up and said, okay, our problem, it's actually not with your content. They said, we're gonna demonetize you because there's some comments on your comments section that are objectionable. I don't know if they identified the comment.

[Michael Knowles]

So they're gonna take this news organization off of the advertising platform, which the advertising is what allows the news organization to exist. If you kick them off, you're bankrupting the news.

[Ted Cruz]

It is doing exactly that. It is sucking the oxygen out. And a quick perusal of liberal websites show a bunch of them have comment sites. And you can find all sorts of obnoxious and offensive comments on the liberal websites. They're not imposing that on them. And here, and this is an interesting development actually for the DOJ investigation, one place you find comments is YouTube. Now YouTube is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google. It's an incredibly profitable subsidiary of Google. I guarantee you can go right now today on YouTube, take a look at the comments and you will find racist, you will find profane, you will find offensive comments all over YouTube.

[Michael Knowles]

And that's just what they write to us. That's just what they say about us. Imagine all the other videos and Google.

[Ted Cruz]

Is not imposing those terms on its wholly owned YouTube, but is instead using. And this is where the censorship and free speech issues intersect with antitrust laws because they're a monopoly power imposing differential standards on their competitors than they are on their own wholly owned subsidiary.

[William Barr]

And also, just think of the hypocrisy. The point that these big companies are saying is, look, we shouldn't be held responsible for third party content on our website. So YouTube says, if people say things that are defamatory on our website, we shouldn't be held accountable for that because it's good to have this kind of forum for people to come in. And yet when someone comes in on their website, they're saying, the rules that we want applied to us don't apply to you. You're responsible for what's on your comments section.

[Michael Knowles]

Right. It's hard to have those both at the same time. Sure.

[William Barr]

Of course.

[Michael Knowles]

You know, Senator, you mentioned the autonomous zone before. Mr. Attorney General, I would like to ask you about that, but perhaps I should instead ask the secretary of State, because these zones in Seattle and in Washington, D.C. they've declared themselves fully autonomous, separate from the United States. As a legal matter. How does the DOJ look at such a claim?

[William Barr]

Well, obviously, they're not separate from the United States. They're a bunch of agitators who have planted themselves in the middle of Seattle and are bullying the people who live there and the businesses that are there. And the Seattle government is not protecting its people. It's not enforcing, it's not protecting the federal rights of those citizens. Right.

[Michael Knowles]

And the police do not seem to be enforcing the law there. But of course, this is another question that has come up on the show quite a bit, this matter of police reform. It's talked about from the question of police on the ground. I'd like to talk about it from a higher level, particularly in your role. When people talk about corruption in the doj. I am reminded of your predecessor, Loretta lynch, who sat on a tarmac with Bill Clinton three days before Hillary Clinton was going to speak to the FBI. I am reminded of her predecessor, Eric Holder, who referred to himself as Barack Obama's wingman in 2013 while he was in office. I'm reminded of Loretta lynch, again, who wrote the description that James Comey used of Hillary Clinton's email server. How politicized was the DOJ before you got there?

[William Barr]

Well, I think there were many examples of political decisions, but I think one of the things that's perplexed me about this is that we had one of the largest frauds and injustices in American history conducted during the 2016 election by the Justice Department and the FBI right in the center of it. And that was turning the law enforcement, intelligence agencies of the government against an opponent's political campaign. That, as far as I know, has never happened before. And it's one of the ultimate dangers in a democratic republic like ours. And the things that I have been criticized for generally are coming in and trying to get to the bottom of that and hold accountable the people that were involved.

[Michael Knowles]

I know there was just a development on this over the past couple of days, too, in the case of Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn, who was entrapped when he was coming in as the national Security advisor and the DOJ turned over, I believe it was exculpatory to use the phrase of Flynn's lawyer. Memos from an anti Trump official named Peter Strzok. Now, a judge has told the other judge to drop the case. Where does this all stand?

