Replies

BARR HEARING ABOUT MUELLER REPORT BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY CMTE
[TEXOKIE NOTES/TAKEAWAYS - Not a transcript]

5/1/19

GRAHAM opened with his statement and made some cogent remarks/questions before addressing Barr directly. I was not making notes at that time, so did not capture them.

With FEINSTEIN - my take aways from Barrs testimony is that the situation of the lawyer being told by Trump to fire Mueller, was not as the press has been touting.
The lawyer, Don McGahn, had already given his evidence to Spec Councel, and Trump was asking him to go to Mueller and consider whether to step down because of conflict of interest. It was left to Mueller, and he did not step down. The other consideration was that Trump wanted the lawyer to document his perspective that Trump did not ask him to fire Mueller. This was not obstructive intent because it was a legitimate Executive responsibility to oversee the Spec Counsel. The Govt would not be able to find obstructive intent, especially as there was no underlying crime.

GRASSLY Barr take aways:
Mueller spent lots of bucks. Question IN order for a full accounting of the Russian interference in our election, shouldn’t Mueller have considered the PeePee dossier as part of the Russian pattern of interference?
Barr does not know if Mueller actually did or did not look at that.

B did say he would be exploring that.

G: re Vol 2: Mueller assembled data from a large investigation on “obstruction,” then made no findings, but dumped it on Barr’s desk to make a determination of whether or not obstruction. Mueller had referenced the policy of DOJ not to charge/indict sitting Presidents. Is this an accurate statement about your conversation with Mueller?
B: Yes. He was not saying that but for the OS he would have found obstruction

G: If he had found substance which fulfilled the terms of Obstruction, would he have stated that finding?
B: I believe so.
G: Was it M’s responsibility to make such a finding.
B: RR and I thought so, but Pres wouldn’t be charged as long as in office.

G: asked about unauthorized media contacts
B: we have a number of investigations under way

LEAHY
Spoke of March 24th letter and Mueller’s comments about it. They were going around some kind of timing as to what Barr knew about Mueller’s concerns about the concerns regarding the letter. He spoke to Mueller - not M’s team.

Talking about Sessions unrecusing himself being wrong or not wrong.
Talked a bit about the phrase that T’s campaign expected to benefit from the Russian attempts to interfere. L’s time expired before B could answer.

CORNYN
Spoke of the proposition that Comey should be fired. Affirmed from Barr that the Prez had that authority. C went on to discuss Comey’s July announcement regarding no prosecutor charging Hillary even after the list he made.
Why didn’t Obama admin investigate in 2014 more regarding the Russian efforts to interfere in 2016?
B: Is impressed with Mueller’s work re the IRA. If that work had been started before Mueller, we would be further along.
C: how do we not know that Steele Dossier is not part of the Russian disinfo? B: can’t state that it with confidence. I’m reviewing that.
C: brought up Brennan’s concern about Russian interference but instead of doing something about it, DOJ and FBI focused efforts on Hillary and began investigating Trump’s campaign,
C: What steps did the investigators do to put their thumbs on the scale. Discussed “What is a defensive briefing.” He got to the lack of warning to DJT’s campaign of possible foreign interference by the DOJ/FBI.

DURBAN
He commented about the Repub’s efforts to “Lock her up,” and wonders what Barr’s role is about these efforts against Hillary. He got into the March 24th letter about not exonerating the Prez. Barr went over the timeline of events and Mueller’s perspective of wishing for more context about why he didn’t make the obstruction finding himself. Regarding B’s letter regrind the release of the conclusions of the Mueller report, he used analogy of stating what announcing the verdict to a trial is. You would go to the finding of the trial, not summarize how those findings were arrived at.

D: Got into whether or not Prez actually cooperated fully. Also got into the Don McGahn situation. He is wanting to know if he knows any reason why McGahn shouldn’t testify before the committee? Also should Mueller? D tried to say that Trump waived his exec privilege. Barr stated, no he didn’t waive. B stated that he has already stated publicly that he had no objection to Mueller testifying. Re: McGahn, that is up to Prez.

