Democrats versus Barr versus Mueller are not fading away

The Mueller investigation led to the Barr letter which was followed by the release of most of the Mueller report was followed by the release of a Mueller letter to Barr, and now Barr has been questioned in the US senate. And the controversies continue, predictably with many angles being taken by media and politicians.

Washington Examiner: 5 takeaways from the Barr hearing

1. Tension between Attorney General William Barr and Robert Mueller

Barr revealed a split with the special counsel over the pursuit of evidence that President Trump tried to obstruct the probe. Mueller did not draw any conclusion on obstruction, despite gathering the evidence.

“The investigation carried on for a while as additional episodes were looked into,” Barr told the panel. “So my question was, why were those investigated if, at the end of the day, you weren’t going to reach a decision on them?”

Later in the hearing Barr dismissed a March 27 letter from Mueller complaining about Barr’s four-page memo to Congress about the report. “The letter’s a bit snitty and I think it was written by one of his staff people,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

2. Barr didn’t review Mueller’s evidence.

Under questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., a former prosecutor who is running for president, Barr acknowledged neither he nor Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reviewed the trove of evidencegathered by the Mueller team before he cleared Trump of any wrongdoing.

The Mueller report did not clear Trump of any wrongdoing, but Barr’s letter summarising the findings of the investigation were taken by Trump and others as doing that.

3. Barr is probing leaks to media.

Under questioning from Republicans on the panel, Barr said he is investigating Department of Justice leaks to the media regarding the investigation into alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

4. Barr is examining the justification for surveillance warrants into Trump campaign.

Barr said he is investigating the basis for the Justice Department’s decision to secretly surveil the Trump campaign beginning in October 2016. Barr said he is working with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to determine if a surveillance warrant was properly obtained by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court the month before the election.

5. Senate Judiciary (probably) won’t call Mueller to testify.

Democrats are eager to hear testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller, they said Wednesday. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., doesn’t plan to invite him.

“I’m not going to do any more,” Graham said after Barr’s day-long hearing. “Enough already, it’s over.”

But it appears to be far from over.

RealClear Politics – Pelosi: Attorney General Barr Committed A Crime; “He Lied To Congress”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused Attorney General William Barr of criminally lying to Congress about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and Mueller’s letter relating to how Barr has characterized its findings.

“What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America is not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That’s a crime,” the Speaker told reporters.

Asked again about the accusation, Pelosi said: “He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law.”

Asked whether Barr should go to jail, the speaker said: “There’s a process involved here.”

There’s something for everyone to cherry pick from.

Leave a comment


  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  3rd May 2019

    Lefty hate never dies.

    • Duker

       /  3rd May 2019

      The Mueller report has so much black [out] in it that Trump has called for its birth certificate.

      Apparently even Muellar cricised Barr for his version he ‘pre released’..chopped up sentences..false conclusions. His office had done his own summaries for quick release but they werent used.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  3rd May 2019

        They’ve been released now. I haven’t noticed any media bothering to cite them.

        • Duker

           /  3rd May 2019

          NOT released . Barr controls all the releases of the reports, why would he undercut himself.
          NY Times has a ‘letter’ that Mueller sent to Barr about mis characterizations in Barrs release , thats all. Thats not the formal summaries Mueller produced

            • Duker

               /  3rd May 2019

              Hehehe . Snopes… The urban legends site !
              Seems wooley to me , its only ‘hours old’ , maybe because its theevening / middle of the night in US

              Are you sure you want to quote those anyway , lands Trump in a lot of obstruction hot water

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd May 2019

              I’m not quoting them, merely refuting your misinformation Quote them if you like, seems no-one else bothered. The loony Left have moved on to trying to impeach Barr. I can see that going down well in the Senate.

  2. Things are not going well for Mr Barr and his cover-up campaign.

    He is flat wrong that obstruction requires a separate underlying crime. It does not, least of all does it require that the person who commits obstruction have committed that underlying crime.

    As for the GOP, they’re operating a scorched earth strategy and destroying their own political capital in order to deny the Democrats anything they can use.

    Barr has only strengthened the case for Robert Mueller to testify before Congress.

  3. “There is no way around it. Attorney General William Barr’s efforts to clear President Donald Trump, both in his original letter and in his press conference the morning of the report’s release, are wholly unconvincing when you actually spend time with the document itself.

    Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. He doesn’t have to. But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior. They describe criminal behavior even if we allow the president’s—and the attorney general’s—argument that facially valid exercises of presidential authority cannot be obstructions of justice. They do this because they describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power at all.”

    – Benjamin Wittes

  4. The Consultant

     /  3rd May 2019

    “Precisely what did you mean, Cadet Clevinger, when you said we couldn’t find you guilty?”

    “I didn’t say you couldn’t find me guilty, sir.”


    “When what, sir?” …

    “Answer the question. When didn’t you say we couldn’t find you guilty?”

    “Late last night in the latrine, sir.”

    “Is that the only time you didn’t say it?”

    “No, sir. I always didn’t say you couldn’t find me guilty, sir. What I did say to Yossarian was…”

    “Nobody asked you what you did say to Yossarian. We asked you what you didn’t say to him. We’re not at all interested in what you did say to Yossarian. Is that clear?”

    “Yes, sir.”

    “Then we’ll go on. What did you say to Yossarian?

  5. Gezza

     /  3rd May 2019

    The circus continues. Clowns to the left of us. Jokers to the right.
    Here we are, stuck on the outside looking in. Thank heavens.

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  3rd May 2019
    • Gezza

       /  3rd May 2019

      Does he? Just another opinion to me. Seems the Dems have different opinions.
      People pick the one they like & declare that one the obvious winner.

      At the end of the day, who cares? Nothing we do or say here makes even a ripple in a puddle over there.

      Rant at the Dems & Mueller all you like, won’t make a blind bit of difference.

      Lunatics have taken over the White House & the Capitol. All we can do is watch the chaos.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  3rd May 2019

        Dershowitz cites the relevant case law and Constitution. The Dems and Mueller don’t.

        Does that constitute a rant in your world?

        • Gezza

           /  3rd May 2019

          What case law are the Dmocrats Legal experts citing?
          But why do you even care?

    • Kimbo

       /  3rd May 2019

      Nixon clearly exceeded his presidential authority when he ordered the payment of hush money to potential federal witnesses, when he destroyed evidence and when he told his subordinates to lie to the FBI. These are all independent crimes which are beyond the authority of anyone, even a president. Together, they constitute obstruction of justice, and Nixon was almost certainly guilty of that crime.

      Not how Nixon, also a lawyer saw it. Mind you he had skin in the game. But either way, “nine lawyers, ten opinions”.

      But I note Dershowitz did not mention Nixon’s action which was most similar to Trump firing Comey – the “Saturday Night Massacre”, when Nixon ordered his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire the independent Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. When Richardson refused, Nixon fired Richardson, and then ordered the deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He too refused so Nixon also fired Ruckelshaus. Then Nixon called in the Solicitor Genera,l Robert Bork, who could see that Nixon was prepared tp keep on firing Justice Department officials until he got to the lowliest janitor who would do his bidding. So Bork agreed to fire Cox.

  7. Pink David

     /  3rd May 2019

    Where are the Russians again?

  8. Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: