Full Transcript of ABC Bill Barr Interview Shows Most Content Not Included In Broadcast Interview…

Not exactly surprising, but late last night ABC released the transcript of the Bill Barr interview.  A review of the transcript compared to the broadcast shows there was significant interview material left on the editing floor.

Approximately two-thirds of the interview was never broadcast.  Additionally, major sections of answers were completely cut out (chopped up/edited) after the question(s) was/were asked.

Below is the full transcript of the interview (including parts not broadcast), and the full, raw, 25 minute video of the interview:


[Transcript] – ABC NEWS CHIEF JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PIERRE THOMAS: General Barr, thank you for your time.


THOMAS: This is the first time we’re hearing from you since the Roger Stone story erupted. At minimum, there appears to be an appearance problem. Trial prosecutors recommended 7 to 9 years on Monday evening. The president tweets at 1:48 AM Tuesday morning calling the recommendations – quote “horrible, unfair and a miscarriage of justice.”

Then word comes out from DOJ headquarters Tuesday morning that the recommendations are too severe and suggests a lesser sentence is more appropriate. Four of the trial attorneys resigned from the case. One of them quitting the Justice Department altogether.

What happened, sir, and what was your role?

BARR: Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted.

The issue then became the sentencing. A new U.S. attorney had just started in Washington D.C. and the week before the filing, he engaged in conversations with senior staff here who raised some questions about the sentencing because he was concerned that the so called guidelines, the sentencing guideline formula, was indicating a sentence between 7 and 9 years.

Which, he felt and all of us immediately felt was very, very high and excessive in this case. And so he wanted to discuss that and over a number of days it became clear that the prosecution team wanted to recommend to the judge, and by the way, sentencing is a function for the judge and not the Department of Justice, we’re not the decision maker. But they wanted to advocate for a sentence that was, at the top, between 7 and 9 years.

And, in those discussions here at the department, you know, I came to the view as my colleagues did that I wouldn’t support affirmatively advocating what I thought was an excessive sentence.

So, what I wanted to do what to provide dis — defer to the discretion of the judge, let the judge make the determination.

THOMAS: You wanted to do that from the outset?

BARR: Yes. And then point out different features of the case that she should consider if she wanted to go below the 7 to 9 years. And I won’t get into the wires on that, but there were a lot of, I think, very legitimate arguments to be raised, there are points to be raised there. But at the end of the day, we deferred to her. Or, and that was what the approach was, I thought, we were going to take.

THOMAS: So the US attorney for the District of Columbia signed off on, his name is on the recommendation that went in there.

BARR: Yeah.

THOMAS: How did that happen?

BARR: On Monday, he came by to briefly chat with me and say that the team very much wanted to recommend the 7-9 year to the judge. And, but he thought that there was a way of satisfying everybody and providing more flexibility.

And there was a brief discussion of that. I was under the impression that what was going to happen was very much what I had suggested, which is deferring to the judge and then pointing out the various factors and circumstances. On Monday night, when I first saw the news reports, I said, “Gee, the news is spinning this. This is not what we were going to do.”
MORE: A timeline of the extraordinary turn of events in the Roger Stone case

THOMAS: So you were surprised?

BARR: I was very surprised. And once I confirmed that that’s actually what we filed, I said that night, to my staff, that we had to get ready cause we had to do something in the morning to amend that and clarify what our position was.

So the following morning — and by the way, I don’t look at tweets, I don’t read tweets unless they’re brought to my attention. So early the next morning I was you know, putting that in motion and directing that be done when someone walked in and told me that, about the president’s tweet.

That sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be for the Department of Justice, because at that point, I had made a decision that I thought was fair and reasonable in this particular case and once the tweet occurred, the question is, Well, now what do I do? And do you go forward with what you think is the right decision or do you pull back because of the tweet? And that just sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be.

THOMAS: So you’re saying you have a problem with the tweets?

BARR: Yes. Well, I have a problem with some of, some of the tweets. As I said at my confirmation hearing, I think the essential role of the Attorney General is to keep law enforcement, the criminal process sacrosanct to make sure there is no political interference in it. And I have done that and I will continue to do that.

And I’m happy to say that, in fact the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case. However, to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about our people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.

THOMAS: Mr. Barr, the president does not like to be told what to do. He may not like what you’re saying. Are you prepared for those ramifications?

BARR: Of course. As I, you know, said during my confirmation, I came in to serve as Attorney General. I am responsible for everything that happens in the department, but the thing I have most responsibility for are the issues that are brought to me for decision.

And I will make those decisions based on what I think is the right thing to do and I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody. And I said, whether it’s Congress, newspaper editorial boards, or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right. And, you know, the, I think the — I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.

THOMAS: Why does it make it so difficult for you to do your job and if he keeps doing it, what are you prepared to do?

BARR: Well you know I think—

THOMAS: Commenting specifically on criminal investigations?

BARR: Well again if some examples would be if you tweet something about, someone should be investigated for this or someone should go to jail and it turns out you are investigating them at that point, let’s say, this is a hypothetical, then what do you do? Because people might think that if you proceed with the investigation, it was prompted by the tweet. It’s the same kind of thing that happened here. So, and there are other examples where if you have a case before a judge to be attacking the judge, you know, it is not helpful or productive at all.

And also, you know, I think attacking- for people to attack people here in the department or in the FBI in general terms is unfair and, you know, I think I came back into government because I love the department and I believe strongly in it as an institution and I think we have great people here. And I can – and so, you know, it makes it difficult to be a leader here if —

THOMAS: How strongly do you feel about this?

