AG William Barr Senate Testimony on Mueller Report

Speaking of ...

(cross contamination)

If you care to -- and who in their right mind would? -- observe how reality is reversed. Nearly any segment will do.

The affect of Russian interference on our election is real but it was also miniscule. But it's made out to be the main thing. The real crimes of government departments weaponized from within and used against political opponents is entirely ignored to favor imaginary crimes. All this for Democrat voters. The report shows there is no evidence, yet it is used as evidence for crimes that do not exist. The examiner steps beyond his function as examiner and adds his own 2¢ where it is not called for, that is not part of his job. That 2¢ is leaked to two propaganda news outfits, NYT and WP and used to demonstrate the AG behaved out of line, when he did not.

I have a better idea.

Instead, read comments to this obnoxious dancing bear show made by people well aware of the granular detail surrounding it. The Last Refuge. Oldest comments are first. It's quite long. Commenters there are more aware than the senators creating the narrative. They are people who've studied literally for years, and see through the production. It's long but not so wearisome as listening to Democrat and Never-Trump Senators.

A sample:

You just fell for the NYT/WaPo trap .

Here is what happened:

1) Mueller gives a report to Barr
2) Barr determines that it will take too much time to redact, so decides to come with a summary of the principal conclusions. That is what he sends to Congress
3) Mueller then writes the letter, because in Barr's letter none of the details are discussed or even summarized. In later discussions Mueller says he agrees with Barr's statement, but he says he wanted at least the summaries of his report to be made public, because now the press is mis-reporting about him.
4) Barr then publishes the entire report including the summaries, but not just the (executive) summaries

So #3 came before # 4, yet they (NYT/WaPo) want you to believe that #3 came AFTER #4 ...

#3 was a comment on #2, not on #2 + #4.

[Actually, the previous commenter did not fall for the trap, but that's irrelevant to the quality of this comment.]

This comment fairly typifies the depth of comprehension and quality throughout. And the discussion does go on for several pages of comments. Compare that quality to such as The Hill, linked by Drudge (Same page, below CNN ratings dive, an article: Fox News legal analyst says Barr 'probably misled lawmakers in prior testimony on Mueller report. The comments, not the article. ) I'm suggesting comparing quality of comments. The Last Refuge to The Hill on the same subject.