Mr LEE:
Is there any evidence that Putin “has something on the president” as charged by Nancy Pelosi?
B: none that I’m aware of
L : Any evidence that DJT is a Russian agent? ….NO
L : Swallwell has claimed acts on Russian behalf? Does DJT do that?
B: None I’m aware of.
L : speaks of the Russian investigation was not conducted with impariality. Began July 31, 2016 with PapaD. Also asks about FISAs.
B: That seems to be the story at this time. I want to find out what actually did start the investigation, as this is pretty thin substance.
L : Was Carter Page under surveillance…..[named date]
B: I D K These are things I need to look at. Overreach seems to have been done by people at the top who are no longer there. I’m working with Chris Wray who has done a superb job. We are working together to try to reconstruct. He points out that the FBI has been handicapped in looking back by the existence of the OIG and the Mueller investigations.

L : Talks of FISA warrant for C. Page was based on the Steele Dossier. Has Mueller report confirmed that Page had secret meeting with Igor Session [Setchen?]

B: I can’t recall that; I don’t remember that. Let me just say I do not want to get too deeply into the FISA issues because of the current investigation by OIG.

L : Page also met with [Russian name?] about Hillary? Does the Mueller report confirm this?
B: I don’t think so.
L : does it confirm Page discussed info about Hillary with anyone?
B: Not that I recall
L: I’m glad you are looking into all this; public has right to know.

[FOX NEWS broke in with news from House Judiciary CMTE votes to allow staffers to question AG Barr tomorrow at 9:00, which reportedly B is opposed to]

WHITEHOUSE
When did you first learn of NYT and Wash Post stories that would make existence of this letter [don’t know which letter he is referring to because of the break by FOXNEWS]

B: Could have been yesterday, not sure.
W: discusses the timing of when B decided to release that letter to Congress. The letter contained “Executive Summaries” which Mueller had sent Barr. Barr established that the “eXEUTIVE SUMMARIES” were contained in the report. Barr explained that there were redactions in those Exec Summaries. They got into Mueller called Barr’s letter as a “Summary” Barr states he had not had any intention to “Summarize.” He goes on to state he had been given the authority to handle and release the M Report.

Issue of OLC opinion was taken up and regarding whether Prez could have a day in court by waiving something

Whitehouse’s questioning very difficult for me to follow,

Talks about “Spying.” Barr comes from intelligence and states the word has no problem has no pejorative meaning in his mind. He points out the word is used commonly in the press. W states that the word is not commonly used in the Department [of Justice?]. His time is over…. Barr states:
“it’s commonly used by me!”

LUNCH BREAK

Notes continue after lunch:

PART TWO

BARR HEARING ABOUT MUELLER REPORT BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY CMTE
[TEXOKIE NOTES/TAKEAWAYS - Not a transcript]

5/1/19

GRAHAM
[Came in late bc of FOX commentary late coming in]
Barr seems to be clarifying the situation of the defensive briefing brought up earlier.

KENNEDY
Addresses humans’ need to be heard. He wants to understand the Mueller / team to see if they have changed their conclusions - today.

At one point Mueller team was unhappy as evidenced by the letter from then which B released today.

B: It’s conclusions as to what?

K: as to collusion/ conspiracy
B: Not that I’m aware of

K: Of the decision not to bring an indictment o the President as to collusion / conspiracy has not changed? Nor for obstruction has not changed?

B: No

K: I take it the Mueller team was unhappy when you received the letter from Mr. Mueller?
B: I can’t speak to the team as a whole, When I spoke with Mueller he was concerned about the press coverage it had gotten the previous few days and he felt it needed more context as to why M and the team did not make a finding / decision about Obstruction. He wanted Barr to put out more info,

K: verified that the release of the Report actually took care of that concern found in the letter. Barr was not going to be in a position to be reesponding to the press by giving more and more data here and there, Mueller had wanted Barr to give out the Executive Summaries. However these summaries were not already vetted and needed redaction. Barr explained his position was to put out the report as rapidly as possible. Which he had the authority to decide to do.

Kennedy notes that we cannot control the press and what they print.

