Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

AG Barr is seated. Hearing underway shortly.
@CourthouseNews

Gavel has been struck, and away we go.

Sen. Lindsey holds up the Mueller Report and says "Cant say I've read it all, but I've read most of it. There's an unredacted version in a classified version of senate, and I read that and I found it not to change anything in terms of an outcome."

Lindsey now speaking to Mueller's credibility, his military experience, his experience in law enforcement. "For those who took time to read the report... it was very thorough."

Stats on compilation: 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, intel analysts, forensic accountants, 2,800 subpoenas issued, 500 witnesses interviewed, 500 search warrants , 230 orders for communication records, 13 requests to foreign govt's for evidence, over $25M spent over 2 years.

"We may not agree on much but I hope we can agree he had ample resources, took a lot of time and talked to a lot of people."

"The president submitted himself to written interrogatories, so to the American people, Mr. Mueller was the right guy to do this job. I always thought Sessions was conflicted because he was part of the campaign."

Lindsey says "there were 2 campaigns" in the 2016 election. "And we'll get to that later" he adds

Lindsey: "No collusion, no coordination, no conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russian government regarding 2016 election. As to obstruction, Mueller left it to Barr to decide after 2 years and all this time, he said Mr. Barr you decide, Mr. Barr did."

"You have to have specifc intent to obstruct justice, if there's no underlying crime, pretty hard to figure out what intent might be if there was never a crime to begin with. POTUS never did anything to stop Mueller from doing his job." - @LindseyGrahamSC

Durbin and Graham have legislation that denies entry to U.S. for anyone found to hack state election systems. Says he wants to do more to harden the election infrastructure.

"It wasn't some 400lb guy sitting on a bed somewhere, it was the Russians. And they're still doing it." - Graham says of election interference

Back at the Clinton email server issue - Graham: What do we know? We know the person in charge of investigating hated Trump's guts. I don't know how Mueller felt about Trump, but I dont think anyone on our side believes he had a personal animosity towards POTUS...

"...that he couldn't do his job. "
Graham is now reading Peter Strzok's tweets that are critical of Trump.
"These are the people investigating the Clinton email situation and started the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. Compare them to Mueller." - Graham

Graham just read Stzrok's tweet that said "Trump is a fucking idiot." And repeated it, without censoring himself.
"Sorry to the kids out there."

"Everything I've said just substitute Clinton with Trump and see what all these people with cameras out here would be saying about this." - Graham says, pointing his finger to the media gathered in chamber

"The bottom line is we're about to hear from Mr. Barr the results of a 2 yr investigation into the Trump campaign, all things Russia, actions POTUS took before/after campaign. I appreciate what Mr. Mueller did for the country, I've read most of the report. For me, it is over."

This quote is from Graham, to be clear.

Feinstein now up.
Speaking on the letter:

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1123587204931051520

An hour after Barr said there was no evidence of a crime, the report was given to Congress. "We saw why Mueller was concerned, contrary to the claim of total and complete exoneration, the special counsel's report contained substantial evidence of misconduct." - @SenFeinstein

But the report outlined that the Trump campaign expected to benefit from Russia; it outlines Manafort's passing of internal campaign polling data and strat updates to Kilimnik. He briefed K in Aug 2016 on the state of the Trump campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election.

The data included info on battleground states in Michigan, Wisconsin, PA and Minnesota.
The campaign's activities re: stolen emails also outlined clearly, Feinstein says.

"GRU officers targeted for the first time, Clinton's personal office," Feinstein reads direct from report findings. There were efforts to contact foreign intel services, Russian hackers and people on dark web, the report confirms Trump knew of WikiLeaks releases of the emails...

And rec'd status updates about upcoming releases while his campaign promoted coverage of the leaks. Don Jr communicated directly with WikiLeaks and at its request, publicly tweeted a link stolen from Clinton's campaign manager.

Feinstein: 'In your March letter to Congress,you said the evidence was not sufficient to establish POTUS committed an obstruction of justice offense."
But Mueller outlined 10 episodes of Trump doing this, she notes.

More than once, the report documents that legal conclusions were not drawn because witnesses refused to answer questions or failed to recall the events.
Also: witnesses like Kushner, Sarah Sanders, Giuliani, Bannon and John Kelly all stated they could not recall events.

