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. tom f says:

    This is about optics.
    I can’t believe no one sees this.
    AG Barr needs ‘distance’ from the President.
    Needs to avoid the appearance of the ‘lakey’ label.
    Get a grip.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Publius2016 says:

      AG Barr said it was righteous prosecution…why?

      What has Stone done that warrants Federal Prosecution? No Knock Raid? Gag order?

      Liked by 12 people

      • lolli says:

        I have a feeling this hatred of Stone goes way back. Stone was one of the Young Republicans during Reagan. He has actually been around for a long time. Like Manafort. Stone knows way too much.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Yeah, agree Barr saying Stone was a “Righteous prosecution” for witness tampering and lieing to Congress.

        Process crimes, and manufactured crimes.
        And Bill Barr thinks they were “Righteous”?

        Probably thinks Mueller is an honorable man, and the Fisa process just needs a few ‘tweaks’.

        Liked by 3 people

    • hawkins6 says:

      tom f–“AG Barr needs ‘distance’ from the President.”

      Respectfully tom, If Barr flew to the moon, the Dems would still howl interference and obstruction.

      Trying to please them is a waste of time and a sign of weakness. Do the right thing rather than waste time trying to create acceptable optics to please the insatiable and obsessed Dems. They have to be soundly defeated in the next election and I doubt Barr’s interview is a aiding that goal. It’s the opposite.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Serpentor says:

      No one sees this?
      That was the gist of the interview posted above. Of course we see it.

      We also see a refusal to do the right thing at the DOJ.

      Just look at the comments here – safe to say, Barr has officially lost the faith of the people.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Look at what PDJT said, in his tweet, and then look at what THEY are focusing on.
        PDJT’s tweet said the SAME thing that Devin Nunes said the day before on Fox.

        Both were pointing out the unfairness of Stones sentence reccomendation of 7-9 years, COMPARED TO WOLFES 2 MONTHS. Sorry, can’t do italics on this damphone.

        So, they focus on the Stone part, but nobody is talking about, or asking about WHY the SSCI aid who leaked highly classified information to a reporter he was sleeping with, and who they had an AIRTIGHT case against, and who also lied to FBI, only gets 2 months.

        Nobody wants to talk about THAT,…except PDJT and Nunes. Or, how Wolfes attorneys indicated he would be calling the SSCI Senators as fact witnesses, if he went to trial, before getting his plea deal.

        Cause they TOLD him to leak it, is why.
        But that isn’t talked about, or how Flynn has been treated, contrasted with how McCabe has been treated, but
        Hey, Barr insists he doesn’t want prosecutions to appear politically motivated, or outcomes detirmined based on Political considerations,


        Liked by 4 people

    • Jim in TN says:

      Tom, so that is why Barr has let both Comey and McCabe off without even trying their asses? He needed distance? Barr is letting the guilty go free just for the optics. And harsh penalties for the President’s allies, is that just for optics too?

      The injustices are piling up on Barr’s watch. Do you really want everyone to ignore them, hoping that it will be different in the future?

      Liked by 11 people

    • Lottacats says:

      yes, optics


    • jakee308 says:

      If McCabe and Comey and Brennan and others were being charged and put on trial, then I would say yeah, okay. But they’re not and the disparity is striking.

      Just as Manafort was charged with not filing as a Foreign Agent but Podesta who was with him was not. And the only thing we can see as a difference is that they hold leftist/Democrat opinions.

      We’re being shown a two tier system and maybe that’s why Trump felt the need to tweet, Mr. Barr. And btw; where’s the investigation going? When do we see some results.

      I think Barr was brought in to manage/broker a deal. The conspirators would be let off and Trump would not get thrown out. That was the reason for the crappy House investigation. To make it impossible for the Senate to find him guilty yet appear they’d done all they could.

      This is a deal between the Federal Employees Unions, the Obama appointees and Trump.

      Barr has done this sort of brokering before. In Re: Ruby Ridge Sniper.

      I’m done. We don’t have to worry about tyranny coming to the USA. We already have it. It will only get worse.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Dutchman says:

        IMHO, you are so wrong. There was no deal to get Trump off on Impeachment.

        They are, and will continue to go after PDJT, and will NOT settle for anything less than driving him from office.

        So, THEY would make no such deal, and HE would make no such deal, he would tell them to stuff it if they proposed it.

        Which as I say, they wouldn’t.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Rhoda R says:

      He looks like he’s ‘distancing’ himself from the President the same way that Brutus ‘distanced’ himself from Caesar.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Retired IG says:

    Sundance – thank you for posting the transcript of this interview. Am having a hard time reconciling the transcript with the actual interview that was broadcast. Keep thinking about all of the “cuttings on the floor.” What I read is that Barr said “he does not like when Pres. Trump tweets about ongoing cases and doesn’t like hearing criticism of the DOJ.” Seems fair for Barr to say that.
    Believe in the transcript he made it clear he is not influenced by the President and will not start investigations unless they have MERIT under the law. Still scratching my head about “Make it impossible to do my job.” Don’t think I read that or heard it. But its been a long couple of weeks with a death in the family. Peace to All.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Skippy says:

      Retired IG,

      My sincere condolences on your family’s recent loss of a loved one. I too have loss a very loved one recently.

      Perhaps AG Barr’s “makes it impossible to do my job” references his inner realization he’s aged since his last DOJ leadership, and that there are only typically 16 to 18 working hours in a weekday when younger, and less when not. Surely the AG has a full daily plate.

      Perhaps, too, the current political climate is so politically toxic and divergent that the peace/ability to accomplish a days work that came in his job years ago has completely eroded: Our USA MSM fails to cover both political sides fairly and the DEMS are on constant prowl per Saul D. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals which I believe both prior AG Holder and President Obama might have referenced (“blood on the streets”).

