,
19 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
I wrote on Mar. 24 when Barr wrote his letter:
"Mueller surely wrote an executive summary of his findings for Barr, and it clearly would have been easier for Barr simply to give Congress and the public Mueller’s summary... The question is why Barr didn’t." slate.com/news-and-polit…
"Mueller surely wrote an executive summary of his findings for Barr, and it clearly would have been easier for Barr simply to give Congress and the public Mueller’s summary... The question is why Barr didn’t." slate.com/news-and-polit…
2/ On that same day, Mueller told Barr the same thing, and seems to have the same question.
March 5th: Mueller told Barr he would provide executive summaries. He repeated this on March 24, the day Barr released his summary letter. And again March 25 and this letter March 27.
March 5th: Mueller told Barr he would provide executive summaries. He repeated this on March 24, the day Barr released his summary letter. And again March 25 and this letter March 27.
3/ This is stunning. Mueller communicated to Barr FOUR times about how to summarize his report, building up to this criticism.
Once before submitting the report (Mar 5).
A reminder the day Barr released his letter (Mar 24)
Again the next day (Mar 25)
And this letter Mar 27.
Once before submitting the report (Mar 5).
A reminder the day Barr released his letter (Mar 24)
Again the next day (Mar 25)
And this letter Mar 27.
4/ Here is the full text of Mueller's letter to Barr on March 27 complaining about how Barr's letter March 24 "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of investigation, and contributed to "confusion" and "misunderstanding" of report.
5/ Congratulations to @LindseyGrahamSC who just announced in his opening statement that he is running for the 2024 Republican nomination for President of the United States. Perfect pitch for the Trump base.
6/ Rebuttal: "[Mueller] report’s very high standard for criminal charges was explicitly proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' So the report did not establish crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. But it did show a preponderance of conspiracy and coordination."
nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opi…
nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opi…
7/ Barr says only about 10% of report was redacted.
What he doesn't say is that the key facts of Roger Stone's WikiLeaks contacts are almost entirely redacted, which I've argued are part of illegal coordination, even if not a "knowing violation" beyond a reasonable doubt.
What he doesn't say is that the key facts of Roger Stone's WikiLeaks contacts are almost entirely redacted, which I've argued are part of illegal coordination, even if not a "knowing violation" beyond a reasonable doubt.
7/ Bill Barr just said explicitly, "I wanted to release the bottom line. I like to think of it as releasing the verdict" of a trial.
Barr's "verdict"
This is exactly the problem. Barr thinks of himself as judge and jury of this investigation. That was his role, as we now know.
Barr's "verdict"
This is exactly the problem. Barr thinks of himself as judge and jury of this investigation. That was his role, as we now know.
8/ Barr: "I wasn't interested in summaries. I wanted to get the whole report out. I wanted to get everything out at once. Not piecemeal."
OK. So why didn't Barr make a request to the court to release more of the grand jury material? Utterly disingenuous.
Cc: @Mimirocah1
OK. So why didn't Barr make a request to the court to release more of the grand jury material? Utterly disingenuous.
Cc: @Mimirocah1
9/ Wow, Barr goes full Trumper just now. Answering Graham's question (paraphrasing):
"Do you share my concern with how this investigation began?"
Barr: "Yes."
"Do you share my concern with how this investigation began?"
Barr: "Yes."
10/ These questions covered the FISA process and the FBI's agenda. Barr is supporting the Trump line of questions and debunked conspiracy theories on how the investigation started.
It is clear that this was not the Steele Dossier.
It is clear that this was not the Steele Dossier.
11/ Barr is making statements about obstruction "as a matter of law" that are simply not "matters of law."
This is just his pure extreme unitary executive theory. And not an established matter of law about the obstruction statute.
This is just his pure extreme unitary executive theory. And not an established matter of law about the obstruction statute.
12/ Barr's claim that the obstruction statute does not cover a president's firing of a special counsel is based on a constitutional theory that has never been adopted as a matter of law. And then there's this perfect point by @davidrlurie:
13/ I simply cannot believe Bill Barr is the Attorney General.
It's only a mild exaggeration to wonder if he's an attorney at all.
His answers on Trump's attempt to fire Mueller are just dumbfounding.
It's only a mild exaggeration to wonder if he's an attorney at all.
His answers on Trump's attempt to fire Mueller are just dumbfounding.
14/ Feinstein: “The President tried to change McGahn’s account to prevent further scrutiny toward the investigation.”
Isn’t that obstruction?
Barr dodges by talking about “conflict of interest”... (10:55AM)
Isn’t that obstruction?
Barr dodges by talking about “conflict of interest”... (10:55AM)
15/ Barr acknowledges: McGahn felt it was a “directive to push Rosenstein on conflict of interest to push Mueller out.”
Barr says there is a difference between firing and forcing someone out for a conflict.
Feinstein asked, “A manufactured conflict?” A lie as pretext to remove?
Barr says there is a difference between firing and forcing someone out for a conflict.
Feinstein asked, “A manufactured conflict?” A lie as pretext to remove?
16/ Feinstein: “Don’t you need an actual conflict to recommend a removal for conflict? Otherwise it’s just a fabrication.”
Barr: “So now I’m going to shift...”
That’s literally what Barr said. I am not paraphrasing.
Incredible dodge.
This is such an embarrassment for the DOJ.
Barr: “So now I’m going to shift...”
That’s literally what Barr said. I am not paraphrasing.
Incredible dodge.
This is such an embarrassment for the DOJ.
17/ Barr’s answer is that a president firing a special counsel cannot be obstruction because it is his “constitutional duty.” An extreme interpretation of presidential power/Article II. That’s his 19 page memo that prejudged this case and got him this AG job. And it is wrong.
18/ Barr completely contradicted his own written statement and the Mueller Report in his answers to Feinstein. When he doesn’t have a good legal answer, he invokes an extreme theory rejected by the US Supreme Court:
