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. Autonomous Collective says:

    The President has the right, just like any American citizen, to publicly offer his opinions. Trump uses social media very effectively to fight for the American people against injustices in our country, including fake news.
    Keep on tweeting Mr. President!🇺🇸

    Liked by 28 people

  2. JohnCasper says:

    This is the vital: “I cannot do my job” and “make it impossible for me to do my job“.

    All else is comparatively incidental.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. and now for something completely different

    Liked by 1 person

  4. It blows me away that he thinks the Stone case was justified and entirely appropriate. He’s swamp and I no longer trust him at all. He is blinded by his own prejudices and I wonder if Durham is doing anything at all.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Revelation says:

      The Stone case was justified… IF… everyone else who lies to Congress is prosecuted as well.

      If not.. then its very selective prosecution.. especially with such a compromised Judge and jury.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Erik Heter says:

      Absolutely. From out here, it’s pretty damn clear that the Stone case is fruit of the poisonous tree, a case that wouldn’t even exist save for an investigation that was predicated on fraud, deceit, and lies.

      The other thing that gets me is where Barr talks about how he likes his prosecutors and hopes no more resign. The department he is running is an absolute cesspool of corruption, and he is signaling that he’s fine with it.

      There are times where Trump should listen to his advisers, but this is not one of them. He should very publicly fire Barr (and Wray too). It’s abundantly clear that they will never be able to restore faith in their respective institutions.

      Liked by 7 people

    • ezpz2 says:

      That jumped out at me too, littleflower, and not in a good way.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Pew-Anon says:

    He lost me at…

    “And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted.”

    Liked by 16 people

    • Carrie says:

      Yep. And I guess McCabe was not a “righteous prosecution” because he’s part of his hallowed FBI institution. Let’s burn it down to the ground now.

      Liked by 15 people

    • Publius2016 says:

      righteous? preposterous!

      how about the night raid?? old man in slippers and wife searched too??

      Liked by 15 people

      • Why can’t someone ask a few hard questions?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Pew-Anon says:

        Or the transparently tainted jury pool? Or the unconstitutional gag order?…

        Liked by 5 people

      • California Joe says:

        Wife is blind, too. Weissman violated the court order sealing the indictment and told CNN. The Obama judge ignored the evidence of the leak by Weissman and couldn’t care less!

        Liked by 2 people

      • So true Publius.

        A night raid on an elderly man and wife who were no violent threat at all but whose home was invaded by a fully armed swat team.

        If I had not been told as to what was happening when watching the video I would have thought that the FBI was trying to capture a nasty violent drug cartel king pin.

        Some guy who lived in a drug house that was well protected by his own little army.

        Instead it turned out that the Feds were ripping Roger Stone and his wife out of their beds in the middle of the night and tearing their house apart.

        There was no push back on Stones part, he probably would have turned himself in with the help of his lawyer.

        But our government had to violently take this guy and his wife ( she was wearing only her nightgown) and make them stand in the street surrounded by armed men while the other armed men rummaged around in their house.

        And Barr thinks this is “justified”.

        Liked by 7 people

        • gda53 says:

          He said it was a righteous PROSECUTION. He said nothing about the arrest, which I’m sure he would have condemned if asked.

          You are twisting his words to fit your own narrative.

          What does that remind you of? It reminds me of CNN, MSNBC, Lawfare, etc, etc.

          Liked by 4 people

    • California Joe says:

      Exactly! There was never any Russian Collusion. It was a hoax and an attempt to frame the President of the United States for a crime that never even happened. Mueller tried to squeeze Roger Stone and when that failed they indicted a 70+ year old man for not remembering a handful of text messages when he fully disclosed his email conversations. Furthermore, Mueller and his Special Counsel Lynch Mob knew there was no Russian Collusion and that Roger Stone had no part in Russian Collusion because IT NEVER HAPPENED. BILL BARR NEEDS TO BE FIRED ON MONDAY!

      Liked by 6 people

    • Genie says:

      He was channeling Jeff Spicoli with that choice of words. “I thought that was a righteous prosecution.”


    • That’s where he lost me.


