Quote (IceMage @ May 8 2019 05:30pm)
I haven't been following super closely, but the outrage over Barr seems a wee bit unfounded and/or extreme.
He and Mueller had a disagreement on what to publish initially. I understand both of their perspectives... Barr wanted to get something out ASAP regarding top-line conclusions, and redacting the executive summaries would've taken longer. But Mueller was right that the executive summaries would've helped to combat the dishonest narratives being put out by spinsters. There's no good reason to think that Barr's handling of the report is why the political pressure on Trump isn't tremendous. Republicans don't care what he does, his voters don't care what he does, and there's an election in 18 months.
As far as perjury, it just wasn't. Barr didn't lie, but he also wasn't fully transparent and honest, which doesn't bother me all that much.
Now the judiciary wants to hold him in contempt for not providing the whole unredacted report. But the reality is that Barr provided more of the report than I expected... it's basically the whole thing minus Roger Stone/some GJ stuff/some personal privacy stuff. There's no bombshell narratives under those redactions. Barr didn't have to publish so much of the report... and it's a credit to him that he did.
That said, Barr's minimization of the actions detailed in the report is troubling. He's not a Trump hack, but he views his role as more political than I would like.
Quote (IceMage @ May 9 2019 12:00pm)
It's a reference to Barr's press conference and Congressional testimony.
in the first 6 minutes barr speaks about russian interference. he does give ample reminder that trump and his campaign was not involved. viewing only the first 6 minutes, i can see that view-point.
after 6 minutes, he speaks more about trump and the cases involved. he gives a good amount of insight as to how different aspects of the decisions were made. (decisions not made only by barr)
he gives insight as to how decisions were reached on trump and obstruction. (again, by a team of people)
he kept things directly to the "conclusions" and the "legal views leading to decisions", but he "could" have started talking about the steele dossier used during that press conference since it is directly involved.
i'm not sure what you would expect him to say.
"we found him not guilty of the underlying crimes. this is why... now let me show you how to spin this into a criminal offence."?
barr is more partisan during the congressional hearing. both of them.if you watch those hearings though, you'll find he has reason for partisan testimony. the democratic judiciary made numerous false claims and wild assumptions about trump and his involvement, and then ask unrelated questions that only involve some of the keywords just said prior.
they are literally setting traps and bases for sound-bites.
i'll defend this point a bit later on if someone feels i should.