POTUS himself said more than 30 times he could not recall or remember enough to answer written questions from the special counsel.
"Some associated with the Trump campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications...

"featuring encryption or do not provide for long term retention of data." Feinstein says.
Based on these gaps, the Mueller Report concluded: The office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would have shed additional light...

"...on or cast a new light on events described in the report."
Contrary to the conclusion that the special counsel's report did not find evidence of communication or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia...

The Mueller report explicitly states: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of these facts. " Vol II, p. 2.

Barr is now delivering his opening remarks.
During the March 25 meeting, Barr says he reiterated to Mueller that in order to have the shortest possible time before he was in a position to release the report, he asked the office to identify grand jury material.

He says, it became apparent it would take 3 or 4 weeks to identify that material, and then other bits would have to be redacted. He knew there was going to be a gap in receiving the report and getting it out publicly.

According to Barr: The criteria to determine redaction was spread over four categories: grand jury information, Mueller’s investigative techniques, information that could potentially harm ongoing legal matters and any information that would infringe upon a person’s privacy.

8% of the public report was redacted; less than 2% withheld (in a minimally redacted version) for lawmakers; In obstruction portion of report, redaction comprised less than .001%, Barr notes.

While Barr and Mueller disagreed about some of the legal theories and what would constitute obstruction, Barr said he didn't rest his decision on that.

He assessed it against the DOJ framework for prosecution etc. and "concluded evidence developed during the investigation was not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense."

"I stated what the bottom line conclusions were. Which is normally what the department does; make a binary determination. Is there a crime or isn't there a crime? We prepared the letter for that purpose to state the bottom line conclusions, we used the language from the report...

"to state those conclusions. I analogize it: announcing after an extended trial, what the verdict is, pending the release of the full transcript. That's what we were trying to do, notify the people the bottom line conclusion, not summarize the full report."

Barr said he offered Mueller a chance to review his summary and Mueller declined.
Barr says he asked Mueller if the summary was inaccurate, he claims Mueller said no, the press reporting on it was inaccurate.

Mueller was concerned about why his explanation on not reaching conclusion on obstruction was unclear. He wanted more put out on that issue. He argued for putting out summaries of each volume, the executive summaries that had been written by his office and if not that...

Then other materials that focused on the issue of why he didn't reach the obstruction question.

"He was very clear, however, that we had not misrepresented his report." - Barr on Mueller response to his summary

Barr said he wasn't interested in putting out summaries or doing it piecemeal. He wanted to put the entire report out at once.

He was concerned about having public debate over the report in pieces if it was released this way, he says.

Barr says he was surprised that Mueller left it to him to decide obstruction.

Barr says he was confused that the investigation carried on while additional episodes were looked into.
Barr: "My question is: why were those investigated if at the end of the day, you weren't going to reach a decision on them?"

Sidebar: We need Mueller to testify publicly.

Mueller Report found POTUS tried to change McGahn's accounting of events; Feinstein asks: Does existing law prohibit efforts to get a witness to lie, or say something the witness believes is false?
Barr: Yes.

Feinstein: And what law this is?
Barr says its the obstruction statute.
The attempt to change McGahn's account to prevent further scrutiny of the investigation, Feinstein is arguing, amounts to obstruction.
"Is that a credible charge under obstruction?"

Barr: We felt the govt would not be able to establish obstruction. Barr says if you look at Trump's instructions to McGahn, it was clear....

Trump meant the conflict of interest should be raised with Rosenstein but the decision to fire Mueller should be left with Rosenstein.
Wherever it fell on that, the NYT story on McGahn was very different., Barr says.

The NYT story said Trump directed the firing of Mueller and told McGahn to fire Mueller.
"There's something very different between suggesting someone is fired, and having a special counsel removed for conflict."

Barr: There's evidence the president truly felt the Times article was inaccurate and he wanted McGahn to correct it.
There's reasonable doubt here, he says.
McGahn had weeks before already given testimony to the SPC and POTUS knew that.

Feinstein: But you still have a situation where POTUS tries to change a lawyer's account in order to prevent further criticism of himself?
Barr: Well, that's not a crime.

