Is that a slam on our AG's appearance? On second thought, he kind of does resemble this guy:
AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY ALL PARTS OF THIS FIVE PART SERIES CAN BE FOUND AS REPLIES TO THE JUMPING DINOSAUR, POST 9 OF THIS THREAD
PART FIVE
BARR HEARING ABOUT MUELLER REPORT BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY CMTE
[TEXOKIE NOTES/TAKEAWAYS - Not a transcript]
5/1/19
CRUZ
Affirms the successful legal career of AG. Thanks him for taking the job, knowing that he would be given the Kavenaugh treatment. Affirms that Barr is performing ably.
Thinks the hearing has been revealing. “Russia” did not come up very much at all in the hearing. We heard little of many who had accused the POTUS of treason. Most concerns of the dems was about the Mueller letter. Their argument is:
AG receives report and releases the 4 page of conclusions.
Mueller asks for the release of the Exec Summaries which he had drafted - 19 pages
Two weeks later those Exec summaries are released within the entire report. 448 pages.
Their argument is that the report/exec summaries were delayed.
If that is their arguments, it is exceptionally weak. If you are hiding something, you are doing a very lousy job of hiding it. The very thing you are supposedly hiding was RELEASED to Congress and the American People.
In your judgement was the Mueller report thorough?
B: yes,
C: did they expend enormous time, energy and resources?
B: yes
C: And the Mueller report stated flat out that the investigation and evidence does not support criminal charges?
B: Thats right
C: And indeed, the Mueller report was compiled by 19 lawyers on the team, approx 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, ….. and 500 witnesses.
We have investigated over and over again and the substance of the accusations leveled against the POTUS for over 2 1/2 years have magically disappeared. Instead, the complaint is the 19 pages that we didn’t get to see right away.
Cruz addresses the DOJ under Obama was politicized and weaponized to go after the POTUS (obama) enemies. Would you agree that politicizing and weaponizing the DOJ to go after political opponents is an abuse of power?
B: I think it is an abuse of power no matter who does it,
C: Of course.
To the best of your knowledge, when did surveillance of the Trump campaign begin?
B: The position today is that it was July, but I do not know the answer.
C: It is an unusual thing, is it not for DOJ to be investigating a presidential campaign, particularly the opposing campaign of those in power.
B: yes
C: Do we know if the Obama Admin investigated any other candidates running for President?
B: IDK
C: Did they wiretap?
B: I guess they were investigating Hillary Clinton for the email.
C: Do we know if there were wiretaps?
B: IDK
C: do we know if there were efforts to send investigators in wearing a wire?
B: IDK
C: So General Barr, I would urge that you have been very transparent in your promise regarding that wrt the Mueller report. You promised you would released the report, and you have released it. Anyone can read it.
I ask you to bring the same transparency as to whether the previous administration politicized the DOJ, targeted political rivals and used intelligence assets to surveil them improperly.
B: [Nods and mouths, “Yes.”]
GRAHAM
End of first round. And they are doing 3 minute lightening round
LEAHY:
Gets into Australia and Russians (He was difficult to understand.)
He brings up the March 4 letter. He says the Spec Counsel DID find evidence of underlying crime - hush payments - campaign finance laws. I was not sure of the question, but basically, he asks Barr if he got the data correct, and Barr affirms that he did.
Will you agree not to interfere with the ongoing investigations?
B: I will supervise those investigations as AG.
L: Will you agree to disallow undue interference from the White House?
B: Yes.
Barr reminds of his discussion in confirmation hearings to use his office to keep investigations from being influenced by politics.
L : [Something about turning the Mueller report over to Congress.]
B: States that Mueller would not have meant for the Congress to have all the materials over to congress.
B talks about the point of absence of underlying crime. However He also states the Prez, if an investigation is unfounded, the Prez does not have to let it run its course. He can terminate such a proceeding and it would not indicate corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused and that is an important point. He WAS being falsely accused. Durban of course didn’t agree.
DURBAN:
Counter intelligence July 2016 - brings up Wikileaks, PapaD, …. Do you believe this was a proper predicate to start an investigation?
B would have to see what has been documented about Downer. B is not seeing the correlation to the Russians and foreknowledge of the hack.
D: April 16 Barr received a waiver regarding Malaysian company about alleged money laundering. He is wondering if a Malaysian national illegally donated to the Trump campaign.
How many waivers have you received to involve yourself in matters involving Trump campaign, businesses, or Trump inaugural committee.
B: None
D: asked why was this waiver sought [there was some kind of ethics concern about Goldman Sachs being a client of a law firm Barr had been involved with]
B: said he didn’t seek it out, he was asked to seek a waiver in this case.
[B consults with someone - the Criminal Division requested he seek the waiver. He is told Mr. Benchkowski is the head of the division. ]
He was the head of the Criminal Division and apparently they discussed it with the Career ethics guys and and they made the recommendation.
[LOL! That shut down Durban!]
WHITEHOUSE
He talks about Mueller speaking to Barr about not making the determination on Obstruction, and leaving it to Barr.
Barr: He didn’t say he was leaving it to me.
WH: 24th M sent B a letter about the decision.
