, 162 tweets, 23 min read Read on Twitter
This will be the beginning of my LIVE thread of the Barr hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is where I am watching and is the only live feed popping up right now. Feel free to share others below:
Here is the link to Fox and there are others in the comments:
The members are beginning to take their seats and the press is settling down. Please excuse typos and abbreviations as I move through and attempt to provide an accurate portrayal of what's said along with some commentary. If you have notifications turned on, you may want them off
Off we go!!! Graham calls the hearing to order. AG will be testifying about Mueller report. Good news- you can read the report for yourself, Graham hasn't read it all. There is a place to read unredacted version and it doesn't change outcome
Graham: Mueller has a rep as an outstanding lawyer and man of the law. Was FBI D. DAG, in charge of Crim. at Dept of Justice and a US marine. Has served his country long and well. Report was well written and very thorough.
2800 Subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 500 interviews, 230 orders for records, 13 requests to foreign gov for evidence, 25m spent over two years. Hope we can agree he had ample resources. In terms of interacting with WH- turned over 1.4m docs and records and never exerted EP.
They were able to talk to anyone and everyone. TO the American people- Mueller was the right guy to do this job. He was the right guy with ample resources and the cooperation he needed was given. But there were two campaigns in 2016- we will talk about the second in a min
After all of this time and money he concluded no collusion- Graham says he "didn't know". No collusion, o coordination, no conspiracy between Trump and Russia. As for Obstruction, Mueller left it to Barr to decide, Barr decided. You need intent to obstruct.
Another campaign, Clinton camp- the russians interfered in the election. I intend to introduce Deter Act to defend voter integrity. Want to do more to harden infrastructure- the Russians did it. (eye roll)
The other campaign. The other campaign was investigated not by Mueller but by DOJ. The accusation against Clinton was that she set up a private server to avoid FOIA. That was investigated. We know the person in charge hated Trumps guts. dont think Mueller hated Trump
Going over Strzok and Page texts- compare them to Mueller he says (I don't like this, TBH.) Still reading biased texts. OMG GRAHAM JUST DROPPED THE F BOMB ON LIVE TV!!
This committee will be looking long and hard at how this all started. Did Russia provide information about Trump? Was there a real effort between Pdop and Russia- was that thought planted in his mind? If you change the names you would look too. If you substituted Clin. for Tr,
There was a protective order for the server issued by the House etc- Combetta used a software program called Bleach Bit to wipe the server. Under order to preserve from State Dep and House he Bleach Bit and destroyed devices. How many turned over? Beat with hammer.
When I am talking about a member I will put their name. Every following tweet until new name will be for that person.
Feinstein: (already hitting summary letter) Following the letter you sent, the WH put out a letter concluding there was no col. or obst. The report was a total and complete exonheration. But last night WaPo reported that Mueller sent a letter criticizing yours.
Letter threatened to undermine outcome of investigations. THen on 4/18 you held a presser where you announced that the report found no collusion and no evidence of a crime. When we saw the report, contrary to the declarations, report contained misconduct.
Russian intelligence hacked DNC and DCCC stole emails and memos and released them to impact election. The march letter stated there was no evidence of collusion, but report outlined that campaign welcomed and expected to benefit from Russian interference.
Campaign took steps to gain from Russian interference. Manafort passed polling data etc to Kilimnik with ties to Russian intelligence (We talked about the polling. Non issue) UKRAINE NOT RUSSIA
Next, Mueller report documents campagin communications regarding clinton and DDNC emails. Report states that within 5 hours of Trump calling on Russia to find emails- GRU "Targeted for the first time Clintons personal office" (RIDICULOUS)
Efforts to contact foreign intelligence services, russian hackers, Trump knew of the wikileaks emails (she is JUST LYING NOW) Don Jr. communicated with wikileaks and publicly tweeted a link of emails stolen. In your March letter you concluded the evidence is not suff. for obst.
