Yes, and a tip o’ the hat to Barr for doing so much to (apparently) advance the novel argument that Trump is absolved of any potential Obstruction charges because he was upset. I can certainly get behind that. “Yes officer, sure I shot that guy on the freeway, but I was upset because he cut me off. Am I free to go?”
I am reminded of one of Asimov’s Black Widowers stories where the guest has a psychological compulsion to tell the truth and repeatedly declares, with regard to a crime of which he is suspected, “I did not take the cash or the bonds.”
I’m conflicted when I hear Barr say things like “we are not exonerating the president” or “we didn’t find enough evidence for conviction”. I mean, I know that he’s just doing CYA (and being lawyery in general) but the part of me that tries to look for the good in people wants to think that even he can’t unequivocally defend The Trump.
It’s why Barr didn’t testify before the House judiciary committee today, as he would have been facing expert committee staff lawyers framing questions in such a way that he would not be able to find a way of wriggling out of.
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, started eating a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken at 9 a.m. while lawmakers and the press waited to see if Barr would show up on the Hill. Cohen then left the bucket — along with a ceramic chicken — on the table where Barr would have sat.
(A few must see pictures at the link.)
Way to get the whole mess taken seriously, idiot!
I approve this pitting and stand in awe and admiration at the restraint shown in the OP. I have trouble not thinking about this guy and his boss and a handful of their cohorts in terms of torches, pitchforks, ropes, and augers.
“Look, I’m not saying that someone should rid me of this Troublesome Priest, I’m just saying it would be a great thing, you know? We’re just tossing ideas around here!”
I’m not going to condemn anyone who admits to having had a lapse of judgement about this administration. But going forward, it would be nice if we could all acknowledge the irrefutable, not-debatable, objective FACT that if an appointee is nominated by the America-hating fuckstick, it is axiomatic that the candidate is both unqualified and disinclined to pursue the interests of the American people.
It IS clear that Stephen [del]Goebbels[/del] [del]Himmler[/del] Miller vets these people, isn’t it?
Benjamin Wittes, editor of Lawfare, who had previously (cautiously) defended Barr and counseled giving him the benefit of the doubt, savagely criticizes him and calls his performance “catastrophic”:
The irony about Barr’s attempt to parse meaning into elementary particles by claiming that he didn’t lie because he thought the congressman was asking about Mueller’s team’s concerns rather than Mueller himself is that in the letter to Barr, Mueller consistently uses the word “we.” He can’t even use his already farcical defense. Why is no one in the press pointing this out?
Not to mention he said the “snitty” letter was probably written by staff even though Mueller’s signature is on it, and nobody bothered to ask him, “Have you ever signed a letter where you didn’t agree with what was in it?”