WATCH: What AG Barr actually said about President Trump’s tweets

SHARYL ATTKISSON ^ | FEBRUARY 13, 2020 | BY SHARYL ATTKISSON

[Always A Marine]

Never forget, folks... These are the same people who took down the Five Families of the Mafia back in the early 1990s. The AG back then? Barr. The US Attorney in Manhattan? Giuliani. The DOJ players in between them? Mueller, Rosenstein, and Boente. And their suspected business informant? Donald John Trump. Taking down the Deep State is orders of magnitude bigger than the Mafia, but the team and its secrecy and strategies look very familiar. Pray for President Trump and enjoy the show.

[semimojo]

He never mentions Trump's tweet in particular

Sure he does. He says "To have public statements and tweets...makes it impossible"

Are you trying to say he was talking about someone else's tweets?

[TomGuy]

Does it take 2 years to get anything of importance done at the AG’s office...?

Last week/weekend there were numerous articles claiming that there would be 'major' arrests of big names early this week.

So far, it's Friday and all we have are crickets chirping.

[semimojo]

1) Barr made it very, very clear that Trump had NEVER asked or directed him to change anything about any criminal case; and

2) Because of that statement, I think that there is a distinct possibility that Barr and Trump spoke about this matter and, since they knew that there was already a schiffstorm about Trump’s tweet on the Roger Stone case, they decided to...

I just have to point out the irony when your first point assumes we take Barr at his word and your second assumes that he was lying when he said he had no contact with Trump or the White House about Stone.

[Madam Theophilus]

Totally agree. In fact, I think the President purposely caused this uproar to divert attention away from Barr and undercut the House’s investigations of the DoJ so Barr can continue with less of a media circus. In other words, Trump and Barr are doing “good cop/bad cop” for the D.C. establishment (with Mitch supporting role).

[Ancesthntr]

When I said “this matter” I was referring to the media $hitstorm about Trump appearing to interfere with the criminal case, not to the case itself. Viewed in that (clarified) light, my positions are consistent.

[Ancesthntr]

“It seems like everyone is assuming that Barr was referring to the Roger Stone case when he made this comment, but I’m not so sure about that. I think the more relevant Twitter post here was the one Trump posted about Comey, Page and Strzok.”

---

Perhaps, but it may not matter that much. There was the (usual) media $hitstorm about Trump, but this time with a lot of pressure on/criticism of Barr, and I think that the two of them planned Barr’s appearance and approach to take the heat off of Barr. If that is even mostly true (”if” being a very big word), it gives me a lot more confidence that Barr is in the process of getting his ducks in a row to really hit the Dems and the coup conspirators hard over the next few months. WRT the timing, let’s not forget that there is an election in less than 9 months, so doing something like that beforehand will allow Trump to get a lot more bang for the buck.

[jonrick46]

I think that Barr did this on purpose too. It was to present an air of independence with his treatment of the Stone sentencing. Barr does not want to appear as if he is being influenced by Trump who is concerned about the treatment of his friend. I believe we are seeing the optics of something operating on a level not to be understood by conventional thinking.

[jonrick46]

Exactly! You have nailed it!

[semimojo]

When I said “this matter” I was referring to the media $hitstorm about Trump appearing to interfere with the criminal case, not to the case itself.

THOMAS: So just to be clear, did you talk to the President at all about your decision regarding the recommendations?

BARR: The recommendations on this case? Never.

You think this statement gives Barr room to have talked to Trump about the reaction to his recommendations?

Talking about the reaction to his decision isn't talking about his decision, at all?

[Ancesthntr]

“You think this statement gives Barr room to have talked to Trump about the reaction to his recommendations?

Talking about the reaction to his decision isn’t talking about his decision, at all?”

---

Not necessarily.

Barr could have called up Trump right after those tweets went up and the $hitstorm started. He could have said to him “if you continue this, I will be spending most of my time under investigation, not doing my real job. Regardless of what happens to Stone, this stuff has to stop, and we need to find a way to make it stop soon. Here’s what I suggest....”

No need to talk about the details of Stone’s treatment before trial, details of the trial or the sentencing. Just, “help me do my job by not spouting off on active cases and DoJ employees.”

Now, note that I said “not necessarily.” I was certainly not a party to their various communications (and, after all, it is PURE speculation to assume that they even spoke about this in the last few days), so I don’t know for sure. Maybe you are 100% correct - but maybe I am, instead. We simply cannot know (and may never know), but you have to leave room for the possibility that I may be correct, even if you don’t believe that to be the case.