BARR: Well I feel strongly about it.

THOMAS: So just to be clear, did you talk to the President at all about your decision regarding the recommendations?

BARR: The recommendations on this case? Never.

THOMAS: Anybody from the White House call you to try to influence you?

BARR: No. Nope. [crosstalk] have not discussed the Roger Stone case at the White House.

THOMAS: At all?

BARR: At all.

THOMAS: Lisa Murkowski, Senator from Alaska. Here’s what she said this week,“I think most people in America would look at that and say hmm that just doesn’t look right.” And then she goes on to say, “I don’t think the President needed to jump in the middle of this in the first place.” And Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, strong defender, supporter of the president, he defended his frustration with all that’s happened to him in Washington. He added this, “I don’t think the President should have tweeted about an ongoing criminal case.” So you share their position?

BARR: Yes. I do. [crosstalk] It makes it very hard. You know, it doesn’t affect the decision. It doesn’t affect my decision. As I said at the beginning during my hearing, I don’t pay attention to tweets. If the President has something to say, I expect that he will talk to me directly and call me. So I don’t pay attention to tweets and I – I’m not going to pay attention to directions and do something that I think is wrong.

I’m going to handle each case as I think the law requires and is fair, and even-handed. But I think Senator Murkowski is right that people who see these tweets can get a misimpression that they… that the work of the department is being influenced by it.

THOMAS: So when you heard him or you saw him say, “Congratulations to the Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that Mueller- the Mueller scam was improperly brought and tainted, even Bob Mueller lied to Congress.” He criticized the judge, as you mentioned earlier. How does that impact the department? The people that work here. And the impression of the American people?

BARR: Well I think the people who know me, know me here in the Department, know me in town and have worked with me, know that that stuff has no effect on what we do here. That we’ll make our decisions, as I say, based on the merits. But most people in the country don’t have that kind of exposure, and I think I can understand why people are concerned that it could influence the work of the department.

THOMAS: You’re telling the American public that had absolutely nothing to do with it?

BARR: Absolutely. And just, I, I’ve heard very few people actually suggest that 7 to 9 year sentence would be appropriate in this case. Very few people. Even the people who were criticizing me. It was very excessive. And I didn’t want my department to be behind that. Because I believe that each individual as unsavory as they may be, and I’m not a fan of Roger Stone, but he’s entitled to the particularized and careful application of the law to his case.

And as I say, I could not support the 7 to the 9 year- and I didn’t need anybody to tell me that 7 to 9 years was an excessive sentence. You think I need the president’s tweet to tell me that 7 to 9 years is excessive? That was the reaction of you know the senior staff here that, you know, there’s not really a comparable situation where that kind of sentence has been used.

THOMAS: And so, I guess I’m confused as to how that recommendation could get filed when you clearly were indicating that shouldn’t go down like that.

BARR: Yeah well, it’s, I’m afraid it’s one of those situations, I’m confused too. And I think it really was a situation of miscommunication. It was a very brief meeting, it was actually in between two meetings I had and the U.S. Attorney stuck his head in and described what he, how he thought he could reconcile things. And I thought that he was saying, was in accord with my view that we should not affirmatively recommend 7 to 9 years.

But we should allow the judge or say that we defer to the judge, you know, there appears to have been something lost in translation.

THOMAS: Do you feel like you still have confidence in U.S. Attorney Shea?

BARR: Yes I do. I mean I’ve known Tim Shea for a long time as you know he was with me here at the department last time I was Attorney General so that was many years ago. He has a great a great record so – and he was just- to be fair he had just entered into that office and you know I think we’ll establish better communications.

THOMAS: I just wanted to go back to the 4 prosecutors who resigned. Were you surprised that they stepped away from the case, including one who quit the department altogether?

BARR: Yeah. My understanding is one left the department but the other three did not resign from the department.

THOMAS: Just resigned from the case?

BARR: I, I thought — I was a little surprised because at the end of the day, what this was about was whether we — this was a sentencing decision that a judge was going to make — going to be making. It wasn’t, you know, the department wasn’t the decision maker.

And the difference of opinion was whether we should affirmatively advocate a 7 to 9 year sentence, or whether we should let the judge decide and explain why a lower sentence could be justified. And, I’m not, I’m not sure why that would prompt anyone to resign. On the other hand, again there may have been a communication problem because of the way the information leaked out.

THOMAS: Now, some people would say, look, they worked the case. They know the case best. They’re just wrong in your eyes?

BARR: No, this actually gets to a very important point about the Department, which is, you know, what other industry allows you know, life or death decisions to be made by the most junior level of the, of the business, so to speak. We at the department, we want people with a lot of energy and commitment. And so we express — we hope for a lot of, of that energy and commitment.

At the same time, when people are working on one case, and devoting a lot to it, they can sometimes lose perspective. And that’s exactly why we have a, a system of checks and balances within the department with multiple level of reviews that fan out with people with broader and broader responsibility. And most cases don’t come up to the attorney general, because people are doing a great job in the department.

And, a lot of the work doesn’t involve much controversy. But every once in a while, there are disputes or arguments over cases and those are the ones that come up. And the AG has to make the decision. So, some people say, you know, the AG intervening in a case.

That’s preposterous, we have an escalation system that tries to get the difficult issues that are, you know, people are arguing about, to get them up for resolution and it’s the attorney general’s responsibility to resolve it.

THOMAS: And you know, people have pride, though, and you could see how they would see as a public rebuke. You think that’s part of why they resigned in protest? From the case?