B: had actually started discussing it March 5. Made the decision on Sunday the 24th. Durban confused because that is the same day Mueller sent him the letter about his concerns about the exec summaries.
WH: when did B get the draft of Mueller report
B: only got the report - no draft. Got it on the 22nd.
WH: You made the final decision on 24th?
B: several discussions before then but final decision was 24th.
Discussions and consideration of some of these issues had been taking place even before March 5. Dept had been in regular contact with the Mueller people.
My understanding is that the Deputy had been getting briefings. We also needed to get the Mueller team assistance regarding the grand jury redaction material.
D: there was a brown bag lunch on June 27th. Can you assure me that nothing related to obstruction was discussed with OLC office of legal counsel?
B: Yes. We did not discuss it at the brown bag lunch, although I did tell them I would send a memo… but did not tell them at that lunch.
KLOBUCHAR
[Sorry - still a JennyAss of monumental proportions]
Asked for confirmation if Mueller had reviewed the POTUS taxes.
B: IDK
K: Can I find out if I give you a written question?
B: Yes, or you can ask Bob Mueller when he comes here.
She discusses different actions [totality of the evidence/ pattern]
There are 3 US cases which she cites.
B: Intent has to be proved to a level of reasonable doubt. He says the problem in the Report is trying determine the subjective intent a facially lawful act and permits a lot of selectivity on part of the prosecutors. We [DOJ] are skeptical of this approach because it is difficult to achieve the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.
K: Talks of Barr’s confirmation - something about he said something about abuse of Presidential Power, not just Pardon Power.
Has president faithfully executed the laws?
B: Evidence in the report is conflicting the the report does not come to a conclusion, so I made the decision.
BLUMENTHAL
Brings up the conversation between Barr and Mueller after the summary was issued. He called you?
B: No I called him.
Blum: what prompted you to call
B: the letter
Blum: How long was conversation?
B: About 10-15 minutes. There were several witnesses in the room; he was on the speaker phone
Blum: who was in the room?
B: RR was there among others, AG staff and Deputy staff
Blum: How did the conversation go?
B: Bob what is concern? He said that they were concerned about the press coverage- was indicating a lack of context about the non-finding about obstruction. Mueller wanted the exec summaries to be released. Barr said he would like to get it out all at once rather than piecemeal - but he would think about it. The next day he put out a letter that made it clear that no one should read the March 24 letter as a summary report. And that a full account of Mueller’s thinking would be in the report.
Blum characterizes the Mueller letter being a rebuke of the AG.
Barr: Yeah, the letter is a bit snitty and was probably written by one of his staff people.
[ROFL!!!!]
Blum: Did you or anyone document that conversation with Mueller?
B: Yes, someone did take notes.
Blum: May we have those notes?
B: No.
Blum: why not?
B: Why should you have them?
GRAHAM COMES IN BECAUSE THE TIME IS OVER.
He states he will write a letter to Mr. Mueller and “I’m going to ask him if there is anything about that conversation he disagrees with and if so then he can come and tell us. So the hearing is now over - Mr Blumenthal, I promise you that Mr. Mueller will have the chance to make sure the conversation as related by Mr Barr is accurate. I’m going to give him a chance to correct anything he says is incorrect of inaccurate and that will be it. “
Lee given 5 seconds:
He uses it thanking Barr for service to our country. And for civility and composure today in what was a needlessly and unfairly hostile environment. Your professionalism has been remarkable. I thank you.
Graham closed with brief comment about how overall the committee did pretty good - only fell into the ditch a couple of times, and it is the stuff of democracy. Thank you for being our Attorney General.
Graham adjourns the hearing.
[One of the things I noticed is that normally I would rather have a giant boil on my nose than listen to the democrats in these hearings. What I was most amazed at was that they gave him actually very little time to say anything. The dems mostly postured and impugned him. The repubs were a little better, but often they would just present points as questions, and Barr would affirm as to the truth [or not] in them.
I also am aware that there are very probably some errors or misapprehensions which I have written down, or omitted. I have sought to take notes as best as I am equipped to do without making an outright transcript, and wanted to share them with our Thread. ]
THE END
QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Thanks for taking one for team!
Is that a slam on our AG's appearance? On second thought, he kind of does resemble this guy:
Graham is like the guy who’s always trying to reason with the troll. Screw them, why let them pitch a fit they know is phony, and waste another day dragging Mueller in front of the committee for another circus.
Thank you for your devoted attention to providing us with the hearing notes - the check is in the mail! :D
Outstanding work Tex! Much appreciated you put this together!
What you’ve done is simply yeoman. Worked your fingers off and gritted your teeth to get thru a hard task that most of us, especially me, shirked. We’re in your debt. Thank you.
Excellent coverage, Texokie! I did watch most of it and absolutely loved watching Barr.
And today, the Dems are saying Barr lied, didn’t show up today, should be held in contempt (lol).. like he’s stupid. This is why having a team like Q and supporters like us is so important. They, the left, are now implying there are still cover-ups (that’s not a plural word? Coveri?) and some sort of nefarious plot on the part of Team Trump. If it weren’t for Q and the team, we would all be feeling a bit defeated and alone. Q has made me feel a bit empowered! (and being here has as well!
MAGA MAGA MAGA
Petey
