That would be the civilized thing to do, and they would still lose.
Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge and now director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, said Mr. Barr’s argument appears to be stronger than Mr. Holder‘s. For one, he said, the grand jury secrecy protection Mr. Barr cites is part of federal law, while Mr. Holder was trying to expand a presidential protection to cover lower-level Justice Department communications.
“Holder had not a leg to stand on, whereas Barr gave solid legal reasons for his decisions,” Mr. McConnell said.
Indeed, the federal appeals court in Washington issued a ruling last month that puts grand jury information beyond the reach of Congress in the normal course of oversight.
That's a major hurdle for any lawsuit.
“If this House goes that route, it’s by no means clear the court even has jurisdiction. But if the court finds jurisdiction, the idea that the court’s going to find Barr violated the law by not revealing grand jury information is preposterous,” Mr. McConnell said.
He viewed Democrats’ battle with Mr. Barr as an effort to undercut the attorney general’s credibility as he begins to probe deeper into the 2016 election and Clinton campaign and Obama administration decisions.
William Barr uses Eric Holder’s defense against Congress