[William Barr]

Well, we moved to drop the prosecution of General Flynn because we had investigated that investigation and prosecutorial decision, and we had determined and felt that there was strong indications and evidence that the decision to move against Flynn was not bona fide and that they didn't really have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation. And we just put out a doc, filed a document in court yesterday that hasn't been seen before. They're handwritten notes of the January 5 meeting in the White House between the president, the Vice President, James Comey and others. And in there, Comey, in response to a question from President Obama, seems to. I mean, he says, according to the notes, that the calls between Flynn and Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, appeared legitimate. So just a few days later, they became the basis of a counterintelligence investigation.

[Ted Cruz]

And these were Peter Strzok's notes?

[William Barr]

Yes, who was an FBI counterintelligence agent running.

[Michael Knowles]

So he's admitting it appears legitimate, and then all of a sudden, we're being told it isn't legitimate, and he's got to be prosecuted for that.

[Ted Cruz]

Now, the notes also indicate that it was Vice President Joe Biden who suggested the Logan act could be used to target General Flynn.

[William Barr]

Well, what the notes show is that the Vice President raised the Logan act in connection, it appears, with the calls made by Flynn to Kislyak, which is.

[Ted Cruz]

A ridiculously unconstitutional statute.

[Michael Knowles]

I'm no expert, but it certainly seems unconstitutional to me.

[Ted Cruz]

Under which no one has been convicted by the Department of Justice. And it purports to prohibit anyone from conducting foreign policy. I promise you, John Kerry today is violating the Logan Act. He's talking to the Iranians or to somebody, because John Kerry does that every day, trying to undermine the administration's foreign policy. And. And you know what? John Kerry, as an American citizen, has every right to do it. And the fact that Biden and Obama were willing, and DOJ and the intelligence agencies were willing to go along with it, to weaponize law enforcement after Donald Trump had been elected, to go after the next president, I think is absolutely scandalous. It is an abuse of power at a level that I think makes Richard Nixon's abuses in Watergate pale by comparison. And I gotta say, Bill, the job you've done as AG to simply be willing to speak the truth, to bring transparency to what happened, has been historic. And you've done it knowing that the entire world would descend upon you, that you would be politically targeted, that you'd be vilified, that the media would go after you, that the political process would go after you. And I gotta say, there's a popular video on the Internet of the honey badger. And I gotta say, you have been the honey badger.

[William Barr]

Thank you. Thank you.

[Ted Cruz]

And to be clear, and this, you know, cuz everyone gets this wrong, you have not been a Republican Attorney General. I don't want a Republican Attorney General. You have been an Attorney General dedicated to following the law and in particular reopening some of these prosecutions. Going back and looking at, and bringing in US Attorneys to say, let's go assess what happened here. How did General Flynn get targeted? What was the basis for it? I think it is incredibly important. And I have to say I was telling your staff right before we started, they were sort of commenting, wow, they're coming after us on every front. And I just said, listen, take that as a compliment. Doing the right thing has a price. And the job you have done as Attorney General is inspirational, flat out.

[William Barr]

Thank you.

[Ted Cruz]

And it's important.

[William Barr]

Thank you, Ted. That's real important to me that you said that. And one of the stunning things, and I'm sure you'll agree, is that the media just went hell bent for leather on pushing this Russiagate story, that Trump was essentially an agent of Russia and they were merciless. And up until, you know, recently, you had former senior government officials sort of talking knowingly about how the President was going to be indicted and so forth and so on. Do you hear any of, Is there anyone standing up now and saying that President Trump is an agent of a foreign power? No. Oops, they got it wrong. And you wouldn't know that because there's been no retraction, there's been no readjustment by the media or all the people who've been pushing this story. They're acting, you know, they're just onto the next full scam because their purpose seems to be to cripple this administration and drive it from office at any cost.