Mueller documented 10 incidents- in one ex POTUS called Mcghann at home and directed him to fire Mueller (I don't think this happened). The report outlines efforts by Trump to influence witness testimony - pardons would be available if they stayed on message and on team
POTUS publicly affirmed communication with Manafort about staying strong. Mueller report stated POTUS used inducements in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate and then turned to attacking to undermine him (He did that pretty well himself IMO)
The report docs that legal conclusions were not drawn because witnesses refused to answer questions, numerous witnesses including Giuliani, Flynn, Sanders, Bannon, Kushner all stated they couldnt recall (PROJECTION)
(Barr is just sitting there staring at all this like....)The office cant rule out that the unavailable info wouldnt give more detail. Contrary to the conclusion the SC didn't find evidence of collusion. A statement that the invest. did not establish facts does not mean no evidenc
Feinstein stating we need to hear from Mueller about report and March letter and senators should be able to ask about this directly. (They just can not let it go) Garaham has the letter and he is putting it in record.
Barr about to give OS- swearing in now. Barr: During confirmation, there were two concerns that dominated. Whether I would impede or whether he would make public the report. He finished as he saw fit, and even though I could keep confidential, I chose to release it
I arrived at the dept on 2/14/19- said to Mueller, in preparing the report I asked that they identify 6E (GJ material) I wanted it identified so we could redact as quickly as possible. When I got to the dept I found that DAG and PAD were in regular discussion and (cont)
On 5/5 I met with Mueller. To get a readout on what his conclusions would be. At that meeting I reiterated that in order to do this rapidly, identify 6E plea.e On 5/22 I got the report, unfortunately it did not come with the 6E material redacted. It would take 3-4 weeks to ident
The DAG and I identified 4 cat. of info for redactions. (This is new- he is off his prepared opening statement) We went about redacting with the SC office, we needed their assistance. They were all carried out by DOJ and SC lawyers in consult with IC.
POTUS decided NOT to exert Executive Privilege. The public version has 10% redaction, vast bulk in Volume 1, Volume 2 has 2% redactions. 98% available to public. (he is back on script). Given limited nature of redactions, publicly released report allows americans to understand
In Volume 1- IRA conducted a disinfo and social media op- 2, the GRU hacked into DNC and DCCC along with Podesta. SC investigated for conspiracy and coordination- concluded not enough evidence to establish any coordination. V2 - dealt with obstruction. He decided not to conclude
We first heard he wouldn't decided on obstruction on 5/5 meeting, we were surprised and asked for their reasoning and basis. Mueller stated 3X he was not saying But for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction. Said those shouldn't be abandoned in this case
We pressed him on why no decision, he said they were still writing it. DAG and I decided we needed to reach a decision after assessing the evidence. I say this because the SC was appointed to do that as part of the DOJ. The powers he was using exist for that purpose-
It is a binary decision- we don't conduct criminal investigations to put it out to the public. We felt the evidence was NOT sufficient to establish that no obstruction was committed- he needs to make the decision for the DOJ because the SC didn't and it is their place
We disagreed with a lot, and set them against the framework, and concluded that the evidence was NOT sufficient for obstruction. Report came in on 3/22 and it would take a while for report to be released, we needed to do something
(Barr stating that the media basically caused a lot of issues especially former officials stating POTUS would be indicted) We used the language from the report to make the conclusions. (Barr arguing he is the DOJ so his decision is the decision of the SC)
Offered Mueller the ability to review, and he declined. On Thursday AM, I received a letter from Bob and I called him and said "What is the issue here. Are you suggesting this was inaccurate" he said No but that the press reporting was inaccurate and they were reading too much
Bob wanted more put out on issue of obstruction- argued to put out exec summaries written by his office and was very clear he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report. I told Bob I wasn't interested in doing that or putting it out piece meal,
Following day Barr put out a letter stressing that the 5/24 was not a summary of the report but a statement of the principle conclusion. End.
Graham: did mueller object to redactions? Barr: we worked together, few judgement calls as to whether or not something should be treated as a reputation as interest.
