Bill Barr Testifies He’s Unfamiliar with the Obstruction Portion of the Mueller Report

I’m just finishing up the Bill Barr testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. While it wasn’t useful at eliciting new information, Barr did not succeed at filibustering over questions he wanted to ignore. Jim Jordan, whose favorite tactic is to scream and refuse to let witnesses answer questions, four times complained that Democrats had insisted on reclaiming their time when Barr tried to filibuster.

Democrats didn’t nail Barr on some of his key lies. For example, as he did in his written testimony, he complained that protestors were endangering federal judges; yet Democrats let him get away with the lie — which he yelled over and over — that Amy Berman Jackson agreed with his view on the Stone sentencing. The reality is ABJ very pointedly disagreed with Barr’s decision that Stone should not be punished for threatening her.

The headline of the hearing, though, should be that, now that he’s finally testifying under oath, Barr backed off his claim — made when releasing the Mueller Report — that the White House fully cooperated with the Mueller investigation. [This is about 45 minutes before the end.]

Joe Neguse: I want to go through a couple of your prior statements. On April 19–or, excuse me, April 18 of 2019, you stated that the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation. You’re aware of that?

Barr: Umm hmm.

Neguse: Today, yes or no Mr. Barr with the penalty of perjury, do you testify that that statement was true at the time you made it?

Barr: I thought it to be true at the time I made it. Why isn’t it true–

Neguse: I’ll get to that Mr. Barr.

Barr: Does it have to do with quibbling over–

Neguse: Mr. Barr, I’ll get to that, reclaiming my time, you answered the question. I have another question for you. On June 19, of 2020,

Barr: Actually, I have to answer that question.

Neguse: Mr. Barr, you did answer that question.

Barr: No, you said under penalty of perjury. I’m going to answer the damn question.

Neguse: You said the answer was yes. Are you saying no?

Barr: I think what I was referring to — and I’d have to see the context of it — was the supplying of documents.

Neguse: No, Mr. Attorney General, the statement was not limited to the supply of documents. You stated it at a press — Mr. Attorney General —

Barr: I think that’s that I was talking about —

Neguse: Reclaiming my time —

Barr: I think that’s what I was talking about —

Neguse: Reclaiming my time. You stated at a press conference on April 19, 2019 that the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation. You knew, when you made that statement, that the President had not agreed to be interviewed by the Special Counsel.

Barr: I think that was subsequently —

Neguse: Now on June 18th of this year —

Barr: I was referring to —

Neguse: Mr. Attorney General, I was referring to

Barr: The production of documents —

Neguse: Mr. Attorney General, on June 18th of this year, the Department of Justice issued a statement saying that Mr. Berman, the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, had quote, “stepped down.” You’re aware of that statement being released by the department, correct?

Barr: Yes.

Neguse: And do you testify today that that statement was true, at the time the Department issued it?

Barr: Um, he may not have known it, but he was stepping down.

Neguse: He may not have known that he was stepping down? That’s your testimony today?

Barr: He was being removed.

Neguse: Mr. Attorney General. The statement did not say he was being removed. It did not say he was being fired. It said that he was stepping down.

But I think the far more damning testimony from the Attorney General is that he is not familiar with the obstruction part of the Mueller Report.

Eric Swalwell had this exchange with Barr:

Swalwell: Mr. Barr, have you ever intervened other than to help the President’s friend get a reduced prison sentence for any other case where a prosecutor had filed a sentencing recommendation with a court?

Barr: A sentencing recommendation?

Swalwell: Yeah. Have you ever intervened, other than that case with the President’s friend?

Barr: Not that I recall–

Swalwell: Does that seem like something you’d recall? Where you would–

Barr: Well, I’m saying I can’t really remember my first — if you let me finish the question, I can’t remember thirty years ago I was Attorney General.

Swalwell: As Attorney General now?

