AG William Barr on DOJ/FBI Conduct in 2016: “Things are just not jiving” – Full Interview and Transcript…

U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr gave a 48 minute interview to CBS on a variety of issues related to recent events. The interview is packed with insight about the ongoing DOJ investigations of prior DOJ and FBI conduct in the 2016 election.

Rather than post the edited excerpts of the interview as broadcast, the full audio and transcript is below. Very interesting. [Hit orange play arrow to begin]:


[Transcript] JAN CRAWFORD: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for sitting down with us. So, obviously we saw the special counsel yesterday make that statement, he analyzed 11 instances where there were possible obstruction and then said that he really couldn’t make a decision- conclusion on whether or not the president had in fact committed obstruction because of the existing OLC opinion in the legal counsel’s office. Do you agree with that interpretation that that legal opinion prevented him from making a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: I am not sure he said it prevented him. I think what he said was he took that into account plus a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision. I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision but–

JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would’ve stopped him in the regulations or in those…that opinion itself, he could’ve — in your view he could’ve reached a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could’ve reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.

JAN CRAWFORD: Now you have testified that when you met with Mueller at the Justice Department, you had that meeting, that you were surprised that he told you then that he was not going to reach a conclusion on obstruction.

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, Rod and I were both surprised by that.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did you ask him, look, we need you to make a conclusion on this? You should make a conclusion.

WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn’t say I really pressed him on it. I was interested in his thinking on it and he explained his position, said he was still thinking it through and- and- but I didn’t really press him nor did Rod.

JAN CRAWFORD: So, but you left that meeting thinking that he wasn’t going to have a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you feel because he didn’t do that, did he fulfill his responsibility as special counsel? If you look at regulations, it seems to anticipate that you would get a confidential report explaining why he made a decision to either prosecute or decline to prosecute. He didn’t do that, seems to me.

WILLIAM BARR: Right, but on the other hand he did provide us a report and what he viewed to be the relevant facts. And that allowed us as the, as the leaders of the department to make that decision.

JAN CRAWFORD: What is the fundamental difference? Why…I mean, he said he couldn’t exonerate the president. That he had looked at the evil there – these 11 instances of possible obstruction. He couldn’t exonerate the president, if he could he would’ve stated so. You looked at that evidence and you did. I mean, what is the fundamental difference between your view and his?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I think Bob said that he was not going to engage in the analysis. He was, he was not going to make a determination one way or the other. And he also said that he could not say that the president was clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction.

JAN CRAWFORD: As a matter of law?

WILLIAM BARR: As a matter of law. In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn’t rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient.

JAN CRAWFORD: Before you became attorney general you wrote a memo to the justice department looking at the — the question and the legal standards for obstruction and suggesting that the president has the authority to say back off of the Flynn investigation and could have fired James Comey under his executive authority, how much – I mean when you’re talking about, can you explain that a little more. When you’re talking about your judgment that no obstruction occurred based on the evidence that Mueller produced and your understanding of the law, can you explain a little more why wasn’t that obstruction?

WILLIAM BARR: Well let’s take the firing of Comey for example I think we would have said as a matter of law, and I’m not relying on my – my legal memo that I wrote as a private citizen but really on the views within the department of the people who think about these things and are responsible for framing the views of the department, and I think we would have said that as a matter of law the obstruction statutes do not reach facially valid exercise of core presidential authority or official authority even, decisions by the attorney general in administering the executive branch or litigation.

But we didn’t rely on that, we then looked at that issue let’s take the again the firing of Comey. One of the elements is that you have to show that the act objectively speaking will have the probable effect of obstructing a proceeding and we don’t believe that the firing of an agency head could be established as having the probable effect, objectively speaking, of sabotaging a proceeding. There was also we would have to prove corrupt intent, the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record. So that would not have been a corrupt intent. So for each of these episodes we thought long and hard about it, we looked at the facts and we didn’t feel the government could establish obstruction in these cases

JAN CRAWFORD: When you see some of the criticism and you’ve gotten quite a bit of it that you’re protecting the president that you’re enabling the president, what’s your response to that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what’s said but as to who says it and what side they’re on and what it’s political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance and I’m going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that’s intention with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. so I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time.

JAN CRAWFORD: The four page summary that you wrote, did you ask in that March 5th meeting for the special counsel to kind of redact all the grand jury material?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, not redact it but highlight it so we could redact it, we would, so, you know, the report was over 400 pages, I knew that it was voluminous and coming our way in a few weeks. My intent was to get out as much as I could as quickly as I could. To do that I would have to, as a matter of law, make sure that grand jury material was redacted because regardless of the political posturing that’s going on it’s not lawful for me to just make that public.

JAN CRAWFORD: Not even to Congress?


JAN CRAWFORD: So you could even give Congress, which of course is demanding that and threatening to hold you in contempt because you’re not giving them the full report

WILLIAM BARR: That’s right, and so–

JAN CRAWFORD: But by law you can’t?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, and so because we were not involved in the investigation we would have no way looking at the report of determining what was grand jury material and what wasn’t, so we had for a period of weeks been asking the special counsel’s office to highlight the stuff so we could quickly process it for release and I guess–

JAN CRAWFORD: For a period of weeks you had asked for this material?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah even before the March 5 meeting we had asked or raised the subject–

JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?

WILLIAM BARR: And then at the March 5 meeting I made it explicit and then after the March 5th meeting we asked..

JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?

WILLIAM BARR: We thought it was being– we thought it was being done and I do believe they were putting in more footnotes in that would be necessary ultimately in identifying the material but whether the wires were crossed or whatever it didn’t come in a form that identified the 6E material.

JAN CRAWFORD: And that was a surprise to you when you got the report?



WILLIAM BARR: And it immediately meant that you know it was going to be a period of weeks before we could get the report out if I had my druthers I would have liked to get the report out as quickly as possible.

JAN CRAWFORD: So instead, you turned this four page summary?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, because I didn’t think the body politic would allow us to go on radio silence for four weeks. I mean, people were camped outside my house and the department and every- there was all kinds of wild speculation going on. Former senior intelligence officials who were purporting to have it- or intimating that they had inside information were suggesting that the president and his family were going to be indicted and so forth–

JAN CRAWFORD: And saying that publicly?

WILLIAM BARR: Saying that publicly. There was all kind of wild and–

JAN CRAWFORD: And you knew that to be false?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, and it was wild and irresponsible speculation going on which the very–

JAN CRAWFORD: Wild and irresponsible. The former intelligence officials’ speculation–

WILLIAM BARR: Right, and talking heads and things like that, and these things affect the United States’ ability to function in the world. We have an economy. It could affect the economy. It can affect – it can affect our foreign relations during very delicate period of time with, you know, serious adversaries in the world. So I felt- that in order to buy time, in order to get the report out, I had to state the bottom line just like you’re announcing a verdict in a case. My purpose there was not to summarize every jot and tittle of the report and every, you know, angle that – that Mueller looked into. But, just state the bottom line which I did in the four page memo.

JAN CRAWFORD: You didn’t say in that four-page memo that the report would not exonerate the president on obstruction. That line–

WILLIAM BARR: I said that, yes. In the- in the- in my four-page memo, I said that Mueller did not reach a decision. He gave both sides and that- and then I quoted that sentence which is, while we didn’t find a crime, we didn’t exonerate the president. That was in the four-page letter.

JAN CRAWFORD: The- did not- we would so clearly state the preface to that.


JAN CRAWFORD: That, that was not in there, and there was some criticism that in the summary, and the attorney- I mean, the special counsel himself wrote the letter saying, People are misunderstanding. There’s been some confusion, that the summary had caused some confusion–

WILLIAM BARR: Right, right.

JAN CRAWFORD: That perhaps, and he didn’t say this, but the- the response was that you were too soft on the president, that actually the special counsel was a little sharper on obstruction.

WILLIAM BARR: Well again, I wasn’t trying to provide all the flavor and nooks and crannies of the report. I was just trying to state the bottom line, and the bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes. He did not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and he- his conclusion was he wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either. And, for the purposes of the point, I think that that was what was required for the body politic because actually most of the letter then goes on to explain how Rod Rosenstein and I reached a decision and the criteria we applied in finding no obstruction.

JAN CRAWFORD: He wrote the letter taking issue, saying there caused- you had caused confusion. Did that catch you off guard?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, sure. I was surprised he just didn’t pick up the phone and call me given our 30 year relationship, but–

JAN CRAWFORD: Why didn’t he?

WILLIAM BARR: I don’t, I don’t know, but, as I said it in the hearing, I thought it was- the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven–

JAN CRAWFORD: Staff-driven?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah. I personally felt, but we had a good conversation–

JAN CRAWFORD: Because otherwise you would have picked up the phone?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, well, which I did, and we had a good conversation. And I think, I think the matter is now been fully vetted, and I think he was concerned that there should be more context and texture to his work given, and that in the absence of that, the vacuum had been filled with media reports that were then causing confusion, and he wanted it clarified by putting more of an explanation of his reasoning out. And I said that I didn’t want to put out dribs and drabs, I wanted the whole report out. And then I wrote a letter again to Congress saying, look, I didn’t- this is not intended to be a full summary. Bob’s thinking is reflected in the report. Everyone’s going to have access to it. They should look at that to determine, you know, what Bob’s reasoning was. So that’s where we let it sit till the report was released.

JAN CRAWFORD: You said that you had wanted to release the report in full, and you largely have with the grand jury material being, of course, the exception.

WILLIAM BARR: Right. And in the second volume that’s one tenth of one percent of the report has been taken.

JAN CRAWFORD: You, I just want to be clear on this. How long and how many, you expected the special counsel’s office to redact that material, so to point out what should be redacted —

WILLIAM BARR: Right. Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: So the four-page summary would have been unnecessary?


JAN CRAWFORD: You expected, could you just tell us again, you expected to get the report with the grand jury material identified and then what was your plan?

WILLIAM BARR: My plan was to figure out how long it would take us to redact what had to be redacted.

JAN CRAWFORD: And what did you anticipate that would be?