Feinstein: So in this situation, you can instruct someone to lie?
Barr: To be obstruction, it has impair the evidence in a particular proceeding. McGahn already gave his evidence.

Sen Chuck Grassley - he's not yelling yet! - but is questioning Barr about the OLC opinion - Barr says Mueller was *not* saying, at any time, "but for the OLC opinion" on not charging a sitting president, that he would have done so.

Grassley: Do you agree with reasons he offered for not making a decision on obstruction?
Barr: I'm not really sure of his reasoning. I really could not recapitulate his analysis.

He continues..

"I think that if [Mueller] felt he shouldn't go down the path seeking a traditional prosecutorial decision, then he shouldn't have investigated."
(Again, this is why we need Mueller to testify in an open setting.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT is up. Asking Barr about his conflicting stmts in earlier congressional testimony.
"We now know Mueller wrote you on Mar 27 expressing concerns that your Mar 24 letter failed to capture the context/nature/substance of the report.

Leahy asks Barr why did he testify that the didn't know about the concerns expressed by Mueller's team when he heard from him on those concerns 2 weeks before?
Barr says he spoke to Mueller directly about those concerns

On the reports which recounted frustration among members of the special counsel's team regarding the limited information included in Barr's letter:
Barr: "I don't know what members are being talking about and I'm not aware of any challenge to the accuracy of the findings."

Leahy shoots back: "You've learned filibuster rules better than members of congress. I'm asking you: Why did you say you were not aware of concerns when weeks before your testimony, Mueller expressed concerns to you?"

Barr says he did not know what was being referred to, and Mueller never told him his expression of the findings was inaccurate. Barr said he thought they were referring to the amount of information they wanted to put out.

Leahy: isn't buying it.
"I think your answer [during his testimony before congress] was purposefully misleading and I think others to do too. "

Sen. Durbin is having none of this today.

Sarcastically says he is glad that we finally got to the end of the Mueller Report just to discuss Clintons emails.

GOP is using the "Lock her up!" defense, he says.

Durbin says attorneys dont put their concerns about representation in writing, why cant Barr recall Mueller ltr?

Barr says the letter said Mueller reached no conclusion. "My view was there a lot of criticism of the SPC in following days"...then he got the letter from Mueller.

Durbin said he also didn't believe there was some kind of "kabuki dance" happening between Trump/McGahn/Rosenstein when it came to story in NYT/firing Mueller.
Durbin says he wants McGahn to testify, Barr says he would have no issue with this.

Sen Mike Lee, R-UT, asking about any spying done on Trump campaign.
Barr responds by saying: People assume the only intelligence collected was a single confidential informant and [through a] FISA warrant. I'd like to find out if that's true...

"It strikes me as quite an anemic effort," Barr says

Sen. Whitehouse is now up, then we will take a break for an hour while lawmakers vote.

Back to Mueller's Mar 27 letter - when did you have the conversation with Mueller about that letter?
Barr spoke with him on Mar 28; also says this is when he first learned about existence of WaPo story that would make the letter public.

Barr: "I think it could have been yesterday"
Then says no one at WaPo contacted him for comment.
Whitehouse notes Barr only made the letter available this morning, but could have handed it over during his hearing with Congress back in early April.

Sen Whitehouse: POTUS could easily have his day in court by waiving or overriding the OLC opinion on presidential immunity. Whitehouse says "it has no judicial basis."
Barr comes back: "The government did not have a prosecutable case."

OK - we are on a break and will return at 12:50PM ET. I will continue to live-tweet for @CourthouseNews when the hearing resumes.

Durbin tells reporters he believes "Barr thinks his first responsibility is to the president" and that Barr should recuse himself from any outstanding criminal referrals moving forward.

Hearing will be underway again soon. Stay tuned.

We are back.

Sen. Kennedy, R-Louisiana is up. "I find it curious Mueller team spent all this time investigating...but was unable to reach a conclusion."
Asks Barr to tell him why that happened but Barr said he can't recapitulate it.
He didn't have a "clear understanding" of it.

"I don't want to put words in Bob Mueller's mouth." - Barr

Sidebar: I am very confused by this premise on a logical level, myself.
The attorney general should understand why Mueller, the special counsel, made the decisions he made. One would think.