Barr: Uh, no, I didn’t. But that’s because issues come up to the Attorney General in a dispute and I’ve never [starts yelling] I’VE NEVER HEARD OF A DISPUTE … I’VE NEVER HARD OF A DISPUTE WHERE LINE PROSECUTORS–

Swalwell: Mr. Attorney– Mr. Attorney–

Barr: [still yelling] THREATEN TO QUIT —

Swalwell: Well it’s a pretty big deal–

Barr: Because of a discussion over sentencing–

Swalwell: Mr. Barr, Americans from both parties are concerned that in Donald Trump’s America there are two systems of justice. One for Mr. Trump and his cronies. And another for the rest of us. But that can only happen if you enable it. At your confirmation hearing, you were asked, “Do you believe a President could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?

Barr: Not to what?

Swalwell: You said, “That would be a crime.” You were asked, could a President issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him, and you responded, “no, that would be a crime.” Is that right?

Barr: Yes, I said that.

Swalwell: You said “a crime.” You didn’t say, “it’d be wrong,” you didn’t say, “it’d be unlawful.” You said, “it’d be a crime.” And when you said that, that a President swapping a pardon to silence a witness would be a crime, you were promising the American people that if you saw that, you would do something about that, is that right?

Barr: That’s right.

Swalwell: Now, Mr. Barr, are you investigating Donald Trump for commuting the prison sentence of his long-time friend and political advisor Roger Stone?

Barr: No.

Swalwell: Why not?

Barr: Why should I?

Swalwell: Well, let’s talk about that. Mr. Stone was convicted by a jury on 7 counts of lying on the Russian investigation. He bragged that he lied to save Trump’s butt. But why would he lie? Your prosecutors, Mr. Barr, told a jury that Stone lied because the truth looked bad for Donald Trump. And what truth is that? Well, Donald Trump denied in written answers to the Russia investigators that he talked to Roger Stone during the time that Roger Stone with in contact with Agents of a Russian influence operation. There’s evidence that Trump and Stone indeed did talk during that time. You would agree that it’s a federal crime to lie under oath, is that right?

Barr: Yes.

Swalwell: It’s a crime for you, it’s a crime for me, and it’s certainly a crime for the President of the United States. Is that right?

Barr: Yes.

Swalwell: So if Donald Trump lied to the Mueller investigators, which you agree would be a crime, then Roger Stone was in a position to expose Donald Trump’s lies. Are you familiar with the December 3rd, 2018 tweet, where Donald Trump said Stone had showed “guts” by not testifying against him?

Barr: No, I’m not familiar with that.

Swalwell: You don’t read the President’s tweets?

Barr: No!

Swalwell: Well, there’s a lot of evidence in the President’s tweets, Mr. Attorney General, I think you should start reading them, because he said Mr. Stone, “showed guts,” but on July 10 of this year, Roger Stone declared to a reporter, “I had 29 or 30 conversations with Trump during the campaign period. Trump knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t. The prosecutors wanted me to play Judas, I refused.” Are you familiar with that Stone statement?

Barr: Actually I’m not.

Swalwell: So how can you sit here and tell us, why should I investigate the President of the United States,” if you’re not even aware of the facts concerning the President using the pardon or commutation power to swap the silence of a witness?

Barr: Because we require, you know, a reliable predicate before we open a criminal investigation.

Swalwell: And I just gave you, sir–

Barr: I don’t consider it, I consider it a very Rube, uh, Goldberg theory that you have —

Swalwell: Well it sounds like you’re hearing this theory for the first time.

Barr: And by the way if apply this standard it’d be a lot, it’d be a lot more people under investigation.

Swalwell: Mr. Attorney General, the very same day that Roger Stone said that Donald Trump — no surprise — commuted his

Barr: The two tiered standards of justice were really during the tail end of the Obama Administration.

Barr may well be unfamiliar with Trump’s December 3, 2018 tweet.

Let’s take his testimony as truth.

If that’s true, than Barr is also unfamiliar with the Obstruction portion of the Mueller Report. In passages just recently declassified by Billy Barr’s DOJ, the Mueller Report laid out how the back-and-forth between Stone and Trump might be evidence of obstruction.

As described above, in an interview on November 28, 2018, one week after submitting his written answers, the President criticized “flipping” and said that Stone (along with Manafort and Corsi) was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors.897 On December 2, 2018, Stone told the press that there was “no circumstance” under which he would “testify against the president.”898 He also said he had had no discussions about a pardon.899 On December 3, 2018, the President tweeted, “‘I will never testify against Trump.’ This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about ‘President Trump.’ Nice to know that some people still have ‘guts!’”900

On January 24, 2019, a grand jury indicted Stone on charges of obstruction, witness tampering, and making false statements.901 One of the counts charged Stone with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for testifying falsely in Congress that he had never told anyone involved in the Trump Campaign about discussions he was having during the campaign with an individual who acted as an intermediary between him and Assange.902 After making an initial court appearance on January 25, 2019, Stone told reporters, “There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies to ease the pressure on myself. . . . I will not testify against the President, because I would have to bear false witness.”903

That evening, Stone appeared on Fox News and indicated he had knowledge of the President’s answers to this Office’s written questions. When asked if he had spoken to the President about the allegation that he had lied to Congress, Stone said, “I have not” and added, “When the President answered the written interrogatories, he correctly and honestly said Roger Stone and I never discussed this and we never did.”904


Finally, there is evidence that the President’s actions towards Stone had the potential to affect a decision about cooperating with the government. After Stone publicly announced that he would never provide evidence against the President’s interests, the President called Stone “very brave” and said he had “guts!” for not “testify[ing] against Trump.”


With regard to the President’s conduct towards Stone, there is evidence that the President intended to reinforce Stone’s public statements that he would not cooperate with the government when the President likely understood that Stone could potentially provide evidence that would be adverse to the President. By late November 2018, the President had provided written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office in which the President said he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign period and did not recall discussing WikiLeaks with Stone. Witnesses have stated, however, that candidate Trump discussed WikiLeaks with Stone, that Trump knew that Manafort and Gates had asked Stone to find out what other damaging information about Clinton WikiLeaks possessed, and that Stone’s claimed connection to WikiLeaks was common knowledge within the Campaign. It is possible that, by the time the President submitted his written answers two years after the relevant events had occurred, he no longer had clear recollections of his discussions with Stone or his knowledge of Stone’s asserted communications with WikiLeaks. But the President’s conduct could also be viewed as reflecting his awareness that Stone could provide evidence that would run counter to the President’s denials and would link the President to Stone’s efforts to reach out to WikiLeaks. On November 28, 2018, eight days after the President submitted his written answers to the Special Counsel, the President criticized “flipping” and said that Stone was “very brave” for not cooperating with prosecutors. Five days later, on December 3, 2018, the President applauded Stone for having the “guts” not to testify against him. These statements, as well as those complimenting Stone and Manafort while disparaging Michael Cohen once Cohen chose to cooperate, support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President and disparaged if they chose to cooperate.

The December 3, 2018 tweet was a key part of Mueller’s case that Trump’s discussion of pardons for Roger Stone were an effort to get him to be silent about the fact that Trump had lied (not just about talking about WikiLeaks, but also about a pardon for Julian Assange).

This was a key part of the Mueller Report’s analysis of the obstruction case against Trump.

And Billy Barr testified today, under oath, he’s not familiar with it.

It’s not just that Barr disclaims familiarity about Trump’s tweets (though his testimony was inconsistent about whether he saw the one claiming Stone’s sentence was unfair). It seems to be the case that Barr testified that he’s not familiar with the obstruction portion of the Mueller investigation.

And yet, the Attorney General claims to have reviewed that and concluded — for reasons that have nothing to do with DOJ’s policy that a President can’t be indicted — Trump did not commit obstruction.

In other words, the Attorney General’s sworn testimony as of today is that he’s not familiar with the obstruction case against Trump and — arguably — never read it, or at least is unfamiliar with the case it lays out about why, if Trump gave Stone clemency, it would be a crime.

59 replies
  1. Peterr says:

    On the “Idiot – Crook” spectrum, Barr certainly appears to be moving toward the Crook end of things.

  2. Rugger9 says:

    I think enough to impeach was dug out today, but it took a while. Now Pelosi needs to do what needs to be done.

    • BobCon says:

      She won’t, and I’d be surprised if she tries to do anything next session of Congress whether Trump loses or wins either.

      If Trump loses the House will be in a much stronger position to force appearances and gain evidence in the pursuit of legislation to crack down on Trump era abuses if power, but she will insist on her vague idea of moving foward, or else starve investigators of the resources needed to dig.

    • ButteredToast says:

      If impeachment were the plan, wouldn’t it have made sense to first call (before today) the individuals Aaron Zelinsky testified as having told him of “heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice to cut Stone a break”? I recall that it was Gym Jordan who elicited their names, strangely enough. (No snark intended, genuine question.)

  3. CapeCodFisher says:

    So, it all hinges on the “predicate” that Swalwell laid out being valid or invalid? But Barr isn’t familiar with the events pertaining to it? Swalwell really had him cornered. Backed Barr into admitting he wasn’t looking at the case against Don. Funny seeing an attorney general raising his voice in his attempts to get the last word in, and trying to make it into a partisan punchline.

    I guess the “predicate” needs to be examined and argued, like these lawyers do. What does that do? Trigger further investigation? Then another stonewall by Barr?

    I think people are tired of not getting answers, from trump and on down. What are we going to do without answers?

    Is leadership typically not expected to answer to its citizens? Have previous admins been so opaque? What happened to “we’re going to have the most transparent administration ever”? Lied about corrupt govt and coverup. Definitely not American.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Funny thing how Bill Barr was so derisive about the threatening quality of Roger Stone’s threats. If I recall correctly, he mentioned it wasn’t as if Stone had acted like some mafia don, threatening to kill a guy’s dog, where that would understood as a threat against the guy or his family. But it’s Bill Barr who sounds like a mafia don, who remembers his consigliere’s advice about how not to commit perjury during his testimony before the Kefauver Committee: “I have no recollection of that, Senator.”

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Trump says he plans to give about $750 million taxpayer dollars to the remnant of once famous Kodak, so that it can launch a new pharmaceutical business. WTF is that about? If it’s real, what strings are attached, what company and IP ownership and royalty-free use rights does the USG obtain for that kind of money? How much will Kodak let Trump wet his beak? The whole thing reeks of stupidity, abuse, and corruption. The price of letting Trump dominate the news cycle is national ignorance and impoverishment.

    • Eureka says:

      Yes, ‘What’s the skim?’ and ‘What does Trump want in/from (or owe) Rochester?’ came to mind. That was the most puzzling of today’s events, also handled poorly by MSM chyron writers announcing ~ “BREAKING: Trump activates DPA !” Oh. Not for the big picture — reagent, swabs, meltblown fabric, or other essentials to public health, testing, PPE, and such — but for Kodak to get in the game?!?!?!?!?!?


      • Vicks says:

        Kodak closed Monday at $2.62 and opened Tuesday at $9.63.
        The stock hit it’s high of $11.79 at about 10:05 am. I wasn’t watching the hearing but I did hear that Barr kept checking his phone this am. Perhaps this explains it?
        I don’t see anything on Kodak’s loan/plans on entering the drug biz before Trump made his announcement later in the afternoon.
        Am I missing something?
        If not, could there be a more obvious display of insider trading?
        Perhaps it will all be explained with more reporting tomorrow..

        • BobCon says:

          One of the things that Kodak has done since its fall, like Polaroid, is selling the rights to its name which other companies use to rebadge their own products for a bump in brand recognition. For what it’s worth.

          I’m wondering if that is what is going on.The startup time for pharmaceutical labs is extremely long.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            It makes no sense. Kodak, after discarding its people and liabilities through a lengthy bankruptcy, has sold its principal assets. What remains is a creature of private equity, a naked marketing arm with a once-famous trademark. There’s no substance. That makes it a distraction and a cut-out. And $750 million is real money: it’s a year’s worth of $600/week emergency unemployment benefits for 25,000 people.

            If you wanted the FG to create a TVA-like exemplar in the pharmaceutical industry – and have it acquire rights or assets in return – or if you wanted to assure the domestic production and distribution of a given drug, this is a textbook example of how NOT to do it. It reeks of Jared Kushner corruption.

          • vicks says:

            Information isn’t exactly flowing on this story so it’s a tough one
            IMHO it’s a good idea to have an American company be the main producer of the drugs Americans consume, and I would like to think that cutting big pharma out this opportunity is leverage that will be used to help Americans battle the high cost of health care….but then I remembered that this is the Trump administration..
            At the close of business Friday (July 24) the Trump Administration announced that the president “took historic action” to lower drugs prices,
            It’s not going to take a genius to connect Friday’s signing of executive orders to what ever is going on with this Kodak deal.
            What are the odds that Trump has everyone chasing thier tails over what will happen if he refuses to leave office to distract from the much more Trump-like strategy of cut-and-run?

            • bmaz says:

              Why in the world would anybody buy one of these with a far superior digital camera in every cell phone??

              • Geoguy says:

                Doesn’t make sense to me but the kids love it. The film usually is smaller and rectangular. Kids even email digital photos to a website that will print the photos as if they were polaroids. The Kodak thing sounds like the classic pump and dump. Kodak Park is basically empty with a huge environmental contamination legacy.

                • bmaz says:

                  Yeah, I guess. But, dang, we still had an old one and I just laughed and chucked it in the trash a little while back.

                • Eureka says:

                  About those Superfund* sites (and besides whatever is going on with the stock)– I couldn’t help but notice that cleanup costs for same will have been rendered “externalities” once more with this deal, almost like a reimbursement+: a strange form of laundering where the taxpayer “pays” the company’s portion of cleanup costs, by taking them off the books in a different way.

                  Manhattan U.S. Attorney And EPA Announce Agreement With Eastman Kodak Company For Clean Up Of Rochester, New York, Business Park And The Genesee River
                  Kodak Also To Pay For Liability At Superfund Sites In New York And New Jersey
                  Wednesday, March 12, 2014 [Updated May 13, 2015]

                  Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, announced today that the United States has entered into settlement agreements with EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY (“KODAK”) that resolve environmental claims and liabilities asserted by the United States against Kodak. After Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on January 19, 2012 […] The first settlement resolves environmental liabilities at the Eastman Business Park in Rochester, New York, which is a hazardous waste site regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). The second settlement resolves liabilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (also known as the Superfund law) at the Mercury Refining Superfund site in Colonie and Guilderland, New York, and the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund site in Fair Lawn, New Jersey.

                  There’s also some gobbledygook about ~ figuring out a plan for investigating impacts on~ the Genesee River…

                  *Rochester site is RCRA — the three others are ‘Superfund’. But if the colloquialism fits…

                • P J Evans says:

                  We used B&W Polaroids in college physics for the air-table stuff, when we did classical mechanics. I also had a job where I took Polaroid pics of parts for QA, and fast B&W for duplicating X-rays of parts. They were useful. (I don’t think that company has been around for a long time – no loss IMO – and that’s probably all done with digital pics now.)

  6. Savage Librarian says:

    Remember when Trump “activated” Barr and told governors to “dominate” peaceful protesters, only a couple of months ago? Doesn’t this clearly show that Trump actually does tell Barr and others what to do, regardless of whether or not they follow through on Trump’s demands. Shouldn’t this be something Barr should explain?

    “Trump Urges Governors to ‘Arrest’ and ‘Track People,’ Threatens to ‘Activate’ Bill Barr in Crackdown on Violence” – Aaron Keller, Law & Crime, 6/1/20

    “In a phone call to state governors, President Donald Trump on Monday issued a series of harshly worded comments to governors nationwide…”
    “You have to dominate, if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time,” Trump reportedly said regarding nationwide civil unrest…”
    …”We will activate Bill Barr and activate him very strongly,” Trump reportedly said. It’s not immediately clear what the activation of Attorney General Bill Barr would [be] like or entail.”

    “Trump then reportedly went further by telling governors: “You’ve got to arrest people, you have to track people, you have to put them in jail for 10 years and you’ll never see this stuff again.”

  7. Eureka says:

    I have a joke about four-day-old fish, but I lost my sense of smell.

    Too soon? Baseball? Buehller?

    The Gentleladies from Pennsylvania:

    Scanlon’s (@RepMGS) full segment is here:

    Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon: “AG Barr has been repeating false conspiracy theories peddled by the President to cast doubt on voting-by-mail. The President has voted by mail and so has AG Barr. When I asked him if he had any evidence to back up these claims, Barr said, under oath, “no.” [video]”

    Dean (@RepDean) — who Barr quite calculatedly and disrespectfully interrupted for a “break” to regroup with his bros — has clips here:

    Congresswoman Madeleine Dean: “AG Barr didn’t seem to like my questions, but he outright admitted that peaceful protestors will be met with chemical irritants and force. “It’s a very important, non-lethal option.” Take your disdain up with the First Amendment and the right to peacefully assemble.”