Asks Barr to go over the Muller team investigating obstruction….. WHY did he not make a finding? Barr said he couldn’t recapitulate it. Barr and his own people did not understand the reasoning. K says regardless of the reasoning, he did not issue an indictment.
K speaks of the two investigations: that of DJT and also of Hillary. How did the Hillary one start? We have a duty to find out why these investigations were started, who started them and the evidence on which they were started. WE hope you will do that and get back to us. [Barr does a small nod]
He is asking for the Prez and Barr’s release of “all documents pertaining to the 2016 election, with appropriate redactions. This would achieve letting the American People see the facts without having to go through a lot of spin and leaks, and rumors, etc. When you are investigating leaks in the DOJ and the FBI, I hope you will include the Mueller team as well. [Barr maintains neutral face]

KLOBUCHAR
[Known to us as JENNYASS OUT IN THE SNOW because she made her Presidential bid announcement out in a Raging Blizzard]

“I’m going to take us out of the weeds here”…… and gives her views without asking questions.

*4 page letter is a summary
*She said Barr had to go out of his way not to mention the letter in an answer about it
*We must hear from Mueller because you have said you didn’t know his thinking

She brings in the Russian interference.She has been working with Sen Lankford to get a “Secure Elections Act” passed.

She said White House admin made calls to stop it. She asked if Barr was aware of that. He said “NO.” She asks him if he will work with Sen Lankford and Herself to get this bill done. The act would require the use of back up paper ballots at all polls among other things.

Barr: I will work with you to secure our elections. I’m not familiar with your proposal and look forward to seeing it.

K:GRU targeted state and local agencies. They accessed data and also introduced malware into systems. Would you commit to have the FBI conduct a briefing to all senators on this?

Barr: just on Florida situation?
K: No an the entire Russia situation,
B: Sure
K: brings up situation of IRA buying ads, and that Graham and she are trying to put together honest ads legislation. Will you help with that?
B: In concept, yes.

K: a third concern from B’s confirmation had to do with B’s views on obstruction. Would anyone causing a witness to change testimony constitute obstruction, and B had said yes.
She gets into the Michael Cohen’s issue whereby his family had been used as leverage against Cohen. Barr says No that it does not fulfill the subornation of perjury.

Barr gives some good answers, but I didn’t try to write it all down. It was two lawyers getting into the weeds on legal concerns. Barr explains exactly why the cases she is bringing up are NOT OBSTRUCTION.

She continued with other cases which in her view are obstruction. Gets into the McGahn situation again. Basically Barr is a bad person for not seeing these cases like she does. Barr returns that the it [the 10 potential obstruction cases] fails on 3 elements:

1 -[my paraphrase] not sufficient to show an obstructive act because it is unclear whether the Prez knew that to be false. In fact the Prez was focused on the fact that he didn’t tell McGahn to FIRE Mueller [Barr says “McGahn” here, but I believe he means “McGahn to Fire Mueller” in other words, “I never told you to FIRE MUELLER. I asked you to bring up the conflict of interest.]

McGahn had already given evidence. Prez thought because of the press reports, that it was wrong. They were saying McGahn was told to “Fire” Mueller. The evidence of those reports is in the President’s favor. He wanted the error cleared up by McGahn correcting the record.

K’s position is that the 10 constitute a pattern. Each one may not rise to the level of obstruction, but the overall pattern points to it.

[The FOX NEWS footnote states that Barr had “looked at all ten cases of possible obstruction” - and they each failed to meet the standard of obstruction. He did not get to the other 2 of the 3 elements because her time lapsed.

She might be perhaps doing some good with the secure election legislation with Lankford and others….yet she remains a JENNYASS in every sense of the term, imho]

SASSE
He goes to Russia and the GRU in terms of hacking. He asks about Derapaska and who he is.
B: stated he did not want to get into that in the open setting,

S: Quotes Dept of Treasury statement as to who he is. [Quite a list of skullduggery including murder, and states then that in open session we can certainly agree he is a “bad dude”

In vol one, the part that deals with Paul Manafort is actually about Derapaska. He wants Barr to give a 101 to American citizens about him and Russia, Nato, the Ukraine, and the rules governing payment to them and their involvement in US election campaigns.

Sasse thinks the report puts in a lot of important factual data on 2016 election…. And a major takeaway is that Russia and even China will be seeking to interfere with the 2020 elections and it is critical we understand how this makes us so vulnerable. How and to what extent should foreign intelligence services be involved in our elections, and what should the American people know about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate going forward?

Barr asked him to pare down the huge broad question.

S: Could Russia or China, as evidenced by the OPM hack, come in and survey the political talent and target people who they could use as leverage?

Could a foreign country just pay for people they target to join this or that campaign and do the foreign county’s bidding? Barr says he doesn’t think it would be legal. S points out that sometimes DC people are put on retainer and the work done for the entity paying them is sometimes obscure. S is asking B to make sure that this kind of question is addressed by Barr and DOJ - at least to give guidelines to different campaigns.

Also: Should we be adding to counter intelligence briefings for individuals who have won the nomination so they can be better informed and ready to be up and running in get event they win the Presidency? He gets into defensive briefings, and should those be broadened by congress?

B: Absolutely….. and B speaks of the subtleties and pervasiveness of the foreign agents’ activities. He even states the briefing of even more people in govt should also be included so as to have more education on this. [encroachments / attempts to encroach, by foreign nations etc.]

Barr: The pattern is that foreign entities descend on our people and seek to influence them. Sasse points out the it is easier now in digital age to surround our people.

COONS:

Follows up on Klobuchar and Sasse issue of election security and states we need Barr’s and the President’s leadership to get this done to protect our election processes.

Then gets into Vol two and Obstruction. Points out the efforts to protect the Spec Counsel. He is concerned with Barr’s March 24th letter.

His bottom line is we need to hear more about the Spec Counsel from the Spec Counsel. Efforts to fire the Counsel by Prez are troubling. C speaks of the lapse of 3 weeks before the report was released. Calls McGahn’s letter requested by Prez is the creation of a false report/record. Barr demurred by saying that what Coons said was one interpretation, but there are other explanations of the scenario possible and the govt could not make a case for obstruction on that case.

COONS goes into all the coulda woulda shouldas about how the timing of release of report and thinking of Mueller. He again, as others, wants Mueller to testify before the Committee.

C then goes on to paint a scenario for the future, if a foreign intelligence agent approaches a campaign saying they have dirt on the opposition, should it be a response by the campaign to immediately contact FBI, and not just say, “ok - let’s meet.” Barr agreed to that particular scenario. Do contact the FBI if foreign agent contacts a campaign with dirt.

Then C says that Russians approached the Trump campaign offered dirt on Hillary, and campaign did not contact FBI. Which he implies, of course, makes DJT a criminal…. And all of his team.

Coons continue to complain bout the Barr letter stating the report results. Reiterates they want to hear from Mueller.

HAWLEY
Commends use of word “SPYING.” Barr affirms this was unprecedented, and that the ones engaged in this hid their investigations from superiors and there was/would be no oversight. Barr will get back with the committee about what he finds in his current investigations about this.

Gets into the 25th amendment standards. Asks B if the Prez is in any way meeting the standard of 25th amendment. Barr attributes the effort to use 25th to individuals, not the organization as a whole.

H speaks of the particular individuals - He was shocked by the Aug 26, 2006, text by Peter Strozk read earlier by Chairman Graham -

Strozk helped launch the counter spy operation - the text referred to was the one about the “smelly Walmart” people. This unelected bureaucrat had such contempt about the American people, and felt he had the right to overthrow the President they, the People were choosing. That is what is going on here today. H comments on their [bad actors in DOJ and FBI] power and blatant prejudice and use that to overturn the election. That in H’s mind is the real crisis here. If this continues and there is no accountability, then we no longer have a democracy.

[texokie takes a break! More later.]
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

NOTE: ALL OF THE PARTS TO THIS HEARING REPORT CAN BE FOUND AS REPLIES TO THE JUMPING DINOSAUR, POST 9 of this thread.

PART THREE

BARR HEARING ABOUT MUELLER REPORT BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY CMTE
[TEXOKIE NOTES/TAKEAWAYS - Not a transcript]

5/1/19

BLUMENTHAL

He thinks history will judge Barr harshly and perhaps unfairly…. Because he thinks Barr is the fall guy.