[Michael Knowles]

It's just sort of gone down the memory hole. We've completely forgotten about it. I do want to get back in a moment to all of the top important questions of state. But Senator, you've brought up something that I think a lot of people are curious about. I certainly am. What am I supposed to call you? Is it Mr. Attorney General? Is it General Barr? Is it honey badger? What is the proper term to Refer to the Attorney General of the United States.

[William Barr]

Well, people say Attorney General, but it's also in the United States we also use general to refer to the Attorney General, but that actually is a mistake. I like it. And I think we should still keep this. But it's actually from the Norman French, which was Attorney General, which was then carried over to England by the Normans. And they referred to Attorney General, something general. And general is the adjective. It meant general attorney, the general attorney, like the general counsel. And we just use the term general. But every other English speaking country to refer to the Attorney General says attorney. So the form of address in Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada is attorney. The form of address in the United States is general. So the plural is based on a mistake.

[Michael Knowles]

It's based on a mistake.

[William Barr]

It's a fortunate one.

[Michael Knowles]

I do like it sounds very powerful. And that would mean that the plural is Attorneys General. Honey's badger. But it is not. You wouldn't put it on the machine.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, and I'll tell you a funny story. The first time I Met bill was 25 years ago. And I was a law clerk for then Judge Mike Ludig. And Ludig at the time was 41, was the strongest conservative appellate judge in the country, and was an incredible friend and mentor. But Ludig had been Bill's deputy at the Department of Justice. And the year I was clerking was Ludig's fifth year on the bench. And so we organized a party, a black tie party, to celebrate five years on the bench. And in addition to former law clerks, we invited people who'd been important in Ludig's life. And so Scalia was there, Justice Thomas was there, and Bill was there. So that was the first time I met him. And Judge Ludig tells stories. You work about 18 hours a day when you clerk for Judge Ludig, but at least six of those hours are just listening to stories. And so you hear lots of stories. But one of the stories I remember hearing is when. So Bill was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, truly a storied office of the Department of Justice. Antonin Scalia was also head of olc. William Rehnquist was head of olc. So he continued at a grand tradition, and then he got promoted to Deputy Attorney General and then Attorney General. And Ludic told the story of one day in the AG's office. There was, I guess, an army helmet in there. I don't know why, but he described Bill putting the army helmet on and going out to his balcony. And saying, I'm a general. I'm surveying my troops, actually.

[Michael Knowles]

So is that true? Is that.

[William Barr]

Well, what happened was Attorney General Thornburg had to leave town, and he made me acting Attorney General because I was Assistant Attorney, he made me acting Attorney General. And I put the helmet on and took binoculars, and I went out on the balcony. And Ludic comes up, what are you doing? And I said, I'm looking for injustice.

[Michael Knowles]

Now, you might not need very strong binoculars.

[William Barr]

I'm sure half the population will, you know, say, oh, you know, we tried to keep a sense of humor in the Department of Justice.

[Ted Cruz]

So I will say so. When I was Solicitor General of Texas, it follows the same history where when either of us argue in the Supreme Court, the justices will refer to you as General Barr. The five and a half years I was SG in Texas, I begged Heidi, just once, call me General. Just please, come on, come on, do it for me. Never once.

[Michael Knowles]

You know, this story, too. I mean, it occurs to me when you say you were in the office of the Attorney General. This was a while ago. This was not just a couple of years ago.

[William Barr]

30 years.

[Michael Knowles]

30 years ago. You are one.

[Ted Cruz]

So he was 41 years old. Wow. Bill is only the second person in U.S. history to be Attorney General twice.

[William Barr]

Right.

[Ted Cruz]

John Crittenden was the first, more than a century ago. So I'd be interested. Bill, how is it different? All right, you're 41, young man, your agey, and then you come back, the world's changed a lot. How is this job different? How is DOJ different?