    Aaron Rupar: “Bill Barr can barely conceal his disdain for @RepDean [video thread]”

    • Eureka says:

      Barr to Dean on his definition of “not peaceful”, via bmaz retweet:

      Elizabeth Joh: “This is an interesting standard.”

      Tal Kopan: ““When people resist law enforcement, they’re not peaceful,” Barr says, in saying pepper balls are an important tactic against “rioters.””

      Tal Kopan: “Barr further adds that such tactics (like pepper balls/tear gas) are deployed against “rioters or in situations where protesters are not following police directions.””

      *^ Bueller, ek.

      • P J Evans says:

        So all those videos of people being attacked by unmarked armed guys aren’t what we’re actually seeing. We’re also not really seeing unmarked guys grabbing people right off the street and shoving them into unmarked vans.
        When was the last time Barr made a *full* confession before receiving the Eucharist?

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          Oh, SNAP !!

          A hit below the belt for an Opus Dei member. I’m sure he wears a hair shirt, under that rumpled suit, for penitence.

        • Eureka says:

          It’s really crazy, the gaslighting attempts. But then again that’s why Fox, Sinclair, et al. want to take over so we know not what we don’t ever see. Apparently it’s effective on certain GOP officials, enough so that they can rock themselves to sleep at night.

          I’m torn about how he’d respond in confession, whenever the last has taken place. On one hand he may find himself above that authority structure just like he finds himself above the constitution (or moreso its earthly “receiver” of “truths” from those founders in heaven and all. Kind of like a high priest of dowsing). On the other hand, he does cow to proper authoritative handling (e.g. Scanlon questioning), and he hates Dean so much in part because, like Pelosi, she is a public Catholic disdainful of the warping by him/OD/FedSoc nutters (in my read). Guess it depends on the priest, or whatever ‘arrangement’ they have set up at their power-broker church.

          Barr’s ethics might just be determined by “externalities” after all. Sad.

      • Yohei72 says:

        Sometimes I feel like it makes me naïve or something like that, to splutter and fume over things like this. Then I remember Masha Gessen’s admonition about the necessity of maintaining one’s capacity for outrage as autocratic governments work to dull that sense by piling up the outrages.

        So, fuck this police state rhetoric. Any resistance to or disobedience of police is, ipso facto, violence, and therefore merits a violent response from the police?

        Fuck. This. Fuck it twelve times forwards and thirteen times backwards.

        Did any Dem point out the constitutionally oblivious nature of this claim? To say nothing of how colossally dangerous it is?

        • Eureka says:

          Well Dean did, probably others did or have. Part of the point of Dean’s questioning was about harm (including blunt force trauma of the cs pellets, as per DOJ document) to peaceful protesters, and speaking afterwards she emphasized that Barr says all this *as John Lewis is lying in state.*

          They’ve got his number — lots of HJCers and others have long had his number, oh those wistful Baby Mueller Report days when actual impeachment (of perhaps both) was not yet entirely “constrained”, shall we say — problem is what are they going to do about it? I will be pleasantly surprised if it is anything more substantive than a “censure”, though I hold my breath for nothing [I feel a *censure coming on, as that’s what leadership might approve of, but that is just my read].

          *Eh, make that “talk of a censure.” Sigh.

  8. BayStateLibrul says:

    Someone labeled yesterday’s hearings “codswallop”.
    Fuck, I had to look up the word, I thought it related to fishy or Cape Cod.
    No, it means nonsense.
    Take my word for it, the affair was much more than nonsensical.
    Jordan’s tactics and mudslinging were unnerving…. clowns and jokers to my right….
    The 5 minute rule, the lies, the theater, it was scandalous.