      These are very trying times in the USA. I wish you the best and thank you for your comment ending in “Peace for All”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • maggie0987 says:

        In the transcript he refers to ‘influence’ in a broader sense than just PDJT –
        “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.” – yet ABC makes it appear to be referring specifically about PDJT.


  3. In the Navy, when a ship runs aground, it is the captain’s fault. Full stop. Even if he is in bed, and gave orders that were not followed correctly. That is leadership.

    Last time I checked, the DOJ publicly proclaimed that Roger Stone was getting 7-9 years, and it was all over the news, and it was used as political leverage by the Democrats, disgraced Stone, and was a part of their resentful attempt to kill Trump. It winds up the jury selection was biased and poorly done – on a very important political trial.

    That is your DOJ, Bagpipes. It is your ship, and your piss poor leadership has allowed them to harrangue Roger Stone unjustly and through your poor leadership, and your slipshod leadership allowed for rogue prosecutors to tamper with the jury selection and release information to the public that is biased and unjust.

    This has happened for 3 years to Trump in large part because the DOJ was not doing their job properly by allowing themselves to be manipulated or through the quasi-treasonous actions of their permanent staff. He just came out of a nasty battle, won, and now it is happening again. Under your watch.

    If you don’t like Trump’s tweets, it might behoove you to not do a shitty job that makes his tweets necessary. Get control of your agency, Bagpipes.

    Liked by 24 people

    • You just made a very interesting point psychologistswimmingupstream.

      Barr is the boss, the head guy, the big cheese.

      As you say when things go wrong in many organizations it is the captain/chief/boss or whatever you want to call him that gets the blame.

      Just as when things go well the boss gets most of the credit.

      Barr is really trying to throw a bit of blame on Pres Trump and also trying to make out that his people ( the employees at the DOJ) are great guys and gals.

      Trump is bad DOJ is good.

      Right, like any of us here are going to believer that, but I am wondering just what might be getting ready to come out as to how awful and how mess up the DOJ really is.

      We have all been following the Stone case since the guy and his wife were hauled out of bed in the middle of the night by FBI agents armed to the teeth.

      Then we find out they want Stone to be sentenced to 7-9 years while others who are more deserving are not even charged.

      So is this strange interview where Bill Barr seems to be throwing Pres Trump under the bus just the beginning of Barr trying to defend the criminals in the DOJ.

      Trying to get us to believe it is really Trumps fault that they can not do their jobs because he tweets or what ever it is Barr will come up with next week.

      The heat is really on the FBI and the DOJ from a lot of conservative voters and this 7-9 years sentence for Stone did not help.

      We think these people are incompetent at the least and malevolent and anti-American at the most.

      We would like to see most of them gone.

      Is Barr tying to save these institutions like some posters here have said.

      Liked by 4 people

      • noswamp says:

        You are correct, Barr is trying to save the institution. To a fault. For some reason he is deathly afraid of looking bad in front of the eyes of the DOJ staff, most of whom want the President’s head. At least he did step in and change the Stone sentencing rec.

        I am learning that with Barr we need to watch what he says, but more importantly, what he does. With him actions speak louder than words.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kagger2020 says:

        Re: Barr is the boss, the head guy, the big cheese.

        That’s where you’re wrong. The POTUS is.

        Trump has full and final authority over the entire branch, including the DOJ. Today, Trump even tweeted about his legal right to intervene with the Stone case if he wanted to. It gave me hope he’ll do his job and defend the Constitution if Barr won’t.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, sorry, you are right and when I reread my post I realized that I had expressed myself poorly.

          Pres Trump has the obligation to say something and to actually do something if he sees that the DOJ is not quite on the job.

          Barr seems to be trying to make it sound like Pres Trump has no business at all messing around in DOJ business and I was trying to call him on that.

          Pres rump has every legal right to intervene with any case that he feels the need.

          And yes Pres Trump is the real Big Cheese.

          Liked by 2 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Actually, Barr is NOT, ultimately the “Boss” the BIG cheese, with ultimate responsibility for the equal administration of the law.

        The PRESIDENT is. Read his oath of office, and the Constitution. To faithfully execute the laws, is what PDJT swore an oath to do.

        If he sees HIS Justice Department is routinely NOT faithfully executing the laws, by prosecuting those breaking the law, he has a legal obligation to step in.

        The PRESIDENT is the Chief Law Enforcement official of the land, much as he is the Commander in Chief.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Dax Jaket says:

      Two tier justice is alive and well-cared for on Barr’s watch and its perfectly clear which tier he favors.

      Trump’s tweets would be unnecessary if Barr was not busy exonerrating Comey, McCabe and the other DOJperps, CIAperps and FBIperps and turning a blind eye to absurdly political and unjust presecutions like Stone. Muller’s Nazi storm-trooper show should be investigated and he should be prosecuted for obstruction by facism and nazism.

      Where are the reviews of the Hillary server case, the Awan Brothers who lied and speid for Debbie Wasserman, and the Hunter-Biden case?

      The entire Obama cabinet and whitehouse staff should be under investigation for all of the fraud and conspiracy that they set in motion as the Russia Collusion frame-up, which continues in coverup form unto this very day.

      Where are the investigations of conspiracy and obstruction of justice between Schiff and the fake whistleblower?

      Liked by 6 people

    • mimbler says:

      Thanks upstream, right on target,


  4. Liberty Forge says:

    Right off the bat, I will admit to not listening to the complete Barr interview that Sundance has now provided. I will also admit to not reading all of the comments.

    What I will admit to — is — did not anyone listen/hear what Devin Nunes said/advised a few days ago???