  6. Paul Gallant says:

    Donald J. Trump Tweets…..

    “95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party. Thank you!”

    You can’t get a proper AG approved by the Republican Controlled Senate. I don’t think so.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The fact that Trump can’t get people through the Senate, who also is not allowing recess appointments, could bite them in the arse. If the House goes back to GOP, these Senators are risking a loss in the Senate to protect themselves? The legislature is out of control, there is no check on these Senators and if the Dems in the House weren’t sooo crazy they could make life on Trump quite difficult. I have not looked at the Senate electoral map, but if this continues it opens them up for a blue Senate come 2021, Bloomberg will try to buy as many Senate seats as he can.


  7. JohnCasper says:

    “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.”

    Barr thinks he is President and Donald Trump is some naught child in his charge. may others call me what they may, but I don’t find this even remotely acceptable.

    Liked by 15 people

    • OhNoYouDont says:

      Check Trump’s timeline on his twitter.

      Since posting this tweet @ 8:33 this morning, no mentions of any of the numerous stories that involved the Justice Department today. (Flynn, McCabe, Stone)

      Liked by 1 person

      • ezpz2 says:

        Operative words: “so far”

        I don’t think President Trump will allow Barr to play boss over his (barr’s) boss.

        Liked by 2 people

        • OhNoYouDont says:

          Trump’s tweet happened less than an hour after this radio interview this morning.

          Read Hogan Gidley’s comment that Trump and Barr are in “total agreement”

          White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley On AG Barr And President Trump

          Hugh Hewett: Thank you. We have got a controversy swirling which I think is a little overstated, but let’s talk about it, the Attorney General’s comments yesterday. The key comment is this one.

          William Barr: I have a problem with some of the tweets. I’m happy to say that in fact, the President has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.

          Hugh Hewett: So that’s the key takeaway to me, Hogan. The President has never asked the Attorney General, but he does have a problem with the tweets. What’s the reaction from the President and the White House about the Attorney General’s ABC interview?

          Hugan Gidley: Well, I’m glad you pointed out the fact that that was the takeaway and not what most of the media is glomming onto, which is some type of faux disagreement here. Listen, the President wasn’t bothered at all by these comments. He has the right, just like any American citizen, to offer his opinions publicly. And as you know, he does that on a regular basis. He’s used social media very effectively throughout the campaign. He’s done it as president not just to fight, you know, on behalf of the American people, but also against some of the incoming fake news, 93% negative news coverage. The President appreciates Attorney General Barr and his service. He has full faith and confidence in the Attorney General, and he knows he’s going to do his job and uphold the law. And one of the interesting pieces in that interview that, again, few people are talking about is that Attorney General Barr also pointed out that he felt as though, you know, he was looking into these matters because it’s the right thing to do, and there were political injustices suffered here. And so you know, on that, they’re in total agreement.


          Liked by 1 person

          • ezpz2 says:

            I see the words: “…full faith and confidence in the Attorney General…” akin to Michael Corleone’s big smooch he gave to Fredo.


            • OhNoYouDont says:

              Build relationships, but don’t bring Fredo!

              Liked by 3 people

  8. Carrie says:

    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.

    I swear , he’s alluding to McCabe and he already knows McCabe is going to walk.

    And a miscommunication was the reason for the 7-9 year sentence recommendation? Really? A miscommunication with the head of the DOJ, like these sentences dealing with human lives just get miscommunicated every day? Right?

    Then Thomas goes on state about how the President doesn’t have the power to open just any case he wants- especially not one that could overlap with his personal interest. Really??? Can someone mention Crossfire Hurricane?? Hello? A President who opens an investigation with a large overlap in personal interest??? I can’t take much more of this.

    Liked by 7 people

    • johnnybiface says:

      He seems to be letting the deep state Dem DOJ run the department. He’s too deferential. He loves this cesspool too much so he defers to the goons with FBI/DOJ paychecks. He’s an enabling parent who being run over by his puke kids. He’s a cuck to the DEMS. He shouldn’t be so damn sensitive to what the editorial boards and what Joe and Mika.