BARR: I don’t know why they resigned.

THOMAS: So you’ve not had a chance to talk to them?


THOMAS: And do you expect any other resignations, are you getting any hint of any other resignations in regard to this case? People tied to the case?

BARR: I hope, I hope there are no more resignations. We, we like our prosecutors and hope they stay.
MORE: William Barr: Everything you need to know about Trump’s controversial attorney general

THOMAS: You’re known around town as someone who believes that the president vast authority, broad authority, to do the job, to execute the wills of the state. Does the president have the authority to just direct you to open an investigation and you have to do it? Can you help people at home understand? Can he do that?

BARR: Well I discuss this in detail in my confirmation hearings. I think in many areas such as- that don’t affect his personal interest-

THOMAS: Terrorism?

BARR: Terrorism or fraud by a bank or something like that where he’s concerned about something, he can certainly say I think someone should look into that. That’s perfectly appropriate. If he were to say, you know, go investigate somebody because – and you sense it’s because they’re a political opponent, then an attorney general shouldn’t carry that out, wouldn’t carry that out.

THOMAS: Democrats on Capitol Hill have said they believe that you were somewhat misleading in how you described the Mueller Report initially, before the full report came out. You said openly that you thought the president was spied on in the congressional hearing. You expressed skepticism about the launch of the origins of the Russia investigation. So they would say that you have maybe let the president feel like- that he can have the latitude to say those things. What would you say to them?

BARR: I would say that- that is not a valid conclusion, obviously the whole point of the Muller exercise was to determine if there was collusion. There wasn’t. And frankly I think you recognize, having looked at the material directly, that I didn’t mislead anyone about Mueller’s conclusions, but in terms of the Durham effort, which is to take a look at what happened that’s a legitimate area of investigation.

And you know starting a legitimate investigation as to what happened is- that’s the work of the Attorney General and Department of Justice. That- that’s not like a- you know, like a running commentary from someone on the outside about what we’re doing.

THOMAS: New York Times reported that John Bolton wrote in his book that after the president’s July 25th phone call with the Ukrainian president, he raised concerns about Guiliani and that he was pursuing the Ukraine with you. Is that true?

BARR: I don’t – I don’t recall that that was the exact quote. I’m not going to get into, into Bolton but, yeah, just not going to get into it.

THOMAS: Were you surprised when the president mentioned you on the — when you heard that he mentioned you on the July 25th call and he did so 5 times and kind of created the impression that you were working with Guiliani?

BARR: Yes.

THOMAS: Your reaction when you heard it?

BARR: I was a bit irritated by it. But, you know, the conversation jumped around, so, I’m not sure what he meant by some of what he was saying.

THOMAS: And this sounds like it’s in the same vein as creating the impression that you’re doing exactly what he wants you to do when he wants you to do. Is that what frustrated you?

BARR: Well, I think that it’s very clear, and I’ve always said this publicly and I think people know it, that what I am dealing with is the review of the 2016 election. That’s what I’m looking at. I’m not looking, you know, at other more general things about the Ukraine. And I think mixing them together created confusion in people’s minds.

THOMAS: And so now we have Guiliani, who’s gone to the Ukraine, come back, he’s presenting information and you told me earlier this week that he would go through the appropriate channels.

But he worked with two men to get this information who currently under indictment in the Southern District. Can you ensure- can you ensure that to the American public that the Justice Department is not going to be used as a weapon in a highly charged political season?

BARR: Absolutely. And as you know, Pierre, one of my passions is the feeling that we have to ensure that the Department of Justice is not used as a political football. And one of the things I’m distressed about is the increasing use of the criminal process to achieve political results. And I want to- I want to get away from that.

As you know, I put out a memo to make sure that any investigation that could have these kinds of political effects during an election year have to be approved at the very highest level of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

THOMAS: Do you think the Democrats will accept you as the messenger though?
MORE: Pelosi accuses Trump of abusing power by interfering in Roger Stone case

BARR: I don’t know. [crosstalk] They, many of them didn’t vote for me for confirmation.

THOMAS: Right. And they held you in contempt.

BARR: We live, unfortunately, you know, one of the things that makes it difficult is the hyper-partisan age we live in. That makes it very difficult.

THOMAS: You know, having known you and covered you for years, you’re not a person that responds a lot to criticism. But I am wondering, in this version of the job, you in the job, and when you hear people on Capitol Hill saying “Barr is acting more like the personal attorney to the President rather than the chief law enforcement officer,” how irritated does that make you and what do you say to those people?

BARR: Well, this goes back to the fact we are in a very polarized situation. And so in that kind of situation, I expect a lot of low blows, and there are a lot of low blows.

But I don’t respond to that, as you say. But I do think that in the current situation, as I’ve said, you know, the fact that the tweets are out there and correspond to things we’re doing at the department sort of give grist to the mill and that’s why I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases.

THOMAS: How would you describe your relationship with the President in general terms. I know you don’t talk specifics, but in general terms, how is the relationship?

BARR: I think our relationship is good. I support his program, I think he’s doing great things for the country. I feel that, you know he’s faced a lot of resistance and he’s still able to accomplish a lot of good things. And we have a good working relationship.

THOMAS: You’re clearly setting some parameters for that relationship. Do you have any expectation of how he’ll react to some of the things you’ve said today?

BARR: Yeah. I hope he will react.

THOMAS: And respect it?

BARR: Yes.

THOMAS: I thank you for your time.