Any disagreement about 6E or classified? Barr: No. G: as to obstruction were you surprised he let you decide? B: Yes. I was surprised because it was his job. G: he can indict and indict a lot B: invest. Carried on as things added- why if you wouldn’t reach decision?
G: give reasoning for why it would be inappropriate to proceed forward on obstruction. B: obst. Has two aspects - usually an underlying criminality and there wasn’t one here. It isn’t necessary, but the people implicated take an inherently malignant act.
G: On firing Comey- (going through dem comments on that) Did you have issue with handling of MYE? B: yes. I said so at the time. I didn’t think firing him was obstruction. Report came to that conclusion as well. Reason for it was refusal to tell public what he was telling potus
G: should we harden infrastructure? B: yes harden infrastructure. G: do you share concerns about Fisc and counterintelligence? Lack of professionalism with MYE? B: YES ON ALL.
Lots more yes and no here- affirming all we thought
Feinstein: Trump directed Mcghann to fire Mueller and write a letter. Also to make repeated efforts to change his story- SC found substantial evidence that POTUS tried to change McGahan account to prevent further scrutiny. Does existing law prohibit efforts to get a witness lie?
Barr: yes, to lie to the government. I am not sure which they were referring to here- F: So, these things in effect constitute obstruction? B: We felt that episode, the government wouldn't be able to prove obstruction. McGanns version of this is clear- the instruction said
Go to RR and state that Mueller has a COI- The POTUS later said that what he meant was that the COI should be raised with RR and the decision should be left there. On the other end, McGan said he felt that POTUS was saying to use that to get Mueller out.
Something different between telling someone to fire and also get rid of for SC- press reporting was wrong and wanted it corrected- couldn't prove that POTUS was instructing McGann to say something false, POTUS was aware that McGann had already spoken to Mueller-
(POTUS was trying to get them to correct media reporting-- not obstruct) F: You still have a situation where POTUS tries to change lawyers account to stop further criticism. B: To be obstruction, the lie has to be tied to impairing the evidence. McGann had already given
POTUS wanted to make clear he never directed anyone to fire, vs. wanting to remove for conflict- if removed for conflict there would be another person reported. F: Wouldn't you need to have a valid conflict? B: The issue of direction to McGann has number of levels-
POTUS can lawfully remove or replace SC- Could you establish corrupt intent? What makes this interesting, is that when you take away that there was no underlying criminal conduct what is the impact of taking away the underlying crime?
If the POTUS is being falsely accused, which evidence suggests, and he knows they are false, and he felt this was unfair and propelled by political opponents, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing a SC.
Grassley: We wrote you about texts between Page and Strzok using counter intelligence briefings to get information. Hope you will provide answers. B: Yes senator. G: Have you already directed staff to look into FISA? Barr: Yes- have people helping me review activities over 2016
G: Clinton hired Fusion, Fusion hired Steele, to compile dossier that used Russian Gov sources for info and was central to collusion narrative- here is irony- SC spent millions and found no collusion but democrats paid foreigner for info- that is collusion.
G: Mueller spent 2 years invest. Russian interference, in order for a full acct, shouldn't they have looked into the dossier? B: SC Mueller put out report, and I have not had anyone go through full scope to see if he did address. Trying to assemble all info out there
G: Shouldn't SC have looked into counterintel investigations? B: I don't know if he viewed his charter that broadly. Barr is reviewing background docs and information. B: SC reiterated that the reason why he didnt indict on obstruction WAS NOT because of the OLC.
G: Was it SC responsibility to make a charging decision? B: Yes, and to determine whether or not conduct was criminal (keeps ensuring he throws DAG RR in there)
G: Asking about leaks- what are you doing to investigate media contacts B: We have MULTIPLE criminal leak investigations underway.
