William Barr has shown himself to be a loyal foot soldier for the president who appointed him. From his 24 March summary of the “principal conclusions” of the Mueller report to his press conference on the day he released a redacted version of the Mueller report to Congress, to his testimony on Wednesday before the Senate judiciary committee, Barr’s recent performances have demonstrated the extreme loyalty Donald Trump found wanting in his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

And what is good for the president is bad for America.

Barr’s appearance before the Senate judiciary committee and his refusal to appear on Thursday at a House judiciary committee hearing were just the latest disappointments for those who hoped his nomination and confirmation would once again make the office of attorney general a bulwark of the rule of law.

After the fiascos that marked the service of Sessions and of the acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, Barr initially looked like a sober, responsible and surprisingly, un-Trumpian choice to lead the Department of Justice. Having served as attorney general under George HW Bush, he seemed to be the embodiment of the Republican legal establishment, so much so that in 1991 he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

But when Trump tagged him for a return to the office of attorney general there were some red flags. Most prominent among them were Barr’s embrace of the theory of the so-called “unitary executive”. This theory holds that the president alone possesses the power to control the entire executive branch.

More recently, but before he was named attorney general, Barr offered the justice department an unsolicited memo arguing that no president could ever commit the crime of obstruction of justice.

That memo may have been the most vivid sign that Barr was performing for an audience of one, the one who would later designate him as attorney general.

But in spite of these warning signs, commentators across the political spectrum welcomed his appointment and called him “highly qualified and committed to the traditions, procedures and mores of the justice department”.

Others noted his “reputation for integrity and straight dealing” or praised him as a “strong defender of the rule of law”.

Today, not three months since he was again confirmed by the Senate, Barr hardly seems to embody “integrity and straight dealing” or to be a “strong defender of the rule of law”. Instead, he has acted as political ally, not to say a henchman, for the president who appointed him.

This conception of the attorney general as the president’s strong political ally goes as far back as the service of Edmond Randolph, George Washington’s first attorney general. In the 20th century, it was seen in Richard Nixon’s appointment of John Mitchell and Ronald Reagan’s choice of Edwin Meese.

What is radically different in 2019 is that Barr is allying himself with and dutifully serving a president who has shown contempt for the norms, principles and commitments that are fundamental to the constitution and the rule of law.

And what is not only different but also dangerous, is that Barr seems willing to distort facts, to cunningly parse words and to condone behavior that borders on criminality.

Robert Mueller called him out for distorting facts in his rebuttal to Barr’s summary of the special counsel’s report. As Mueller put it, that summary “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office’s work and conclusions”.

Barr’s artful and deceptive use of language was fully on display in his testimony before the judiciary committee this week. Take the following exchange with California senator Kamala Harris.

“Has the president,” Harris asked, “or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? ... Yes or no?”

“Um, the president or anybody else?” Barr said.

Harris then said: “Seems you’d remember something like that and be able to tell us.”

“Yeah, but I’m trying to grapple with the word ‘suggest’,” Barr replied. “There have been discussions of matters out there that they have not asked me to open an investigation, but –”

Harris asked: “Perhaps they’ve suggested, hinted?”

Barr replied: “I don’t know, I wouldn’t say suggest. I don’t know.”

Rather than a straightforward answer appropriate for a “person of integrity” and for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, Barr tried to protect the White House while seeking to avoid committing perjury.

As if such evasive and deceptive behavior were not bad enough coming from the attorney general, Barr also went out of his way to offer a pretext of legality to some of Trump’s most questionable actions. He argued that Trump’s “firing of then FBI director James Comey in May 2017 and the attempted firing of Mueller a month later were ‘authorized by the constitution’ and therefore ‘facially innocent’”.

In addition, he told the judiciary committee that if the president thinks that a legal proceeding was “based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding, and it would not be a corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused.”

Responding to Barr’s recent actions and testimony, Democrats have called for his impeachment or his resignation. But Barr is not going anywhere. Trump finally has his supremely loyal attorney general. Barr’s distortion of facts, artful and deceptive use of language, and bizarre legal theories have won him the president’s admiration. Talking about his testimony before the judiciary committee, Trump’s said that Barr did a “fantastic job”.

The threats to democracy and the rule law that the Trump administration has long posed is now buttressed by the work of the attorney general. Alas, Hillary Clinton got it right when she said that, left unchecked, Barr’s views would put the US on “the road to tyranny”.