The letter from the Special Counsel stated that Barr mischaracterized the report and was not forthcoming about the conclusions…”I don’t know if Mueller supported my conclusion.” Barr interrupts and clarifies his own statement at the time of the word “obstruction,”

More lawyer stuff, Blumenthall trying to make Barr look wrong, and consequently the Prez wrong. Barr gives a good answer, and tits and tats with Blum.

A poster with elements citing “Evidence that Donald Trump Obstructed Justice” is held up for the cameras:

The elements listed have to do with:
Conduct in Flynn investigation
Conduct in Comey announcement of Russia investigation
Comey firing
Efforts to fire Mueller
Efforts to prevent disclosure of Trump Tower meeting
Efforts to have Sessions take over investigation
Order to McGah to deny attempt to fire Mueller
Conduct toward Flynn
Conduct toward Manafort (cooperation)
Conduct toward Manafort (influencing jury)
Conduct toward redacted individual (Stone?)
Conduct toward Cohen (influencing testimony)
Conduct toward Cohen (cooperation)

There was a colorful grid to the side of each of these elements and the color key at the bottom. I was unable to make out the details on these. Perhaps it will be shown in later news programs. Or not.

Blum is trying to make the case that Barr’s reputation is sullied. Barr affirmed he had not been directed to do anything on the list. Barr affirmed that he had no discussions with anyone in White House. He didn’t recall providing substantive information on any of the list to WH, SDNY, ….

Blum is leading up to a request for recusal from any of these cases listed. His questioning is so imprecise and ambiguous, that Barr appears to flounder a bit because it appears to my eyes as if he is wondering how to approach the answer. He had been asked if he recalled any conversations with WH or SDNY about any of the cases,,,, and he replied that he did not recall talking of anything substantive. Blum took that as he didn’t recall period, and twisted it to make Barr look bad.

He begins to go over the different cases on the list and asked if Prez lied to the American People -

I’m not in the business of assessing if anyone lied, but whether a crime was committed or not. He schools Blum on not in business in Justice system to exonerate or prove someone is innocent. There is already a presumption of innocence.

Barr affirmed that he did not exonerate the President when Blum asserted that he had done that…. Barr affirmed that he did not find evidence that POTUS obstructed justice. He seemed to refrain from saying “there is a difference.” There has not been a crime and the report is in the American peoples’ hands. We, [the DOJ and my office] are out of it. There is an election coming up in 2020. We need to stop using the Criminal Justice system and process as a political weapon.

[Blum makes it clear that he, as we would expect, remains a JACKASS….. In my considered opinion. In fact, all the dems do, so I’ll refrain (hopefully ) from all such comments which are distractingly obvious.]

ERNST
Speaks of hearing from constituents as she visits with them. The focus needs to be on what happened in 2016, and then to look forward.

She makes the point that “acts of aggression” do not now anymore mean boots on ground, or missiles, etc. What we see now are more subtle aggressions which are not those which are congenitally thought of as “acts of aggression.” Russia, NK, China have performed military actions, but now we are learning from the report they seek to influence the elections of our free nation through cyber means.

She makes the point that the Mueller report is the end of the road as far as the President’s concerned. But it is only the beginning of the conversation about how to make sure we are subjected to the foreign tampering again.

What are the vulnerabilities you have seen and what would you recommend we do to shore up our defenses against this foreign aggression in the future?

B: The FBI has a robust program called the Foreign Influence Task Force. It is working to counteract the kinds of interference we have seen. C Wray has briefed me on it, and I’m very impressed with what they are doing.

Because of the technology and the democratization of the data available, the crudities of interferences in the past are diminished and not as easily detected. Interference is more insidious. It affects our national communications and because of our freedoms, they can pretend to be Americans. HE says he thinks the intelligence community is responding to the challenge and threat. He discussed this with Bob Mueller and the lessons he has learned, and how to dismantle threats.

E: are the big tech companies also pushing back against this kind of foreign aggression?