Leahy: Stating that Barr was lying about receiving the letter. What struck him was that his letter threatened to undermine the SC. Why did you testify 4/9 you didnt know the concerns when you had the letter two weeks earlier? B: I talked directly to SC- (cont)
The question from Christ was about members of the SC in that they don't adequately portray the reports findings- (in other words he answered the QUESTION) I answered a ?- it was relating to unidentified members frustrated with findings- I spoke to SC directly-
(Barr is hitting back really hard right now- I love this man). L: You said POTUS cooperated- told M and Cohen they would be taken care of if they didn't cooperate. Is there a conflict yes or no: L: Reading a message to Sessions about un-recusing
This is really a difficult hearing to live tweet- Barr is VERY good and is really answering these questions well, and in order to explain this I can't type out everything fast enough. Barr is not able to be cornered.
Leahy is asking about being receptive to help from Russia, and Barr is pinning him down on what exactly he means- Leahy asking why he didn't go to the FBI- Does it bother you? Barr is pushing back hard.
Cornyn: Can POTUS fire anyone in the executive? B: Yes. (Talking about Comey firing) He is thanking Barr for restoring the DOJ- Important to fix that. Says we need to ask the question why didn't Obama admin do more in invest. Russian efforts to meddle in our elections?
Barr: The internet creates a lot more opportunity to have a covert effect on US Body politics- Russians have been at this for a long time- Point on IRA, struck him - impressive work in moving quickly to get into the IRA. (I will share my perspective here soon- dont worry)
Cornyn: How do we know Steele Dossier isn't evidence of Russian disinfo? B: Can't state it wasn't a part of disinformation. This is one of the areas I am reviewing- concerned and not entirely speculative. C: We know Brennan went to Obama- instead of doing more, (cont)
(cont) it appears to me that Obama DOJ decided to place bets on Clinton. What steps did the Obama FBI and DOJ take to undermine the process in favor of one candidate over the other. What is a defensive briefing in counterintel?
B: One form is if you learn someone is a target to alert them. C: Was one ever given to the FBI? B: My understanding is that that didn't happen. Under these circumstances I cant fathom why it didnt happen if you are concerned with this, and had 3 US Attorneys why no brief?
Durbin: (Going after Republicans for Clintons emails- so stupid they have barely spoken about it) Some of the things you engaged in leave me wondering what you think your role is (reading the letter) B: I talked directly to Bob and he told me he didn't have objections to accuracy
BARR IS AMAZING- He just went hard at Durbin. Durbin moves to OLC no indictments- Stating that POTUS refused to be interviewed and that he didn't cooperate- Mueller talks about OLC- states that he is concerned with the fact that Barr said this wasn't important.
Barr pushes back against that as well. Durbin: If you read section on McGann experience- POTUS wanted him to state publicly that NYTimes article was untrue- McGann refused - Durbin thinks that the POTUS was trying to shut down the investigation,.
Graham says “we might do that” in response to Durbin suggestion of new email investigation
Lee: Does Putin “have something on trump?” B: not that I’m aware of. (Going through public comments of dems of Russian collusion) staring press and politicians conspiracy theorists -
Lee: going through timeline of how Crossfire Hurricane started. Barr states that is the account that has been given in the past and Lee is asking about spying. B: many people assume the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single CI and FISA
Barr: was Page it anyone else under surveillance. - B: the extent that there was overreach it was a few people in the DOJ and FBI. People no longer there. Working to reconstruct what happened. The FBI has been handicapped because of OIG and SC
Lee: does SC confirm page met with Igor Schechin - B: I want to stay away from getting too deeply into FISA because it’s currently under investigation by the OIG (I told you all to listen for this) Lee debunking the dossier and thereby the Page warrant.
Whitehouse (then break for hour): is anon election funding an avenue for interference? B: yes. W: Mueller letter - when convo about that letter? When did you learn of the stories coming out? B: yesterday - they didn’t contact me for comment.
WH: when did you decide to make the letter public to us? B: this morning W: Christ asked you a related question couldn’t you have given it to us then? B: wasn’t a related question. I will do a scope shortly to explain this - it’s complicated.
Barr is staying that Mueller is UNDER Barr. It’s his job after he submits the report to make decisions. It’s “his baby”. In other words, I don’t answer to Mueller.
WH is challenging the OLC opinion about indicting a sitting president. Whitehouse is missing the point - deciding obstruction was up to Barr because Mueller didn’t make a decision.
WH: you used the words spying in authorized activities - have you ever referred to authorized activities as spying? Barr: I don’t think the word spying has a negative term - (he is amazing. He’s great) I can’t encompass this - it’s a beautiful exchange.
Barr doesn’t take any bullshit from these guys. I’m going to need to do an entire video explaining all of this and I’m keeping track. This has been fantastic so far. Senators keeping away from ? That would cause “ongoing investigation” responses.
I didn’t see his closing expression because I’m listening - but this has been one of the most difficult live hearings to tweet because Barr has a complex legal mind and I don’t want to be just typing out a transcript.
The tree, my lunch, and I did a quick livestream to brush up on a few points very rapidly. We will be getting started again in a moment:
Before we begin- hysterical comment from the live stream chat about Biden :)
AG - clarifying on defensive briefings - was told that a lesser kind - security - was given in August of 2016
Has the SC changed his conclusions? It appears they were unhappy at one point. Have they changed their minds? Barr: No.
Barr staying Mueller was concerned about press reporting - he can’t speak to the team. Mueller felt that he wasn’t nuanced enough in his letter. This whole thing is “mindbendingly bizarre”.
Barr wasn’t going to adjust to what the press was saying and it was HIS call. Barr isn’t going to at one point say that he can’t say what Mueller said and in another say he can’t be in his head - in other words what Barr is stating here is fact.
Barr wanted to focus on getting full report out which is his call as AG. All of these issues are moot now that the report is out. Barr can’t recapitulate why no decision on Obstruction - they couldn’t understand why no conclusion. Not sure in the report either.
Asking for declassifying of all documents with redactions and investigating leaks of Mueller. Klobuchar up.
She’s going to soapbox and not ask any questions. Stating she is speaking for the American people.
K: talking about the Secure Elections Act passed - this is pretty ridiculous. She’s insinuating the WH tried to stop the bill. Will you work with us Barr? B: will work to enhance election and take a look.
K: talking about GRU and hackers about Florida. Will you brief us? B: sure. (I can’t take this ad stuff. This is absolutely ridiculous)
She’s talking about Facebook ads. Moving on - I raised issue on obstruction - changing testimony. She’s actually talking about the debunked story about Cohen being threatened.
Barr doesn't think general public statements have probable effect to constitute. Klobuchar is going through Manafort and Cohen issues- "Hang in there and stay strong" (Is this really obstruction?) Would causing McGann to create a false record be obstruction? (We spoke about this)
Barr: Evidence not sufficient- 1- not suff. to show obstructive act because unclear whether P knew that to be false- the focus on the fact that he never said to fire McGannn (she interrupts)
McGann had already given his testimony, POTUS really thought that the news reporting was wrong. Government couldn't prove it. She says that the totality means obstruction.
Oleg Deripaska: Not getting into him in an open setting (this is INTERESTING)
Oleg Deripaska is a "bottom feeding scum sucker" (I can't). Please help us understand what is and isn't allowed. Now talking about Ukranian business deals.
Stating Manafort was being paid by Deripaska- (This isn't true. Manafort was not being paid by Deripaska) I am not sure who is talking right now. What is legal and illegal about Foreign election meddling.
They are talking about the Chinese spying database for political corruption- how can we stop this?
This exchange is important but went in about 5 different directions. I will circle back around here-
Coons: Speaking about Obstruction and trying to fire SC without cause. Has concerns that the letter obscured that and tried to protect POTUS for weeks. Again on McGann and "removal". The demands to fire Mueller are alarming and unacceptable.
Barr: They were in the complete report (they are hemming and hawing over this letter- this is all moot because the report is out and people can read it. This is all ridiculous- here is a false record claim. If all of this is true, why would he have let McGann testify)
Barr: I wasn't hiding the ball- I said that SC said they couldn't exonerate the president. (They are trying to hedge this and it isn't working) Coons wants to hear from Mueller.
