William Barr on Why He Disagrees With the IG Report’s Conclusions. The attorney general says the FBI’s conduct during the investigation was a ‘travesty’

Wall Street Journal ^ | December 12, 2019 | Gerard Baker

[proust]

He’s doing press interviews practically everyday. He’s been AG since February.

[CommerceComet]

Rather than just complain about it, start indicting them. That will get their attention. Offer deals to the little fish until you get to the big fish. Come on, AG Barr, you know how the process works.

[Uncle Miltie]

Nobody ever goes to jail.

Barr.

[Ceebass]

Accountability when, AG Barr????

I believe in his interview he mentioned the early summer. May or June? Right after the rat primaries.

[Ceebass]

messages concerning Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer... the meeting with Mifsud, ...the text messages between Strzok and Page were all DATED in early MAY 2016...

Papadopoulos told Greg Jarrod that he started getting feelers when he was still with the Ben Carson campaign. He suspects several GOP candidates were initially targeted.

[4Liberty]

[Hostage]

After Papadopoulos announced he was returning to the US to join the Trump Campaign he was targeted with a Russian collusion frame up. So this announcement serves as a time marker for his association with the Russia hoax.

After word spread that Papadop was joining the Trump Campaign, Josef Mifsud requested to meet Papadop in Italy and told him he knew someone who could get the ‘lost’ Clinton emails.

Mifsud was referring to the lost emails subpoenaed in 2014 by the Gowdy committee in connection with Benghazi.

Hillary Clinton and her coven of witches and her stable of scumbags with male appendages were seeking to tie Trump to ‘Guccifer’ who they claimed was a Russkie but was actually a Romanian. The idea was to tie Trump to Russia. It was only one part in a large playbook of frame ups.

Downer (an Australian who fantasizes himself as a Warrior for Western Civilization but is actually a maggot that even Aussies find repulsive) then ‘arranged’ to meet Papadop. Downer brought his Ho with him as a witness. In that meeting Downer discussed the lost Clinton emails and Papadop mentioned Mifsud’’s comments. This was noted up and sent to aholes in he FBI who used it to mark Papaop as an agent somehow connected to Russia because they lied to say Mifsud was a Russian agent. But there was no direct connection to Russia so they searched their sh*t for brains to script that Papadop was somehow tied to Trump Campaign worker Carter Page who was meeting with Russians on natural gas business proposals. These FBI knuckleheads conveniently left out of their write up that Carter Page was a CIA informant. And now Carter is suing DOJ and FBI. I hope he gets a billion dollars and causes the agents involved to receive a long sentence in prison.

All the above crap was being hatched and tracked by Fusion GPS which was Hillary’s operation.

Of course, Hillary’s minions were sending probes into the campaigns of all the viable GOP candidates. So it’s quite plausible and expected that Papadop was getting suspicious contacts when he was with the Carson campaign. If Carson had been the nominee, pretty much the same would have happened to him as happened to Trump.

But this thread is about why Barr disagrees with Horowitz. The reason is really simple. Horowitz did not have the information that Durham had and which Durham had briefed Barr about. Horowitz answered truthfully but in my view he answered to avoid ruffling feathers. That’s my beef with him. He should have answered the questions with first qualifying that his answers only concerned the timeline June 2016 on and that he learned from outside sources that there was material unrelated to his scope that was before that date AND THEREFORE HIS ANSWERS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED THE DEFINITIVE FINDING ON POSSIBLE BIAS.

When one sees Horowitz in action before the committee, he is like two people, one person talks to Democrats and another person talks to Republicans. This is typical of DC Bureaucracy. They all seek to lay low and stay out of trouble. All he had to do was to say he could not state unequivocally there was no bias because the restricted dates of his audit found no irregularities pointing to bias. In my book, he should have stood up and said THERE IS REPORTED BIAS BUT MY SCOPE RESTRICTED ME. Then let the chips fall where they may. If he doesn’t like that script, then he could modify it to I CAN’T SAY DEFINITIVELY THERE WAS NO BIAS BECAUSE MY SCOPE IS RESTRICTED AND MY STATEMENT WILL BE INCOMPLETE. He doesn’t have to answer the question ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He can say he is unable to answer because it is not possible to say. If Democrats would press him he could say from the month of June 2016 he saw no bias.That would be true, clear, and less susceptible to spin by scumbag Democrats. It would beg the question what about before June 2016? Horowitz would have to answer he didn’t review it. Why he didn’t review it is a question I would have for him.