UPDATE: Transcript Added – AG William Barr Holds Press Conference on Mueller Report Release – 9:30am EST Livestream…

A much anticipated press conference today with Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as they release the report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. When the actual report is released we can FIND IT HERE.

UPDATE: Video and Transcript Added

.

[Transcript of prepared remarks] Good Morning. Thank you all for being here today.

On March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation of matters related to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and submitted his confidential report to me pursuant to Department of Justice regulations.

As I said during my Senate confirmation hearing and since, I am committed to ensuring the greatest possible degree of transparency concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation, consistent with the law.

At 11:00 this morning, I will transmit copies of a public version of the Special Counsel’s report to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Department of Justice will also make the report available to the American public by posting it on the Department’s website after it has been delivered to Congress.

I would like to offer a few comments today on the report.

But before I do that, I want to thank Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for joining me here today and for his assistance and counsel throughout this process. Rod has served the Department of Justice for many years with dedication and distinction, and it has been a great privilege and pleasure to work with him since my confirmation. He had well-deserved plans to step back from public service that I interrupted by asking him to help in my transition. Rod has been an invaluable partner, and I am grateful that he was willing to help me and has been able to see the Special Counsel’s investigation to its conclusion. Thank you, Rod.

I would also like to thank Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our electoral process.

As you know, one of the primary purposes of the Special Counsel’s investigation was to determine whether members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, or any individuals associated with that campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report describes the results of that investigation. As you will see, the Special Counsel’s report states that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I am sure that all Americans share my concerns about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.

The Special Counsel’s report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election:

First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations.

Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.

But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme.

Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.

Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime.

Following a thorough investigation of these hacking operations, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian military officers for their respective roles in these illegal hacking activities. Those charges are still pending and the defendants remain at large.

But again, the Special Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with the Russian government’s hacking.

The Special Counsel’s investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet. The Special Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication. Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps.

The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.

Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.

So that is the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.

After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.

After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.

In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability.

Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.

Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.

Now, before I take questions, I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report that I am releasing today. As I said several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.

As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing upon ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case.

These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product.

Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so.

Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice. Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report. Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.

In addition, earlier this week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication. The President’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions.

In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also committed to working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the Special Counsel’s investigation. We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler throughout this process, and we will continue to do so.

Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information. Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves – with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared.

I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation.

Once again, I would like to thank you all for being here today. I now have a few minutes for questions.

(link)

The anticipated start time for the press conference is 9:30am EST; with the release of the Mueller report around 11:00am to Noon at the Special Counsel website HERE.

Fox News Livestream LinkRSBN Livestream LinkFox Business Livestream Link

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, FBI, Live Streaming, media bias, President Trump, Press Secretary - Trump, Russia, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

895 Responses to UPDATE: Transcript Added – AG William Barr Holds Press Conference on Mueller Report Release – 9:30am EST Livestream…

  1. MAGADJT says:

    10 ‘POSSIBLE’ instances of obstruction. Better than I had even hoped for. BWAHAHAHAHA @ Libs!

    Liked by 12 people

    • Nick the Deplorable says:

      instance 1: Trump “this is a witchhunt”
      instance 2: Trump “this is a witchhunt”
      instance 3: Trump “this is a witchhunt”

      Etc

      Liked by 21 people

      • Daniel says:

        Under no circumstances can an innocent man claiming he is innocent be considered to be obstruction. This is also true of a guilty man or else we would see this charge of every ‘dindunuffin’ out there.

        Further, the basis of investigation was false in the first place. Even if they thought there was obstruction, there can be no obstruction if there is no crime being obstructed.

        Liked by 27 people

        • John Obidienzo says:

          You cannot obstruct nor be exonerated from a non-existent crime.

          . . . “Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
          “No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first–verdict afterward.”
          “Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
          “Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.
          “I won’t!” said Alice.
          “Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
          “Who cares for you?” said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!”

          Trump in Wonderland

          Liked by 5 people

      • L4grasshopper says:

        One of them will be Trump telling Comey that he hopes Flynn won’t be prosecuted.

        Liked by 3 people

      • 1stgoblyn says:

        You are pretty spot on. You should hear the CNN talking about these ten scenarios. Comments the Prez made and his frustration with the witch hunt are possibly obstruction.

        Like

    • L4grasshopper says:

      I bet every one of the “instances” was a public statement or tweet going after Mueller.

      Not obstruction.

      Liked by 10 people

    • buanadha says:

      My paraphrase of what Barr said — “even if we did accept the idiotic framework the counsel designed around obstruction (and Barr clearly didn’t accept that framework), there was no obstruction”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    The jackals in the Press Corps are making fools of themselves as usual. They just can’t help themselves. What, no questions about the Chinese, Norks, Iranians and Nigerians hacking the election? “Orange Man bad. What he did wasn’t criminal but was it right? We decide Orange Man bad!”

    Liked by 12 people

    • Murray Smith says:

      isn’t there some evidence of HRC getting her felonious bathroom-server hacked by everyone and that Obama communicated with her on it, then lied to Congress by denying that? Isn’t there also evidence that the DNC server wasn’t hacked, given the capability of the net gateway systems on the server it would not have been possible to hack the quantity of data in the time available? Isn’t there evidence that the DNC data extraction was done by an insider with thumb drives? There maybe evidence available to Assange that it wasn’t the Russians that donated the DNC data to Wiki Leaks, will he have a public trial? What will they do if Putin calls their bluff? This really does need to be investigated and have some public sunshine cast upon it

      Like

      • Y’all Know What Time It Is says:

        When there was an attempt to bring Assange here to testify, wasn’t it Democrat Mark Warner who made sure it did not happen?

        Like

  3. Daniel says:

    Chris Wallace, as always, saying things which aren’t actually true. He said Barr was speaking to the president’s emotional state as the basis for not finding intent which is not true — that was Mueller’s assessment, not Barr’s. Further, there is no “nothing to see here, let’s move on.” It’s actually more like “we’re cleared of these false accusations, and now we’re going after prosecutions of those conspiring against the president.”

    Liked by 22 people

  4. Bubby says:

    https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346904-assange-meets-us-congressman-vows-to-prove-russia-did-not-leak-him

    Assange said he didn’t get the documents from Russia that Wikileaks released but AG Barr said it was Russia. What is AG Barr’s source for that statement? Either Assange is lying or Barr got played. AG Barr may down the road have to correct that statement when more facts come out. He needs to talk to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher!

    Liked by 3 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      Russians used cutouts that Assange would not and could not know were cutouts.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Henry chance says:

      Barr was told Russia by MuellerTime. Mueller never talked to Assange. Barr’s sources are Mueller.

      Liked by 12 people

      • mr.piddles says:

        Surprised the 40 Angry FBI Agents didn’t really dig into that bit. *shrug emoji*

        Liked by 3 people

      • snarkybeach says:

        Mueller also claimed the DNC server was hacked, without even looking at it.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Bubby says:

          View at Medium.com

          FTA “Far from establishing an airtight case for Russian espionage, CrowdStrike made a point of telling its DNC clients what it already knew they wanted to hear: after a cursory probe, it pronounced the Russians the culprits. Mainstream press outlets, primed for any faint whiff of great-power scandal and poorly versed in online threat detection, likewise treated the CrowdStrike report as all but incontrovertible.”

          Mueller must have just relied on CrowdStrike for that bullshit!

          Liked by 5 people

    • mr.piddles says:

      “What is AG Barr’s source for that statement?”

      I’ll have to go back and look, and maybe I wasn’t paying attention… I thought Barr was simply relaying what the **Mueller Report** says about Russia being the source. We don’t know what the game plan is for debunking that Faux Narrative as we get into FISA abuse, indictments, etc. It may just become a historical footnote in the grand scheme… though, on the other hand, WikiLeaks may do some damage there. Hopefully.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Bradley says:

      Barr is not saying that Wikileaks got it from Russia. Barr is saying the Mueller’s report says that. Big difference. Now the investigation turns the other way and we move towards the real genesis of the spying. Perhaps in that phase we find that some things were different than what Mueller stipulated in his report.

      Liked by 21 people

    • CopperTop says:

      Follow the pea so to speak. The report is an investigation. Assange does not get to present his side. The conclusions about what ‘soil’ t*(L4grass…cutout is one possibility) the story of the actual taking of documents occurred will never see a trial. It will be post-presidency book subject for years.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mary Morse says:

        Rohrabacher testified before the House regarding his meeting with Julian Assange. His testimony was not released publicly, nor was the testimony of Wasserman-Schultz.

        Liked by 5 people

    • apcharles says:

      Strategy wise this is the right thing to do for Barr.

      What does Assange have to do with investigating Trump? …… nothing
      What does Russian Troll farms have to do with investigating Trump?….. nothing
      What does Concord (russian company) have to do with investigating Trump?…. nothing

      none of what Barr said about Russia today, gives Operation Hurricane frauds (Obama/Comey/Brennan, etc) and legal right to spy on Trump, who had nothing to do with any of that.

      If you are Obama and his subs, you have to be very scared… because everything that was on the table before regarding their illegal spying campaign, is still on the table today.

      Liked by 14 people

      • Carrie2 says:

        apcharles, and that is what makes me very happy and the more we will be seeing, hearing and getting done and this is what has many in Congress, the Intelligence agencies and outsider nervous. Love to see them yelling, complaining, hating, and showing their fear and desperation and a I am sure a lot of sweaty armpits!

        Like

    • chipin8511 says:

      I Heard him say that and its a total bullshit bullshit bullshit lie.Now assange needs to tell us wehi it was and get a pardon.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Daniel says:

      This too shall be cleared up. That said, the charges against Assange are that he assisted in “Manning” hacking into the government computer systems using credentials other than his own. If true, then there is a case to be made against Assange and/or wikileaks. It is one thing (protected under law) to receive and publish government secrets. It’s another to offer assistance in illegally obtaining [extracting] that information.

      I personally do not believe this will fly. I think the charge will be used as leverage to extract the truth and proof of various other wikileaks content. (DNC emails)

      Liked by 2 people

    • Murray Smith says:

      no, Barr has to accept the report, subsequent investigations will cast light on that

      Liked by 4 people

    • The Boss says:

      Like all else in the report, Barr laid the findings at Mueller’s feet. He took absolutely no responsibility for the report’s content. None. That is a big tell in my book.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        He also praised Muellar and Rosenstein.

        Like

        • steph_gray says:

          Yes – Barr started with that bit of customary polite gentleman kabuki theater. So what.

          Then he skewered them with facts.

          It’s a bit discouraging that even here at CTH some people don’t seem to be able to comprehend that today Barr was reporting on what Mueller said, not speaking for himself.

          But I rely on the large majority of the 62 million of VSGPDJT’s supporters to get that.

          Not a single person who took the brave step of voting for this fine man and President fell off the turnip truck yesterday.

          Liked by 3 people

    • mark says:

      I was bothered by his legnthy justification and validation of the mueller investigation. Can we assume that rosenrat nor mueller are going to be held accountable for this outrageous witch hunt? Where was the predicate Mr. Barr for opening this investigation? You had ratboy standing right next to you.

      Like

    • Truthfilter says:

      The Russians DID hack the DNC in 2015. The FBI informed them more than once but DNC ignored it all. They didn’t want anyone from FBI to investigate the situation because of potential exposure of crimes or other shenanigans. They hired their friends at Crowdstrike.

      Because the Russians did hack some of their systems in previous years, they knew it would be easy for people to accept that the Russians were behind the 2016 Wikileaks releases, too.

      The best lies always contain a little truth.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Leaving says:

      If you are referring to Barr’s press conference today, your statement that “Barr said it was russians” is disingenuous.

      Barr ONLY stated what the Mueller report said. I skimmed the transcript and every statement of fact I saw was predicated with “The Mueller report stated” or something to that affect.

      Like

  5. Chgonana539 says:

    First question stupidity. What part of not enough/none evidence did she not understand. I am not at all satisfied with this. That he said more than once ‘no Americans participated” tells me it’s just another ‘cover up’. God help us all.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Armchair Quarterback says:

      All you have to do is substitute Hillary/fusiongps/dnc for American. It allows Those three to be absolved without directly naming them!

      Like

    • WSB says:

      Barr can only react to the report Mueller submitted. This does not mean the new investigation of the investigators will not find fraud.

      Catherine Herridge asked a specific question about whether Barr would address the ORIGINS of the investigation. Barr’s reply was that would be addressed on another day.

      Liked by 11 people

      • MaineCoon says:

        Totally agree with this assessment. I carefully watched his body language (and will again). My take….he quickly looked away, shifted his body slightly away from the questioner, I thought I sensed discomfort in the question because I actually assumed that behind all this was the underlying knowledge that the ORIGINS are under investigation (which he has alluded to before).

        Liked by 3 people

        • Carrie2 says:

          Maine, and why so many in Congress are having elimination problems because they know who is who involved in this whole nastiness. I definitely suspect Adam and Nadler for sure and will be happy to see the others in and out of Congress be taken the woodshed for a beating.

          Like

        • WSB says:

          Yes, so there will be a third act to this play.

          Like

  6. TwoLaine says:

    Holy Smokes!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. :-) says:

    What’s everyone’s opinion now… Is Barr ‘swamp’ or ‘not swamp’?

    Liked by 1 person

    • L4grasshopper says:

      So far, so good.

      Liked by 8 people

    • John B says:

      I still don’t like him agreeing Russians hacked Hillary’s server. There is zero proof of that. The FBI never saw her server. I’ll call him a white hat with a black ink blotch.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        According to the Mueller report.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        You have to accept that Barr is NOT, as the AG, the judge of the Muellar report and its findings.
        He is simply the guy that Muellar reports TO.
        The question you and I are interested in is if, upon investigation by Barr and HIS DOJ, Muellar, his investigatory team, and RR ARE have been or are a part of a conspiracy to take down the POTUS.
        How far does he go? I just don’t know.
        It takes a man for all seasons to do what we want done to get at the truth and to tell the truth. I hope he is that man.
        Personally, I think the truth which is told by fair men and women will ultimately make the country stronger.

        Liked by 2 people

      • steph_gray says:

        Okay, try a little reading comprehension from sundance’s (thank you sir!!!) transcript:

        Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime.

        Barr did not state that the efforts were successful.

        And why not?

        For the simple reason that Mueller could not provide evidence that they were.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. MightyMustardSeed says:

    RR has the appearance of a hostage devoid of emotion. His controlled lack of response, specifically in the collusion portion was off.

    It was in the obstruction portion, his control seemed to falter.

    RR looked miserable as compared to the very human responses given by the man on the left.

    Practicing for his arraignment?

    Liked by 13 people

    • Christine Jost says:

      If it weren’t for his eyes blinking, you’d swear it was a statue of him!

      Liked by 5 people

    • Blind no longer says:

      He looked like a just ate a big plate full of sh*t!!! LMAO.
      That’s the look of a man who knows he could go down with the corrupt rats jumping ship!

      Liked by 5 people

      • Invisigoth says:

        Not smirking for the cameras this time.

        Liked by 3 people

      • coltlending says:

        If you look at a video frame-by-frame and zoom-in, you can see he lets his stoic demeanor slip briefly at some points.

        I did a screen capture video, unfortunately the audio droppped out.

        At one point toward the end he quickly turns his head down and to the right. I recall that body language lady commenting that denoted something significant in the clip she did of Jack Dorsey and the woman lawyer being interviewed.

        It will be interesting what was said at that moment, after I find audio to sync-up.

        When he first stands to Barr’s left, he looks downright scared; his eyes (buggy) scanning the room as though he’s looking for the descendant of Jack Ruby.

        At times, he looks as though he’s literally sweating bullets and about to turn green.

        Other moments he looks like he is in desperate need of that bottle of water in Barr’s hand.

        Couple of times he breaks a smile or he’s cheeks twitch.

        He did not look comfortable at all most of the time.

        Like

    • Nobodysfool says:

      RR looked like a tin soldier waiting to have the key in his back wound–so he could make a run for it.

      Barr said the Mueller report listed 10 instances where the President may or may not have ‘obstructed’. This likely means comments at rallies or tweets.

      So, HRC, be ready. Order a couple cases of vodka and prepare to have all your inflammatory comments and blatant lies in the guise of denials in tweets, speeches and your plethora of sour grapes/woe is me interviews be in line for scrutiny in YOUR obstruction case.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Drogers says:

      I was going to comment ‘A dummy (literally) w/ someone’s (Mueller’s) hand up his azz.’ But your observation Is much kinder … we’ll go w/ that.

      Liked by 2 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      RR is an empty suit in most all circumstances, but in his extreme attempt to show no emotion I saw a lot of body language reflecting the intense feelings he was trying to hide.

      In his body language, I saw guilt in areas that Barr was exonerating PT, but he (prior to Barr’s appearance) was going down a different pathway of “finding” or assisting others in “finding” PT guilty, without any evidence.

      His body language showed a man totally stripped of his former power as he became the AG under AAG-In-Tile-Only Sessions. Barr has put him in his place.

      Barr’s praise of RR sounded hollow to me, but necessary to totally strip RR of any loyalty to the co-conspirators.

      RR is worthless – to anyone, either side, but mostly to himself. I see him as a haunted man.

      Liked by 9 people

    • Nick the Deplorable says:

      Well Barr stated RR was asked to stay until this report was concluded so RR will be out within a couple weeks.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Truthfilter says:

      I saw a short clip of RR’s full body posture from a side angle. His arms/hands weren’t resting on his sides. They were 3-4 inches out. His chest was puffed up and jaws tight as though he was holding his breath the whole time he was standing there. He’s a guilty conspirator. Yes—he is miserable. And he should be.

      Liked by 10 people

    • Daniel says:

      I think his role is to be witness to all interactions Barr has had with anything associated with Mueller and the investigation(s). This is better than recusal, obviously, because if allegations come down that Barr did or said something improper or illegal, Rod Rosenstein was there the entire time.

      And you KNOW they would have done this very thing to impeach Barr if they could. The act of being there to own it or other things might also be reasonable, but I saw what you saw — he was not happy to be there.

      Barr had Rosenstein as “insurance” again attempts at impeachment against him.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Cam Heck says:

        Brilliant move on Barr’s part, not only to make sure he stayed but to say and furthermore “Rod, you’re going to come and stand beside in a show of support for me and OUR findings, when I deliver them “

        Liked by 1 person

    • Carrie2 says:

      Mighty, I thought the same thing. His face frozen as though waiting for the bomb to explode and I also think AG Barr kept/wanted/advised he stay on board. I am sure he did assist the AG but hoping for some grace and forgiveness. Ah, well, I do love mystery novels and will continue to read on to the exciting end of reveal and punishment.

      Like

    • Maquis says:

      He looked to me as if he was facing a firing squad.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Ausonius says:

    No obstruction because there was no collusion: being “frustrated” by a witch hunt is not obstruction.

    Mueller can go retire in Salem, Massachusetts.

    NO collusion by any Americans with Russians…but that leaves the door open to collusion AMONG DEMS to create a phony crime against the president as part of their coup d’etat.

    Liked by 13 people

  10. Summer says:

    Wow, Barr is the epitome of cool, calm and collected.

    Liked by 13 people

  11. citizen817 says:

    So within the report, Mueller covered up the hacking of DNC by pinning it to the GRU through Assange release of emails.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. blognificentbee says:

    I turned on CNN a few seconds ago…wow, just wow, the spin is laughable!!! It’s all about what Barr says “lea yes open the possibility for” blah blah blah.

    Liked by 10 people

  13. theresanne says:

    Liked by 20 people

  14. Katherine McCoun says:

    When will Hillary’s campaign be scruntinized to the exact same level and standards as the Trump campaign in regards to donations, foreign entanglements, Russian connections including getting “dirt” from any citizen of Russia, etc.??

    Liked by 2 people

  15. theresanne says:

    Liked by 10 people

  16. farmerren says:

    I thought of Sarah Sanders when I listened to AG Barr answer the media’s questions. She’s gotta be seeing some of herself up there. Encouraged and proud.

    Liked by 9 people

  17. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    Just checked out lil George Snugalopolis over on ABC and his panel of “democrat experts” were having kniption fits. They are still determined to demonize our president. Apparently they think he was not even allowed to complain about crazed federal headhunters out for his scalp. Nope. No obstruction but they won’t admit it. Fortunately after the way they universally blew the last presidential election prediction almost no one cares what the Network talking heads say about politics any more.

    TRUMP 2020

    Liked by 7 people

    • WRB says:

      The FEC should fine these dem operatives (posing as “journalists”) about billion dollars for breaking campaign finance regulations.

      Or go full Teddy Roosevelt, and do some trust-busting on the whole lot of them.

      These media types should pay big-time for the misleading propaganda and vile vituperation they have peddled these past few years.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Blue Wildflower says:

    My opinion: most Americans will never look at the report. It is over as far as President Trump doing anything wrong. They know Obama would have shut this down from the first. I hope they push that PDT was angry and mad. Every American will identify with that feeling about our government. As it settles in, American will want to know why did they spend all that money, IF THE CAN DO THIS TO THE PRESIDENT WHAT CAN THEY DO TO ME! Time for the truth, America is ready.

    Liked by 11 people

  19. RobInPA says:

    Interesting that Barr declined the answer Catherine Herridge’s question pertaining to the underLIEing premise / evidence that the entire coup was founded upon.

    Like

  20. ParteaGirl says:

    Oh man, you gotta love Barr today!

    Liked by 15 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      These were the zingers I loved. Truth at it’s best. He deflates his enemy and they literally have no response. No one else has been able to successfully do this to the press.

      My hat is off to this man.

      Liked by 9 people

      • Rileytrips says:

        I can see he despises the actions and focus of the majority of the press. I really hope that some indictments will be coming down on some of them for their participation in leaking confidential info to the public…and bribing government employees to get it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • L. Gee says:

        Oh, I don’t believe Barr’s the only one who answers the press this way. I know of a couple of others who do this regularly. Let me suggest some initials for you: PDJT and SHS!!!

        Like

    • webgirlpdx says:

      I appreciated Judge Starr last night on Ingraham. As officials of the DOJ, the AG and DAG were there. Mueller was only ‘hired’ help and had no official role for this….or to be there.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. All Hype says:

    The Democrats, MSM and general haters right now are feeling a lot like PFC Hudson right now!!!!

    Liked by 4 people

  22. H. Hawke says:

    Liked by 8 people

  23. Doug says:

    Barr was like Grandpa laying it out for Mom, Dad, and all the kiddies in the press.

    Liked by 5 people

  24. trialbytruth says:

    I had looked away to pour my coffee heard a report asking the Attorney General whether or not he had stooped beating his wife. I heard Barr say NO I looked up and the feed was gone. I rolled back the feed and got it playing again. I had not dropped the feed, Nope just barr dropping the Mic.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Concernedcitizen says:

    With regard to allegations of obstruction: President Trump explained that the false allegations of Russian collusion were undermining his Presidency, thus he was justified in pushing back as he had a Country to run. End of story. Now, let’s proceed with the real investigation – the one about the coup attempt.

    Liked by 12 people

  26. H. Hawke says:

    Liked by 4 people

    • rayvandune says:

      That question pissed Barr off, and that was the end of questions!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        At least decades ago, journalists KNEW the functions of the three branches of government No one would have wanted to look as dumb as the reporter who seemed NOt to know that Muellar worked for the AG, that the report was a product to be given to the AG, that the AG had the ultimate decision making about any number of things.
        Journalism draw to it people with an average IQ not much higher than those who play NFL football.

        Like

    • rayvandune says:

      That question pissed Barr off, and that was the end of questions!

      Liked by 2 people

  27. dawg says:

    I guarantee you the media has already been in consultation with Weissman, et al, on what is in the report that will come out that they can take and run with. And spin.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. theresanne says:

    I don’t agree with Geraldo much, but I agree with this statement.

    Liked by 12 people

  29. budmc says:

    Liked by 8 people

  30. H. Hawke says:

    President to speak NOW! (few minutes)

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Summer says:

    I would like to point out that Barr did NOT give his own legal opinion re: WikiLeaks and Russians, he just presented the result of the SC lengthy “investigation.” He specifically noted that the Russians accused of wrongdoing are still at large, in other words, Mueller’s allegations have never been proven in a court of law.

    Liked by 6 people

  32. H. Hawke says:

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Ken Maritch says:

    Keep in mind that we still need to hear from PDJT and Rudy (with the rebuttal) later.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. henry says:

    hahahah

    Like

  35. bakocarl says:

    Faux banner . . . Awaiting remarks from President Trump

    Like

  36. henry says:

    The stupid is strong with this one.

    Like

  37. Amber says:

    Rosenstein looks like he’s being held hostage.

    Liked by 4 people

  38. petey says:

    how many time s do you think RR said OH, F&%K to himself during Barr speaking? my bet is 4,361

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Git-R-Done says:

    The only thing that could’ve been better than what Bar said today would be this statement…”If anyone obstructed justice during this investigation it has been the Fake News media and the Democrat party”.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. henry says:

    Like

  41. blognificentbee says:

    Liked by 6 people

  42. MightyMustardSeed says:

    Would have loved to watch Our Very Stable Genius President Donald J Trump’s Reaction to this broadcast.

    Thank You Mr President for what you have endured to Make America great again. We needed you.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Lou Battalia says:

    I know I will be jumped on for this, but I prefer to face reality. I think is was a mistake for the AG to come out before the release of the report and be so defferential to President Trump. If the report does not line up exactly as Barr depicted it, there will be hell to pay. Why not let the report speak for itself anf let the White House do the crowing, Barr will get a lot of criticism for this either way.

    Like

    • MAGADJT says:

      No one is even going to pay attention to the report now. I think it was a genius move; he took the ability of the media away to set the narrative.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lou Battalia says:

        You are fooling yourself. The press will pour over every word in the report and compare it to what Barr said. People are not stupid. Don’t bury your heads in the sand. The president did not commit any crimes but there will be embarrassing information in the report and the press will point it all out and Barr will be excoriated for his press conference. It would have been better if he did it after the report was out.

        Like

        • MAGADJT says:

          Go get some meds for your battered conservative syndrome. If you can’t recognize this clearly as a huge win, then no one here can help you – and no one here is interested in wallowing in your fear and negativity today. Your problem is that you still care what the media has to say; free your mind.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Beau Geste says:

          “Pore” over, if they can read. Or if you are referring to hillary, “pour over” a few strong drinks was what you did mean !!!

          More likely, the “press” won’t even read it – they will just make up some crap, and say it is from anonymous “sources”.

          Like

        • boogywstew says:

          AG Barr can still do another press conference AFTER if he chooses.

          Like

        • Dr.Jay says:

          >> People are not stupid.

          The MSM certainly are. Or they are complicit. Either way …

          Like

    • What you view as “deferential” toward the president, I viewed as an AG upholding the rule of law, detached from such emotions as “deferential” to anyone other than the rule of law.

      Liked by 6 people

      • bakocarl says:

        Exactly.

        There are two main definitions for deference:

        Humble submission – there was nothing in AG Barr’s statements that indicated that President Trump said or did anything for AG Barr to submit to.

        Respect – Naturally, AG Barr should show respect to the office of the President . . . at all times.

        Bottom line – “deferential” is a nothingburger.

        Like

    • blognificentbee says:

      From what I heard on the news from ex-DOJ officials, it is typical practice to have a press conference when a meaningful report/action is about to be issued.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        He simply told folks the Muellar findings on the two issues. That is wasn’t the result the press wanted is why they thought he was “spinning” for Trump. Egads.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Eric says:

      No, you want to be first to spin the narrative.

      Liked by 1 person

    • MaineCoon says:

      “If the report does not line up exactly as Barr depicted it, there will be hell to pay.”

      What makes you think it doesn’t? Why shouldn’t he go on the offence and put an end to the conspirator lies? Why be a wimp?

      Ken Starr was on Laura Ingraham last night and said this was an absolute protocol for him to do this presser. I don’t mean to insult you, but it’s time people of your mindset (who support PT, I assume) grow to a level that deal with the evil we are facing. Something to consider.

      Liked by 3 people

      • “….not line up exactly…..hell to pay…”

        That’s a pretty nebulous observation. It is a meaningless standard to measure things by and completely ignores the left’s compunction to spin and lie despite the truth.

        Like

    • Beau Geste says:

      “Reality” is what AG Barr said. It is AG Barr’s report to present. He presented it. AG Barr is in the Executive Branch, and works at the pleasure of the President. AG Barr can report to the President. He can report to Congress. He can report to the public.

      It is not propagandist rachel maddow’s report. All the media should be thankful for President Trump, AG Barr and their openness and question-taking (no matter how silly or stupid) with the propaganda media. The “media” were losing money big-time before PDJT. Obama avoided the press. PDJT gives press conferences almost daily.

      Like

    • trialbytruth says:

      you answered your own question

      “Barr will get a lot of criticism for this either way.”

      The differential treatment was his legal staff getting to review the redacted report to see if their were executive privilege issues. I believe that is both legally appropriate and Chain of command appropriate.

      What the haters will hate is that that means under full sunlight the president got to give his blessings to full disclosure. It was not done surreptitiously in the cover of darkness. It was not some legal trap which forced the Presidents hand. It was our President knocking the dust off his feet as he left the swamp behind drowning in there own vulgarity.

      Like

  44. JoD says:

    That filthy shoe is officially on the other foot.
    🎼 “Christmas” is starting…. NOW!! 🎼

    Like

  45. MaineCoon says:

    Here is the DoJ video of Barr’s presser.

    https://www.justice.gov/live

    Like

  46. sundance says:

    Liked by 2 people

    • Beau Geste says:

      As a great philosopher said, “you can’t fix stupid”
      The quality of “journalists” who actually graduate from journalism schools, is appalling.

      Like

  47. Doppler says:

    He was emphatic, if brief, in saying that “no Americans” colluded with the Russians in their efforts. Where does that leave Glenn Simpson and his client Natalya Veselnitskaya sp? and those at State that allowed her into the country to set up Don Jr at Trump Tower?

    Like

  48. JoD says:

    That filthy shoe is officially on the other foot.
    🎼 “Christmas” is starting…. NOW!! 🎼f

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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