Coons: Talking about Pdop and Don Jr. about "Russian" contacts. going forward what if NK offers a Presidential candidate dirt should they contact the FBI? Barr: Yes.
Hawley: Has the FBI ever launched an CI into another president. Barr: NO H: Was this unprecedented? B: Yes. H: Unusual to hide results of this from superiors? B: Yes H: anyone to hold them accountable? B: No. I am looking into why it was started.
H: 25th amendment- McCabe contemplated forcing POTUS out of office Barr: Never happened before to my knowledge. H: This is for physical ailments, not political differences- have you ever doubted POTUS could do his job? B: No.
H: Talking about a text from Strzok about the Walmart shoppers. Want to know why we are all here? Because an unelected official who as open disdain and hatred of Trump supporters tried to overturn the results of an election. Can't believe that these people would do this.
Blumenthal: History will judge you harshly and a bit unfairly because you have been the designated fall guy (THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK. Again with obstruction and this damn letter.) Talking about conclusions- this is complicated-
B: You cleared the POTUS- B: The difference is I used the proper standard- what SC did was very odd. B: You ignored that M found substantial evidence of obstruction. Intent, interference, and the obstructive act. I think your credibility is undermined with the dept and americans
B: Have you had any conversations about ongoing investigations? B: No I don't recall any substantitive conversations. Barr: i don't recall giving information B: YOU DONT RECALL!!!? B: I don't recall providing any information on any case.
I just realized they both have the same initial dammit. He asks if Barr will recuse and Barr says no. Also talking about POTUS denying that the Russian government had hacked the election or whether or not there was any communication with the Russians during the camp
These leftists are really messed up. They are spinning facts around and changing the definition of words to be able to try to slam a puzzle piece into a hole it doesn't fit into. Barr wants to address presumption of innocence- we don't prove people didn't committ crimes-
The job of the DOJ is now over- we are out of this now- we have to stop using criminal justice as a weapon.
Ernst: Talking about Russian interference and their tactics. This makes me yawn.
Ernst: Do you see vulnerability that left us open during 2016. (someone likes to hear themselves talk.) Barr: we have a foreign influence task force. Dynamic program and I’m impressed. The way I view it is there has always been efforts to influence elections
It was more easily detectable and now with tech and democracy of info the danger is far more insidious. It’s a huge challenge because people can impersonate Americans.
E: Can we work with Social Media companies to counter this? B: Yes, private co. are stepping up their game (BTW that means the left claiming we are all Russian bots and censoring our twitter. Be careful here)
Oh Boy. Hirono: You arent different than KellyAnn Conway and Giuliani holding water for the "grifter" in the oval office. (I swear if I hear that word from the right ever again) Hirono is going after Barr stating that he should never have overseen the SC- delayed the report.
H: Praising the “free press” (this entire thing is just an entire bunch of lies. My gosh someone please stop her or correct her. Please Barr)
Hirono accusing Barr of lying right now - this is the most irresponsible horrible display I’ve ever seen. She’s disgusting. This is disgusting. I can’t even tweet it.
She’s using her entire 7 minutes to grandstand- they are now investigating BARR ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE. FOR GOODNESS SAKES. They are trying to get him off all investigations. This is sick.
H: is the WH exerting influence on you about Mueller testifying? B: No. H: do you think all of the things potus did are OK. Is it OK to fire FBI director? Hirono won’t let him answer.
This woman should not be allowed to hold office. She’s rude. Barr please - Graham pushing back hard now.
Barr should have been allowed to respond. Don’t know who is asking questions now. Talking about culture in government and institutions. Seems there is a seedy culture that developed and these ppl thought they could work within power
When she talks to Tennesseans they want to see a restoration of trust integrity and accountability.
What is the plan to rebuild the trust in the DOJ. B: I don’t think there is a bad culture. Don’t think issues are indemic to institution. They do great work every day. To the extent there was overreach we have to be concerned that a few people (Cont)
Getting it into their heads they know better than American people. Barr: I don’t consider them the best and the brightest in the country. Lololol
B: how did we get to the point that the evidence shows this was all without basis and allegations of treason and to listen to some of the rhetoric you’d think the report found the opposite.
