Culturemaximumsentence

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 01:00 PM

CBS interview with Barr shows Comey and McCabe may be targets



Best takeaway:

That U.S. attorney John Durham was brought in to prosecute means they have evidence to prosecute.



Jan Crawford, chief legal correspondent for CBS News, had a lengthy interview with Bill Barr. He is the attorney general America needs because if he goes after Jimmy the Weasel Comey, the target on Barr expands exponentially.

Barr doesn't care.

Crawford did an excellent job. The transcript is here.

On Mueller, Barr said, "He could've reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn't make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision."

On obstruction of justice Barr said, "We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction."

Crawford responded, "As a matter of law?

Barr replied, "As a matter of law. In other words, we didn't agree with the legal analysis -- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn't rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient."

***

I would say the evidence was non-existent, but he knows more than me.

***

CRAWFORD: "When you see some of the criticism and you've gotten quite a bit of it that you're protecting the president that you're enabling the president, what's your response to that?"

BARR: "Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what's said but as to who says it and what side they're on and what it's political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance and I'm going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that's intention with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. so I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time."

CRAWFORD: "The four page summary that you wrote, did you ask in that March 5th meeting for the special counsel to kind of redact all the grand jury material?"

BARR: "Yes, not redact it but highlight it so we could redact it, we would, so, you know, the report was over 400 pages, I knew that it was voluminous and coming our way in a few weeks. My intent was to get out as much as I could as quickly as I could. To do that I would have to, as a matter of law, make sure that grand jury material was redacted because regardless of the political posturing that's going on it's not lawful for me to just make that public."

CRAWFORD: "Not even to Congress?"

BARR: "Not even."

The Mueller stuff went on to the length that I was bored. Readers can read that by clicking the link I gave near the top of the page.

On saying it was spying, Barr said, "I guess it's become a dirty word somehow. It hasn't ever been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law and properly predicated and if it is, then it's an important tool the United States has to protect the country."

https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/05/cbs-interview-with-barr-shows-comey-and.html?m=1

14 replies, 344 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 01:34 PM

1. Dems very well may not have taken the house in the midterms without mueller.

Of course, I'm sure some lefty will argue it had no effect on the elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 01:38 PM

3. I still think Huber is a Head Fake

Someone was getting tons of records from the “Clinton Foundation”

Gonna get interesting right quick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:03 PM

8. Barr said sometime this week that Huber was in " Stand Down " mode for the past several months,...

Something about not wanting to get in the way of the IG report.

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 11:30 PM

11. That was in regard to FISA.

Instead Huber has been working on both the Clinton foundation and uranium one. Those investigations are almost done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 2, 2019, 12:06 AM

13. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 01:35 PM

2. The thing that sucks is that since Barr is Trumps personal attorney

Any indictments will be purely political in nature, payback as a matter of fact for the legitimite efforts of the FBI and others to make sure there was no foreign collusion in our countries bedrock elections.

The fact Trump tried to thwart thier investigation warranting an obstruction investigation in no way warrants this petty payback and juvenile tactics of weaponizing his justice department to get some payback for the governments legitimite, warranted investigations of Trump.

Siccing Barr on his political opponents as payback would be completely unwarranted, and an impeachable offense in itself, and so Trump just....better....not.....even.....go there.

That's your counter narrative, alive and well and amplified by the press, narrative nation is alive and well, the truth will just have to wait.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 01:39 PM

4. Barr is the Attorney General

He isn’t Trumps personal Attorney

No Matter was CNN says

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 05:15 PM

7. Well Barr is now going after the collusion with Russia.

Teh Dem paid for Steele Dossier.

Also the real obstruction of Justice- Comey, Brennan McCabe Struzck, Page and Hillary and maybe even Obama!

Teh obstruction charge against Trump is a joke considering all the documents and phone records and interviews granted . Plus all the warrants subpoenas, no one Mueller wanted to talk to except Trump himself was denied. If that is obstruction, then lets jail all former living presidents!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 11:31 PM

12. Trumps personal attorney would have no power to convict anyone.

Barr is the swamps worst nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 2, 2019, 06:26 AM

14. I was speaking in narrative

In the eyes of the left, the press, and the generally uninformed, Barr is Trump's attorney out on a mission of payback.

That's the narrative, and narrative is fact in modern Amerika.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 01:40 PM

5. Comey and McCabe BETTER be targets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 03:20 PM

6. I'm much more concerned with Brennan and Clapper. The bad guys in my order are 1.Brennan, 2.Clapper

then 3.Comey. McCabe?...Yeah, okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joefriday6 (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:41 PM

9. I hope they ALL get indicted.

Dirty bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 09:09 PM

10. Depends...If they gave Brennan, Clapper and Comey 10 years a piece, I would let McCabe slide a

little. The man is dumber than a box of rocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Culturemaximumsentence