It sure looks like Bill Barr gave Trump the absurd idea he has ‘total authority’ to force states to reopen

It sure looks like Bill Barr gave Trump the absurd idea he has ‘total authority’ to force states to reopen

Back on April 13, President Trump made an astonishing declaration, even for him, and he's made some doozies. You may recall that this was the briefing at which he showed a strange campaign-style video featuring compliments from Democratic officials, which had clearly been inspired by a very similar compilation shown the night before on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, already a de facto Trump celebration hour.

It was also the appearance in which he repeatedly made the claim that he had "total authority" to reopen the government and blathered on about how he'd saved hundreds of thousands of lives when he supposedly "closed" the country in the first place.

Kaitlan Collins of CNN asked him a question I think we all were wondering at that point:

You said, "When someone is president of the United States, their authority is total."  That is not true.  Who — who told you that?

Trump didn't answer. The next day Trump announced that it would be up to the governors to decide when they wanted to open up. (He said he would "authorize" them to do it, even though they don't need any such authorization.) Various media outlets have reported that he was convinced to do this because it would be better for his electoral prospects if he can blame the governors for whatever goes wrong with the reopening.

Trump has often touted his alleged total authority, saying on one famous occasion that Article II of the Constitution gives him "the right to do whatever I want as president." But when Collins asked him that question I was pretty sure I knew who told him that. The most powerful legal authority in the administration who believes that the president has almost unlimited power is Attorney General William Barr.

Barr made an appearance on Laura Ingraham's show not long ago — I wrote about it here — and made some comments at the time which give us a clue about how he sees the president's authority in this circumstance. Ingraham went on a tear about forcing churches to close during the pandemic and Barr correctly pointed out that unless the state was singling out religious institutions for closure while allowing other large gatherings, the First Amendment had not been violated.

What came next in that conversation reveals Barr's real agenda, however, and possibly that of all the other schemers in the administration. At the time of the interview, the first rumblings from the astroturf groups in various swing states with Democratic governors were starting to be heard. Barr was on it already:

I think we have to be very careful to make sure this is — you know, that the draconian measures that are being adopted are fully justified, and there are not alternative ways of protecting people. And I think, you know, when this — when this period of time is — at the end of April expires, I think we have to allow people to adapt more than we have and not just tell people to go home and hide under the bed, but allow them to use other ways — social distancing and other means — to protect themselves.

Since then we've had heavily-covered small protests like this around the country demanding that governors rescind their stay-at-home orders:

At least they were wearing masks.

On Tuesday, Barr appeared on Hugh Hewitt's show and made clear that if anyone thought the top law enforcement officer in the country might find armed protests against public health measures to be a threat to public order, they needed to think again. He reiterated his belief that the states have imposed unnecessary and draconian measures and implicitly backed the protests, calling stay-at-home orders "disturbingly close to house arrest."

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.