Booker: off we go. We are at a very sobering moment in American history. Considerable amount going on that shows we are at a crossroads and we are descending into a new normal and I fear you’ve put your own credibility into question through your language. The letter again
Stating the president instructed people to lie (he didn’t). He found that stating this was acceptable was problematic and the second is that you seem to be excusing a campaign that had hundreds of contacts with a foreign adversary (HELLO DEMOCRATS! Be careful here Booker(
Talking about Manafort polling data. You said “we know the Russian operatives didn’t have cooperation of the campaign or admin” Booker stating this isn’t true and they were willing to meet and your objectivity is called into question.
Barr: they didn’t do any of this - apparently Trump Jr. was interested in seeing what Russian woman had. This is hard to tweet I’m really sorry - Barr stating that this happens and attempts are made. If we were right now to look at Clinton’s campaign during this same time
Booker trying to interrupt him talking about Clinton’s campaign and information- stating Barr’s willingness to brush over this is bad.
Tilles: The scope of the OIG- do you know what the scope will be? Does it extend? B: I dont want to be too specific. I talked to Horowitz a few weeks ago, it is focused on the FISA but by necessity it looks back a bit earlier. The people I have helping me with mine and Horowitz
Harris is up: Has the POTUS recommended that you open an investigation of anyone? Barr: No. (but they have talked about it) (HARRIS IS A BI$$$$) H: In reaching our conclusion did you personally review all of the underlying evidence? B: We accepted the report as accurate.
H: did anyone review evidence (this really doesn't matter. She is basically stating that Mueller didn't do his job right). B: This is not a mysterious thing- we take presentation of the evidence as true.
H: Will you recuse from investigations? B: No. I don't see any reason to do this? Barr asking what my conflict of Interest is, and Harris states he is biased. Barr invoking RR and stating he isn't the only one involved.
Harris is basically saying RR had a conflict and couldn't make a charging decision, but they had absolutely no problem with him RUNNING THE ENTIRE thing.
Crapo: Who released the letter to the WaPo? B: I don't know. (LEAKS. That's how. SC leaks)
Barr thinks that the concerns were leaked and then to answer that the letter was given.
No one is asking anything that can be ongoing investigations - the Republicans don’t want to expose them and the Dems don’t want them exposed.
Barr is stating that he thinks Wray has rooted out bad bias apples.
Barr says leaks are happening because they don’t like what their supervisors are doing and they are leaking to control up the chain - very interesting.
Cruz now: talking about the slander Barr has experienced today. A word that occurred hardly ever is Russia - now they are only talking about obstruction - calling president a traitor and accusing him of treason
Cruz stating if this letter is all the Dems have they have nothing. He’s going over the letter issue. (This was a propaganda stunt by the media to effect this hearing. Ridiculous media complicity in an ongoing coup against our potus.)
Barr is laughing at the Democrats now.
Cruz: DOJ under Obama was weaponized and politicized. If that is the case do you agree that that is an abuse of power. Are - yes regardless of who does it. C: when did surveillance begin B: position today July, but I don’t know the answer.
Barr not knowing a lot of these details again lends credence to ongoing investigations for some time now.
End of first round now. Senator Lehey again - stating that campaign knew about emails before world knew (not true. They didn’t know before)
Special counsel found evidence of underlying crimes - talking about campaign finance.
Barr doubling down stating he will supervise all investigations- he will not recuse
From here on out I’m only going to tweet new information. 👌🏻👌🏻
Klobuchar is asking if Mueller investigates Trumps taxes as part of the investigation and states she wants to see the returns as a review 🙄
Barr just stated that the letter is “snitty “ and likely written by a staff member. Made it political - Barr will not provide the notes of the conversation. Barr is badass.
And with that, we are done for today.
He literally just said “No you can’t have them, because why should you”. I love him.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Tracybeanz
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!