B: Yes, I think the private companies are stepping up their game and being more responsible addressing it.
E: We just don’t want this to happen to us again…. Nor to [from?] our allies as well

HORONO

Accused Barr to act as the POTUS lawyer instead of being the AG for the American People. She listed grievances she has about the bad actions of Barr and giving the people a misleading impression of his work. Barr refused. The release was before two major holidays and no one had the opportunity to read it. Yada yada. You lied to Congress. [During all this Barr maintained neutral face. Not even disturbed in the least.] You took things out of context. She states proudly that all this is because she voted against his confirmation.

She goes back to Noriega, Iran Contra Scandal, and his earlier really bad behavior. He’s been protecting the POtUS and covering up POTUS misdeeds and Barr should resign. Is the White House exerting any influence on your decision to allow Special Counsel Mueller to testify before Congress and when?

Barr: No.

H: Re the list of 10 possible Obstruction crimes - do you think all the things DJT did are OK? Ex the attempted firing of Spec Counsel?

B and H go back and forth a bit - she does the lawyer twisty thing, and he cites to her the Law…

H: And she says, “So I guess you think it’s OK.”

GRAHAM interrupts stating that H has slandered Barr. [It is a thing of beauty, and as I write this, I suspect by now, many of you are seeing it on the news reports already. ]

BLACKBURN

Brings up the culture that seems to be operative at FBI - there seems to be a seedy cynical culture the arose within a certian group, and they seemed to have the sense they are above the Law.

She says Tennesseans want to see a restoration of trust in government. This culture arose, what is your plan to see to this?

Barr: I don’t think there is a bad culture in the FBI and that the things which arose in 2016 are endemic to the institution. I think the FBI is doing its job. Ex,as Kennedy cited, the FBI did good work in that CA bombing. It IS the premier law enforcement in the world. As far as overreach, I don’t want to judge peoples’ motives and as far as there was overreach, what we have to be concerned about is that few people at the top decided they had in their heads that they know better than the Am. People.

Blkbrn: she is asking about the lawyers in the lawyers on Spec Counsel qualifications.

Barr brings up the point as to how the POtuS had been accused for 2 years of being treasonous. These allegations have now been proven false. To listen to the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller report had found something opposite.

Blkbrn - her constituents are concerned about how did we get here? How do we get this to not happen again? Am. People want fairness and equal justice under law.

She speaks of social media accounts/ads which had been paid in rubles - is there is a plan to deal with these tech companies? [It was rhetorical, for her time ran out and B didn’t answer/acknowledge to my observation]

BOOKER:
We are at a sobering point/crossroad in US History. He digs and says Barr is putting his own reputation at risk. Barr’s behavior is causing there to be a new normal of lies and deceit and misbehavior. He says Barr is accepting contacts with foreigners which the DJT campaign engaged in. He says Barr is trying to normalize that behavior and is eroding our democracy.

Got specific. Trying to question out of context words of Barr. He, Barr refutes that the Trump campaign sought to benefit from the Russian contacts.

Barr deals with this guy beautifully, but the blow by blow is painful to have to tolerate Booker’s line of questioning.

Booker keeps hammering on the erroneous idea that Barr is trying to normalize bad behavior.

[Texokie break time - more coming later]

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

PART FOUR
BARR HEARING ABOUT MUELLER REPORT BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY CMTE
[TEXOKIE NOTES/TAKEAWAYS - Not a transcript]

5/1/19

TILLIS

Goes to the list of search warrants, interviews and work that they did. He is saying that the new normal we are finding here is that “after all of this investigation and you haven’t found any conduct worthy of indictment, that you can just bounce back from political reasons and indict somebody.”

He talks of NYT headline Mueller pushed a letter for Barr to release the report’s summary.

Narrative now seems to be: So doesn’t this undermine the AG because Mueller wanted the exec summaries issued?

Goes back to Barr’s opening statement re the need to do the redacting after he had requested the redacting to already to have been done. T asked if Barr had ever consider just release the letter and let the press work on that for 3 weeks. No.

Went over the percentages of redaction.

T makes the point that the data is there, and no matter how you spin it, there is no underlying crime.

They talked a bit about exoneration.

Then T brought up Strozk and Page. He affirms that majority of people in DOJ and FBI are good people. He hopes that they [the bad ones] are being investigated.

