Barr interview

[Lone Clone]

No bombshells, but mildly interesting. He directly responds to most questions. Doesn't get into many details. Says claim that he lied is "laughable." Said he isn't concerned about the House committee finding him in contempt. Says he was surprised that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction. Defends his (Barr's) actions and statements, doesn't walk back anything.

Said some of the stories/explanations he's gotten to questions about the Trump probe "didn't hang together." Seems he is particularly interested in the meeting at which Comey stayed behind to tell Trump about the pee story in the dossier, then it was leaked. (the story, not the pee).

It wasn't nasty but it wasn't a particularly soft interview. He was asked most of the questions one would expect to be asked.

 

[sober_teacher]

Based on what I've seen of the report and compared to Barr's summary. He might not have lied, but I don't think he gave an accurate summary of the report either.

 

[Lone Clone]

Based on what I've seen of the report and compared to Barr's summary. He might not have lied, but I don't think he gave an accurate summary of the report either.

I think the lying charge refers to his response -- which I have characterized as "lawyerly weasel words" -- to whether he knew why unnamed Mueller staffers were pissed at him.

 

[Dudebra]

No bombshells, but mildly interesting. He directly responds to most questions. Doesn't get into many details. Says claim that he lied is "laughable." Said he isn't concerned about the House committee finding him in contempt. Says he was surprised that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction. Defends his (Barr's) actions and statements, doesn't walk back anything.

Said some of the stories/explanations he's gotten to questions about the Trump probe "didn't hang together." Seems he is particularly interested in the meeting at which Comey stayed behind to tell Trump about the pee story in the dossier, then it was leaked. (the story, not the pee).

It wasn't nasty but it wasn't a particularly soft interview. He was asked most of the questions one would expect to be asked.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ok-into-origins-of-trump-russia-investigation

Barr: Mueller did not look into origins of Trump-Russia investigation

Attorney General William Barr made it clear that special counsel Robert Mueller did not review how the origins of the Trump-Russia
investigation was handled by the Justice Department and the FBI. During a Fox News interview that aired Friday, Barr said “no one has really looked at it” and pointed out that Mueller was focused just on investigating Russian election interference and the possible involvement of President Trump's 2016 campaign. “The fact of the matter is Bob Mueller did not look at the government's activities,” Barr said in an interview that aired Friday. “He was looking at whether or not the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russians. He was not going back and looking at the counter intelligence program.”

The FBI launched its original counterintelligence investigation, called Crossfire Hurricane, in July 2016. It was prompted by Australian diplomat Alexander Downer informing the FBI that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos told him Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, Trump's Democratic rival in the 2016 election. That counterintelligence investigation was wrapped into Mueller's effort after he was appointed in May 2017. Mueller concluded that Russia used cyberattacks and social media disinformation campaigns to interfere in 2016, but he did not establish any sort of criminal conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Republicans have long alleged that the launching of the investigation into Trump in 2016 was influenced by politics and that the probe itself was rife with misconduct.

Barr said that “there is a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened.” Barr said that there were “a number of investigations underway that touch upon it”, including DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation into possible Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse, but so far “no one has really looked across the whole waterfront.” Barr has also tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham to review the origins of the federal Russia investigation. Barr said his first step is to “find out exactly what happened” which he plans to do by “getting all the relevant information from the various agencies and starting to talk to some of the people that have information.” “If we’re worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason, we should be worried about whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale," Barr said.

Barr also pointed out that the handling of the Trump-Russia investigation was unusual in a number of ways, especially the fact that it was being managed at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI. “It wasn't handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counter intelligence activities are conducted,” Barr said. “It was sort of an ad hoc small group. Most of these people are no longer with the FBI or the CIA or the other agencies involved.”

James Comey, the head of the FBI at the time, was fired by Trump in May 2017. Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director, was fired by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March 2018. Peter Strzok, the FBI’s former Counterespionage Section chief, was fired by FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich in August 2018. James Baker, the former FBI general counsel, was reassigned and eventually left the bureau. The FBI’s handling of the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele has come under increased scrutiny in recent weeks. The Steele dossier, filled with salacious and unverified allegations, was used in FISA applications to justify surveillance against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Both Comey and Baker have defended their handling of the dossier in recent days.

 

[BABiscuit]

No bombshells, but mildly interesting. He directly responds to most questions. Doesn't get into many details. Says claim that he lied is "laughable." Said he isn't concerned about the House committee finding him in contempt. Says he was surprised that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction. Defends his (Barr's) actions and statements, doesn't walk back anything.

Said some of the stories/explanations he's gotten to questions about the Trump probe "didn't hang together." Seems he is particularly interested in the meeting at which Comey stayed behind to tell Trump about the pee story in the dossier, then it was leaked. (the story, not the pee).

It wasn't nasty but it wasn't a particularly soft interview. He was asked most of the questions one would expect to be asked.

I saw a little of the Barr interview this morning. Sounds like he thought Mueller should have made a call on obstruction and it sounds like Mueller told Barr of his plan not to before the report was finished. Was there any followup as to whether Barr could have instructed Mueller to make a call?

 

[Lone Clone]

I saw a little of the Barr interview this morning. Sounds like he thought Mueller should have made a call on obstruction and it sounds like Mueller told Barr of his plan not to before the report was finished. Was there any followup as to whether Barr could have instructed Mueller to make a call?

Not that I heard. Yes, I got the same feeling you did from his comments. He was surprised, but the surprise came well before the report; Mueller had told him he wasn't going to make the call.

Barr refused to speculate on when Mueller knew there wasn't a case for conspiracy, BTW.

I thought it was interesting that he said he had expected his questions about the genesis of the investigation to be answered fairly quickly, but he actually has more questions now than he did when he started asking.

 

[h-hawk]

Barr is disingenuous. Mueller wanted Congress to decide something this important.

"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post."

Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed private letter to the Justice Department, laying out his concerns in stark terms that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.07525584ae5f

 

[JohnBasedow]

Barr is disingenuous. Mueller wanted Congress to decide something this important.

"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post."

Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed private letter to the Justice Department, laying out his concerns in stark terms that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.07525584ae5f

Agreed. His faux surprise that Mueller didn’t decide is laughable. Barr knows it exactly why Mueller didn’t make a charging decision on Obstruction. Barr is lying.

 

[ft254]

Barr has proven himself to be an amateur. He was a failure in his tenure in the Bush administration, writing ridiculous decisions. He should not have written the summary of the Mueller report, or performed the preemptive press conference preceding the release of the report.

Since then, he has prevented interviews or release of any information. This is not the behavior or mannerism of a professional civil servant or attorney representing the people of the United States. This is the behavior of a representor consorting with a felon.

Why don't you ask yourself why he isn't releasing this information? He isn't the president's attorney. He shouldn't be choosing sides. There is something terribly wrong here.

 

[Hawk8595]

Barr has proven himself to be an amateur. He was a failure in his tenure in the Bush administration, writing ridiculous decisions. He should not have written the summary of the Mueller report, or performed the preemptive press conference preceding the release of the report.

Since then, he has prevented interviews or release of any information. This is not the behavior or mannerism of a professional civil servant or attorney representing the people of the United States. This is the behavior of a representor consorting with a felon.

Why don't you ask yourself why he isn't releasing this information? He isn't the president's attorney. He shouldn't be choosing sides. There is something terribly wrong here.

A comment by LC in response to your post would be nice here.

 

[Herkmeister]

Based on what I've seen of the report and compared to Barr's summary. He might not have lied, but I don't think he gave an accurate summary of the report either.

He's a lawyer. I would expect him to manipulate his response. Just as do the Dems.

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Huey Grey]

Barr needs to resign. If the best he can do is to not commit prosecutable perjury then he clearly isn't fit for the position.

 

[ihhawk]

If the IG report shows no wrong doing, it will be hard for Barr politically to justify the investigation.

If the IG report shows flaws in the FISA process, Barr will be protected politically.

 

[ft254]

If the IG report shows no wrong doing, it will be hard for Barr politically to justify the investigation.

If the IG report shows flaws in the FISA process, Barr will be protected politically.

What does the FISA process have to do with Barr's participation in obstruction? Man you wingers obsess.

 

[ihhawk]

What does the FISA process have to do with Barr's participation in obstruction? Man you wingers obsess.

I didnt know that Barr was being investigated for obstruction. The topic of the thread is about Barrs interview where he discusses the investigation into the beginning of the Trump investigation.

Did you accidentally type that in the wrong thread?

 

[ihhawk]

Barr needs to resign. If the best he can do is to not commit prosecutable perjury then he clearly isn't fit for the position.

Barr has disclosed as much as he legally can of the Mueller report. He also has given the democrats more opportunity to review the less redacted in private.

Why would he resign?

 

[ft254]

Barr has disclosed as much as he legally can of the Mueller report. He also has given the democrats more opportunity to review the less redacted in private.

Why would he resign?

I didnt know that Barr was being investigated for obstruction. The topic of the thread is about Barrs interview where he discusses the investigation into the beginning of the Trump investigation.

Did you accidentally type that in the wrong thread?

He arbitrarily redacted information from the report that Mueller had included. Barr is compromised.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Barr has disclosed as much as he legally can of the Mueller report. He also has given the democrats more opportunity to review the less redacted in private.

Why would he resign?

Why?

1. He was less than truthful in his written response and press conference.
2. He refuses to release the Mueller summaries.
3. Nothing is prohibiting him from seeking the release of the full report.

That's enough right there.

 

[ihhawk]

Why?