WILLIAM BARR: And if we could readily, if we could readily identify the 6E material, I thought we could do it in a you know less than a week. And if I had been looking at a matter of days like that, then I probably would have just told people what the timeline is do people knew when it would be coming out when they would see it, but once I realized it was going to take 3 or 4 weeks, I felt I had to say something in the interim.

JAN CRAWFORD: But if you had had that material pointed out this would have all been different, you wouldn’t have written the four-page summary?

WILLIAM BARR: Probably not, no.

JAN CRAWFORD: I guess just to finish up on this topic then, when we saw the special counsel yesterday, you put out the statement that there wasn’t really any kind of discrepancy in some of things that you had been saying.

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, we both put out the statement.

JAN CRAWFORD: Was that the first time there had been a joint statement?



WILLIAM BARR: I believe so.

JAN CRAWFORD: — And why was that necessary?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, because I think there was some people who let the facts interfere with their narrative and were trying to suggest that there was a difference of opinion about the role played by the OLC opinion, which simply wasn’t true.

JAN CRAWFORD: The difference is your views on obstruction and–

WILLIAM BARR: — Well the difference was this so —

JAN CRAWFORD: I understand what you’re saying and I guess, I guess you focused on the role the OLC memo, opinion played–


JAN CRAWFORD: –In the statement?

WILLIAM BARR: The so-called discrepancy was that I had, I had testified earlier that Bob had assured me that he had not reached a decision that there was a crime committed but was not willing to pursue it simply because of the OLC opinion and that remains the fact. That’s what his position is. That’s consistent with what he said yesterday. And it certainly is consistent with the joint release we put out. The confusion arose because what Bob Mueller’s position was was that the OLC opinion coupled with other things as a prudential matter made him feel that he shouldn’t even get into the analysis of whether something was a crime or not and that’s a different question than —

JAN CRAWFORD: Right, because you…just because there’s evidence of obstruction or crime was committed doesn’t mean the person is going to be charged or indicted or found to have committed that crime.

WILLIAM BARR: Right and he didn’t’ even get into that analysis. In other words, what I was discussing earlier was, was Bob, did Bob make a decision there was a crime and the only reason he wasn’t saying that was because of the OLC opinion. The fact is Bob did not make a decision that there was a crime. He didn’t get into the analysis at all. Part of the reason for that was his judgment about the OLC opinion coupled with other things he just didn’t think it was proper exercise of his authority. So it’s a totally different issue and that’s why, that’s why both us feel that this idea that there’s been a discrepancy over the OLC opinion is simply wrong.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did you watch him give the statement yesterday?

WILLIAM BARR: I watched a re-run of it, yeah.

JAN CRAWFORD: Anything new or different?

WILLIAM BARR: No I mean to me it was a reiteration of some of the key elements of his report. I think he wanted to stress a number of things that were in the report. There had been a lot of commentary about his work. I had made some critical remarks about it. So I think it’s quite understandable he wanted to hammer home a few of the key points that were in the report and I thought that that was fine.

JAN CRAWFORD: He said he’s not going to be testifying.

WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think he should?

WILLIAM BARR: You know, I think as I said, you know, it’s up to Bob, but I think the line he’s drawing which is that he’s going to stick what he said in the report is the proper line for any Department official.

JAN CRAWFORD: But you’ve testified under oath, answered questions under oath. He took no questions yesterday. Is that sufficient?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think it’s sufficient because, you know, he was handling a specific investigation and normally we don’t, we allowed our prosecutors and have them interrogated about how they handled a particular case. I think —

JAN CRAWFORD: But you wouldn’t have objected if he wanted to testify?

WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn’t have objected if he wanted to testify. I do think that his view that he should stick to what is in the report is consistent with the department’s views of these things.

JAN CRAWFORD: So the last thing that he said yesterday was to remind us that Russia tried to sway our election. He said there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere and that deserves the attention of every American. How’s the Justice Department working now to ensure this doesn’t happen again in 2020?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, we do have. I think an increasingly robust program that is focusing on foreign influence in our election process. The FBI obviously has the lead in that and I’ve been briefed on it on a regular basis and I think it’s a very impressive effort but, we are ramping up. I talked recently to the director of the FBI about putting together a special high-level group to make sure we’re totally prepared for the upcoming elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: And the high level group would be? Who would that include?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, it would include the FBI, the Department of Justice, DHS and intelligence agencies.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Enough was done in 2016? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different.

JAN CRAWFORD: Right because it’s just hard to understand why it wasn’t taken more seriously.


JAN CRAWFORD: Why do you think it was not?

WILLIAM BARR: I have no idea. That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at you know–

JAN CRAWFORD: –As part of the review?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes. In other words, you know, there are statements being made that people were warned back in April–

JAN CRAWFORD: –of 2016–

WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don’t have any reason to doubt that, but I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.

JAN CRAWFORD: I want to talk to you about the investigation. Um, because your, that’s suggesting that was obviously inadequate, but when you talk to Director Wray about appointing this high level group and efforts to ensure that this doesn’t happen again in 2020, has he expressed any concern to you that the kind of review that you are now going to undertake, or this investigation of the investigation, that that could hamper these efforts in 2020?

WILLIAM BARR: We’ve discussed how important it is that that not be allowed to happen and we are both very cognizant of that and–

JAN CRAWFORD: —You have discussed that with him?

WILLIAM BARR: Oh yes, and I think he is being very supportive and we’re working together on, you know, trying to reconstruct what happened. People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016, these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign, were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell. And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.

JAN CRAWFORD: So when we are talking about the kind of the– well you have used the word spy. You have testified that you believe spying occurred.


JAN CRAWFORD: Into the Trump campaign.


JAN CRAWFORD: You’ve gotten some criticism for using that word.

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I mean, I guess it’s become a dirty word somehow. It hasn’t ever been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law and properly predicated and if it is, then it’s an important tool the United States has to protect the country.

JAN CRAWFORD: On using the word, I mean, do you understand, and I know that some of the, some former intelligence chiefs have said that the president has made that word somewhat pejorative, that there is spying, this is a witch hunt, this is a hoax, and so your use of that word makes it seem that you are being a loyalist.

WILLIAM BARR: You know, it’s part of the craziness of the modern day that if a president uses a word, then all of a sudden it becomes off bounds. It’s a perfectly good English word, I will continue to use it.

JAN CRAWFORD: You’re saying that spying occurred. There’s not anything necessarily wrong with that.


JAN CRAWFORD: As long as there’s a reason for it.

WILLIAM BARR: Whether it’s adequately predicated. And look, I think if we — we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that’s bad for the republic. But by the same token, it’s just as, it’s just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: So it’s just as dangerous- So when we talk about foreign interference versus say a government abuse of power, which is more troubling?

WILLIAM BARR: Well they’re both, they’re both troubling.


WILLIAM BARR: In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.

JAN CRAWFORD: And you are concerned that that may have happened in 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I just think it has to be carefully look at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did that happen?

WILLIAM BARR: There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign. And I’m not saying there was not a basis for it, that it was legitimate, but I want to see what that basis was and make sure it was legitimate.


WILLIAM BARR: That’s one of the, you know, one of the key responsibilities of the Attorney General, core responsibilities of the Attorney General is to make sure that government power is not abused and that the right of Americans are not transgressed by abusive government power. That’s the responsibility of the Attorney General.

JAN CRAWFORD: You know the- I guess- we’ve spent the last two years or more talking about and hearing about Russian interference into the elections and what occurred there. And so now we’re shifting to talking about actually investigating, reviewing that investigation and the people who did that. So I guess in making this turn can you help us understand, I mean what’s- what is the concern? What have you seen, what’s the basis for that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well I don’t want to get you know, too much into the facts because it’s still under review. But I think it’s important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our second amendment- I’m sorry, the core of our first amendment liberties in this country. And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process- who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done. And was everyone operating in their proper lane? And I’ve selected a terrific career prosecutor from the department who’s been there over thirty years, he’s now the U.S. attorney.

WILLIAM BARR: But he has, over the years, been used by both Republican and Democratic attorney generals to investigate these kinds of activities. And he’s always gotten the most laudatory feedback from his work. So there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s going- he’s going to conduct a thorough and fair review of this. And we’re working closely with the intelligence agencies, the bureau and the agency and others to help us reconstruct what happened. And I want to see, what were the standards that were applied. What was the evidence? What were the techniques used? Who approved them? Was there a legitimate basis for it?

JAN CRAWFORD: The Inspector General is looking at only, it is my understanding, a small part of this? Is that correct? the FISA warrant?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I wouldn’t say small but he’s looking at a discrete area that is- that is you know, important, which is the use of electronic surveillance that was targeted at Carter Page.

JAN CRAWFORD: And could he have… could you have just said I want to expand this investigation? Why did you feel it was necessary to turn to John Durham?

WILLIAM BARR: Well the inspector general at the department, Mike Horowitz, who you know is a superb government official he has limited powers. He doesn’t have the power to compel testimony, he doesn’t have the power really to investigate beyond the current cast of characters at the Department of Justice. His ability to get information from former officials or from other agencies outside the department is very limited

JAN CRAWFORD: So he wouldn’t have been able to go and try to speak with some of the former officials who are making these decisions, necessarily?


JAN CRAWFORD: If they are not in the department anymore.


JAN CRAWFORD: Um, what’s the status of Huber’s investigation in Utah? I think the former Attorney General Sessions had asked him to look at this.

WILLIAM BARR: Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would’ve been normal for the department. And he was essentially on standby in case Mr. Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role. The other issues he’s been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully we’ll be in a position to bring those to fruition.

JAN CRAWFORD: So he won’t be involved in this really at all then?


JAN CRAWFORD: This is his role, it’s done?


JAN CRAWFORD: And now Durham is going to pick up–

WILL BARR: Yes, right.

JAN CRAWFORD: –this. So again, just to go, just so that I think so people can more fully understand this, I mean have you, and I know it’s early in the investigation, but when we are talking about the basis for this and why you think it is important and obviously any kind of government abuse of power, I mean, you were in the CIA in the ’70s. You can see how that can have….

WILLIAM BARR: Right, when I, when I joined the CIA almost 50 years ago as an intern and this was during the Vietnam, civil rights era and there had been a lot…there were a lot of pending investigations of the CIA and there the issues were what was- when was it appropriate for intelligence agencies, the FBI too was under investigation.

You know, the penetration of civil rights groups because at the time there was concerns about contacts with, you know, communist funded front groups and things like that and you know how deeply could you get into civil rights groups or anti-Vietnam war groups. A lot of these groups were in contact with foreign adversaries, they had some contact with front organizations and so forth and there were a lot of rules put in place and those rules are under the attorney general.

The attorney general’s responsibility is to make sure that these powers are not used to tread upon first amendment activity and that certainly was a big part of my formative years of dealing with those issues. The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn’t seem to think that it’s worth looking into. They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties.

JAN CRAWFORD: What have you seen? What evidence? What makes you think, I need to take a look at this? I mean, what have you seen in the summer of 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I’ll say at this point is that it, you know, I- like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that- that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.

JAN CRAWFORD: What do you mean by that?

WILLIAM BARR: That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving, and I’m not saying at this stage that–

JAN CRAWFORD: Was it a timeline?

WILLIAM BARR: There was a timeline, there’s some timeline–

JAN CRAWFORD: I mean, there’s a concern that this may have happened before we realized that the investigation was initiated in July. I mean, what…

WILLIAM BARR: I don’t want to get into those details at this point. I would just say that, you know…

JAN CRAWFORD: But you said there’s a timeline concern.

WILLIAM BARR: Well I won’t, I won’t confirm that, but I’ll just say that, you know, there’s some questions that I think have to be answered, and I have a basis for feeling there has to be a review of this.

JAN CRAWFORD: You’ve said, you’ve said the time frame between the election and the inauguration, you’ve said this publicly, was kind of strange. Some strange things may have happened. What concerns you there? Specifically, the meeting at Trump Tower.

WILLIAM BARR: I don’t want to- I don’t want to get into that.

JAN CRAWFORD: Okay. Yes. So kind of going back to what we were talking about with Director Wray, I mean obviously you’ve seen this like the people are raising concerns that this is going to undermine FBI morale. The rank and file- what are we saying here- but you said in recent Senate testimony, “this is not launching an investigation of the FBI frankly to the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon.”

WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.

JAN CRAWFORD: So there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon?

WILLIAM BARR: Correct. In other words, I don’t believe this is a problem you know, rife through the bureau.

JAN CRAWFORD: What suggests to you there was a failure in the upper echelon at the FBI?

WILLIAM BARR: Because I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level. Out of head quarters–

JAN CRAWFORD: And you’re talking about James Comey, McCabe?

WILLIAM BARR: I’m just not going to get into the individual names at this point. But I just view that- I don’t view it as a bureau wide issue. And I will say the same thing for other intelligence agencies. And they’re being very cooperative in helping us.

JAN CRAWFORD: They’re being cooperative?


JAN CRAWFORD: You’re working with the DNI, the head of CIA. I want to ask you about something- just declassification. But the president has tweeted and said publicly that some in the upper echelon, Comey, McCabe, etc., committed treason. I mean do you agree with that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I- as a lawyer I always interpret the word treason not colloquially but legally. And you know the very specific criteria for treason- so I don’t think it’s actually implicated in the situation that we have now. But I think what he–



JAN CRAWFORD: You don’t think that they’ve committed treason?

WILLIAM BARR: Not as a legal matter, no.

JAN CRAWFORD: But you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes but you know, when you’re dealing with official government contact, intent is frequently a murky issue. I’m not suggesting that people did what they did necessarily because of conscious, nefarious motives. Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.

WILLIAM BARR: That something objectively as applied as a neutral principle across the board really you know, shouldn’t be the standard used in the case but because they have a particular bias they don’t see that. So that’s why procedures and standards are important and review afterward is an important way of making sure that government power is being conscientiously and properly applied. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are people- you know, that people have crossed lines have done so with corrupt intent or anything like that.

JAN CRAWFORD: But it seems like you have a concern that there may have been a bias by top officials in the FBI as they looked at whether to launch and conduct this investigation?

WILLIAM BARR: Well it’s hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they’re appalling. And if the shoe were on the other–

JAN CRAWFORD: Appalling.

WILLIAM BARR: Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damning and I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that “Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that.” You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don’t think we would be hearing a lot more about it?

JAN CRAWFORD: You- I guess when you said that there were things done that were not the typical run of business, ad hoc, small group, it’s not how these counterintelligence operations normally work. I think that maybe Comey and others might say well this was such an extraordinary thing we had to keep it so closely held. So we had to do it differently what’s your response to that? Is that legit?

WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus

JAN CRAWFORD: So did you ask the president for authority to declassify?


JAN CRAWFORD: You asked the president?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes and also you know, the direction of the intelligence agencies to support our efforts.

JAN CRAWFORD: So did you discuss this with the DNI and head of the CIA?


JAN CRAWFORD: And what’s their response?

WILLIAM BARR: That they’re going to be supportive.

JAN CRAWFORD: And so you won’t will you declassify things without reviewing it with them it seems like you have the authority to do that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well in an exceptional circumstance I have that authority but obviously I intend to consult with them. I’m amused by these people who make a living by disclosing classified information, including the names of intelligence operatives, wringing their hands about whether I’m going to be responsible in protecting intelligence sources and methods.

I’ve been in the business as I’ve said for over 50 years long before they were born and I know how to handle classified information and I believe strongly in protecting intelligence sources and methods. But at the same time if there is information that can be shared with the American people without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods that decision should be made and because I will be involved in finding out what the story was I think I’m in the best decision to make that decision

JAN CRAWFORD: I know you’ve seen some of the criticism and the push back on- on this. Do you have any concerns that doing this investigation, talking about de-classifying certain materials- that that’s undermining your credibility or the credibility of the department?

WILLIAM BARR: No I- I don’t. I think it’s- actually the reaction is somewhat strange. I mean normally–



JAN CRAWFORD: Their reaction?

WILLIAM BARR: Well the media reaction is strange. Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is. And usually the media doesn’t care that much about protecting intelligence sources and methods. But I do and I will.

JAN CRAWFORD: You are only the second Attorney General in history who’s served twice. I think the first one was back in 1850.


JAN CRAWFORD: But you are working for a man who is- I mean you are an establishment figure in a way. You’ve had a long career in Washington but you are working for a man who is not establishment. And some of his tweets about officials and the rule of law, how do you react when you see those? Are you on Twitter? Do you read his tweets?

WILLIAM BARR: No, I am not on Twitter and every once in a while a tweet is brought to my attention but my experience with the president is, we have- we have a good working, professional working relationship. We, you know, we talk to each other and if he has something to say to me I figure he’ll tell me directly. I don’t look to tweets for, you know, I don’t look at them as directives or as official communications with the department.

JAN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it’s like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What’s your response to that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.


WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.

JAN CRAWFORD: You are at the end of your career, or?

WILLIAM BARR: I am at the end of my career. I’ve you know–

JAN CRAWFORD: Does it, I mean, it’s the reputation that you have worked your whole life on though?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, but everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?

JAN CRAWFORD: So you don’t regret taking the job?


JAN CRAWFORD: Not even today?

WILLIAM BARR: I’d rather, in many ways, I’d rather be back to my old life but I think that I love the Department of Justice, I love the FBI, I think it’s important that we not, in this period of intense partisan feeling, destroy our institutions. I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.

JAN CRAWFORD: And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially?

WILLIAM BARR: I am concerned about that.

[Transcript End]

This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, NSA, President Trump, Russia, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

445 Responses to AG William Barr on DOJ/FBI Conduct in 2016: “Things are just not jiving” – Full Interview and Transcript…

  1. MightyMustardSeed says:

    AG Barr’s interview reveals that his thoughts have occupied this subject for a lengthy period.
    Barr’s words are resplendent with the ire, found only in those who have chosen to walk and dwell on the high road of integrity.

    Contrast his forthright and exhaustive responses to those of Brennan, Mueller, Schiff, Rosenstein, Pelosi, Clapper… There is no moral or intellectual comparison.

    Barr’s responses have grown increasingly more direct, and his questions, more pointed. He’s now openly challenging the force-fed, false narrative. Barr does not retreat from embarrassing facts;
    Nor will the Rosensteins, Comeys, Pelosis, Brennan and Clappers… go unchallenged as parasites upon America.

    AG Barr is not a man who will ever be comfortable, or be found on the low road, where most go. Few are those who choose to walk and dwell on narrow high road.

    Liked by 35 people

    • Donald says:


      Liked by 7 people

      • LandofLiberty says:

        True and I want to give credit to where credit is due and that is to Mrs. Crawford. She did an excellent interview. Excellent questions but not intrusive, not hot dogging, not badgering. She let the questions speak for themselves and Barr was excellent himself in his responses. I think Mrs. Crawford asked the great and most important questions we wanted to hear answered. Barr loves the DOJ and FBI as the institutions they were meant to be. My hopes is that he has the will to prosecute if the facts leads him there. He thinks like a man who has been around for the 50 years he spoke of and is a deep thinker unlike ME.

        Liked by 8 people

        • lieutenantm says:

          who is ME Why abbreviate?


        • Mrs. E says:

          I would have to disagree with you. I found her to be intrusive, and everytime he told her he would not respond, I applauded him. And she had areas where she began to press him, but she knew it would get her nowhere with him. So refreshing to have an adult as AG!

          Liked by 1 person

          • mugzey302 says:

            And, she quickly moved on when he had some criticism for the MSM! lol 😏


            • CharterOakie says:

              Yes, after a loud and embarrassing silence of a few seconds, she moved on to a different topic.

              Crawford did her best to try to get Barr to reveal where things are at in his investigation, where they are headed, and who might be implicated. He didn’t humor her at all.

              Barr is most impressive.

              Liked by 1 person

          • jeff montanye says:

            though it is hard to listen to him, even though he is probably better, less corrupt, more likely to convict some of crossfire hurricane, when he goes on about russian hacking which is the originating lie to the u.s. electorate regarding the 2016 election. true that bad stuff was going on, probably back to 2012, but the first we heard of it was the supposed hacking, guccifer 2.0, wikileaks, seth rich, trump accused of collusion stuff.

            we still have a very long way to go down the road of reform and the establishment of the rule of law.


    • Impossible says:

      Great comment MMS: I’d add this, “ republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people” — didn’t one of these Praetorian Guards write a book entitled, “A Higher Loyalty” admitting thereby that established protections can be politically overthrown if one’s sense of superiority is threatened?

      Liked by 6 people

    • Paul Henry says:

      Mr. Barr seems to be a good man with courage. In these times, I really appreciate that.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Mrs. E says:



    • flyboy46 says:

      Great comment. Check out an interesting article on American Thinker today.
      Mr. Barr is onto this case. HE appointed a “special prosecutor” to look at THIS case yesterday, and there is a LOT of corruption to find, ALL the way up to the judge. Expect silence for a long time till they have ALL the facts, and then expect the JUDGE to resign too.


  2. Honest Abbey says:

    I was surprised to see that this interview took place in Alaska. William Barr was appointed Attorney General just 3 short months ago and he’s already on vacation? Doesn’t anyone else find that odd?

    I also think AG Barr could have and SHOULD HAVE been more critical of Mueller, specifically about how unethical it was for Mueller to lead the Democrats into thinking it was his job to exonerate the president.

    Other than that, I thought it was a good interview.


      • Rhoda R says:

        God what a mess. Reservation Indians in the lower 48 do seem to have their own police forces. Is the problem up in Alaska due to non-reservation status that puts them under the direct control of the state?


        • daylight58 says:

          Pretty much. There are no ‘reservations’ as in the Lower 48. There are the Native Village scattered around state, so local law enforcement is covered by Village Public Safety Officers. There was Congressional legislation that settled the Alaskan Native claims of the ownership of land called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that allowed the creation of Native corporations, with defined boundaries, and paid a settlement of nearly $1 billion, in settlement of the ‘land ownership’ claims – and in lieu of creating reservations.

          The added challenge (#1) is the fact that many communities have no – NO – roads by which the State Troopers can respond.
          The added challenge (#2) is the size of the state. It’s a local source of humor that most maps of the United States show us as a floaty-Alaska-shaped blob off on the west side of the Lower 48. In reality, very few Outsiders understand just how big the state actually is. Joking reference: “If the land area of Alaska were equally divided into two states, Texas would become the third largest state in the U.S.”
          Here’s a map of Alaska laid-over the map of the Lower 48.
          https://www.cardcow (dot) com/132176/comparison-alaska-united-states-area-maps/
          Juneau – the state capital – is about at the northwesterly ‘corner’ of South Carolina is on the map.
          Anchorage – the largest ‘city’ in terms of population (about 300,000 of the 738,000 in the state), would be near the Springfield, MO.
          Bethel, AK – would be located on the Colorado-Kansas border, about where U.S. 40 crosses the state lines.
          Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) – would be up near the Lake of the Woods, MN on the map.
          The westerly (technically, because of the line of 180 degrees longitude, the easterly) end of the Aleutian Island archipelago (still, part of the state) is located just north of Los Angeles.

          Liked by 3 people

          • daylight58 says:

            And, yes – because there is only 3 miles separating the village on Little Diomede Island and the populace of Big Diomede Island, there is a place in Alaska where you actually can see Russian territory (Big Diomede) from your front porch.
            Here near my home outside Wasilla (and, no, it isn’t an igloo… but an apartment with cultured stone countertops, stainless steel appliances, LVT floors, a garage, and an AWESOME view of the mountains in the third-largest state park in the U.S.), there is a large population of ethnic-heritage Ukrainians (the womens’ attire that one can see them wearing at the stores.)

            Liked by 2 people

            • bayoukiki says:

              Visiting your lovely state is so on my bucket list. My aunt and uncle drove from Louisiana to Alaska to homestead in the 1950s (imagine that drive!) and their children, my cousins, are still there. It will be soon


            • Peppurr says:

              Yes, I can remember Sarah Palin saying she could see Alaska. 🙂 I had the fun experience of being hyderized at that pub in Hyder. Was visiting relatives in Stewart.


              • PatriotKate says:

                you forgot “Sarc” since Sarah Palin isn’t the one who said that. 🙂

                Liked by 1 person

                • CharterOakie says:

                  Correct. I believe that Sarah said “you can actually see Russia from Alaska.”

                  Or words very close to that. She was referring of course to the proximity of Big Diomede and Little Diomede islands in the Aleutians.

                  It was Tina Fey who said “I can see Russia from my house.”


      • WSB says:

        Yikes. I thought when Alasaka became a state they were not supposed to be a burden on the US government. Now. they are asking for Federal dollars to fix a problem they created and can pay for since the oil companies pay each citizen a dividend.

        WTH? with so many other problems we have nationally, Barr is up there for an intervention the Governor is unable to handle, even after our Feds gave these people a lot of money to correct this mess?


        • daylight58 says:

          The oil companies, to get to the bottom line, aren’t “paying the dividend (the PFD), directly” The State receives royalties from them on the value of the oil removed. The money is invested by a State-owned corporation to create a fund for supporting the State government in a ‘post-oil financial world’ Alaska. A percentage of each year’s increase in value of the Fund (invested in real estate, stocks/bonds, etc.) is calculated (about $60 billion, currently) is used to pay for the State government operations, a percentage is returned to us IF we choose to apply for that year’s dividend (i.e. you can choose to not receive a PFD check, or, are able to automatically donate all or part to local charities through the “Pick-Click-Give” program) that year, but the bulk is almost untouchable.

          Technically, no one – individually – owns the mineral rights in Alaska except for the State. Someone finds oil on your property? Guess what, you don’t own the rights to that oil. The oil companies don’t. The State of Alaska owns that oil. Ditto other minerals.

          That’s the way that the Feds set things up during the Statehood legislation to create a future stream of revenue to avoid becoming your ‘burden.’ That’s also one of the reasons that many Alaskans are unhappy about Outside environmental groups’ activities to stop activity on the North Slope – and the 1002 Area (the portion of ANWR specifically reserved for oil exploration), specifically. That’s potential revenue for future State operations. The other reason is, well, “This is our home. OUR home. We don’t tell you what YOU should do in your State – right?”

          That doesn’t negate the fact that Alaska is still one of 50 states of the USA subject to the jurisdiction of the Feds (in fact, about 61% of our 365,000,000 acres are still under the direct jurisdiction of the Feds), or in which the Feds have an interest (being defended by the Feds via the USAF, USA, USCG, for instance) or that there isn’t a Federal interest in dealing with the 200+ Native tribes and the 86,000 Alaskan Natives – descendants of the pre-Russian/pre-American indigenous peoples – who have their own limited tribal sovereignty.

          Here’s what the State’s AG wrote about that latter point.

          “The law is clear. There are 229 Alaska Tribes and they are separate sovereigns with inherent sovereignty and subject matter jurisdiction over certain matters,” the opinion concludes.

          At its heart, the [State’s] attorney general said, tribal sovereignty is the right to make one’s own laws and be governed by them.”

          Liked by 2 people

    • Mark McQueen says:

      What makes you think he is on vacation?

      Liked by 1 person

      • LandofLiberty says:

        Evidently he doesn’t get his info before he asks his question

        Liked by 2 people

        • Honest Abbey says:

          And evidently some people don’t bother to look at a person’s name before assigning pronouns to “said person”.


      • Honest Abbey says:

        Maybe it was the cabin they were in, or the cozy fire in the fireplace they were sitting in front of, or the casual outdoorsy attire??
        It did not look like a business trip to me, but I guess from the link Athena posted directly above your comment, it’s certainly being written off as “Business”.

        Where is the Governor of Alaska?
        Why is the Attorney General up there doing the Governor’s job?


        • Mark McQueen says:

          Maybe you just don’t know when to quit….

          Liked by 2 people

        • daylight58 says:

          Lord protect me from people who don’t know anything about Alaska.


        • The Boss says:

          The valid purpose of this trip was not only discussed here yesterday, but it fulfilled a pledge AG Barr made to Sen. Murkowski during a Senate hearing when she asked him to personally visit and meet Alaskans in remote areas.

          Liked by 2 people

        • daylight58 says:

          Answer to #1 – Juneau
          Answer to #2 – You’re assuming that the issue of justice in the Native Villages in rural Alaska, where often the closest State Troopers may be a 1/2 hr to 2 hr flight, can be handled solely by Gov. Mike Dunleavy or the AST.


        • Skip Brewer says:

          Dealing with native American tribes is a federal issue, not a state issue. So it is appropriate for someone from the Justice Department and/or Department of the Interior to be a part of the discussion that was taking place.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Sharon says:

          Honest so sitting in front of a cozy fireplace means your on vacation? Got it!🙄🙄


          • daylight58 says:

            Yes. Because there are no nice hotels with fireplaces, and with Alaska-type internal decorations, in Anchorage – where the interview was held. And, that CBS’ Chief Legal Reporter might not want to interview him someplace higher in quality than a Motel 6. /sarc


    • SAM-TruthFreedomLiberty says:

      No, you are odd.

      Doesn’t look like vacation.
      So many people here jumping to uneducated conclusions.

      Liked by 9 people

      • daylight58 says:

        That first photo looks very “Alaska business-casual”.

        Now, if it were still winter here, I’d expect him to be wearing Bunny Boots or perhaps XtraTuf boots for a trip out to the Villages.

        Liked by 2 people

      • covfefe999 says:

        Oh my gosh I have been looking for a clip of Barr at the hearing when he made that face! He’s awesome! Who else would have the guts to do that?

        Liked by 4 people

      • Skippy says:

        What an Attorney General Mr. Barr is. Look at that video of the unflinching determined man riding it out in an open plane chamber miles up from Earth! I don’t think we could ask for a better character and more determined individuall: the right person for the time. Thank you AG Barr and Mrs. Barr and family.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Sharon says:

          Skippy oh but some people here are concerned about Barr’s wife and Mueller’s wife going to bible study ! Boy that really is going to interfere in Barr’s decisions! What a bunch of uneducated fools!

          Liked by 1 person

    • God's Poster says:

      AG Barr was in Alaska on official business:

      As far as being critical of Mueller, Barr knows the time is not right. He has 50 years of experience dealing with the slime within our government. He’ll pounce when he has all of his evidentiary ducks in a row. Not before.

      Liked by 11 people

    • daylight58 says:

      Why? Because Alaska isn’t one of the 50 United States that the DOJ Attorney General might have a legitimate interest in?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Skippy says:

        You’re point is totally true, daylight58. I only wish I could visit your great State of Alaska. I think what caught me off gaurd, if you will, is how open that transport was for our AG. Thank you for speaking up, I meant you and Alaska (tough people) no disrespect. 🙂


    • daylight58 says:

      This resident of Alaska, one of 738,000 American citizens living and working in this state, doesn’t consider it particularly odd.

      Liked by 4 people

    • bayoukiki says:

      Well, tbh, it isn’t that unusual in the real world when one is offered a new position not applied for to say “well OK. I can do this but I have this pre-planned trip to Alaska and . . .” I truly have no idea what happened but the fact he is where he is causes me no heartburn. He’s like me – he’s on the clock and working (it’s all moving around in his head) whether he’s in the office or not

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Tazok says:

    Missing bold:

    the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven–

    JAN CRAWFORD: Staff-driven?

    WILLIAM BARR: Yeah. I personally felt,

    Liked by 7 people

    • GB Bari says:


      Just as he said else in the interview: “In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn’t rely on that.

      I can’t see him implying anyone else other than Weissmann. AG Barr knows exactly who that scumbag is.

      Liked by 10 people

      • The Boss says:

        This is around the 6 minute mark if one cares to listen.

        Liked by 1 person

      • beach lover says:

        Rush has a great summation to this interview. It has been posted upthread, but worth a look if you missed it.

        My favorite part that should make us all feel a bit better…

        RUSH – “He’s not talking about what was factually presented in the report. He’s talking about one or two lawyers on Mueller’s team and their analysis, and they said, “We disagree. We looked at the law We looked at their opinion, and their opinion is wrong based on the law.” Now, he’s talking about Weissmann here! “As a matter of law.” “In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report.

        “It didn’t reflect the views of the department, which is concerned with the law. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law.” Well, this… I say it’s Weissmann. Who else would it be? I mean, there’s thirteen anti-Trump lawyers on Mueller’s investigative team, and what he’s saying here is that the legal analysis — meaning what the lawyers, what Mueller’s team thought — is not what they thought. They did an analysis of the law.

        These other people are doing their analysis on some flawed basis that Barr and his DOJ people disagreed with. So they applied the law. The Mueller team was not. That explains the difference. Got one or two lawyers on that team. And notice he didn’t say Mueller. He said, “It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers.” He knows it’s Weissmann. He knows that this team was really run by Andrew Weissmann (who was on stage with Hillary when she conceded, a big-time donor) who hates Donald Trump.

        He knows Weissmann’s judicial history. He knows that Weissmann’s purely political, and that’s what he’s saying without saying it. They don’t want anybody like me in analyzing this. That’s why they’re not gonna play this bite on CNN, they’re not gonna play this bite on MSNBC, and they’re not gonna do it the New York Times. They don’t want anybody explaining what Barr’s talking about here.

        They want Mueller to remain as the first and final authority on the law. And what Barr is saying is, “These guys didn’t even apply the law. I had to. That’s why there was no obstruction.”

        Liked by 3 people

        • GB Bari says:

          Actually I think everyone on Mueller’s team was/is a lawyer. And I don’t think we know the history of most of them besides Weismann. His history of abuses is well known. So the analysis with which Barr and Rosenstein disagree could have also come from some other radical lawyer(s)…we’ll probably never know.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Tazok says:

            To expand on my opening comment.
            MAY 1, 2019 | William Barr Testifies on Mueller Report Before Senate Judiciary Committee

            Analysis: Barr does a great job remembering the language he had previously used under oath. He’s consistent in his congressional/ interview 1 questions

            The Mueller Investigation Was Always an Impeachment Probe | By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

            “More to the point, Mueller and such top staffers as Andrew Weissmann and Michael Dreeben, who have operated at the top echelon of the Justice Department, would have known that the attorney general would win such a battle ten times out of ten.”

            Staff-driven could be Weissman + Dreeben.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Kleen says:

    I may be paranoid but CBS is for sure deep state disinformation agents.

    I believe this can be some kind of a trap.

    Maybe Barr said something that the crooks can use to claim Barr tainted the investigation, by polluting the minds of a future grand jury. Or something like that.

    I just don’t trust fake news AT ALL!

    Liked by 1 person

    • LandofLiberty says:

      Give credit where credit is due. She did a fantastic interview. She is head of the law dept for CBS. She is someone different than your ever day run of the mill correspondents we hear every day

      Liked by 5 people

      • Chimpy says:

        I was a very good interview indeed. So sad that we all feel the need to jump for joy when we notice a SINGLE journalist actually doing a good job during a SINGLE interview these days on Trump-hating MSM. This type of occurrence shouldn’t be unique!

        Liked by 7 people

    • GB Bari says:

      As well you or we shouldn’t trust them***. They are Fake to the core.

      But what AG Barr said cannot be changed since its on video and edits will be quite obvious no matter how steathliy they’re done. .,

      ***as I mistakingly did yesterday responding in CTH to the short piece in the The Hill, a rag I have often ridiculed right here in CTH. So I fell for their little article with its strategic selection of pull quotes from this interview. My bad.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Donald says:

    Honest Abbey:
    Of course, your point is valid, however, Barr couldn’t have been more critical than having stated that the legal criteria set forth in the Mueller Report WERE INCORRECT!!!
    Barr also stated that the WRONG LAW was used in determining guilt or innocence, and that he (Barr) inserted the CORRECT LAW.
    Barr might be compared to a very accomplished pickpocket artist that lets you think everything is ok until you get home and find you don’t have your wallet.
    In this case, after Barr passed judgement, calmly, quietly, and professionally on the report, Mueller went home and found out he no longer had a reputation for competence and probity.
    Barr had no appetite for ‘mugging’ his former friend a la Jerry Nadler.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Barr is not a “political” person. He’s a ruthless law enforcement officer who stepped out of retirement because at this point in his life and career he doesn’t care about politics. He wants to get to the truth.

      Unlike many, many people in DC, Barr walks very softly, speaks very calmly, and carries a gigantic stick – which he doesn’t use for politics. He’s not rushing to announce anything; he doesn’t have to. When the wheels of Justice begin to move, “they will grind exceedingly fine.” Every one of the criminals knows who they are, knows that HE knows who they are, and that their days are numbered and there’s nothing they can do about it. But, I have no pity: they did all of this to themselves.

      Liked by 12 people

      • billinlv says:

        Barr absented himself from DC just prior to the propaganda impeachment speech given by Mueller and he took this trip because he promised one of the most loyal to the constitution, and conservative, senators, Lisa Murkowski, that he would take care of her concerns. Nothing like getting your priorities right, heh Mike? Based on optics alone, Barr rolled over. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.


        • Rhoda R says:

          That article reads to me like he was informed of a serious legal situation and took some initial steps to find out more about it. Nothing has changed on the ground in the lower 48. Barr isn’t going to do anything dramatic while the President is overseas (unless the President directs him to) and he isn’t ready to announce anything just yet – so why shouldn’t he go to Alaska to see what the real concerns are.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Blister Bill says:

          We have a winner…Optics were very bad. There’s nothing going on in Alaska that would need the AG’s attention more than the nation ending corruption and treason going on in D.C. Basic triage.

          No arrests, no grand juries, no special counsels yet we already have junkets to Alaska. Swell. /rolleyes


      • Skippy says:

        “Walks softly and carries a big stick” approach previously came to my mind re: AG Barr. Thank you.

        Liked by 2 people

    • LandofLiberty says:

      I thought it amazing that he let it be known that he disagreed with MOST of Mueller’s and his partners lawyers conclusions

      Liked by 4 people

    • Kintbury says:

      I loved your analogy. I hope Mueller felt appropriately violated.


    • Honest Abbey says:

      Hi Donald,
      Thank you for the response. I hadn’t seen your comment until just now, so I apologize for the delay.

      I think AG Barr could have served a better purpose had he not parsed his words and just put it in terms that the Democrats could not spin. They still haven’t received the message…… they STILL think President Trump is guilty of obstruction because Mueller did not “exernorate” him.

      The FAKE NEWS and the Dems are never going to believe otherwise unless Mueller admits he was unethical in his report, or until AG Barr publicly accuses Mueller of being unethical.

      This is beyond crazy!


      • I don’t think the Democrats or the media are stupid. They are perfectly aware their utterings are all spin and lies. Their ends justify the means. As Shakespeare famously wrote “Out, out damn spot”! And they is how they feel about the President. He must be driven from office and they are not concerned about morals, ethics or honesty.

        Liked by 3 people

  6. tozerbgood8315 says:

    Anyone beside me find it strange that Clapper or Brennan never came up in the interview?

    Liked by 1 person

    • nimrodman says:

      Clapper and Brennan did come up

      Who do we think Barr is talking about when he says:

      “Former senior intelligence officials who were purporting to have it- or intimating that they had inside information were suggesting that the president and his family were going to be indicted and so forth–”

      Liked by 12 people

  7. I’d like to see Trump take the bull(sh*t) by the horns and take the US Congress to the Supreme Court.

    The Constitution stipulates that an officer may be impeached for one reason: “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But this President, after a $38 million dollar grueling investigation lasting 22 months – in which he cooperated in every conceivable way – was not accused of anything. The formal conclusion of the Justice Department truly is: “no collusion, no obstruction.”

    It is obvious that this Congress wants to impeach this President for no more reason than they just don’t like him, and because some prefer to think that he didn’t win. But, that does not meet the standard of the Constitution.

    Yes, the House is tasked with this proceeding, but here we clearly have it being used for political purposes, to accuse of wrongdoing someone who did nothing wrong. That is clearly not what our Constitution intended. Congress has a burden to demonstrate that it truly has probable cause to believe that a crime was committed; not that the opposite is true.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Maquis says:

      I would suggest it’s less not liking PDJT than it is they fear him. Justly, for the thwarting and exposure of their injustices and corruptions he threatens simply by being a just, unbought and unbowed Patriot.

      Liked by 6 people

    • 3rdday61 says:

      It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that all the hatred for President Trump is actually intended for We The People. We weren’t supposed to win. Too late now!!! Donald J Trump is still the POTUS!!! Thank you Lord.
      I think President Trump should bring back Scaramucci for some ‘heart to heart’ chats with these traitors.
      This ‘unmasking’ of the Deep State is going to leave a serious mark. And rightfully so.
      There’s no higher crimes than those against the USA which in essence is We The People. Crimes committed by dirty cops at the highest level of law enforcement. Sickening, knowing so many brave,patriotic officers have given their lives protecting and serving Justice. Cold anger alert……..

      Liked by 4 people

    • NC Patriot says:

      Nancy might not have the votes to impeach—-It makes good theater though–and a good money raiser.

      Liked by 1 person

    • lemmus1 says:

      iirc SCOTUS has zero say in how – much less whether – the House passes a bill of impeachment. Impeachment is the sole process for removal of the federal judiciary and as such is not subject to SCOTUS review.

      However, keep in mind that should a Trump impeachment trial ever be held in the Senate, Chief Justice Roberts will set as the presiding officer rather than Pence or McConnell.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. waicool says:

    One thing that stood out was Barr’s admission that PRESSURE caused him to action (he published a summary). Barr stated the potential harm caused by fake narratives published in the media and people hanging outside in front of his house affected his actions. hmmmm

    Liked by 2 people

    • glissmeister says:

      Barr seemed to leave an implicit question hanging in mid air. In final delivered form, the report was not provided to the AG with the highlights for redaction as promised. This strikes me as an exceptionally unusual and perhaps intentional omission.

      Why withhold the highlighting? Why? Was there intent to trip the AG into a trap by facilitating an accidental release of information that should have been redacted? Was the failure to highlight a simple screw up, an insubordinate refusal or something more sinister?

      There was such an unbalanced adversarial reaction to the interim conclusion Barr released. The reaction was odd. Conspicuously weird, even from the lips of utterly weird hamster people like Schiff and Swalwell and those more reptilian life forms sporting names like Blumenthal, Warner and Schumer.

      How they did scream, writhe and howl in agony when Barr humbly and graciously released the interim conclusion report as a placeholder while they meticulously effected the necessary redactions that were promised to be highlighted in the full report, but weren’t.

      Gunch Pelosi and Dirty Waters flew into in such a rage. It was such a terrible rage you’d a thunk one of the chickens got loose and crapped all over the Thanksgiving Dinner table just as everybody who mattered was sitting down for the big feast.

      Curiouser and curiouser, this.

      Liked by 4 people

      • OlderAndWiser says:

        Weismann leaked *his* interpretation to Congress. But Barr outmanouvered him. And then got rid of him, and told him he’s under a microscope.

        Liked by 6 people

      • QCM says:

        There lack of highlighting of grand jury information was likely intentional…best guess a Weissman decision…to delay release of the full report…thereby forcing release of the summary created by the SC team…Barr upended that play by producing his own summary…which then set off the games that have taken place since by the SC team and their supporters.

        Liked by 5 people

      • romy911 says:

        Mueller’s team did not highlight the redactions because they wanted to control how the report was released. They knew it would take AG Barr weeks to complete the redactions and the media would be hounding him for information. Their plan was for AG Barr to release the report piecemeal – an introduction to the report and then a summary for each volume, which they provided. Barr declined & made the decision to release his four page summary.
        Remember the letter Mueller wrote to Barr complaining about Barr’s four page summary?

        Liked by 4 people

      • Redzone says:

        By not identifying the redactions, they simply wanted to delay the release of Mueller’s report. They offered up the summary of findings with their spin that they wanted the public to chew on for the weeks before the report could be issued. However, as previously stated, Barr outmaneuvered them by creating the proper conclusion based on the facts, which essentially blew up their plan. That’s why they sent the nasty letter to Barr saying he misrepresented the Mueller report to the public, which also was not true.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Dimbulbz says:

          All this makes it smell like Mueller was just Weissmans puppet. Maybe he has stuff on Mueller, and that’s why he had to do all this. He only hired who Weissman said he could, he had to keep a false investigation active for over 2 years after they knew it was crap. He could not say Trump isn’t guilty because Weissman would expose him. what he read sounded like bad acting. He seemed reluctant to do what he was doing. I think Mueller is in a bad spot of his own making.

          Liked by 3 people

      • WSB says:

        Mueller thought he could release whatever he wanted, as Rob Rosenstein was SUPPOSED to become acting AG. The House was just waiting for it.

        President Trump threw a wrench into that by sideswiping with Whitaker and then installing Barr. And Barr had Mueller’s number when he saw what a scam Mueller was running.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Mark McQueen says:

      Nahh…Barr realized Team Weissmann was trying to manipulate the optics (and the press was ready to join in) and the narrative (What’s taking so long? Must be a cover up.) when they “inexplicably” failed to highlight grand jury material. He turned the tables on THEM with his summary.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. Brant says:

    “Things are not jiving.” Watch, the MSM will now call him rayciss.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Carson Napier says:

      Jive does usually refer to musical rhythm or lyrics, where as it’s jibe that usually refers to being in accord with believably which is what Barr must have meant.

      Liked by 2 people

      • faridrushdi says:

        The term “jiving” as in “you’re jiving me, right?” became normal discourse in the late 1960s. If you jived someone, you were making up a story. It was used to mean an untruth. In the early 1970’s, the song “Jive talking” came out which was about a man trying to impress a woman with lies.

        Barr and I are the same age so it’s ingrained in our vocabulary. Trump is the same way. People make fun of the way he talks but that was our way of talking in the 60s.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Jederman says:

        It could also refer to a former president off prompter. It’s usually preceded by “shuckin” and followed by a cheesy, I’m so pleased with myself, grin.

        Liked by 1 person

      • California Joe says:

        Davos addresses the “master of coin and lord of lofty titles,” asking for the money to rebuild the throne’s armada and ports.

        “The master of coin looks forward to helping the master of ships, but first he has to ensure we’re not wasting coin or soon there won’t be no more coin,” answers Bronn with a double negative.

        “Any more,” Davos retorts.

        “You master of grammar now, too?” Bronn shoots back.


    • Waymore says:

      “Excuse me stewardess, but I speak jive…”
      Classic line from the movie Airplane !
      Sorry, just a little humor. I thought General Barr’s comments were great, and feel confident that at least some justice will be served.

      Liked by 5 people

  10. tozerbgood8315 says:

    You know… I like AG Barr, but I feel that in the final analysis, the DOJ/FBI will do whatever is necessary to preserve their beloved FISA Court.

    If this process doesn’t either 1) Eliminate the FISA Court, or 2) Enact some stricter laws concerning FISA applications, I’m going to be hugely dissatisfied.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. nimrodman says:

    Well, I appreciate his perspective on this issue and that he’s not afraid to voice it in frank and slightly sarcastic language

    When asked if there was adequate response by the Obama admin to warnings of Russian “interference”, Barr says:

    Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.

    So he’s not afraid to call bull$hit on the Mifsud, Halper, Downer schemes and the like

    Liked by 16 people

  12. Cheese says:

    The US has tried to effect other countries elections for ever. Grow up Democrats.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. nimrodman says:

    Oh, and speaking of Russian “interference”, it looks like we need to worry about
    Iranian Content Farmers as well

    Iran-Linked Group Posed as GOP Candidates on Social Media

    Liked by 2 people

  14. john lott says:

    Bear in mind that if any of the dem Presidential contenders or their aids or family or friends of family or aids have ever spoken to a Russian, Trump has every right to open an investigation and spy on them and their campaign.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. glissmeister says:

    “… And you know the very specific criteria for treason- so I don’t think it’s actually implicated in the situation that we have now.”

    Agreed. Not in the situation we have now. What the situation ultimately ripens into will be determined with facts not yet disclosed and perhaps not yet in evidence.

    I am in awe of the mindfulness of Barr; his precision; his grace and candor. We are so fortunate a person of his quality and experience is willing to do this.

    And what a solid job Jan Crawford did as a media personality. She single-handedly almost managed to make CBS News look credible again, which sadly may bring out the long knives looking to end her career for daring to publicly upstage the profoundly mediocre status quo of her cohorts and competitors.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. LandofLiberty says:

    It’s such a partisan time. Barr acknowledged it and said he was at the end of his career and even though he had, up until he took the job, had a great resume with both sides of the isle he realized and was persuaded that the DOJ needed someone AT THIS TIME who could not be shaken by either side and could restore the DOJ and FBI to the reason they were founded. He has some things in common with Trump. He understands Trump is defending himself from illegal acts and highly partisan atmosphere and accepts it as that and sees nothing wrong in lawfully defending ones self. So here at the end of Barr’s career he, like Trump, owes no one anything other than the Constitution for which HE stands.

    Liked by 5 people

  17. visage13 says:

    I am cautiously optimistic. I like what I heard but for the last 2.5 years it has been like Lucy with the football. (Charlie Brown) If anyone goes to jail it will be the upper echelon scum bags. It will get close to Obama but he will be untouchable. HRC probably untouchable, remains to be seen.

    As others have stated I want actions, not words and I want it wrapped up quickly. No dragging ‘elections coming up” feet. I want arrests and prosecutions and no more congressional political theater. Because you know it is all about what I want 😉 j/k but you get it.


    • boomerbeth says:

      No one will go to prison. They will negotiate plea deals : “nolo” & get “dis barred”.
      They will lose their pensions, pay a fine, nothing more.


      • Dimbulbz says:

        So long as this never happens again, I am good. The problem is, it will never happen again until the next Obama shows up. Of course it will happen again! It might happen in Trumps next term. The Democrats are clearly lawless. They will push guilty until proven innocent for the next 50 years – Actually, its Guilty until proven Socialist. That’s the summum bonum of their entire existence. They simply will not give up until they hold complete control over everyone and everything.