  9. biff murphy says:

    “It is possible that, by the time the President submitted his written answers two years after the relevant events had occurred, he no longer had clear recollections of his discussions with Stone or his knowledge of Stone’s asserted communications with WikiLeaks”

    I don’t know Marcy, this is the president who passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and has repeatedly told us of his “like good brain” and “I’m like cognitive” and can identify a camel! He aced MoCA and still remembers the words that he had been asked to remember in the right order: “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.” …./s

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Bill Barr “clashes” with House, “vigorously defended” administration’s response to protests. You’d think Bill was a member of the Round Table, defending Christendom. The NYT can find honorable people on any side of an argument (except when the Templars are fighting the Saracens), but it usually finds them working for the powers that be.

  11. harpie says:

    o/t via Laura Rosen
    11:32 AM · Jul 29, 2020

    BREAKING: The feds are withdrawing from Portland [NYT]

    Chad Wolf, the acting Homeland Security secretary, says the withdrawal will only proceed if feds are confident courthouse will be protected. The state has agreed to secure the courthouse. [screenshot]

    Here’s a [broken] twitter link to the screenshot:
    https:// twitter [.] com/ DHS_Wolf/status/1288497192962056193
    11:30 AM · Jul 29, 2020

    Here’s the statement:
    Acting Secretary Wolf’s Statement on Oregon Agreeing to Cooperate in Quelling Portland Violence
    July 29, 2020

    • harpie says:

      Also via Rosen, here is Governor Brown‘s version of events:
      11:31 AM · Jul 29, 2020

      After my discussions with VP Pence and others, the federal government has agreed to withdraw federal officers from Portland. They have acted as an occupying force & brought violence. Starting tomorrow, all Customs and Border Protection & ICE officers will leave downtown Portland.

      Our local Oregon State Police officers will be downtown to protect Oregonians’ right to free speech and keep the peace. Let’s center the Black Lives Matter movement’s demands for racial justice and police accountability. It’s time for bold action to reform police practices.

    • harpie says:

      Here’s Fox News at about 9:50am, via Aaron Rupar:
      9:54 AM · Jul 29, 2020

      Trump on Portland:

      “We’re not leaving until they secure their city … if they don’t secure their city soon, we have no choice — we’re gonna have to go in and clean it out.”

      The chyron on this segment:

      President Trump: “Federal officers not leaving Portland”


      • vvv says:

        Barr kept saying, and his cheerleaders may have reinforced, that the additional Fed security forces weren’t necessary if the Dem mayor and the governor were more effective re controlling the protests. I was hopeful (before trump’s predictable contradiction) that the mayor and governor successfully called that bluff.

  12. harpie says:

    Then, related to some of the questioning, yesterday, there’s this, but I can’t find a link to Schiff’s statement.
    12:03 PM · Jul 29, 2020

    Just in: House Intel Committee has voted to give all House members access to the classified addendum to the July 13, 2020 letter sent to the FBI director about foreign election interference by the Democratic members of the Gang of 8. [screenshot]

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Others here have more insight into health issues. But when a 74 year-old morbidly obese white male, who eats poorly, exercises little, and has an exceptionally high-stress job, drags his right leg in this delayed, semi-circular, rhythmic fashion, it might not be a sign of good health. In fact, neither leg looks good, his stride seems too short for his frame, and both feet seem flat.

    • AndTheSlithyToves says:

      Tom Joseph of Chicago has been tweeting/posting about Trump’s dementia since 2015, and I’ve been reading him since early 2018. With Trump’s “Man Woman Person Camera TV” pronouncements, it’s pretty clear that he is visibly off the rails neurologically and that there is an ongoing cover-up–his family, his so-called doctors, all his enables, etc.–of his accelerating physical and mental deterioration. If there is someone left who cares about him and has nothing to gain by getting him to submit to a full evaluation at Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins, he or she should do it. Pelosi knows he’s impaired and has since June of 2019.

  14. Jenny says:

    Thank you Marcy.

    Aaron Rupar on Twitter: 1:38 PM · Jul 28, 2020
    After Barr says he doesn’t read Trump’s incriminating tweets, @RepSwalwell tells him, “there’s a lot of evidence in the president’s tweets … you should read them.”


    Aaron Rupar on Twitter: 2:07 PM · Jul 28, 2020
    .@davidcicilline: Is it ever appropriate for a president to accept foreign assistance in an election?
    BARR: … it depends on the assistance

Comments are closed.