      Liked by 3 people

    • mac says:

      Remember: this is the man who defended Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who shot Vicky Weaver in the head while she was holding a nursing baby. Idaho was going to charge him with murder and Barr told them they could not do so. This was because Horiuchi was acting in Federal service at the time he committed the murder and thus was protected by the fact that Federal laws supercede state laws.

      I didn’t have much hope that he would be of any use to President Trump when he was appointed. I have a lot less now. He’s clearly Swamp, head to toe, and hoping for justice from the DOJ with him at the head is foolish at best. May God bless and preserve President Trump, because it certainly appears he has no friends anywhere in the District of Criminals.

      Liked by 9 people

    • linda4298 says:

      Obama’s wingman Holder, weaponizing IRS, fast and furious, illegal wiretapping, no problem.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. lydia00 says:

    He is a fool for not insisting on a live interview. I still do not understand why people fall for this. I suppose it’s because bar is still heavily connected to DC groupthink.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Gadsden says:

    What I got from this, is he is deathly afraid of criticism and how he perceived. He wants to be a fully independent operator without having worry about a pesky President. Not a good sign.

    Liked by 7 people

  11. MFM says:

    What job is that Mr. Barr? Take your worthless DOJ and shove it up your bagpipe. A fitting instrument for a sack of BS.

    Liked by 7 people

  12. Old Dawg says:

    If I were President Trump I would give Barr his walking papers effective yesterday and then appoint Joe DeGenova acting Attorney General without senate approval. I’d tell Joe you’ve got 9 months to burn the thing to the ground. Now, what are you standing around for?

    Liked by 6 people

    • JohnCasper says:

      Barr treats the President of the United States like a naughty child or naughty dog. I’d give him his walking papers for a long walk on a short pier. Barr thinks he has DJT over a barrel, and can take extreme advantage of that, because his Presidency is under such political assault already. Barr has zero character.

      Liked by 5 people

    • I think Trump would like Ratcliffe but he would never get approved…now swamp enough, which is the problem. He can’t get anyone honest approved. Only President in history who is not allowed to appoint people who like him, but only people who work against him. I am so turned off by Barr.

      Liked by 2 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      Well over 1-2 years ago I said he should go with “Actings”. They can hold the position for the lengthy timeframe. I even suggested when the timeframe expired, give the person a month vacation and re-assign as an “Acting”. I read the applicable law back then and I didn’t see anything to prevent this action. Could be wrong. Really think POTUS needs to by-pass the Senate until Mitch willconfirm the people he wants.

      Liked by 2 people

    • boomerbeth says:

      digenova is a huckster, part of the swamp for decades. He loves the free advertising…for new clients. who will pay his rates.


  13. Publius2016 says:

    the cut the part about the judge…

    Barr is about protecting the Institution…at the end of the day, seems strange to respect these attorneys who lie leak and extort people but maybe they DOJ FBI have always been like this considering the long history of disgraced prosecutions…

    If you talk they get you on perjury, if you don’t they go for obstruction!

    Liked by 8 people

  14. Barr has the weight of the world on his shoulders.
    He doesn’t have the luxury of getting away with the Gestapo tactics that Mueller employed.
    He has to not only disprove the predicate (already done), but PROVE the actors knew it was a lie from the beginning…..and that’s the rub.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Lottacats says:

      I give Barr a break. The media and their Democrats are all over anything to spin.
      I love my President AND his tweets but there are fools out there ready to start s–t over nothing. It’s sad and wrong but that’s how it is. They’re not about to stop. It’s “who we are” as the vicious Pelosi says.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Rhoda R says:

        Yesterday I would have agreed with you. But there is something about that ‘righteous’ conviction phrase that set my teeth on edge sideways. There was NOTHING righteous about the Stone case from the get-go.


  15. JohnCasper says:

    Anybody here find it acceptable that Barr thinks he can put Donald J. Trump over his knee and spank him like a small naughty child? Or maybe it’s more like hitting a bad dog in the nose with a stick after the bad dog pooped on the sofa. F you Zero Indictments (except on the wrong guys) Barr!

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Gadsden says:

    Wait, so it’s not ok for the President to comment on how the AG is doing his job, but the AG can freely give his opinion on how the President is doing his job? Fascinating theory.