    What did he say?

    He said/recommended that NO ONE should talk to — or give an interview to — the Main Stream Media (MSM).

    Apparently, his message did not resonate — or get across — as forcefully as it should have.

    Do not talk to them. Period!!

    I believe the dust-up of the past few days is evidence as why — no one — should be talking to the MSM.

    Pravda would be proud! Not to mention Goebbles.

    Just stop.

    Liked by 8 people

  5. graficgod says:

    at this point, i’d trust Bill “Bullshitter” Barr as far as I can thrown the entirety of congress

    Liked by 10 people

      • WES says:

        Grif:. Normally I would do what SD says Read the article First! before commenting!

        But with Barr giving McCabe a pass today, Barr has finally revealed who he really is!

        Mr. Cover Up! Just as SD has long suspected!

        So there is no need to read what Barr says! He is lying! The Irish have a word for his type!

        Barr is a Gobshite!

        The final verdict is in! No one in the deep state will be prosecuted! It is over!

        There is no point wasting more time trying to understand what happened because it no longer matters!

        Now we can watch as Trump looses the November 2020 election!

        Bloomberg is now the bookies favorite to win!

        Liked by 1 person

    • California Joe says:

      McCabe and Wolfe walk while a 70 year old man is sent to federal prison by an Obama judge for obstruction of a criminal investigation where there was never any underlying crime! Disgusting! Bill Barr wins the Jeff Sessions DOJ Award for sleepy incompetence!

      Liked by 9 people

    • Georgia says:

      He states right up front he was all for the prosecution of Stone– not so much the prosecution of McCabe?

      Liked by 7 people

      • YeahYouRight says:

        I would like to have seen all prosecutions driving from Mueller/Weisman on hold until the prediction question was resolved the moment Barr questioned the validity of that operation.

        Stone and Flynn are there purely due to the existence of the small group that is currently under investigation. Only now is there some rethinking of Flynn. Stone should not need a pardon if Barr is truly interested in fairness.

        Liked by 1 person

      • annieoakley says:

        Valerie Jarrett threatened payback when old Barry was re elected in 2012. I think the President questioned Obama’s Birth Certificate before 2012. Barr seems more worried about President Trump’s tweets than all the illegal stuff Barry did. And we still don’t know his real name.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Kenneth says:

    AG. Barr will surly pull all the bad actors “Covers” when he Testifies on 3/31. He will announce the indictments the next morning, to be followed by his grin. (April Fools)

    Liked by 1 person

    • trump20162024 says:

      Now we have to wait until the end of March?! Six more weeks of the Trumpster’s first term wasted by these RINOs playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules. AG Barr is another huge disappointment. Even stinking Andy McCabe was laughing at him today on CNN.


  7. Jim in TN says:

    There is a clause in the Constitution, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”

    Using the word ‘shall’ is the equivalent of a command. It must be done. No opting out. No shirking.

    The words ‘take Care’ imply making a special effort, being watchful, constantly on guard, making it a serious concern.

    ‘That the Laws be faithfully executed’, A lot of Presidents fail on this one. You don’t get to pick and chose what laws are implemented or which ones are enforced, except for concerns about Constitutionality. While th8s clause is very broad, enforcement of the law is included in ‘execution’, so it is the President’s concern. When the President sees that laws are being unfaithfully executed, he must take care to correct the problem.

    This mantra about no interference is anti-Constitutional. The President is ordered to interfere to make sure laws are faithfully executed. And he is ordered to make it a serious concern of his work as President.

    When the President sees a two tiered justice system, light justice for some people and harsh justice for others, he damn well better get up in Barr’s face. And if the President chooses to make his criticism public, that is all the better. The country can see he is fulfilling the job we gave him to do.

    The real perversion is that the President’s enemies are the ones getting off Scot-free and his allies are the ones being abused. It isn’t an abuse of law to demand equal treatment, even if it is for ones friends. The ones abusing the law are his enemies, not the President

    From Article 2 of the Constitution
    Section 3
    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

    Liked by 11 people

  8. Mike says:

    The Swamp has dirt on him or his family. Trump’s family has been clean since birth or they’d have him. Meep Meep!

    Liked by 7 people

  9. I was hoping that the written transcript would make things better. Instead, it is much worse.

    Barr’s behavior is disloyal, inexcusable, treasonous and seditious. He is unfit to hold the job of Attorney General.

    Liked by 20 people

  10. MaineCoon says:

    Mr Barr: How about critiquing the dumbed-down, highly-condensed final version of your interview in the manner in which you critiqued President’s tweets.

    Turn about should be fair play unless you are resigned not to do your job; after all, you raved about the great relationship with POTUS. Wouldn’t you want that to have been in the final video?

    Liked by 2 people

  11. :-) says:

    ‘The Law and Order President’?


  12. Carrie says:

    The transcript is more damning than the interview portions they bothered to broadcast.

    Liked by 14 people

  13. RJ says:

    Rod Rosenstein on steroids, that is Bill Barr.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. Abe Lincoln says:

    Look the guy’s surprised by his own subordinates actions and he wants to tell T to lay off. This guy needs to get a grip on his department and clean house if he wants respect. The whole world is awaiting justice for years now and holding a collective breath. At some point it has to be let out. Can’t claim T for asking the onbvious. Even Barr agreed with T so it’s not a stretch what he tweeted. It’s common sense. Do we even have a tiny bit of that left in this country?

    Liked by 9 people

  15. Don Surber: “Barr needs to treat guys like McCabe and company the way McCabe and company treated Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Lori Loughlin.”

    Couldn’t you just pretend he’s Martha Stewart, Bob?

    Like Comey’s leak charges which were dropped in July, this is only acceptable on one condition: that John Durham brings the real indictments–and soon. A failure to do that is My Own Personal Lexington and Concord.

    They’re playing with fire. And History’s still calling…

    Liked by 9 people

  16. A very interesting “real” interview that could be interpreted in different ways, except of course, for those commentators who vehemently deny their initial opinions could be wrong.

    I dislike what happened and dislike the AG criticizing the President who IS the chief law enforcement officer. If the AG can’t take the heat he has two options. One is STFU and the other is resign.

    On a similar vein, Hannity tonight said he was very optimistic there was going to be some major vindication for PDJT and accountability for the Deep State.

    MAGA anyhow.

    Liked by 1 person

    • annieoakley says:

      Hannity is sometimes like a ten year old. He believes whatever he is told to believe.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Blue Moon says:

        Bullsh$t. Hannity is in it for the money. I quit Hannity a long long time ago. My guess Hannity’s next gig after Fox is taking Rush’s place on EIB radio when/if Rush can no longer do it. (JMO)

        Liked by 2 people

        • BitterC says:

          Rush’s format…3 hrs of pontificating with a few listener phone calls would suit Hannity better than his TV gig where his guests interfere with his ability to talk.

          I was furious tonite with Sydney’s “interview”. She made 1 statement then Hannity talked for the rest of the segment

          Liked by 2 people

    • kleen says:

      I hope Hanity is right for the sake of our country.

      I wonder why he loves L. Graham so much… He lost me as a viewer because of LG.

      I can’t watch Hanity anymore knowing that he can be so naive as to trust Democrat plant LG.

      That’s too much! I can’t! It’s revolting, makes my blood boil. And this Democrat plant is likely to win the Republican primary again.

      I just can’t believe it!

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Perot Conservative says:

    Joe diGenova said Barr “loves the law”.

    Has Joe become a useful, intelligent idiot? Or is Durham gonna bring down Thor’s hammer?


    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “Barr “loves the law”.”

      Perhaps he does, we do not know the man’s heart. However, perhaps his love is conditional to when it works for him and his friends.

      Jeremiah 17:9 KJV
      The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

      Liked by 4 people

    • annieoakley says:

      Joe remembers the OLD William Barr. The after President Trump William Barr is no different than Judge Emmett Sullivan. Everyone who supports President Trump is evil and everyone who wants him gone is good.

      Liked by 3 people

  18. kleen says:

    I am going to predict that Barr “will save Flynn” so we can be happy with that and move on.

    Flynn free in exchange for swamp crooks free. Maybe thrown in R. Stone as well.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. ezgoer says:

    All Barr did was stoke the media’s leftist outrage and give them another loaded gun to point at the president. He should know better. Maybe he does but took a shot at POTUS anyway. The Left plays to win and unfortunately our side doesn’t.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Jus wundrin says:

      Our side? You mean both sides with the exception of a few, they are all one in the same.

      Liked by 1 person

    • noswamp says:

      AG had to know that his infomercial for the democrat party would have consequences. He did this on purpose. He was afraid of the Deep Staters accusing him of being manipulated by Trump, even though Trump just wants to enforce the rule of law. Where does that leave him?
      I have no clue. He did shut Mueller down and he is moving on Flynn, as well as fixing Stone. Stone though should not have even been prosecuted, and will end up with a mistrial due to a biased foreperson.

      So Barr is hard to read. His actions tell me one thing, his words tell me something different. How can Trump trust Barr from here on out? Barr is more afraid of pissing of his subordinates than pissing off the President.


  20. wisewerds says:

    Someone needs to ask him the questions that are on all of our minds directly:

    There is an impression among a large number of people in the country that the justice system dispenses two levels of justice: one for the (leftist) Washington elite, and another for the “rubes”, including almost all supporters of President Trump.

    We have seen decision after decision to not prosecute members of the Washington elite who have clearly broken the law, such as John Brennan, James Clapper, William Comey, Hillary Clinton, etc.

    And we have seen decision after decision to prosecute “rubes from the right,” most recently Roger Stone.

    Do you understand that a very substantial number of people have concluded that the justice system you manage has two different standards for dispensing justice?

    Do you believe that those people who have reached this conclusions have reasonable grounds for doing so?

    Would you agree that this state of affairs is very bad for this Country?

    What are you going to do to address the concerns of those who have reached this conclusion?

    Liked by 9 people

    • annieoakley says:

      About 63 million people in the US have no hope of fair treatment at all. The Post Office knows all about you if you support President Trump and soon will likely ‘lose’ your mail. What are you going to do about it? Will your Property Tax check, water bill, sewage treatment be delivered on time to the proper destination?

      Liked by 1 person

      • X XYZ says:

        Your mail will be delivered. But the FBI and the CIA will probably read it first. And they definitely will hear your phone calls and everything that transpires on the web – including what happens here.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Laurie Walker says:

          It appears the left and the corporations have positioned themselves to have a seemless transition into a hybrid Italian fascist and a Stasi socialist government.

          Liked by 1 person

          • X XYZ says:

            Welcome to the USSA.

            We are now living in a socialist democracy, funded and fueled by capital. Worst of all, we are pretending, deluding ourselves, that this is still a free country, although our freedoms are being gradually eroded bit by bit, year after year.

            How do you boil a frog? One degree at a time.

            Liked by 1 person

  21. anthohmy says:

    I’m confused.

    On one hand it was, paraphrased, tweets make it impossible to do my job.

    On the other hand it was, paraphrased, tweets have no effect on me.

    How does something that has no effect on Bill Barr make it impossible for him to do his job?

    This is the Chief Logic Officer in the country?

    Liked by 6 people

    • Obama called out Justices at State of the Union speeches. His first Attorney General called himself Obama’s “wingman”. His second Attorney General met with Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton was under investigation *wink* *wink*.

      “…with Liberty and Justice for some.” I never took that pledge.

      Liked by 3 people

    • gda53 says:

      SOME tweets, not ALL tweets. Read the transcript.

      He’s right. PDJT spouting off on ongoing DOJ cases does make it difficult for him to do his job. Within that context he is correct in his criticism.

      At the same time, PDJT has a different job and a different agenda. He tweets to shine a light on a case that otherwise goes under the radar.

      They are BOTH right, but their interests do not coincide.

      Barr does not have to concern himself with the political aspect – PDJT does. PDJT is tweeting because, while he understands that his tweet may be a problem for Barr at DOJ, it’s more important to him that his 70+Million followers on twitter get fired up about a 9-year sentence for Stone than that Barr should be pissed at him.

      As to his comments about “righteous” prosecution, I’ll reserve judgement, but note that he most likely was not aware of the foreperson’s bias.

      He knows what his job is – to put the blindfold back on Lady Justice (see appointment to review Flynn case as an example of that function.)

      Liked by 2 people

      • mimbler says:

        If Barr was doing his job, Stone wouldn’t be facing the 9 year sentence Barr recommended he get. PDJT had to respond to that by tweet or otherwise.

        And make no mistake, that recommendation was totally Barr’s responsibility.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Rhoda R says:

        gda53, there was more wrong with that trial than just the juror’s biases. 1) it was a process crime – there was no Russian interference in the elections, the Steele dossier was a joke and THIS WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME STONE WAS ARRESTED. 2) the judge refused to let the prosecution enter this into evidence, ie. the judge ans prosecutor conspired to prevent Stone from getting a fair trial. 3) The judge gagged Stone from publicly defending himself. Sorry, to call it a ‘righteous’ conviction is pure bull fertilizer.

        Liked by 1 person

      • X XYZ says:

        “He’s right. PDJT spouting off on ongoing DOJ cases does make it difficult for him to do his job. Within that context he is correct in his criticism.”

        Go read the transcript. Barr did not say “difficult”. He used the word “IMPOSSIBLE”. Words have meaning. Someone here opined that Barr chooses his words very carefully. He didn’t this time. He revealed himself, in many statements he made in that interview..
        He went on national TV and acted defensively, like a crybaby. In the past, many others also did – Ginsburg, Roberts, Romney, and many more, These are the people running our government. When under pressure they act like children. If they were in the private sector they would be fired for making comments involving badmouthing, and kiss & tell.

        Since his job is now so “impossible”, does anyone think that Barr will resign?


  22. Publius2016 says:

    Just like 45 has a list for Supreme Court, Senate has list for DOJ FBI FED…recently, zero for four at FED for 45…

    AG Barr was a ok…Sessions too…for term two, probably Crispy Creme aka the Fatman


  23. Right to reply says:

    So let me get this straight…A high profile man like Stone with connections to POTUS, and Barr has shown NO interest in the case to know that sentencing to the extent requested would be both corrupt, and political? What does Barr do all day?

    Liked by 2 people

  24. TheWanderingStar says:

    Watching the DOJ (what a joke) over the past years I already had a very low opinion of Bill’s vaunted department. After watching his interview and reading the transcript, I was surprised that he made me re-evaluate my position to one even lower. Bill Barr, leader of goons and jack-booted thugs. “Righteous prosecution”, indeed.

    Liked by 6 people

  25. todayistheday99 says:

    Dear Mr..Bill Barr, Their is not a bone of integrity left in your bagpipes body given the DoJ 9 year sentance of Roger Stone. Quit pretending you are not a deep state POS loser. FOaD

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Barr says: 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.
    So he doesn’t see himself as the CEO of the DOJ.. He’s not there to clean it up. He’s there to address issues that are brought to him for decision. By whom? Department Heads? The President? Congress?

    Organizational chart of the DOJ:

    Sorry, The Attorney General of the United States is the Executive Officer directly in charge of the FBI. He needs to do his job.

    Liked by 5 people

    • annieoakley says:

      And he is not doing his job IMO. Taking money and pretending IMO.

      Liked by 3 people

    • KAG2020 says:

      The POTUS Is CEO over the entire Executive Branch, including the DOJ. The AG position is really nothing more than legal advisor to POTUS. At least that’s how it began.

      The President is the Chief LEO of the land. The DOJ and AG aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.

      Trump can order arrests if he chooses.


  27. MostlyRight says:

    Those who know baseball knows there is nothing worse than an umpire who doesn’t call balls and strikes the same both both teams. It’s the only way to hold the game together and keep it civilized.

    A bench clearing brawl is coming if Barr doesn’t start calling the game fair.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. namberak says:

    “…. 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.” My respect meter just hit 0.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Mollie Hemingway: “The context is that disgruntled attorneys from the Robert Mueller special counsel recommended that Roger Stone by imprisoned for seven to nine years for lying to Congress and witness tampering. The notorious dirty trickster had apparently lied to Congress about something that was legal, and then encouraged a friend to not hurt him when he testified. A jury led by a rabid partisan and Russia collusion truther with open and sustained hostility to the Trump administration (really!) found him guilty a few months ago.

      The decision to prosecute the case was a curious one, since it’s not common to prosecute someone for lying to Congress, particularly with no underlying crime. The FBI and Justice Department have come under fire for allowing political friends to skate without charges for false statements while nailing political foes for lesser and less consequential problems.

      Prosecuting was one thing. Getting a guilty verdict thanks to a highly partisan jury was another. But recommending that the 67-year-old man with no prior convictions and not considered a risk for violence be sentenced to nine years in prison was another thing entirely.”

      That’s not “righteous”, Bob. That’s horse-shit.

      Liked by 3 people

      • btw, a Special Counsel could have been appointed for Gen. Flynn a year ago. Is this just to gum up the works now that it looks like the corrupt prosecutor is being exposed?

        Liked by 1 person

        • mimbler says:

          And block inconvenient questions due to an ongoing investigation.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Rhoda R says:

            And any special prosecutor would have to be approved by the Senate. Yeah, sure we need another SP.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Dutchman says:

              OUTSIDE PROSECUTOR. Nobody said SPECIAL. Ibelieve an “outside prisecutor” is someone who has not been involved in the csse heretofore, whocexamines all the filings, and facts in the case, with “fresh eyes”.

              Reading the text of Barrs interview, I think he is trying to create an exit ramp.
              “Sometimes prosecutors get TOO, caught up in a case, and get a little ‘overzealous’. They ‘lose perspective’.
              Mind you, we Want our prosecutors to be passionate (as opposed to ‘burned out’) and these prosecutions were ‘righteous’ but as I say, perhaps these prosecutors just got too emotionally invested.”
              So, nothing to see here, folks. Move on.
              The defendants either pled guilty (Flynn) or were found guilty (Stone) and so justice was served.
              Bondo Barr, at your service….


    • Rhoda R says:

      Yeah, that statement totally flipped my opinion of Barr as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  29. paintbrushsage says:

    POTUS can tweet whatever he wants! It’s all political. You better know what you are doing if you go to Washington DC and are not a Democrat.

    Medical emergencies and Milo Yiannopoulos: Roger Stone’s trial opens


    Jackson said she did not think that it was right to assume jurors who work for the federal government are “antithetical” to Trump.

    “At this point, Donald Trump is the chief executive of the federal government for whom these individuals work,” the judge said.

    Jackson also rebuffed the defense’s suggestion that anyone hostile to Trump or supportive of his political opponents not be accepted as a juror.

    “He is not charged with supporting Donald Trump for president. That is a lawful thing to do,” the judge said as she declared that simply having served in the Obama administration would not be considered disqualifying.



  30. ledygrey says:

    Isn’t the President his boss? I would NEVER criticize my boss in public. (Because if I did I would be out of a job the very next day)!

    Liked by 3 people

  31. Bogeyfree says:

    Anybody now thinking the possible reason for the 45 day pause until Barr’s testimony before HJC is to give the House time to draw up new Impeachment charges and Barr is their featured witness on 3/31?

    Liked by 1 person

    • luke says:

      There will be no more impeachment’s in 2020 I promise you. If I happen to be wrong that would be fantastic embrace it. The American people are growing tired of the Left’s cry wolf.

      Liked by 1 person

    • WES says:

      Bogeyfree:. Impeachment will continue non stop!

      November 2020 election will be rigged for Bloomberg.

      Bookies already have Bloomberg winning!


  32. X XYZ says:

    I thought that the media spun this to make Barr look bad. They didn’t. Actually this full, unedited interview shows Barr to be even more dismissive and less supportive of Trump’s policies. Barr just showed his true colors – and his unswerving allegiance to “his” department, uber alles.

    Here are a few observations and selected quotes from the interview.

    He mentions “guidance”. Apparently that is “kinder, gentler” swamp talk for what used to be called a rule or directive.

    “What do I do now? (Incredibly weak!)
    “Sacrosanct”… (Politics is a blood sport – not a Sunday church service!)
    Barr says the word “impossible” rather than “difficult”. (That’s a “tell”.)
    Then Barr voluntarily raises his own “hypothetical” situation. (Huh? Incredible! This is like handing the enemy ammo!)
    “No effect on what we do here…” (We are impervious to what presidents do. WE run this government, NOT the executive branch.)
    “I’m confused, too” (That statement SAYS IT ALL! Time to fire this dumb bastard!)
    “We, at the Department…” (This is Kafkaesque.)
    “We like our prosecutors” (You betcha!)
    “I want to get away from that” (Yeah. Time to go home, windbag. Same as Sessions.)

    Maybe Mr. Barr had a few drinks before this interview, that loosened his tongue. Good! No matter. We now know who he is, more than ever, revealed by his own words.

    Go back and read the whole transcript. That which I am quoting above *are* Barr’s words. Context matters little when he speaks such a volume of his defensive protectionism of his position and his bureaucratic turf.

    The turtle and the bagpiper are like tweddledee and tweedledum. Trump can fire the bagpiper, but he can’t fire the turtle – or, as was said, “those who pay the piper call the tune”.

    This is the problem. Apparently those in high levels of administration such as AG have to be approved by congress to fill the position. If Trump fires Barr, where will he find anyone who is better and subject to the approval of them, to take his place?

    Liked by 4 people

    • ledygrey says:

      Excellent analysis. Thank you.

      Liked by 1 person

      • X XYZ says:

        You’re welcome.

        Perhaps we should all contact AG Barr at his office and thank him for revealing himself in his own words, in many numerous ways.

        Can we quote you on what you said, Mr. Barr? No need to ask his permission. It’s like disrobing yourself in public, and having your naked backside on display. Perhaps we should point and laugh? There’s no law against that. At least not yet…

        Liked by 1 person

  33. luke says:

    IDK fellers….all I will say 2 things:
    1…Thank God for Twitter ….yuck but seriously
    2…We need to kick ass 2020 election.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. Bogeyfree says:

    Maybe now at PT’s next rally can we chant……….

    We Want Sidney

    Dump Barr & Wray

    Liked by 2 people

    • gunrunner03 says:

      Bring her in now. Make her a special assistant to the President responsible for oversight of the DoJ and the FBI. The Justice Czar!


  35. MFM says:

    Wake me when Sidney Powell is AG, until; then kabuki theatre..POTUS gets it..


  36. Phflipper says:

    After reading the transcript my impression is Barr flat out told the judge in the Stone trial to sentence away at will. Another impression, the deep state believes they have found a way to fracture the President’s base over his use of tweets.

    Liked by 2 people

  37. waicool says:

    hey maybe if we all be quiet and wait forever bill barr might decide to do his job and enforce the law


  38. Lulu says:

    Barr is utterly corrupt. He wants to sentence innocent people to death in prison while felons work at the DOJ. May he and that reporter both rot in hell.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Steve says:

    Nobody should be surprised about Barr. Anybody who the DS allows to get through Committee isn’t going to get the job done. Unfortunately, we need someone who can’t get through.

    It’s like a substitute teacher trying to discipline students. No fear.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. AnotherView says:

    Very clear to me in this interview that Barr reports to no one. Furthermore, he doesn’t even like or communicate with the the President. Arrogant establishment shill. So he’s ‘happy’ Stone was convicted, yet wishy-washy about sentencing—-what a load of shit. Barr has done absolutely NOTHING to support Trump’s agenda. He declined to prosecute Comey with no explanation, closed Epstein’s death with no explanation, has not declassified the docs Trump handed to him, and now let McCabe off the hook to show Trump who’s really in charge. I loathe this establishment fat hog.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. rigst4 says:

    Wow. Just wow. I didn’t read every word because I just can’t take that much stress all in one day. But in 2 parts of the interview, Barr says he doesn’t like Roger Stone and was very happy Stone was convicted. That’s pretty biased. And it really doesn’t sound like anybody found the 7 to 9 year sentence as outrageous. They wanted 7 to 9 years. And then Barr talks about all the integrity of his office and how fair and impartial the DOJ is. So, where is the integrity in regard to letting Comey, McCabe, Clinton and all the others off scott free? And Barr doesn’t even know about why these lawyers involved in the Stone case were quitting and didn’t talk to them but hopes most of them stay in their positions???? Barr doesn’t even know that these lawyers punked him and how badly they got him. He thinks everybody in the DOJ is a fine, upstanding person.

    Well, there it is. Barr is there to totally whitewash everything. He might just be hapless and clueless, with the deep state using him but I think he’s complicit. The way things are, if Barr really was a decent, righteous crusader who would take Trump’s side, Congress never would have allowed Barr to be confirmed. Yes Barr wrote an opinion that sounded like he was on Trump’s side but perhaps that was a trap laid for Trump.

    Nothing will come from the Durham report. Nothing. And Western District of PA looking into Ukraine corruption and the Bidens? The democrat rot in Pittsburgh is extremely deep. Nothing will come of that, either.

    Sad. I can’t even imagine how, at this point, President Trump could find anyone competent and honest, but this is way past the point where he should appoint an independent/special prosecutor to examine EVERYTHING at the DOJ.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Magabear says:

    First, I’m glad to hear Levin, as well as others, say that both Barr and PDJT are right in their own opinions as to the tweets. PDJT is right to criticize some of the nonsense going on with things like the Stone sentencing, but I get Barr’s side of that too.

    That being said, Barr has to know that those four prosecutors sandbagged him. There was no miscommunication issue at play here, those persecutors, I mean prosecutors, planned this out well in advance. If they hadn’t resigned, they should’ve been fired.

    If I were advising PDJT, I’d simply tell him to not say much about the Stone case, and at the first instance that he can, pardon Stone. The whole trial should be voided due to the judges clear political bias as well as the bias of some of the jurors. I wouldn’t be suprised if this judge gave Stone more than 7 to 9 years if she has a say in it.

    And I had to laugh at the interviewers “the contriversial” AG Barr blurb. No, controversial is Eric “Wingman” Holder.

    Liked by 2 people

    • X XYZ says:

      “We like our prosecutors”

      Liked by 1 person

    • mimbler says:

      He wasn’t sandbagged. He is still defending them and pretending that he doesn’t know their status. If he were sandbagged, they would already be fired/transferred, and repudiated.

      Liked by 1 person

      • zorrorides says:

        mimbler, TY. These four prosecutors assigned to Stone’s case all resign from the case as the DOJ government law representatives – without permission – without conference – with no notice at all – and yet they expect to keep their government pay –

        and AG Barr didn’t even have one notion that the employees should be terminated immediately.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          The four prosecutors have no doubt already metcwith schiffs lawfare staff, to begin rehearsing their testimony, for the next impeachment debacle.

          They resigned in protest, because of a tweet. Barr says PDJT ‘s tweets make it impossible to do his job; there you are, “Obstruction of Justice.


      • Magabear says:

        That’s kinda what I was saying. Barr has to know he was set up but is acting like he doesn’t know what happened. He knows what they’re up to, don’t see why he feels he can’t acknowledge that right now.

        Liked by 1 person

        • mimbler says:

          I’m keeping an open mind, but I’m not discarding the possibility that he isn’t on our side. Time will tell, and fairly shortly IMO.


  43. Johnny Dollar says:

    What gets me is him saying he doesn’t know why his prosecutors resigned.

    At the same time he says his prosecutors screwed up the sentencing with the 7 to 9 year crap.

    He doesn’t seem to want to put 2 and 2 together and say – well maybe , just maybe, his prosecutors hate Trump and this is one of the ways they get to hurt him.

    “I don’t know why they resigned.” What a crock.

    Bromide, maybe, but true, IMO – there is more going on here than meets the eye.

    Liked by 2 people

    • gda53 says:

      If he accuses them of something scummy then that opens a whole can of worms.

      He knows – he’s just not going to open that can for the MSM.

      Good move. Not sure why you find it peculiar.

      Liked by 2 people

    • X XYZ says:

      “We like our prosecutors”


    • Orbanista says:

      ‘“I don’t know why they resigned.” What a crock.’

      He knows they resigned in order to make it appear that there was some kind of undue political influence at work, and he agreed to do the interview in order to undercut their narrative. Should we expect him to say this out loud?


  44. Laurie Walker says:

    Barr said “at the end of the day” which in my opinion is Washington speak for nothing is going to change.

    MSM “opinion makers” use it a lot.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. ChampagneReady says:

    There is not an honest television news network left that I trust except OAN. Fox included.

    Fox has slid right in the gutter compared to what it used to be. OAN is ROCK SOLID and a lot more viewers need to know this network exists.

    All ABC was doing in their interview and editing it was trying to pick the corn out of the you-know-what.

    Liked by 2 people

  46. MustangBlues says:

    Good Example:

    President Trump constantly gets the sneaky corrupt snakes and moles to reveal themselves in their self righteousness, and proclamations about morality, legal theory and right side of history.

    So AG Barr now is pontificating about the core of law and separation functions in government as a theory, puffy boy cute intellectualization, joining the cadre of don’t tweet no more pres Trump, cause you make us look like fools and the uniparty does not like it.

    Trust President Trump: all the rest is just distraction and pearl clutching gaslighting—they are not as smart as they think they are, ie, lawfare fixated 13 year old too kewl for school clique boys are their a-team.

    Soon come The Reckoning; the question is, once the rule of law can be anything the elite decides, can lawfare boys and girls street fight? Will the communist democrats call on the bloods and the crips and la raza to sacrifice themselves for ivy league sweet meat.


  47. lobolouie says:

    I have lost all respect for the DOJ and the FBI – and that is terrible to live in my country. Trump tweets at times when he should not, but Barr shows disrespect for the person who appointed him. Like the rest of the swamp, he feels he is running the country. Sadly I expect nothing from any of the special investigations. Meantime, any Republican will be prosecuted and any Democrat will be let free to draw a pension, write books, and become a commentator. Trump needs to come down hard on the DOJ in his second term.

    Liked by 2 people

    • noswamp says:

      Well said my friend. I too think about Trump’s second term. It will be historic! And it also will be without Barr and Wray. An AG showing disrespect to POTUS is truly amazing, almost as if it were choreographed. Could you imagine Loretta Lynch disrespecting Obama like that?

      Barr’s statements were so way over the top that I am wondering here if this is kubuki theater. Don’t forget, McConnell came out right afterwards supporting Barr’s trashing of the President as well. Too coincidental, then look at McCabe, Lisa Page toasting to him, and what you have are folks quite confident that nothing will happen to them.

      I fear for the country.


      • lobolouie says:

        I also fear for the country. If Trump does what he needs to do after the election we will be in for stormy times before a calm arrives. Tighten seat belts


  48. sabreman30 says:

    They live in NW, Georgetown, Capitol Hill, Bethesda / Chevy Chase, McClean, Great Falls and run in the same circles. There is no hope.


  49. Redeemed says:

    I like Bongino’s take, it makes sense to deflect media outrage towards Barr to butt kissing Barr all while setting things up for law and order which means some level of equal justice. I hate tick tock but this is the most sensitive set of circumstances that I ever witnessed. Folks that are getting off like…McCabe, Wolf, Comey just may be cooperating. I’m sure I’m in the minority in this but I still have hope that somebody goes down hard for this!


    • mimbler says:

      Nope, doesn’t make sense when he defends the persecution of stone while exonerating McCabe. He is what he appears to be,

      Liked by 4 people

      • Dutchman says:

        When someone tells you who they are, SHOWS you who they are, BELIEVE them.
        He sounds just like the House witnesses, from the State Dept, that believe THEY set foreign policy.

        Also sounds like that EU hag, when Farage waived goodbye. He should have a G tattooed to his forehead, for Globalist.

        He knows his Justice Depts unequal administration of Justice has exposed him, and his ‘wait for Durham’isn’t working.
        He and his masters know he is out, Nov 4th. He managed to close down the Mueller fiasco, after it imploded.

        And, he has managed to postpone any accountability, but his days are numbered.

        So, try to get PDJT to fire you, so we can peach 45 for Obstruction.
        That play,… AGAIN.

        Liked by 5 people

        • noswamp says:

          Never thought about that angle! Makes sense! And yes I agree with you come November Wray and Barr and hopefully all our AGs and dozens of staff at DOJ and FBI and elsewhere are out. They could be rehired, but at least lets see principled folks start to work at the DOJ. Folks that leave their political opinions at the door.


        • Mad Mike says:

          I’m with you Dutch… all I know is that under Barr’s watch, bad guys walk or die in custody (without question).

          The man is telling us he doesn’t want a politicized DOJ while that appears to be exactly what we’ve had and move forward with… he can say what he wants but actions speak so much louder than words.

          I guess we’re just not smart enough out here on Main Street to understand the complexities of these things. Declining to prosecute select (liberal) cases while throwing the book at others (Trump affiliates) isn’t always what it appears I suppose.

          I think it’s a bad idea to place our trust in these professional liars.

          I’m not impressed and I have no confidence in him. Even if ABC did their usual hatchet job on the interview, the transcript still pisses me off.


          • Dutchman says:

            Yup, he’s giving us a handjob, jerking us off, or around.
            Crude talk, yes. But sometimes crude talk just communicates and idea in ways that eloquent elocution can’t.

            Same with the tweets. This is something we rubes grasp, instinctively.


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