[William Barr]

So I would sum it up by saying things on the outside move much faster and things on the inside move slower. And that's a bad combination. It's more difficult. And we have a much different political environment. So, Attorney General, last time, we didn't really have. We had really no Internet. Our cell phones were like World War II walkie talkies. And my detail had one, and that's my only access. So that's the world we lived in. And the news moved slowly. It was like, oh, the New York Times is working on our article. It's coming out next week. So now everything is instantaneous, obviously. So the world moves much faster. Inside the department, I think, is slower because I think the laws are more complicated. People have to dot all the I's and cr, all the T's. And there are more rules have been put into effect that can hold prosecutors in jeopardy if they make a mistake. So things move a lot slower in the department. And you don't really have many people on the other side who are willing to work with you on even when they know that the merits are on your side and they would do good for the American people and help law enforcement, they're no longer willing to work. There are a few, but not many.

[Michael Knowles]

So this leads to one last question on this exact point before we go. You did the job before you got all the glory. You've been there, done that. All that could be left for you to do are the headaches, are the difficulties. And as you've said, the world has gotten so much, so much faster and more tense. Why come back and do the job again?

[William Barr]

Because I didn't want to. And I resisted it for a long time and I suggested other people. But at the end of the day, I saw the department being used as a political weapon in our system, and I thought that that was injurious to the rule of law and injurious to our important institutions in our country. And I thought there was a, you know, that this idea of resisting a duly elected President of the United States and using every device to impair his administration was disastrous. And I thought that he needed an attorney General at that point, and I agreed to do it.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, one of the things that I think you have brought to this job is you have an understanding of the legal authority that the Department of Justice has the obligation to follow the law. One of the latest attacks coming at you is the firing of Jeffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Now, all 93 US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. The president can dismiss any of them. But some voices on Capitol Hill are reacting as if it is an astonishing thing to ask the U.S. attorney to step down. So I'm curious, why did you fire Jeffrey Berman?

[William Barr]

Well, that particular situation, it wasn't really a move against Jeffrey Berman or to get rid of Jeffrey Berman. It was really that the President had not nominated his own attorney General for that position. Mr. Berman had been appointed by the court under a particular provision of statute.

[Ted Cruz]

So how does that work? How does a court. That's unusual.

[William Barr]

Yeah. So there are certain situations where if there's a vacancy in the office and there's no one who has been yet confirmed by the Senate, you can be put in place by the court until someone is confirmed by the Senate, and sometimes they're put in by the court, and then there's no. The administration doesn't even proceed with the nominee, and they can stay in for a while, but the president explicitly has removal authority over all US Attorneys. US Attorneys are assisting the president enforce the law, seeing that the laws are faithfully executed. So they are agents of the President in that respect, constitutionally. And so in this particular case, there was a very attractive candidate, a very prominent and distinguished lawyer from New York, from one of the greatest law firms in the world and well known in New York. And he had just, he was the chairman of the Security Exchange Commission. And as you know, securities are really important up in New York. And we thought he would make a great U.S. attorney up there.

[Ted Cruz]

And actually, initially, you had planned to offer Berman another position in the administration.

[William Barr]

Yes, we did, we did, but he didn't want to leave that post.

[Ted Cruz]

But, and I gotta say, the letter he wrote, I thought was extraordinary.

[Michael Knowles]

He refused to step down, basically.

[Ted Cruz]

And I don't want to drag you into this, but it was a level of defiance that the instant you read that letter saying, I'm not going anywhere, it sets off all sorts of warning bells of someone who has their own agenda, an axe to grind, which is why it has become a cause celeb. And so I don't want to ask you to comment to that, but I'll.

[Michael Knowles]

Say that, and I'll agree with that. Mr. Attorney General, I am very grateful that you came in to do the job a second time, and I'm very grateful that you came down to speak with us, but we have to let you get back to work. Thank you for being here, Senator. I will see you very shortly. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Foreign.

[Unknown]

This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security pac, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations and candidates across the country. In 2022, jobs, freedom and Security PAC plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.