Klobuchar is up.

When Crist asked Barr if Mueller disagreed on the findings during his last appearance before Congress, Klobuchar says Barr went "out of his way" to avoid making the Mar 27 letter known to congress.

Klobuchar calling for back up paper ballots for 2020 election and support for existing bipartisan legislation; Barr agrees to work with her and review legislation.

Klobuchar asks Barr if the FBI would agree to provide a briefing to all senators on all Russian attempts to interfere with voting across the U.S.; he has agreed.

The report found after Manafort was convicted, POTUS called him a "brave man" for refusing to break, Klobuchar notes.
To her, this smacks of obstruction.
Barr says that isn't obstruction

"I think the president's lawyer would say Trump's statements about flipping are universally the same, by flipping he meant succumbing to pressure on unrelated cases in order to get lenient sentences," Barr said.

Barr doesn't see the McGahn issue as obstruction because it was unclear whether Trump knew what he was doing was wrong - "I never told you to fire McGahn, I never said fire," Barr says, paraphrasing Trump.

Klobuchar says,"But the totality of the evidence shows a pattern, and that is different than just one incident. "

Sasse also said you don't need a "bar and a hooker anymore" to gather intel/counterintel. Things are more advanced now.
🤔

Sen Coons, D-Delaware - notes on Feb 5 2018, a week after story broke on McGahn, Trump demanded McGahn created a false record, according to MR.

Trump wasn't "looking for a press stmt, he wanted a fraudulent record for WH records."

"A letter that wasn't true," Coons says.

Barr says this is Coons characterization of it. and it would be difficult fr government to prove that premise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coons says but you gave Trump a week to claim he was totally exonerated. Had Barr let Mueller publish the summaries during the gap, it would have avoided a lot of confusion.
Then Coons says he wants to see Mueller testify.

Coons: Going forward, what if a foreign adversary offers a prez candidate dirt in 2020? Do you agree, the campaign should immediately contact the FBI?
Barr waits a beat, asks Coon if he means a foreign govt or foreign intel service?

What a distinction. I want to dive into that later.
For now -

Coons cuts in- "Should they say "I love it lets meet'"?

Barr doesn't take the bait on that infamous Don Jr quip, instead only says "If its foreign intelligence service, then yes."

Sen Josh Hawley speaks on 25th Amendment and Andrew McCabe's contemplation of using 25A to remove Trump. Has anyone else expressed this, that he is aware of?
Barr says no.

Hawley brings up the Stzrok texts.
Here is my story from July 2018 on that, if you care to revisit:
courthousenews.com/fbi-agent-to-t…

Sen Blumenthal says history will judge Barr harshly and he says that may even be unfairly, but it is "inescapable" because of how he handled his summary and did so knowing full well that he had a letter from Mueller saying he failed to capture the substance his report.

Blumenthal on obstruction: p. 8, p. 182 of report: SPC said "At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that POTUS did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
Yet Barr's press conference "cleared" the president.

Barr says this stmt Blumenthal just read is a very "strange statement."
Blumenthal says, "You ignored that Mueller found substantial evidence and it's in the report... we found intent, interference with an ongoing investigation, and the obstructive act."

Blumenthal says Barr's credibility is undermined within the department, the committee and with the American people.
On those remaining investigations (12-14 of them), Blumenthal asks if he's had any communication with anyone in the WH?"

Barr says no, then goes to clarify - he "does not recall having any substantive" conversations about ongoing investigations. If it was non-substantive, he can't recall that either.

"I can say very surely I did not discuss the substance," Barr says to questions about whether he talked of other existing investigations with people inside the WH.
Blumenthal asks if Barr will recuse himself from those and he says, sharply, "No."

Blumenthal asks Barr if, in his view, did Trump lie to the American people?
Barr: I'm not in the business of determining what lies are told to the American people. I'm in the business of determining whether crime has been committed.

"We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon," Barr says.

In that exchange with Blumenthal, Barr also denied that he "exonerated" Trump with his summary.

This thread is quite long, but you can catch up with my story too. It will continue to update: courthousenews.com/barr-defends-h…
@CourthouseNews

And for your reference - I mean, you probably have a copy of the report printed, bound and gussied up with a little bow by your bedside, right?? - here's my coverage with my @CourthouseNews colleagues on the Mueller Report from last month.
courthousenews.com/echoing-no-col…

Sen. Mazie Hirono just called @realDonaldTrump a "grifter" and "liar" and said Barr was working as Trump's personal lawyer.

This. Hearing. Tho.

Hirono is going in:

"You let POTUS personal lawyers look at the report before you even deigned to let Congress see it."

"Now we know, thanks to a free press, that Mr. Mueller objected to your summary."

Hirono: "When you finally decided to release it and on the eve of two major religious holidays, you called a press conference to clear Donald Trump before anyone had a chance to read the report and come to their own conclusions. "

"You lied to congress. You told Rep. Charlie Crist you didnt know of any objections Mueller's team might have. That he didn't know if Mueller supported his conclusions but you knew you lied. And now, we know." - Sen. Hirono

"You did exactly what I thought you would do. And that's why I voted against your confirmation. I expected you would try to protect the president and you did."- Hirono

Hirono calls for Barr's resignation.

These calls for resignation today may not gain much traction within a Republican-held committee. But if he ends up going before Dems in the House on Thursday, that drumbeat will be VERY, VERY loud.

Hirono: Do you think it is OK, even if it is not a crime, for POTUS to ask WH counsel to lie?
Barr asks what event she's talking about.
Dodges the Q, Hirono moves on. Asks if its OK for someone to threaten someone's family or dangle pardons.

Barr says he does't know what she's talking about. And Hirono pushes back, essentially says he knows exactly what she means.

Because there is cross talk between Hirono, Graham and Barr... Barr recoils at answering, Graham steps in and accuses Hirono of slandering Barr. Twice.
"You have slandered this man from top to bottom," Graham says.

Speaking of.... remember Matt Gaetz? That happened in February, which feels like 432 years ago.
washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02…

Senator Booker is up. (We've heard from prez candidate Klobuchar, still waiting on Harris)

"You're giving sanction to behavior in language you used at your press conference, and in your summary, that stimulated Mueller to write such a strong rebuking letter. You're adding normalcy to a point where we should be sounding alarms." - Booker to Barr

There is evidence of people trying to cover up behavior which on its face is morally wrong, whatever the legal standard is. Barr's claim that the American ppl should be "grateful" for the report, is a world of "normalization" he fears exploring

Says Barr seems to be excusing a campaign that had hundreds of contacts with a foreign adversary. There was a failure to report those contacts. Ppl on teh campaign knew it was wrong, but tried to actively hide.

"We know its illegal for a campaign to share polling data with an American super PAC... and now we have that with a foreign [adversary]," Booker says - this is "undermining" and "eroding" democracy

Barr: There's no indication they engaged in a conspiracy or that the dissemination of that material was criminal.
Don Jr was simply interested in what "this Russian woman" had, Barr said (Natalia Veselnitskaya)

Barr says during a campaign, foreign govt's make a lot of contacts. If we looked at Clinton's campaign we would see a lot of foreign contacts.

Booker: This is what I'm saying - we now have a new normal. This document shows over 200 connections between a campaign and a foreign adversary, which would be illegal if done with an American super PAC...
Barr cuts in and goes "what information was shared?"

Yes, really.

Booker laughs in disbelief momentarily, "The polling data was shared."

And my ears did not deceive me, Barr did in fact say "with who" after Booker reminded him that Manafort shared the polling data.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, says "Guys, you can debate this all you want to" but there was no evidence sufficient to indict.

Sen Kamala Harris now up.
"Has POTUS ever asked you open an investigation of anyone?"
Barr says I wouldn't, I wouldn't... then stops asks Harris to repeat the Q.

Has POTUS ever suggested, hinted, inferred if an investigation should be opened.
Barr says he doesn't know.

SPC produced a great deal of evidence, did Barr review all of it?
He says no, he accepted statements in report as the factual record.

Asks if Rosenstein ever reviewed the underlying evidence?
Not to his knowledge, Barr says.
Asks if anyone in his office reviewed the evidence. He says no.
Yet, Harris says, he represented to the public that the evidence did not support criminal activity.