BARR: Thank you.


Here’s the maximum amount of interview that was broadcast:

This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, FBI, media bias, President Trump, Press Secretary - Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

400 Responses to Full Transcript of ABC Bill Barr Interview Shows Most Content Not Included In Broadcast Interview…

  1. visage13 says:

    “like a running commentary from someone on the outside about what we’re doing.” Ttat quote was totally moved to the part about tweeting in the interview. ABC so dishonest but of course we already know that.

    Liked by 9 people

  2. NJMAGA says:

    It’s obvious now that POTUS will never be allowed to have an AG that will bring justice. If he were to declassify EVERYTHING and allow the public to see the truth, Barr would “decline to prosecute”. They are that much in our faces now and they know POTUS will have no power to do anything. Mitch, coming out to make a rare TV appearance, and the McCabe and Vindman drops right after their slap down of POTUS is a blatant threat. You keep tweeting and we’re gonna let everyone walk. Anyone waiting on Durham is in for a rude awakening.

    Liked by 9 people

    • KAG2020 says:

      The POTUS is Chief LEO of the land. He has the power to order arrests himself.

      Good gawd! When will our people wake up to this fact?

      Sorry, but I’m getting very frustrated. The Left has convinced everyone that Trump can use his Constitutional authority to arrest a seditious gang of domestic enemies. It’s his JOB!

      The AG is just a legal advisor. Read the history of the position.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      If he were to declassify EVERYTHING

      so they WON’T prosecute but WILL “DECLASSIFY!!!”
      Yeah, right.

      DOJ and FBI will hire Crowdstrike to “assist” in gathering up all those documents with their special retrieval software called:
      Before that ever happens.

      Any other plan?

      Liked by 1 person

      • islandpalmtrees says:

        The World, is a very big place especially in terms of the Internet. Send the documents everywhere. Especially to former adversaries like Russia.

        Crowdstrike, is going to have a real problem in trying to get to places like China!

        Crowdstrike is a organization run by CIA, FBI and NSA members. With one of the founders being a CIA person.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          Are you under the impression
          Donald has the documents sitting in HIS nightstand or in a folder on his iMac…..?

          Cause…….He don’t got ’em.
          The bad guys do.

          Liked by 1 person

    • vml9000 says:

      Gee…President Barr sounds like he’s ready to fire POTUS if he isn’t a good boy! I don’t remember voting for President Barr but POTUS better just be a good boy and do as President Barr commands….What a frickin disgrace to give ABC an interview like this and to put our elected President down in front of the Enemies of our Country who must have loved this interview. I wish President Trump could fire his fat arse and drop him back into the depths of the swamp from whence he came. President Trump, with the exception of a few, is alone. I cry for him. It is terrible what he must endure for us Patriots in order to save our Nation. I HATE Barr for this public treachery. Why not go to the President himself! Barr decides to go to ABC to put POTUS on notice! God Bless our President Trump! God Bless America!

      Liked by 6 people

      • martyb59 says:

        “Why not go to the President himself! Barr decides to go to ABC to put POTUS on notice!”
        That was my original thought on this topic as well! It really irritates me that Barr granted this interview, especially to a network that is openly hostile to our president. I am disgusted with Barr and kind of upset with myself, as I was duped into believing that Barr was different, that he was going to help clean up the swamp. I am very disappointed!

        Liked by 4 people

        • clive hoskin says:

          I do believe that the time may come when THE PEOPLE of the USA will have to fight the BUREAUCRATS in Washington.Otherwise justice will NEVER be served.Barr has shown you that now.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. mimbler says:

    Think about what Barr is telling us. He’s been there a year and is proud of prosecuting Stone while declining to prosecute a single coup plotter. He’s reneged on Flynn’s plea bargain. He’s criticized PDJT’s minimal tweet comments.

    Arguably, he is worse than Wray who at least does nothing.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Orbanista says:

      Well he shut down the Mueller probe with it’s team of 40 FBI agents etc. No small feat. And he publicly disagreed with Horowitz’s conclusion about the origin of the investigation. Why would he do those things if he’s on the other side?

      Liked by 3 people

      • Deplorable Incisor says:

        If he was on our side he would be doing the complete opposite.
        That’s how I know he is on the other side.

        That Cheshire grin Barr is so famous for and that conservatives think is a secret handshake of sort to them alone, is just his signal to the Rats on the left that the fix is in.

        He can prove me wrong any time he likes, but he won’t.

        Liked by 6 people

        • Reserved55 says:

          “BARR: Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted.”

          Supporting evidence that Barr is on the side of the Communists.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          Same with Admiral Rogers….

          total faker.
          Could have publicly exposed this all BEFORE the 2016 election.

          Post a picture of him on this site though and people genuflect.

          Liked by 1 person

          • bluenova1971 says:

            Disagree…just think how much more f@cked PDJT would be if Adm. Roger’s had not come to talk w him.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

              What did he say when he talked to DJT at TT?

              Got a tape, a transcript or an interview of anyone that was there revealing what they talked about?

              Did he give a specific warning?
              A generic warning?
              We know he didn’t reveal the whole plot because VSGPDJT would have fired Comey on DAY ONE.

              For all we know Rogers wanted to test the flush on Donald’s Golden Throne
              DJT coincidentally decided to move the transition team to HIS much more convenient and FUN Bedminster Country Club where his golf course is.

              Rogers signed off on the ICA (Obama’s Dossier)
              The only person he blew the whistle to was Rosemary Collyer….who signed the Page FISA warrant IN SPITE OF IT.
              And he sat completely silent RIGHT NEXT TO COMEY as Jimbo announced to the world at the MAR 20 2017 hearing that the FBI had opened a completely FAKE investigation on the Trump campaign…..based in part on the FISA abuse Rogers himself discovered.

              We don’t know what he said at TT.
              And that’s the point I’m trying to make about so much that is simply claimed as fact around here.


      • thedoc00 says:

        Bull crap. he shut down the Mueller the caper to make his cover up job easier and not save President Trump.

        At every turn, every time Mueller gang acted more democrats and swamp was exposed. That could not be allowed while the cover up he is running progresses.

        Liked by 2 people

    • vml9000 says:

      Wray is his Boy! He props up Wray every chance he gets!

      Liked by 4 people

    • Komrade Retslag says:

      Roger Stone case incompetence:
      Why did the DOJ keep four prosecutors assigned after the trial and conviction? Couldn’t just one or two handle sentencing?

      Why was AG Barr “happy” that Stone was convicted on process crimes? Stone was not a serial rapist, or killer, or organized crime figure. He was just an outspoken Conservative that irritated liberals, and got the Mueller investigation’s attention with a tweet about DNC Wikileaks. Even if Barr was “happy” with the conviction, why would he admit this to the biased ABC network?

      When the four prosecutors resigned, AG Barr admitted that didn’t know why. It seems like he should have asked at least one of them about it, before admitting this in the ABC interview with Pierre Thomas.

      Did these prosecutors think that the case was over because of sentencing, and didn’t plan the contingency of an appeal by Stone’s lawyers?

      How did AG Barr allow this sentencing confusion to happen? Did the prosecutors really lie about their plans to Barr, and then set the high 7 to 9 years, or was there some kind of miscommunication from the start?

      This seems like a lot of incompetence, both for the prosecutors, their bosses, and AG Barr.

      Liked by 3 people

      • mimbler says:

        Excellent points all.

        And the fact he says nothing bad about the 4 attorneys “lying” to him while recommending a ridiculously vindictive sentence speaks volumes to me.

        Not to mention he singles out PDJT’s tweets while ignoring congress and the media’s attacks on the DOJ for not being harsher on PDJT.

        Pretty difficult to devise a scenario where Barr is a white hat. I’ll stand by with an open mind as events unfold, but I’m no longer an advocate for him.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Jerry says:

    I am very disappointed with Barr for not prosecuting McCabe and Comey! All are guilty and if any of us had lied in the House, under oath and purgered ourselves we would certainly be in jail today. Barr must be a Deep Stater or he would do the job he swore to do! By not prosecuting them he has lied to the American people and broken his oath of office and furthermore shown the American people that there is indeed two sets of justice. One for the connected and one for the outsiders! He has demonstrated he is walking in the same vane as Muller and others. I am so disappointed.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Orbanista says:

    Very occasionally Q is less repetitive and irritating than Hannity.


    • Mr. T. says:

      Q? Really? Yeah, I guess if you sling enough crap at a wall, that eventually something is going to stick. Pretty disrespectful to the Treepers here, and ESPECIALLY to Sundance, that you even mention Q here. Q Trolls belong over on Q’s site, not here.

      Liked by 2 people

      • mugzey302 says:

        Pfffft. There’s no disrespecting coming from anyone but YOU. People can read/share whatever sources without your permission. Just move along.


  6. Countrywatch says:

    For those despondent because they think nothing is happening, see this thread by cjtruth:

    THREAD: HT to @BillPLCguy for helping on this one. Do you think nothing is happening? You might want to think again. A week in review

    Liked by 1 person

    • Countrywatch says:

      The Cjtruth thread is long and well worth reading. Obviously only the first point regarding events this week appears above.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mr. T. says:

        Countrywatch, no it’s not. What is worth reading……..is the well written and highly factual articles that Sundance posts right here at The Conservative Treehouse. If you haven’t already noticed, Sundance isn’t quick on the trigger to just post something, but rather, he spends a lot of time and effort to make sure that what he does post is quality work and well worth reading.

        Liked by 2 people

    • CM-TX says:

      Hold up! I call BS on any Smollett connection– whatsoever! It has NOTHING to do with The Q-LARP of Complacency.

      The ONLY reason Jussie is facing any possible Justice, is b/c of ONE woman’s (retired judge) noble efforts. She got pissed after seeing the initial outcome, & the records then sealed.

      So she took it upon herself to fight it– filing the necessary motions that pushed for a Special Counsel appointment. She fought Foxx (with much to hide) in Court, & she won! Hence the SC Investigation. She started right after JS case was tossed.

      Wisdom: Don’t believe in Fairy Tales.

      Instead, recognize & honor the TRUE Patriots! Those who aren’t afraid to Stand-Up (NOT hiding in the shadows) for REAL Justice.
      Her Name is Judge Sheila O’Brien.

      Liked by 4 people

  7. Merkin Muffley says:

    The full interview is worse than the pull quotes. Thomas wrapped Barr around his finger.

    Liked by 3 people

    • mugzey302 says:

      Where were Thomas and Barr when Obama and his hatchet man Holder were terrorizing their political opponents and non-profits not on their agenda?? Suddenly all concerned about propriety, Thomas? Your obvious bias is truly offensive.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. Paprika says:

    Barr was dismayed by PT’s tweet about the disparity between Stone’s sentencing guideline(7-9 years) and Wolfe’s Plea deal(2 months). He stated that PT’s tweet made his job impossible.

    Now at the same time Barr was also “shocked” by the sentencing guidelines and took immediate action to correct because there “must have been a miscommunication” between his go be tween and the prosecutors. And Barr is shocked why 3 prosecutors resigned from the case and 1 prosecutor resigned from the DOJ. He states he does not know why they would resign and also stated he had not talked to them before, during, or after the case or resignation.

    So if Barr himself was shocked and surprised about the sentencing because it was so harsh why would he think that President Trump would not also be? PT was just agreeing with Barr’s own thoughts. But he chastises Trump for tweeting the obvious.

    It is also obvious that Barr was not on the ball or doing his job and got caught out. If he had been doing his job, PT would not have made that tweet. Why did not Barr immediately bring in the prosecutors to talk about correcting the sentencing? Why did Barr talk to the prosecutors to find out why they resigned? Why did the prosecutors not talk to Barr before resigning?

    And pray tell, why did Barr not respond to what PT actually brought up–the disparity of the 2 sentences? Especially as Barr had to know at that time that McCabe would be walking free and not even indicted.

    Mr. Barr doesn’t want PT to privately or publicly say anything about any “ongoing investigation or case”. Then Barr immediately goes public about the sentencing and then gives a public interview about PT’s tweet and actions. PT’s tweet came after the ongoing investigation and case was over and only tweeted about the sentencing guide line.

    Mr. Barr, PT could not make your job “impossible” because you were not doing your job to start with. And he only tweeted about an unjust sentencing that you also said publicly was unjust. You, sir, are whining because you got caught out for not apply the law equally and justly as well as for not having a clue to what your own department is doing. So you retaliate by blaming PT for bringing light and truth into the situation you caused and are responsible for–making his job much harder while you and your agency are still not doing your jobs.

    Liked by 10 people

  9. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    So much for “elbow room”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. H. Hawke says:

    So Barr was in favor of the Stone prosecution?

    Was he also in favor of the assault on the man and his invalid wife at 6am in the morning by Swat Teams and SEALS?

    And that CNN had been tipped off and was filming the raid?

    He didn’t think that was excessive?

    Liked by 7 people

  11. Pat G says:

    He was “happy about the (Roger) Stone conviction”. Seems odd that he would be happy or sad about such a thing. I’ve been trying to believe for the last year that he’s sincere as AG and working to bring justice, but with a statement like “happy about Stone convicted” leads me to believe that all along, the bagpiper is: 1) a “Bushie”; 2) a former colleague and good friend of Bob Mueller; 3) Protecting Rosenstein;
    I don’t believe these people know that they’re playing with Plutonium.
    As a person who resides inside the Beltway, when I call friends or family around the country, the conversation quickly drops into the pop culture an politics. Conservatives who live here may not put a Trump sticker on the bumper of their car for fear it will be vandalized, i.e. keyed or headlights smashed tires slashed etc. in the parking lot of the Giant or Safeway.

    Liked by 7 people

  12. bessie2003 says:

    Listening to the full 25 minute AG Barr interview was a lot more illuminating than just the soundbites the networks aired; it shows a man who is exceedingly careful with his words to the point of coldness;

    the one thing I wanted to hear was the AG saying that he understood why the President was tweeting out about Stone and other DOJ matters because the man and those who supported the President’s campaign were subjected to unprecedented attacks over matters that turned out to be hoaxes, to the point the President had to endure an impeachment predicated on lies – but

    that would mean if Barr “humanized” the President’s frustration the left could use that spin it to mean anything Durham puts out that shows the illegality by DOJ or FBI in their endeavors is for the purpose of protecting the President so the left can ignore and keep up their pretenses, or if Durham comes up with nothing wrong the AG is in on the coup? Tough spot to be in for anyone.

    “We read in the Bible, ‘I will restore to you the years the locusts have eaten.’ We might well paraphrase it and say ‘I will restore to you the years the emotions have ruined.’ (an excerpt from writings of Florence Scovel Shinn) – I am looking toward that moment, when the Lord will restore the years these locusts of the deep state have eaten, not only from this President and those targeted by the left, but to this nation as a whole.

    Liked by 5 people

  13. markmurraybooks says:

    Barr might say that he wants to do what is “right”, but that’s defined first by being loyal to the institutions and then doing what is right. Barr is an institutional critter. So, he’ll err on the side of making sure the FBI/DOJ remain protected and then do what is “right”. Look at everything he’s done so far. He’s protected those people working in the agencies and supported them. At least until they do something so egregious that he is forced to take action. I’ve seen the same mentality in the FBI. It’s rampant. Blue Wall. Cover for each other. Call it what you will, but it’s primarily what’s wrong. It creates a sort of mindset whereby upper management can take advantage of the situation and completely abuse power. After years of this, it becomes a way of life so ingrained that you’ll never change it. You have to start over. Unfortunately, we’re at that point.

    We might see some things come from Durham but that’s because they’re outside Barr’s institutions that he’s protecting. The CIA is not one of them. The Clintons are not. Some of the politicians are not. So, there’s a glimmer of hope that some prosecutions might occur, just don’t look for anything to hit the DOJ, FBI or AG. And if it does, it’ll be egregious conduct that couldn’t be swept under the rug.

    IMO anyway.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. zekness says:

    so tomorrow, President Zelensky is going to call president trump and ask that he either fire AG Barr right now and start a real investigation about corruption at the DOJ/FBI/CIA or he is going to return all the loan/aid/javelins received and end all relations with the US.

    and the voters in Ukraine will re-elect Zelensky for LIFE!

    just musing here

    Liked by 3 people

  15. CharterOakie says:

    Either this is a very effective tactic by POTUS and AG, or Barr too needs to go.

