Per NBC, AG Barr is saying he was not part of the Ukrainian situation, although T did mention his name to Zelinsky over the phone.
And with that Barr would not recuse himself if he had to work on this within the DOJ.
Attorney General William Barr and whether he views Barr as someone whose job includes advocating for him on personal matters.
Repeatedly over the course of the call, Trump told Zelenskiy that his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Barr will be contacting Ukrainian prosecutors on two investigations: one related to an email server tied to Trump’s former political rival, Hillary Clinton, and the other related to his potential future political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
“I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it,” Trump told Zelenskiy about an investigation he wanted into CrowdStrike, a California-based company that investigated the Russian hacking of emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee in 2016.
One of the most shocking revelations in the transcript of President Donald Trump’s phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky was that so much of what Trump had to say on the call focused just on getting Ukrainian officials to investigate Trump’s political opponents. Another surprise was the fact that President Trump said repeatedly — five times, in fact — that Attorney General William Barr would be running point, working with Trump’s private attorney Rudy Giuliani, on these matters.
Make no mistake, these facts now implicate the attorney general, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, directly in the commission of acts that many of the country’s leading legal experts consider federal crimes — whether as election law violations, bribery or other offenses concerning public corruption.
The revelation of Barr’s possible involvement should alarm all of us concerned about the rule of law in this country. At a minimum, it’s no longer sustainable for this attorney general to oversee the Justice Department’s handling of the Ukraine scandal.
Even Barr seems to understand the extreme impropriety of what the transcript suggests about his using the power of his office to go after the president’s political rivals. Hence Barr’s formal statement, issued within 30 minutes of the transcript’s release, suggesting that what Trump told Ukraine’s president about the attorney general’s role was essentially false.
Layer onto all of these concerns another revelation in Wednesday’s news — according to The New York Times, the director of national intelligence and the inspector general of the intelligence community each referred the whistleblower’s complaint to the Justice Department for a possible criminal investigation into the president’s actions. Within a matter of days, it seems Barr’s Justice Department somehow reached the conclusion that the complaint could not even trigger an investigation because the allegations could not involve a crime. The legal reasoning that has been reported would put the administration “on very thin ice,” as Judge Napolitano might say.