"If you run the DOJ, or any US attys office, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision... would you accept them making a charging decision to you if they have not reviewed the evidence?"

Barr says its up to Mueller.
Harris: but you called it your baby, and it was your decision to charge.
Barr says, he only meant it was his baby to disclose.

"I think you've made it clear you haven't looked at the evidence. We can move on." - Sen. Harris

Harris grilled Barr about Rosenstein & his role - whether he was cleared to make a charging decision, when he is also a witness in the invstgn.
Barr stammers says "Thats what the acting AG job is."
To be a witness and to decide the charges? Harris asks, before ending her time

Sen Crapo asks if bias is prevalent at FBI.
Barr says under current leadership, no.

Sen Ted Cruz is up.
Cruz always starts his time by saying "Let me start by saying."
Says senators are impugning Barr's integrity, that he's leading the DOJ with "fidelity to law"

Regarding the letter Mueller sent to Barr, Cruz says, yeah, but he released the entire report anyway.
Cruz thinks the entire issue for Dems in this whole thing is that the letter wasnt released earlier.
Cruz says if so, that's an exceptionally weak argument.
Barr giggled.

While it is obviously concerning that there was a delay and he was less than forthcoming, enough so to generate a reaction from Mueller - in writing - testimony today actually shows Dems are far more concerned with the premature exoneration Barr gave POTUS on obstruction

Leahy says Barr's claims today that there wan't much in the way of criminal activity outlined in the Mueller Report is false.. What about SDNY, isn't Trump named as "Individual-1" Leahy says. What about the hush money? What about that activity?

Barr says the point he was making about the absence of an underlying crime - "it doesn't mean there are other motives for obstruction, though it gets harder to prove and its more speculative," he says, but the pt he wants to make:

"In the situation of POTUS, who has authority to supervise proceedings, if in action in a proceeding was groundless or based on false allegations, POTUS does not have to sit there and allow it to run its course."

Barr: "POTUS could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused and he'd be worried about he impact on his administration...."

Barr continues: "That's important because most of the obstruction claims being made here do involve the exercise of POTUS constitutional authority and we know now, he was being falsely accused."
Leahy says, I don't agree with that, but thats OK.

Sen Whitehouse: When did Barr decide there was actually no obstruction
Barr says it was Mar 24. Same day as the letter.

Whitehouse - was obstruction ever discussed during a lunch he had with OLC on June 22? Barr says they didn't discuss anything to do with the Mueller Report or his eventual position on the findings. Then, he says he can't recall if they discussed the imminent letter, then says no.

Klobuchar asks if several events show a pattern of obstruction may exist, is that sufficient to bring a charge of obstruction?
Barr says you have to prove intent and establish beyond reasonable doubt that activity is corrupt.

Klobuchar calling back his confirmation hearing where he said in the absence of a violation of a statute, the president would be held accountable politically if he abused the pardon power. Now she wants to know, how this may apply to any abuse of power, not just pardons.

Barr: Presidents have been held accountable before as have other office-holders.
Klobuchar: Are the president's actions detailed in report consistent with his oath of office and requirement in Constitution that he take care of the laws and they be faithfully executed?

Barr: "The evidence in the report is conflicting and they don't come to a determination on how they're coming down on it."
Klobuchar: So you made that decision?
Barr: Yes.
Graham cuts her off, due to time left in session.

Barr says today of the Mueller letter to him: "The letter is a bit snitty and was probably written by one of his staff people."

Blumenthal asks if he can have notes Barr may have taken during his conversation with Mueller about the letter.
Barr confirms he took notes, then when asked if he would turn over notes, Barr verbatim replies: "Why should I?"

Sen Graham says he is going to write a letter to Mueller and ask if he has any dispute with what Barr said regarding the conversation the men had about the letter.

The hearing has wrapped. I'll have an updated story posted soon. If you missed the developing story, that is available here:
courthousenews.com/barr-defends-h…

Side note - Graham has told reporters he will not summon Mueller to testify. Blumenthal says he would like to have Mueller present his side and version of the facts.

STORY UPDATED: Tense is the word of the day, and boy, was that hearing ever tense. Catch up here: courthousenews.com/barr-defends-h…