        I don’t care who you send to jail, They will be heroes in the eyes of the left and there will always be another useful idiot to gladly take their place and keep driving the same insane narrative. I thought surely someone would paint Bernie Sanders a complete buffoon and socialism would cause people to stop and realize they had gone too far., but look at how many people worship him! Now nothing is too far for them. These people are suicide bombers for their religion… and their religion is complete power over everyone. Little Rocket man has nothing on these crazies. The left, not the right, will be the cause of death and civil war in America. They will justify it by saying it is “who we are as a country” I am sorry for my children who will see this all unfold on them. Trump is a bump in the road. They thought they had it in the bag. We were supposed to be ruled by the Clintons now and forever… They cannot stand for a delay in their plans. World domination, forever.


  18. TMonroe says:

    “BARR: — because I realize we live in a crazy, hyperpartisan period of time. And I knew that it would only be a matter of time — if I was behaving responsibly and calling ’em as I see ’em — that I’d be attacked. Because nowadays, people don’t care about the merits or the substance. That’s one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that maybe I should take it on, because I think at my stage in life, it really doesn’t make any difference.
    CRAWFORD: You’re at the end of your career, or…?
    BARR: I’m at the end of my career. I’ve… You know, I’ve —
    CRAWFORD: Yeah, is it…? But… I mean, it’s a reputation that you worked your whole life on, though.
    BARR: Yeah, but everyone dies and I’m not… You know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that, you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you (chuckles) over the centuries, you know.”

    Makes me think of the “everybody dies” line at the end of Body and Soul after the boxer does the right thing but knows he might pay a price for it. Better to die with integrity than be a betrayer.

    Liked by 7 people

  19. evergreen says:

    Interesting. “Mueller”..spent $30 MM and 2 yrs with admittedly no evidence. Not the normal Bob. Mueller.

    Interesting tell.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. HB says:

    If this was known I missed it, but my favorite part was that he approached the President about declassifying.

    I suppose if Barr was against us, then that would be a bad thing. But I think the President has all the greenhorn bugs worked out and is rolling. And I trust the President appointed the right man.

    I just hope he’s not so in love with these government institutions that he’s not willing to tear them down to build them back right.


    • OlderAndWiser says:

      Be prepared for a report that has as its headline (or as the bottom line): US Intelligence and Law Enforcement officials acted to affect an election, and all Americans should be concerned about it.
      There might be some sacrificial lambs that go to prison. But my guess is that he’ll dirty up a lot of people and clean house in getting rid of the poison, and institute reforms to make it increasingly difficult for this to happen again. (Listen carefully to what he says about people’s intentions…unless there are smoking guns out there it’s going to be very hard to prove intentions. I wish he can – these rat bastards deserve a long time in jail.)


      • Rhoda R says:

        But do you have to prove intention when actions taken illegally actually speak to what was being done?

        Liked by 1 person

        • boomerbeth says:

          Mens rea GUILTY MIND

          “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”. In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus (“guilty act”) and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence).

          As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law.

          That analysis by Barr was to lure the conmen savages out of their caves with an excuse that their “mind was strictly patriotic”.

          Liked by 3 people

  21. Justin says:

    Overall, the impression I’m left with is that Barr will try to do the right thing.

    It was a very interesting interview. We’ve wondered what was going on with Horowitz and Huber and now I think we have some insight there that was perhaps not what we were expecting – or at least not what I was expecting.

    I take it as a positive that Durham has taken over that role now.
    I take it as a positive that Barr is going where even a lot of conservative talking heads won’t go, which is back to the illegal spying issue.
    I take it as a positive that Barr seems unconcerned with public perception.

    And it’s certainly a positive that Barr is very quick witted, measured in his responses, composed, and seemingly honest.

    Liked by 9 people

  22. lurker2 says:

    Well this pretty much does it for me. It was the last thing I needed to get from Barr to completely trust him. I’m there now. Complete trust. I’m not saying he’s going to save the world, but I am as certain as I can be now that he is an honest and honorable man who knows what’s right and what’s wrong, and he’s going to try to do the right thing.

    Bless you Sundance for providing the transcript.

    Liked by 9 people

  23. amjean says:

    My question is whether AG Barr will do the right thing for the government entities who went
    off the rails (quietly straighten things out, then business as usual) or the country which needs justice done prior to the healing nonsense.

    Too soon to tell, but we will be watching (and analyzing every word and gesture!).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Peppurr says:

      Well …..we can’t forget that Obama and Holder had 8 yrs to create all this corruption within the government. agencies. We’re always hearing about the great ‘rank and file, but, I suspect there are still a lot of people there besides the Heads who need to go as well. President Trump certainly needs a second term imo. In the meantime, I’m so thrilled that the door has been kicked open!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Actually the whole thing started with the ‘Patriot Act’ after 9/11. Each successive POTUS exploited the data sweep of all coms foreign and domestic. Obama was just better at it as he had more to hide than any before. Then came Trump.
        “If that ba$tard gets elected, we ALL hang from nooses…” – Hillary Rodham Clinton
        Well, Donald got elected… Didn’t he?


  24. “If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that “Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that.” You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don’t think we would be hearing a lot more about it?”

    I thought it was obvious that The Usurper Was a Manchurian candidate for Islam! My bad…

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Rhoda R says:

    Now THAT was a powerful interview. Just reinforces my idea that Barr is no swamp critter.

    Liked by 2 people

    • boomerbeth says:

      He most definitely is. Swampy. The Swamp paid for his Law school for Pete’s Sake while he was working at the CIA!!
      Don’t be let down. Any punishment will not be incarceration or banishment or expatriation.
      They will merely be evil personalities in the history books.
      Think, John Wilkes Booth


  26. SAM-TruthFreedomLiberty says:

    Liked by 6 people

  27. sarasotosfan says:

    If Jan Crawford left that interview believing what she appeared to believe (Orange Man Bad) the DOJ is going to need to completely level FBI headquarters before she grasps the notion there was a systemic failure of the institution at the FBI.

    And much of the media views all of this in much the same way, whether that is a stupid or a corrupt belief.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. All Too Much says:

    Horowitz – No bias.
    Barr – Gross bias.
    Let a jury decide.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. mark says:

    I’m wondering if and when Barr is going to use the C (coup) in describing what has occurred? He must know that. Is he waiting for the IG report and US attorney? I’m still bothered by his PC correct and unwillingness to say that serious crimes may have been committed.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. TwoLaine says:

    Excellent interview and good interviewer. I’m actually quite pleasantly surprised she treated him fairly.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Robert Smith says:

    Not sure if you are reading Barr’s interview correctly? Try this perspective.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. GSparrow says:

    A/G Barr is exactly what most Trump supporters pined for during Sessions’ stunning recusal and Rosenstien’s brief but calamitous tenure. A very experienced, tough and fair A/G with a brilliant legal mind and an impeccable character.

    I agree with other posters that CBS News’ Jan Crawford gave a fair, informative and very professional interview. Score 1 rare point for Fair and Balanced News to Jan.

    Of course, once her interview was complete it was politically edited by network bozos. On their CBS website, (an 1 hour ago) they’ve chopped up her good works in a devious way that grossly distorts the flow of the informative interview. If a full video version is made available by CBS, POTUS should put it on his Twitter site. Finally, something resembling a Defense rebuttal or fair and unbiased counter argument to the malicious anti Trump W/Mueller Dossier has been recorded.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. xsnake ralf says:

    I’m no William Safire but….it’s “jibe” not “jive.” Common error.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dimbulbz says:

      No, it’s “Jive”, I just watched Starsky and Hutch

      Liked by 1 person

      • nimrodman says:

        No, it’s jibe
        I watched Starsky and Hutch too

        “jive” was Huggy Bear

        Liked by 1 person

      • boomerbeth says:

        Jive means either a type of music or loose, meaningless chatter.
        Jibe means to be in accord; agree.

        Barr must be a sailor.
        Jibe also means to shift your sail from one side of the vessel to the other (sometimes spelled gybe).
        And gibe, which means to make taunting, heckling remarks, can also be spelled jibe.

        For common usage, though, remember “jive” as a type of music and “jibe” as agreeing with.

        And, as Mr. Grammar puts it, “Don’t gibe the cited author about jive English usage; such comments don’t jibe with the sorts of things that kind people say.”

        Liked by 1 person

  34. This interviewer doesn’t know why the press should be interested in investigating this? She should be embarrassed but of course she isn’t. How low the press has fallen.

    Liked by 4 people

  35. Donald says:

    I’m less favorable toward Jan Crawford and this interview in general than others (it struck me almost as a proctology exam that very few AG’s would submit to).
    The left-wing had one overriding purpose in this interview, and therefore sent Crawford on her mission to find out what the ‘predication’ for Barr’s review of DOJ’s Russia investigation was. Crawford’s insistent attempts at drawing out this ‘predication,’ probable cause etc is so ironic since The Russian Hoax investigation never presented any semblance of predication, and it’s still currently missing!
    Therefore, watch the Left-Wing go nuts on ‘predication,’ insisting that Barr has no predication for his review, while, at the same time, Barr earnestly hunts for the missing predication for the Russian Hoax.
    Barr can easily answer this way:’ my predication is that the Russia investigation itself never had any legal predication, which is necessarily required. That’s the predication for my review!’

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Richie says:

    Sick of hearing about the phony/fake Muh Russian interference in the 2016 election. Especially when its obvious China is by far the biggest threat in all these regards. I wish Barr would just tell them there was no credible evidence of any of that other then the FACT the phony Dossier was derived from a Russian source. Perhaps Barr is just playing both sides, pretending to believe it in order to tone down the resistance in order to conduct his investigation.

    Liked by 3 people

    • romy911 says:

      Barr did state there is no credible evidence.
      From the interview & transcript of the interview:
      WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus

      Liked by 4 people

      • Richie says:

        I was referring to the Russian election meddling narrative in general. Not in relation to Trump.

        Liked by 1 person

        • covfefe999 says:

          Actually there is evidence of Russian meddling, you can read about it in the Mueller report and in the indictments against the Russians, but it would be laughable for anyone to claim that it had an impact on the election. I doubt any of the anti-Clinton social media messages the Russians posted would cause a Hillary supporter to become a Trump supporter. The Hillary supporters were like toilet paper on the bottom of a shoe, they were sticking with her no matter what..