1. He was less than truthful in his written response and press conference.
2. He refuses to release the Mueller summaries.
3. Nothing is prohibiting him from seeking the release of the full report.

That's enough right there.

He released the darn report except for the grand jury testimony. They had constitutional scholars testify just this week infront of the house that he isnt able to release that information.

 

[Lone Clone]

A comment by LC in response to your post would be nice here.

Why? Nobody pays attention, anyway. You will notice that the same statements are being made by the same people who made them in the past. What could I add to that?

 

[ihhawk]

He arbitrarily redacted information from the report that Mueller had included. Barr is compromised.

Do you know that the redactions were done with Muellers team and Rod.

 

[Lone Clone]

He released the darn report except for the grand jury testimony. They had constitutional scholars testify just this week infront of the house that he isnt able to release that information.

Screw the law. Screw the innocent people would would be hurt by the release of the GJ testimony. Nadler wants to see the stuff, so that's all you need to know.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

He released the darn report except for the grand jury testimony. They had constitutional scholars testify just this week infront of the house that he isnt able to release that information.

Your first sentence is incorrect. He obviously redacted more than that as he has not produced the Mueller summaries.

As to your second sentence, he can move pursuant to the Federal Rules to release grand jury testimony. It's been done before and is specifically allowed by law. I don't want it released if it will impact pending investigations, harm witnesses, or reveal sources and methods. But I have zero confidence that is the case right now.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Here's an interesting situation. In his attacks on Mueller, Barr stated:

“The role of the federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual.

The appointment of a Special Counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the President of the United States do not change these rules.”

Barr is saying Mueller's interpretation of the OLC's rules is incorrect. He's saying Mueller can't issue an indictment against a sitting president but Mueller can say a sitting president SHOULD be indicted. So Mueller can "commence prosecution" but has to...pull out before the climax? Now that sounds dumb as hell but the interesting thing is that it frees Mueller up in any testimony before Congress to state whether - as a federal prosecutor - he thinks there was sufficient evidence to indict and convict Trump for obstruction.

 

[ft254]

I didnt know that Barr was being investigated for obstruction. The topic of the thread is about Barrs interview where he discusses the investigation into the beginning of the Trump investigation.

Did you accidentally type that in the wrong thread?

He is not being investigate for obstruction as far as I know. He is participating in obstruction by conspiring with the WH and not releasing information as legally required. This is not rocket science. Congressional committees have oversight responsibilities defined by the Constitution.

The Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate are entitled to and responsible for all information relating to national security except in extreme examples, and this is not one of these examples. This is criminal behavior Barr is involved in and it is not up to you or me to explain his reason for it.

Edit: I am going to add. At this point during Watergate, Cox, the AG, and his replacement were faced with similar circumstances. They refused to participate and resigned. Barr should have the same integrity. He will be disgraced in history for being a coward.

 

[Fijimn]

He released the darn report except for the grand jury testimony. They had constitutional scholars testify just this week infront of the house that he isnt able to release that information.

Didn’t the transcript of Flynn’s recording of the President’s lawyer calling to remind him of the President’s fondness of Flynn—before Flynn was scheduled to meet with Mueller—get redacted?

 

[hawkedoff]

Man some of you are simply delusional. Barr does exactly what he is supposed to do and still all.of you want.to hang him

He offers further review of the report and not one Democrat calling for more information takes him up on the offer. Not one.

Mueller decides to leave the heavy lifting to others and then wants to second guess their decision? No. He had his chance and didn't make the call.

 

[ft254]

Your first sentence is incorrect. He obviously redacted more than that as he has not produced the Mueller summaries.

As to your second sentence, he can move pursuant to the Federal Rules to release grand jury testimony. It's been done before and is specifically allowed by law. I don't want it released if it will impact pending investigations, harm witnesses, or reveal sources and methods. But I have zero confidence that is the case right now.

Thanks for clear that up. I'm sick of hearing that 'grand jury testimony can't be released' argument.

 

[ft254]

Man some of you are simply delusional. Barr does exactly what he is supposed to do and still all.of you want.to hang him

He offers further review of the report and not one Democrat calling for more information takes him up on the offer. Not one.

Mueller decides to leave the heavy lifting to others and then wants to second guess their decision? No. He had his chance and didn't make the call.

UH,...what?

 

[ft254]

UH,...what?

OK, I've got an idea. Mueller drafts a memo to the DoJ, outlining procedures to indict the sitting POTUS. He then follows it with a formal memo stating his intentions to proceed. Everyone's happy. The Orange Turd and his reptile offspring are sent to prison for the rest of their miserable lives. What could be better?

 

[ihhawk]

Thanks for clear that up. I'm sick of hearing that 'grand jury testimony can't be released' argument.

There are several constitutional lawyers that just testified to the law on capital hill that says this dude is wrong.

