Barr’s “audition article” written prior to his nomination for AG foretold this. Any information that comes from any investigation that is critical or unfavorable to DJT is automatically dismissed even before all of the facts come out.
Mr. Barr needs to change positions from Attorney General to Private Counsel to the President and have an office with Rudy Giuliani.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
What good is an office with a door that won’t open when you want it to?
Barr’s not that stupid. He’ll want the protection afforded by his current title.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He won’t be AG in 13 months and charges of treason may be coming then.
Ridiculous that he would criticize a report for being too factual and non-partisan.
Continuing to SMFH….
LikeLiked by 2 people
“have an office with Rudy Giuliani.”
Did you mean “cell”?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder how long it will be for the Durham report to come out.
We may never see that one.
Or at least not until Barr has a chance to “sanitize” it to adhere to the red party line. “American Politburo”.
I recall when Kremlinologists used to analyze photos of reviewing stands in Red Square to see who was still in good standing. There is more shuffling of folks in this regime, but I don’t think they completely disappear…yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I wonder how long it will be for the Durham report to come out.”
The article says it will be out next Monday.
LikeLike
That is, the IG report will be out Monday. I don’t know whether we should expect a report from Durham or not. He might, instead, simply initiate prosecutions or decline to do so.
LikeLike
I don’t think Durham himself can initiate any prosecutions. He was assigned by Barr to conduct the investigation and any prosecutions would have to originate with Barr, I do believe.
LikeLike
RE: “I don’t think Durham himself can initiate any prosecutions.”
Why would you think so? And why would you say such a thing if you don’t know it to be true?
LikeLike
Because he is from Connecticut and the inquiry is for the DOJ and NOT his district. He was assigned by Barr to do the job for the DOJ so that the DOJ can, if found necessary bring charges. The charges would not be brought in the District of Connecticut.
If you weren’t so obtuse, you would see the common sense of my theory.
LikeLike
RE: “The charges would not be brought in the District of Connecticut.”
And yet, according to news reports. Durham is using a grand jury in Connecticut for his Russia investigation:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-durham-already-used-a-grand-jury-in-russia-origins-probe-joe-digenova-says
As I understand it, the federal court discricts are administrative, not jurisdictional. The fact that Durham is a U.S. attorney from Connecticut doesn’t mean as much as you might assume.
LikeLike
They are actually both. That is why a lot of national cases are filed in the EDVA (Sometimes referred to as the “Rocket Docket”) However, it is my opinion that while the case is being investigated out of Connecticut, if charges are filed, they will be in the DC District as that is the where the FBI and CIA are more centrally located to.
And Digenova is factually challenged. The IG report portions reported have already said that there was no criminal intent in the upper echelons of the intel community. One low level attorney changed one document, and that individual may be charged. (as he probably should be). But this statement from the Examiner report: “DiGenova said Horowitz has already determined that the three FISA extensions against onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page were illegally obtained and he is now the brink of finding the first FISA was completely illegal.” is factually inaccurate.
Digenova is a straight Trumpist who thinks the sun rises and sets in Trump’s wallet. His opinions are as useless as a used colostomy bag and stink just as much.
LikeLike
“more shuffling of folks in this regime”
Funny; when I read that I had to pause and decide if you meant Russia or the US….
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Any information that comes from any investigation that is critical or unfavorable to DJT is automatically dismissed even before all of the facts come out.”
The NYT piece exemplifies the opposite. As “journalism” it relies on unnamed sources reporting rumor and hearsay concerning events which haven’t happened yet.
If you find it compelling, chances are you are susceptible to manipulation.
LikeLike
You made my point, Mr Ba….Roberts.
I’ll take the Times reporting over the crap from PJM and other sites you are manipulated by.
And your ignoring of the history of Bill Barr and his stance on the king…. I mean presidency is something you may want to correct.
LikeLike
When you provide factual information to support your assertions, I’ll make a point to pay attention.
Until then, sharing factless materials like this NYT piece just tends to show that you are in no position to give advice to others about true things.
LikeLike
When you start making sense and using non-conspiracy sites to back your arguments, maybe I’ll stop. But until you are able to get off of your conspiracy train, I’ll just keep right on.
I am trying to decide which is more full of poo, at this point. My colostomy bag, after a really good seafood dinner, or you.
LikeLike
Your childish insults aside, you are the one promoting a conspiracy theory based on ” on unnamed sources reporting rumor and hearsay concerning events which haven’t happened yet.”
LikeLike
And you spread the fertilizer of conspiracy sites and extremely pro-Trump biased sources. I trust the actual reporters at the Times over the talking heads being used by the Examiner and Fox News hosts.
LikeLiked by 1 person