  37. boomerbeth says:

    Means motive opportunity
    No discussion of those elements of a crime from this prosecutor, aka ROBERT JOHNSON, CIA FIXER EXTRAORDINAIRE
    Rather, he has become an armchair psychiatrist psychoanalyzing the personalities of these corrupt CON-racketeers.

    And, he certainly made Huber look preoccupied with Hil-LIAR eee.
    Would you like to wager what his recommendations on that “matter” will be?

    I have no confidence in this swamp creature do anything but turn himself into a salty soggy pretzel.


  38. CNN_sucks says:

    Very good interview. Most of the criticism are directed to Comey, Storzk, McCabe..the small group of elitist crminals. Still hoping for an indictment.


  39. BSR says:

    Many thanks for the bold font of actual convo to hone in on. Well done.


  40. Cathy M. says:


    “JAN CRAWFORD: So the last thing that he said yesterday was to remind us that Russia tried to sway our election. He said there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere and that deserves the attention of every American. How’s the Justice Department working now to ensure this doesn’t happen again in 2020?” . . . .

    “JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016?

    WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don’t have any reason to doubt that, but I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.”

    Liked by 2 people

  41. taxpayer here says:

    My two cents….this Russian investigation WAS bogus (thank you Mr Barr)

    If the brennan’s, comeys and hitlerys just say I was trying to protect America…..they’ll get away with the treasonous acts, and pull a “like with a cloth or something?” lame, stupidly blind and ignorant answer.

    Liked by 1 person

    • boomerbeth says:

      1. the fisa warrants were perjured as “verified”
      2. the feds never seized the dnc pc.
      3. used a paid -for document as evidence.
      There is a conspiracy to defraud, even without the illegal surveillance.


  42. CM-TX says:

    “… talked recently to the director of the FBI about putting together a special high-level group to make sure we’re totally prepared for the upcoming elections.
    JC: And the high level group would be? Who would that include?
    WB: Well, it would include the FBI, the Department of Justice, DHS and intelligence agencies”

    EXCUSE ME? If this doesn’t concern you, it should! Does he honestly not grasp the depths of the corruption t/o ALL agencies?

    Does he really not understand the effort to stop/overthrow The President was a HUGE operation, one having MANY parts? Or that it involves COUNTLESS others well BEYOND “the small group”, & reaches FAR OUTSIDE of PDJT’s inner circle in Targeting?
    He seriously can’t avoid addressing the WHOLE picture, or ever hope to obscure ANY portion of it. And a handful of Prosecutions will NEVER satisfy, nor remotely fix the issue.

    Within his comment more specifically…
    1st Red Flag: “WITH the Director of FB¡” the only efforts that should ever accompany that phrase (for the foreseeable future)… should be about Wray providing ALL the evidence he withheld, & about clearing out the systemic rot that exists t/o their Agencies. But most preferable would be “– about his resignation.”

    2nd Red Flag: “DHS”. You mean the same DHS that was caught red-handed hacking state voter rolls, meddling in 2016? The same agency that some admin bonehead conveniently handed that very election investigation to? And on conclusion of that BS investigation, gave an embarrassing report FAILING to address ANY issue known to have occurred. I won’t even touch on the immigration sabotage.

    3rd Red Flag: “The Intelligence Agencies”– that’s a matter for debate in itself. But expecting the people to have confidence in those KNOWN to violate civil rights, are at odds with the CURRENT admin– while seeing NO effective changes, much less anyone held accountable– that’s a bit of stretch.

    Of course that’s not to say once the problem was properly & adequately addressed, the outlook couldn’t change on involvement. But also recognizing the current confidence factor, starts at or below ZERO.


    • Dr.Jay says:

      Yeah, the 2n red flag is concerning. DHS. Only possible relation that we know of is very concerning, DHS attempting to hack into systems (many more than any others, or better: we have instances were we know it was DHS and a few (very few) other instances where the culprits are unknown … does not exclude DHS).

      And the 3rd red flag: Intelligence agencies, he already mentioned FBI, so that leaves CIA (and ODNI) as most likely agencies that he has in mind…..


  43. joebkonobi says:

    I thought Crawford came across more as an inquisitor as opposed to an interviewer but even though her political leanings were obvious she was well informed. The Jury is still out for me in regards to AG Barr. I think his heart is generally in the right place, he has a very astute legal mind and I like his straightforwardness. However, his discussion regarding unconscious or subconscious bias, along with intentional vs unintentional motives worries me, especially when he brings them up in discussing the “small group” actions. I hope he is not laying out a foundation for “good folks who thought they were doing the right thing but just made stupid mistakes” scenario. Hopefully he is just keeping his cards close to his chest for the time being.

    I also don’t recall any discussion regarding the FISA court abuses with the exception of the Carter Page warrant, so I hope that is not the beginning point of his review. I fear there will be a lot of pressure to politically steer clear of the first black AG and the first blackish President, as well as preservation of the FISA process itself. We need the entire story.

    I think the biggest issue is that this scandal is so enormous with so many tentacles and perpetrators across several continents over such a long time period that it might be near impossible to thoroughly investigate considering the few white hat investigators and the multitude of bad actors, i.e., the swamp. I just hope serious declassification comes soon as that will likely better define the true scope of the scandal and make it obvious to the American people where the true corruption lies and that Russia collusion was indeed the biggest hoax ever played on the American people.


    • covfefe999 says:

      I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could listen to this interview or witness any of Barr’s prior actions or statements since becoming AG and still have any doubts about him. He might not be able to save the world so nobody should hold him to that standard. But everything he has said and done since becoming the AG has been fantastic.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Concernedcitizen says:

        It will be hard for the Democrats and media to impugn AG Barr. But, of course, they will try and look ridiculous in doing so. AG Barr carries too much gravitas for the left to overcome.

        Liked by 1 person

  44. I’m glad he was able to spell out what Huber has been doing. And also what he has not been doing. So it sounds like Huber is just about wrapping up investigating the Clinton fiasco. Now exactly what that means remains to be seen.

    And he also pointed out something I didn’t realize about the IG. He is limited as to what he can find out from other agencies. And in this hot mess, you need someone that has the authority to look at the entire document trail, not just within the DOJ.

    Liked by 1 person

    • covfefe999 says:

      I’m glad to know about Huber too, but I thought it was so odd that the reporter asked him about Huber. When did CBS ever talk about Huber? Maybe the day Sessions admitted that he had appointed Huber to investigate, I doubt at any time after that. But now, now, Huber is important. Insert photo of suspicious cat here. This reporter seems to be a Dem operative, digging for info about the investigations on behalf of the Dems. Asking exactly the questions the Dems would want answers too. Barr is too clever for her. He’s going to keep the Dems in the dark about what he’s seen and about what he’s looking for, as he should. The Dems are in a panic.


  45. Too Funny !!–>A.G. William Barr : “It was the views of a–(particular lawyer or lawyers)–and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn’t rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient.”
    ~Barr—[FINGERS]—Andy (Suborner of Perjury) Weissman, Aaron (Defender of Justin Cooper, longtime Clinton Aide who set-up the Hildabeast Clinton Home Server) Zebly & Jeannie (Defended the Clinton Foundation from Prosecution) Rhee.~

    Liked by 2 people

  46. covfefe999 says:

    I read the transcript last night and this morning listened to the audio. It seems that this reporter is now digging for info on behalf of the traitors. She doesn’t seem to be at all interested in anything from a purely journalistic viewpoint, i.e., to get at the truth, she seems to be seeking info that would be useful to the traitors. When did CBS ever ever talk about Huber? Now he’s important, she wants to find out what he’s been doing, is he still on the case. She wants to know what Barr is looking at that has him concerned. She should have been digging for all of this info since 2016 rather than broadcasting the Russia collusion narrative. And I’m so glad Barr pointed this out.


    • covfefe999 says:

      I just did a search, maybe there’s something there and I didn’t find it, but I can’t find any CBS news articles that mention Huber. But suddenly at the Barr interview he’s important enough for this reporter to ask about. And the reporter mentions Huber as if everybody knows exactly who he is. Do you think any of the libtard base know who Huber is?



      You may well be right. However, the interview was not the typical combative interview we have come to see from Swamp defenders. And she did let some fairly explosive comments by Barr go without contesting every assertion/suggestion he made.


  47. pathfinder1941 says:

    I would be interested in seeing the text of the original charge to the special investigation. The word, “exoneration” is constantly bandied about as though that is some kind of legal standard in the direction of the investigation. I’m no lawyer, but this sounds like a specious standard.


  48. namberak says:

    “They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties.” The media has (almost) completely abandoned its historic role. It’s become the propaganda arm of the left. And yes, this is a Captain Obvious observation.


    • Concernedcitizen says:

      Yes, Capt. Obvious to rational people with common sense, but unfortunately common sense is uncommon for the agenda driven left-wing ideologues in the media and the Useful Idiots they exploit.


  49. pathfinder1941 says:

    Everyone has “dossiers” today. That’s probably why the deep state unveiled “the dossier” figuring it would strike fear and trepidation into the heart1 of their target. Didn’t work!



    I’m taking the stance of cautious optimism with Barr. The top levels of government have been infiltrated for decades with political hacks. Herr Muller helped purge the FBI of field agent types and filled the ranks instead with what Bongino refers to as “Briefers”, ie, andy mccabe. It’s into this cabal that Barr has been thrust. I loved his comments about why he took the job, knowing he would be attacked.
    Contrast the media’s treatment of Barr vs Rat Rosenberg. Clearly the Swamp doesn’t see Barr as one of their own.

    The disconnect between what we (Trump supporter) are seeing play out and what the Lapdog DNC media complex are seeing is dangerously stark. But I’ve been wondering if or when a crack in the wall of stupid would appear and somehow, some media might decide to get on the right side of these crimes before they become completely and irrevocably corrupted. Just wondering out loud if this CBS interview was a small step in that direction. As interviews go, it was fairly…fair. I was surprised.
    Guess that tells you how low the media has sunk..

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

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