 

[hawkedoff]

UH,...what?

Barr provided a less radacted report for review by members of Congress and not one Democrat took him up on the offer.

 

[Lone Clone]

He is not being investigate for obstruction as far as I know. He is participating in obstruction by conspiring with the WH and not releasing information as legally required. This is not rocket science. Congressional committees have oversight responsibilities defined by the Constitution.

The Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate are entitled to and responsible for all information relating to national security except in extreme examples, and this is not one of these examples. This is criminal behavior Barr is involved in and it is not up to you or me to explain his reason for it.

Edit: I am going to add. At this point during Watergate, Cox, the AG, and his replacement were faced with similar circumstances. They refused to participate and resigned. Barr should have the same integrity. He will be disgraced in history for being a coward.

What information that he is legally required to furnish has Barr not furnished? If you say the GJ testimony, everybody here knows you are wrong. Unless a judge intercedes, Barr is not only not required to furnish the material, he is prohibited from furnishing ig.

And the situation facing Elliot Richardson and William Ruckleshaus, let alone the situation facing Cox, was not the same situation facing Barr, or even very similar.

Cox's position would be somewhat analogous to that of Mueller, although not close to identical. Cox was serving under a different law, under the authority of the president. And Cox was fired, while Mueller was not.

Richardson and Ruckleshaus thought Nixon had the legal authority to order them to fire Cox. They resigned because they had promised in a congressional hearing not to fire the special prosecutor. They were honoring their promise, not what they thought was the law. The next in line was Bork, whom Richardson urged to follow Nixon's order because he (Bork) had not made the same promise.

A district judge later ruled that Nixon lacked the authority to fire Cox, but that wasn't the position of the AG and assistant AG, and it was not tested by appeal because by the time it was issued (the judge was named Gesell, I'm pretty sure), the situation was moot. Cox had been fired, a successor had been appointed, and Cox had no desire to be reinstated.

 

[BGHAWK]

Seems to me what I've learned, is that there is more of the investigation that wasn't completed, so I am interested in what all of that entails. There are Mueller summaries that have not been released that he intended to go to Congress that Barr is blocking.

 

[Lone Clone]

Seems to me what I've learned, is that there is more of the investigation that wasn't completed, so I am interested in what all of that entails. There are Mueller summaries that have not been released that he intended to go to Congress that Barr is blocking.

You are one of the less fanatical of the anti-Trumpsters on this board, so perhaps you can answer a question I've posed before without success.

Since you already have access to the full -- albeit redacted -- Mueller report, why is it important that you see a summary of it? As I understand it, the summaries were made with an eye toward not revealing any information that needed to be redacted, so anything in them MUST be in the public report.

What's the point? I can certainly see it if the only alternative was Barr's four-page memo, but that isn't the case.

 

[MplsHawk]

You are one of the less fanatical of the anti-Trumpsters on this board, so perhaps you can answer a question I've posed before without success.

Since you already have access to the full -- albeit redacted -- Mueller report, why is it important that you see a summary of it? As I understand it, the summaries were made with an eye toward not revealing any information that needed to be redacted, so anything in them MUST be in the public report.

What's the point? I can certainly see it if the only alternative was Barr's four-page memo, but that isn't the case.

I have what is probably a really dumb question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. My confusion probably stems from the fact that I am tired of all of this political crap and have tuned much of it out. Anyway, aren't the Mueller summaries of the report included with the two volumes of the report as "executive summaries"? Or did Mueller create separate summaries to summarize a report which itself includes executive summaries? What is allegedly being withheld from Congress by Barr besides the redacted material?

Though responding to LC, the question i addressed to anyone.

 

[Joes Place]

If the IG report shows flaws in the FISA process, Barr will be protected politically.

"Misconduct".

Not, "flaws". If there are "flaws", then those MUST be presented to Congress, so that Congress can amend the "flaws" in superseding legislation.

 

[Joes Place]

Anyway, aren't the Mueller summaries of the report included with the two volumes of the report as "executive summaries"? Or did Mueller create separate summaries to summarize a report which itself includes executive summaries?

Mueller produced "summaries", which he'd intended to be publicly released in advance of the redacted report.

Barr pocketed Mueller's "summaries", and wrote his own 4-pager. The public has never seen what Mueller intended to be the "first look".

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You are one of the less fanatical of the anti-Trumpsters on this board, so perhaps you can answer a question I've posed before without success.

Since you already have access to the full -- albeit redacted -- Mueller report, why is it important that you see a summary of it? As I understand it, the summaries were made with an eye toward not revealing any information that needed to be redacted, so anything in them MUST be in the public report.

What's the point? I can certainly see it if the only alternative was Barr's four-page memo, but that isn't the case.

You do realize your argument cuts both ways. Why not release them? If there's nothing in them that's new info...what's the point of keeping them..."redacted"?