T asks about the scope of the Horowitz investigation. Barr says he doesn’t want to be too specific. He did speak with Horowitz a few weeks ago. It is focused on the basis of the FISA. By necessity it does look back a bit from that. I and my people will be working with him.

T affirms with Barr that there was no underlying crime. He is noting the dems are not respectful of innocent til proven guilty.

K HARRIS
Has the President ask you to open an investigation on anyone, yes or no?

More lawyer speak.

H: Did you personally review all the underlying evidence?
Barr: No, we accepted the statements in the report as factual record. We did not go underneath it. We accepted it as accurate.
H: Did RR look at the underlying evidence?
B: Not to my knowledge.
H: Did anyone in your exec off review?
B: No

H: Yet you said to the American Ppl that the evidence is not sufficient to support an Obstruction of Justice?

B: The evidence presented in the report. This is not a mysterious process. We have procecution and definition memos every day in the DOJ coming up and we don’t look up the underlying evidence of them. We accept the characterization of the evidence as true.

H: As AG, running the DOJ, would you, from any US Attorney office would you accept from any of them when being asked to make a critical decision, about the highest office in the land, and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the underlying evidence?

Barr: well, that’s a question for Bob Mueller. He’s the US Attorney, he’s the one who presents the report.
H: But it was you who made the charging decision, sir.

B: It was my decision whether or not to disclose it to the public.
H: And whose decision was it to decide if evidence was sufficient to make a determination of obstruction of justice.

B: Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor. In this case it was the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, who decide on the final decision, and that is based on the memo as presented by the US Attorney’s office.

H: [talking over Barr] I think you have made it clear you have not looked at the evidence and we can move on.

H: She ask if he will agree to consult DOJ career ethics officials about his recusal from the 14 investigations discussed by my colleagues is necessary.

B: I don’t see any basis for it. I already consulted with them …

H: about the 14 investigations?
B: About the Mueller case.

H: she asks the question again if he spoke with the ethics guys about him recusing himself from those 14 investigations. She accuses him of conflict of interest.

B: He points out he is not the only decision maker here. RR was also involved. He was approved by the Senate, 94 to 6 with specific discussion on the floor that he would be responsible for supervising the Russian investigation.

H: I’m glad you brought that up….

B: [he talks over her - difficult to make out the point]

H: She is pointing out RR’s conflict of interest. Did B consult ethics guys about having someone with those conflicts in the decision process about obstruction, who was a potential witness to a lot of the things being investigated?

B: His understanding was that RR had already been cleared when he took over the investigation.

Bit of a blow by blow between them here. At one point, Barr rolls his eyes because of the obtuseness of the questioning.

CRAPO
Talks about the letter released March 27. - who released it to the public. Was it an AG decision to release it? The dept provided it this morning. He is asking how the Wash Post got it?

B: IDK

C: went over once more the desire of Mueller to have the summaries of the report released. What he wanted to do is put out everything at once.

He also makes the point about history of leaks. He thinks that Mueller’s concerns were being leaked, and then in that context the letter in which M was detailing those concerns was released.

C brings up the bias at FBI found by Horowitz, but couldn’t find that the bias but could not find that it affected the work product.

How is political bias being addressed?

B refers to C Wray. The bad apples at the top are no longer there, and the Wray is making sure that the bias is being addressed.

C asks, and B affirms that it is wrong for FBI people to leak information for political purposes. B also notes that while some leaks are political in nature, what motivates some leaks are that subordinates may not like what superiors are doing, and so data is leaked in order to effect control up the chain.

C notes that Barr has some investigators looking into that type of thing, and B agrees,.,

He asks B, when did the FBI and DOJ know that the Steele Dossier was paid for by the Democrat Party? Which then served as the basis for Carter Page FISA?

B: IDK

C: Are you investigating to determine that?
B: Yes.

C: Did FBI, DOJ and other agencies engage in investigative activities before an official investigation was opened July 2016?

B: IDK…. Am investigating that.

[Breaking up what would otherwise be a way too long post. More coming. ]
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

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

Part A

Please Quote Post to Which You Are Replying

Part B

Please Use Graphic Content Warnings

Part C

All 8ch links and link variations are prohibited

Welcome to our Q thread.