    Liked by 22 people

  17. Daniel M. Camac says:

    Oh so Little Andy McCabe lying three times ( oh sorry I mean “lacking candor”) is not a criminal offense but Mr. Stone or Mr. Flynn lacking candor just once Is?

    F-off, Barr. And for those who say OOOOHHHHH it’s fine cuz he’s gonna get nailed on the FISA thingy, well BS. McCabe can be nailed on both counts can’t he?

    If he was a Trump supporter he sure as Hell would be.

    Liked by 11 people

    • JohnCasper says:

      “If he was a Trump supporter (or Justice supporter) he sure as Hell would be.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter what geek andy mccabe gets nailed on as long it’s federal and has a very lengthy gen pop sentence.

      I swear, if it ain’t political intrigue night in America. If the White House goes with our VSG don’t care, Honey Badger that he is, (and he has the hair for it!) and whether billy bob barr thinks it was yee haw that Roger Stone was “righteously convicted” (He wasn’t) let’s get on with the BUSINESS END of re-electing President Trump so we can get to the real AG or whatever brand new winning comes with it.

      Talk to three people tomorrow and make sure they’re MAGA. Lord knows we need all we can get. Cuz apparently (WE KNEW) ain’t no one in DC but President Trump, family and friends.


      Liked by 1 person

  18. TreeClimber says:

    And this is the guy we’re hoping will drain the swamp?

    Liked by 4 people

  19. I don’t trust this man.

    Liked by 4 people

  20. vikingmom says:

    If there had been an indictment of McCabe today instead of a complete whitewash, I wouldn’t think twice about anything Barr said in this interview…BUT the two things coupled together makes me fear that our worst impressions of Barr (protect the “Institutions” above all else) are on the money!

    Liked by 11 people

    • Publius2016 says:

      McCabe was once Director of FBI so the idea of indicting for accepted DOJ FBI practice of LEAKING was never going to happen…look at Comey…Nothing…look at Mueller…nothing and his angry Dimms procured Presidential Transition docs…

      Liked by 2 people

    • Daniel M. Camac says:

      vikingmom, Agree 101%!! Like many others on this board have eluded to, our Justice? system needs a thorough and painful enema. Kinda like what President Trump, his family, his cabinet and his supporters have suffered for the last almost 4 years from the enemdia, the Damocrats and the RINOS.

      Liked by 2 people

    • It is pretty astounding and remarkably glowing by contrast as they’re so back to back, isn’t it?

      Quite a coincidence and so telling to boot. I reckon if President Trump, Chief Executive figures Barr needs to go though, he’ll just tell him “you’re fired.”

      I’m good with that.

      We’ll see what happens.

      Liked by 5 people

    • James Carpenter says:

      McCabe should be seen as a straw.
      By himself,nothing to worry about regarding the loading of camels.
      But taken in context with Barr interview where tweeting intersects with justice…
      The camel’s back just broke insofar as my lading beliefs go.
      Fire Barr Monday.
      Appoint Joe DiGenova or someone like him as Acting AG on Tuesday.
      Arrest McCabe, Comey, etc, etc on Wednesday.
      If the SWAT teams need more time to organize and coordinate with CNN, I’m OK with delaying until Thursday.

      Liked by 2 people

  21. Barr is a mealy mouthed pinhead. If, as he claims, his goal was to function as an AG without political influence — and he had “made his decision” as to what to do — then WHY would knowledge of a subsequent tweet suddenly cause him to wonder if he should alter his afore made decision? Clearly the statement of either a pinhead or someone seeking to cast blame on TRUMP where none belongs.

    Liked by 6 people

  22. icthematrix says:

    The deep state asserting their power and counter punches yesterday and today. I have no doubt President Trump knows the limitations of his ability to extract the levels of justice we all want. Barr is willing to push into some of it via Durham but CLEARLY states how much he loves the institutions and believes in them. He will NEVER deep fry too many that it threatens these “precious agencies”.

    I fear there are messages being relayed to Barr as well…like the mafia suggesting a horses head is coming to your bedroom soon.