    The tweet by POTUS was absolutely “righteous” (to use Barr’s word). If it makes Barr’s job more difficult, so be it, and too bad!

    It’s not the “institution” of the DOJ that is paramount; it’s our constitutional republic and JUSTICE itself that are paramount.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. BigTalkers says:

    Okay, I read this transcript (against my better judgement) and here’s my take…

    When Barr said, “..I’m not a fan of Roger Stone..” what was that if not expressing HIS VIEW about what the man’s sentence should be?

    But more important, since the DOJ’s own investigation has all but concluded that the Special Counsel was erroneously appointed (forgetting the one-sided “Kangaroo Court” it came to be), why didn’t the AG just SAY THAT instead?

    These people’s desperation to “keep up appearances” despite their personal knowledge of the greatest political crime in US History is the problem, NOT anything this President tweets.

    Liked by 8 people

  17. DSP2 says:

    Cassius and Brutus are playing with their knives right in front of Trump’s face and laughing all the way.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    Jail ~ Brennan, Comey and McCabe.
    Free ~ Flynn, Stone and Manafort !

    Anyone still unconvinced that today’s “media” is the enemy of the people?

    On MSNBC yesterday a talking head named Eli Mystal went on a deranged rant over the Roger Stone sentencing guidelines and recommendations. He called for “mass protests in the street”, whatever that means, and nationwide resignations of federal prosecutors. The democrat losers have been periodically protesting the 2016 election results for the past 3 years so more street theater from them would be inconsequential. However, the notion of mass resignations of crooked prosecutors across the country would be welcomed with open arms.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. Rick says:

    The interview reveals ‘by the book Barr’ is totally nieve about the political motivations of his dem loving prosecutors.

    I have no faith in our Justice system, none. He wonders why Trump’s bellowing about his DOJ. He’s only echoing what we all see as a highly partisan group of unhinged liberals demonizing conservatives.

    McCabe, Comey, Van Grack, Baker, Boente et al should land in jail for what they did to Flynn. The Roger Stone case is a fraud. Barr willingly believes the lies about the Russians hacking the DNC. He’s a nieve robot with zero common sense.

    It’s because of his policy oriented approach that I trust his commitment to allowing the chips to ‘fall where they may’ in the Durham probe.

    But just because Joe Biden has made his billion dollar crimes ‘political’ post facto, mind you, is no excuse to not pursue justice in this scandal. NONE.

    Maybe Roger Stone made some miss-statements, but not allowing him to bring into the record information challenging the substance of the indictment to begin with is unforgivable and an honest AG in that moment should have forced the partisan prosecutors to withdraw the charges immediately.

    In the Flynn case, as soon as Sidney Powell stated the government’s refusal to provide the original 302, he should have stepped in and found it himself. He should have fired van grack immediately upon discovery, and withdrew the case. This never should have dragged out this long.

    Bob Barr’s problem is his naiveté nature. He’s proudly overseeing a sea of vipers and sees angels instead of demons.

    Liked by 3 people

    • coldanger says:

      And while I understand him giving his people “elbow room” to do their jobs, he absolutely should have his finger on the pulse of every one of these cases/investigations. We haven’t had a constitutional crisis like this ever. There are literally traitors crawling out of the woodwork. Barr is NOT up to this position, obviously…


  20. Philip Faustman says:

    From what I understand Roger Stone is essentially being prosecuted for Tweeting. How is Free Speech a crime? Well I guess it is these days. I just got released from FB Jail (30) days in the hole! For telling the truth about Islam. The left has infected every aspect of our society and means to destroy everything great about America. Pure Evil! Pure Hate! Anti-American Ideology. Communism. Guess that’s why they Love Commie Bernie So Much!

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Philip Faustman says:

    After watching the interview and reading the transcript I have come to the conclusion Barr will do absolutely nothing to any of the guilty bastards (and bitches) that committed treason and that defied their sworn oaths of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution!

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Kaco says:

    This transcript doesn’t make me feel any better about Barr, it shows to me he is very disrespectful to the President.


  23. rorschach says:

    Barr: “…it doesn’t affect my decision.”

    Show us you know how to make the right decisions on other matters then.


  24. Mr. T. says:

    Let’s not overlook the fact that President Trump, with the help of AG Bill Barr, played a great game of poker. Barr got Jessie Liu to give up her position as US Attorney for D.C., move over to Treasury, then President Trump withdrew her nomination to be Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes. She read the writing on the wall and resigned from government service. That was a brilliant play and one done without the drama, such as when POTUS fired James Comey.

    Let’s face it, whether you like Bill Barr or not, he inherited a big mess to clean up at the DOJ, and that’s just not going to happen overnight. Slowly and methodically he’s making changes. Under a combined 8 years of Holder and Lynch, the DOJ was grossly infected with some of the worse scum of the earth lawyers I have ever seen. It continued for another 2 years because of that incompetent bozo by the name of Jeff Sessions. Anyway, I suspect that if the Republicans retake control of the House like we hope they will, that he and POTUS will have the much needed breathing room to do what needs to be done, and without the interference from Schiff, Nadler, and the rest of the corrupted goon squad in D.C..