    Sick of how the military participated in today’s beat down of justice. Is there any hope?

    Liked by 2 people

    • If you’re one of those here that believe Donald J. Trump was brought to us by our Natural Creator, I ask, is there any hope?

      I say whether he was or not, I still have more than hope, I still have faith in him as a human being, I’ve never seen any other “President” speak to ME from any platform anywhere that I can still tell believes in his own heart that he is speaking to ME.

      We’ll get there.

      Liked by 3 people

  23. TradeBait says:

    #41’s swamp critter at work. I’m out on B2. Nothing short of arrests and perp walks will do.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Janice says:

    I am so disgusted by the cesspool of D.C. 🤬

    Liked by 8 people

  25. PS says:

    My takeaway was “I was already doing that when the President said I should do that, and now it looks like I’m on a political leash.” = the correct interpretation of the “tweets are not helpful” statements.

    Second takeaway is his underlings are going rogue and he’s being outmaneuvered.

    Liked by 7 people

    • I got and smelled a lot of that No. 2 PS, a LOT. He knows as well as those other cretins 7 to 9 years was total BS, and he left them with any uncertainty about his intentions for that NOT to be shared with the judge???

      That’s far more than “weird” in his “business”.


  26. IGiveUp says:

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

    Barr knew this going in. Everyone knows this going in. If you don’t want the MSM to screw with you, run chyrons underneath your image, etc. you offer the interview with rules attached.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. amjean says:

    His arrogance is apparent.

    Liked by 4 people

  28. JohnCasper says:

    I never thought these words would pass my lips, but “I miss you Jeff. Please come back”.


  29. Jus wundrin says:

    DOJ scum let McCabe walk.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. amjean says:

    President Trump should tweet: Do your job!

    Liked by 1 person

  31. wargeek says:

    Durham, Barr, “Tic-Toc”, etc…Not happening. The only thing we can do is register as many people as possible and vote for the President.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. That’s weird; we didn’t see four prosecutors quit when charges were dropped against a plainly guilty McCabe.


    Liked by 11 people

  33. OhNoYouDont says:

    @ 1:35 of video
    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.
    This part was cut out of ABC Broadcast:

    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.

    (Note – sac·ro·sanct (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.)

    @ 1:42 of video
    BARR: 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. sunnyflower5 says:

    Barr was doing his job the way he wanted. Void of righteousness.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Publius2016 says:

    Dear AG Barr, Why were Holder and Lynch held to a different standard while you allow the young minds of the Republican Reagan Revolution (Manafort and Stone) to be targeted for elimination?

    Liked by 3 people

  36. mimbler says:

    What I heard was another Wray with better PR skills.


  37. magatrump says:

    Please tweet on this injustice about McCabe President Trump. Don’t let this POS Barr have the last say. Tweeting is your first amendment right, We need you to speak up for us.

    Liked by 3 people

  38. Serpentor says:

    Seems to me, based on what he said in the interview, Roger Stone getting serious time for lying was “fair.” Also, McCabe getting a nolle prosequi for even more serious lying was “fair.”

    Barr’s not really into fairness at all, is he?
    I’m growing confident he’s not really into enforcing laws either. His priorities are somewhere else.

    Can we find someone, somewhere, who will actually do their freakin job? Just wondering.

    Liked by 5 people

  39. Tiffthis says:

    When Barr says he’s happy stone was convicted of obstructing congress- I thought that wasn’t even a crime? Like one of the impeachment articles against our VSGPDJT was obstruction of congress and it was written here many times that that’s not a crime. Am I missing something?

    Liked by 5 people

  40. Beau Geste says:

    PDJT is not “helpless” as President, despite Barr’s “keep off my grass” threats. Equal treatment under the law, due process, honest and ethical DOJ/FBI behavior are also, and even moreso, the President’s territory.

    Barr wants no public comparison of vicious hateful multi-year sentencing prosecution of Stone and Flynn for questionable “lying”, as compared to 2-months for liar and top-secret leaker-to-his mistress Wolfe, the Awans, and a complete pass for McCabe for leaking and lying under oath multiple times. “Don’t interfere by telling the Public that we are biased, political, and crooked…”

    Here is a suggested draft outline of a very simple, proposed Motion in the crooked FISC, under the Constitutional duties and authority of the President. It would be filed by the Office of the President Counsel, on behalf of the President. The Motion would NOT be classified or “secret”, because it can rely only on public information and IG Findings. There is plenty of caselaw to support withdrawal of improvidently granted motions bases on unethical practice, and discipline of malfeasance and misfeasance, fraud on the court, etc.

    The Motion would be public. Denial could be publicly presented to the Supreme Court. PDJT could declassify all necessary records so the public could follow the proceedings.

    The FISC and Supreme Court would be hard pressed to deny “standing” of the President, as Constitutional President defending civil rights of US Citizens to intervene, because of the Constitutional requirements and duties of the President, and because the President himself was under illegal surveillance from this fraudulent warrant.

    This would be a useful public motion instead of “tweets” objected to by AG Barr. PDJT supports the civil rights of the We the People. Barr can publicly support “rights” of the DOJ/FBI to lie, spy, and attack politically. If refused, the public would have to confront the fact that the FISC and DOJ deny civil rights and protect illegal political spies and illegal political l spying.

    Sidney Powell could do a much better draft for public understanding, but here goes:




    Motion to Withdraw Improvidently Granted FISA Warrants and Extensions.

    Motion for Hearing to Discipline DOJ and FBI Personnel for Ethical Violations, Misleading and withholding relevant information from this court including fraud on This Court, and Denial of Civil Rights under Color of Law.

    This Motion is made by the Office of White House Counsel on behalf of the Elected President of The United States, Donald J. Trump, under authority and duties of his sworn Constitutional Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

    The founding purpose of this Foreign Intelligence Suveillance Court is to protect the civil rights of US Citizens, including those of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution that
    “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    [discussion of flaws and malfeasance/misfeasance, failure of duty to verify, failure of duty to immediately advise the Court of “new” evidence, false statements and oaths….]
    [This court’s extra-heavy duty to protect the integrity of its proceedings because defendants are not represented. Malfeasance and misfeasance must be severely disciplined]

    The FISA Warrant may have authorized political surveillance on thousands to millions of US citizens associated of communicating with the Republican Party or its Candidates. Unwarranted secrecy only protects fraud, illegality and embarrassment of the DOJ/FBI. There is no legitimate reason to classify or withhold from those surveilled, notice to them of their surveillance under this FISA Warrant or extensions, or the nature of places or persons searched or seized relating to each such person.

    Relief requested
    It is requested this this Court Order:
    1. The immediate withdrawal of its FISA Warrant of XXX and all subsequent extensions thereof, nunc pro tunc (now as then), as if they had never been granted, so that they cannot function to protect or authorize any surveillance.
    2. Notification of each and every US Citizen who has been surveilled under this FISA Warrant including its extensions, so that such persons can seek redress for violation of civil rights.
    3. Hearings to determine and impose appropriate discipline for malfeasance and misfeasance by DOJ and FBI personnel relating to the authorization, preparation, representation, support or presentation of this FISA Warrant or its extensions to or in this Court.

    Liked by 12 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “This would be a useful public motion instead of “tweets” objected to by AG Barr.”

      Another useful public motion would be to stop the stonewalling of Freedom of information requests by Judicial Watch and others.

      That is the “tell” that you, Mr. Barr, are just another swamp rat. Otherwise you would follow the example of your boss, President Donald J. Trump, with being TRANSPARENT.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Deplorable_Infidel says:

        Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch just said on Laura Ingraham’s FNC show that PDJT should appoint a Special Counsel himself, because the DOJ is incapable of investigating itself.

        Mr. Fitton says that the only activity he sees Mr. Durham doing is a glorified IG investigation with little or no evidence (to him right now) of any criminal prosecutions.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Beau Geste says:

        If the $75,000 cost of a table is “classified”, imagine all the other ridiculous redactions and withholdings which are made, just to prevent public from learning about corruption, criminality, and even just embarrassment.
        There should be an external quality review of redactions and withholdings. If a redacting employee consistently “over-redacts”, that employee should be fired.

        If PDJT ever unredacts the redacted records, the extent of coverups claimed to be necessary to protect national security from russian and chinese nuclear attack will be clear.


  41. Gadsden says:

    He sounds more concerned about getting criticized than about outright corruption, sedition and treason within his Department. Burn it down. All of it.

    Liked by 5 people

  42. JohnCasper says:

    Dear Your Majesty AG William Barr,
    Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
    – Justice Brandeis, Olimstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

    Liked by 7 people

  43. lolli says:

    Did y’all catch that Shea also worked with Barr when he was AG years ago. So Shea is his corrupt partner. Was Shea part of the Ruby Ridge cover up, too?
    Shea helped Barr with the Epstein “suicide” investigation.
    2 dirty dirty swamp rats.

    Liked by 1 person

    • FPCHmom says:

      Had Shea not rolled over for the corrupt prosecutors on the ridiculous sentence, PDJT would not have tweeted about it, and he would have not had to get involved. It is the failure of those at the DOJ that caused this.

      Barr should be reprimanding his protege, not the president of the US.

      The president is his boss.

      Also, why can’t he just ignore the tweets?

      Liked by 5 people

  44. Beth says:

    Robert Johnson aka William Barr aka “the Coverup General”

    HE HAS TO GO (he was placed there to remove Trump )

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Beth says:

    Robert Johnson aka William Barr aka “the Coverup General”

    HE HAS TO GO (he was placed there to remove Trump )


  46. Les D says:

    And while he’s giving this unnecessary interview and embarrassing The President of the United States, yet touting himself and the DOJ as oh so clean, he was for the prior week going over the rough drafts of the Declination letter to Andy McCabe’s attorney, taking a dive with the DOJ into the Swamp–to just get cleaned up. He’s a duplicitous swamp rat, no question after McCabe.

    A rough guess of how many have been prosecuted by DOJ for lying to the FBI over the decades–100,000? How many from DOJ? Now still zero.

    And when he raves about the prosecutors in the Stone persecution, read this interview of an attorney who tried a case against one of them and the crap he pulled a few years ago. It’ll make you sick. Yet Barr says he’s wonderful.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Deplorable_Infidel says:

    “major sections of answers were completely cut out (chopped up/edited) after the question(s) was/were asked.”


    I predicted that yesterday


    Liked by 1 person

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “Why is he agreeing to appear on a lying enemedia platform that will be dissected into sound bites that will be used to attack the PDJT ADMINISTRATION?”

      Just like “60 Minutes”, etc. have been doing fir years……..

      Liked by 2 people

  48. hawkins6 says:

    Barr-“I’m not a fan of Roger Stone…” I doubt anyone at DOJ is a fan of muckraker Roger but how much is the A/G “not a fan of Roger. ” Why did he state his personal biased opinion about Stone?

    Barr—-” 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”

    A new standard is established at the DOJ. If the jury foreperson holds a severe Dem activist political bias; allegedly lies on a signed form before the trial commences and tweets anti Trump messages, it is still a fair and righteous prosecution. A/G Barr ‘s reputation seems to be sliding downward. Am I wrong?

    Liked by 5 people

    • gda53 says:

      Yes. Barr is not God. He presumably had no foreknowledge of the foreperson’s bias before this interview – it only exploded on social media subsequent to this.

      Let’s see what happens. Until PDJT changes his mind about Barr (maybe he has), as of now he still trusts him.

      Everyone here still trusts PDJT, right?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rhoda R says:

        Barr may not have known about the juror’s biases but he d@mn well knew about the invalidity of the Steele document. The whole prosecution was base on a lie and a lie known at the time Stone was arrested. No way in hell can that be considered a ‘righteous’ prosecution even with the most unbiased of juries and judges.

        Liked by 1 person

  49. Streak 264 says:

    Who brought that tweet to his attention and what was their motive?
    Sounds like they couldn’t wait to show it to him.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. starfcker says:

    “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.” Jeez. Now he has Chris Wray ghostwriting his interview notes. Get a room you two.

    Liked by 7 people

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