    Liked by 2 people

    • mugzey302 says:

      You’re absolutely right!! 👍


    • sturmudgeon says:

      So much to think about… we are supposed to learn from ‘history’, and that includes what we should learn from the history of those ‘in charge’… Barr’s history gives some of us ‘pause’… people do change… I know I have… perhaps Barr is truly going to do what we hope. If not, he will not be the first, or only, to disappoint… but a most dangerous disappointment indeed!


    • zekness says:

      I agree the task is gigantic….and BECAUSE it is gigantic I have formed a particular set of expectations: a complete enema, full body detoxification is required. Nothing less.

      Can Barr do this? Can anyone ONE PERSON do this?

      not a chance.

      so I will be looking for several things:

      a. one, my expectations for a swift, rapid justice has to be moderated to the gigantic task of cleaning house. This could take years. That’s my first assumption. It’s what I have to accept to be temper my expectations.

      b. Barr does not have adequate personnel to handle every single aspect of this case. It bears reminding that DOJ handles all of the “other” criminal investigations. It’s just not possible to tackle this gigantic conspiracy and coup and criminal misconduct without additional support. So, as time travels, I will be looking to see ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COUNSELS formed and new teams of prosecutors contracted. Anything less, and my expectations of a serious challenge to the entire gigantic task is going to be broken.

      c. Grand Jury announcements, and court filings.

      d. Court battles over documents and communications. Again I will be searching the court filings to see this is happening.

      e. specific persons of interest that I am aware of involved at the highest levels of this conspiracy and criminal conduct. I will be looking to see court filing their names appear as defendants.

      there are the landmarks….I am not terribly troubled (yet) many of these thing have not occurred. But I am also aware that should they become a reality, doing so, would require most likely the most capable focused complex leadership and strategy ever conducted by a DOJ AG. Will Barr becomes this master ?

      yet to be seen.

      His best bet is to start getting some wins.

      there is another aspect that will affect this and barr specifically: the political dynamic of BOTH POTUS and the corrupt DIM structure. He’ll be getting it from every single angle..

      I would not ever want to be in his position. I am not going to say it’s an impossible situation…but I dare say, there has never been anything even close to this scope of misconduct and the landmines that lie around it.

      I pray for him daily. That he, like President Trump, can be lifted up and inspired with a renewed spirit and acquire the courage and the guts and confidence that only God can deliver. This is a war. This is good versus evil.

      Pray for AG Barr. Our Nation needs God’s help. We all do.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. coldanger says:

    He’s “happy” with the Stone conviction, and declines to prosecute McCabe, Comey et al. Justice slides even deeper into the abyss…

    Liked by 3 people

  26. islandpalmtrees says:

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Doc Joe says:

    Barr admits in this interview that he does not see everyone as equal under the law. If you are a political opponent of Trump you are exempted from investigation. This makes no since because as I understand the position of the FBI every complaint is investigated as they ignore no complaint. An investigation that shows no crime is closed often without the target of the investigation even knowing. No evidence, no subpoena- unless you have corrupt agents lying to a judge in a secret court. Do your job Barr and apply equal treatment.


  28. Theckman says:

    Barr does not want Giuliani shoved down his throat and notice Rudi has been doing media interviews again.
    Barr has had it with Trump and as an added threat McConnell took to the airwaves to let Trump know he better back off.
    There’s no way Trump and Barr agreed to plotting this its not going to shut up the democrats.
    Barr saying he’s happy about prosecution end regarding Stone and how he doesn’t like him is very nurses signal.
    Your personal feelings have nothing to do with how an Attorney General conducts investigationa and/or should speak during an interview!!
    What if Barr said he was happy Comey, Brennan, McCabe, ect, were not prosecuted cuz he likes them??!! That’s how inappropriate Barr is!!!
    I think Trump knows he can only go so far because if he upsets too many factions he will no longer have any allies in the swamp.
    It’s slim pickings and there’s onky so much Trump can do when he’s surrounded by corrupt and/or if he’s lucky there may be a few that are compromised, but, Trump can at least trust those few to a point.
    Just look at all the hgh profile Republicans that have left. They did so because of blackmail, dislike of Trump, and/or their belief what’s coming next for Trump will not be a pretty sight for the party.
    Behind the scenes I think Trump’s circle of people he truly trusts is very small.
    Look at the resolutions passed in the senate regarding Iran. No celebration for those drone strikes taking out the more then 4 high level terrorists. I bet anything Obama and Kerry met with a few of those terrorists in order to hammer out that billion dollar Iran deal Trump trashed! Basically Oba,as deal was don’t commit terrorists acts on US soil and in return billions and billions of dollars, ect..
    How can the left justify that garbage of a deal??
    On top of that the democrat front runners Bernie and Pete criticize Trump for doing that. How dare either of them give such an opinion when they are not even privy to the intelligence Trump had when he made the decision.
    Common sense should be enough reason not to vote for any of the democrat choices.
    The democrats don’t even sound like they like the United States
    The faction that was supporting Trump doesn’t want another 4 years that’s what I think Barr’s interview indicates.


    • John-Y128 says:

      This interview had nothing to do with democrat criticism and everything to do with shutting up his boss, AG Barr knew the McCabe announcement was for the following day, and it worked. If I was Trump, I’d fire that POS, after his re-election but only after finding a replacement that can be loyal and confirmed in an all republican congress.


  29. Bob R says:

    So, Barr is happy with the prosecution of Stone? Why? He has to know that the forman of the jury was biased and should not have been seated on the jury along with several others. Conviction will be overturned. The Judge should be impeached and Law Licenses removed by the Bar. What a mess. A year wasted in everyones lives.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s