Seth Abramson @SethAbramson Attorney. Professor @UofNH. Columnist @Newsweek. NYT bestselling author. Proof of Conspiracy @StMartinsPress: tinyurl.com/y484j4ku. Analyses @BBC. Views mine. May. 03, 2019 1 min read

Barr repeatedly told Congress that he took everything in the Mueller report as "true" and made all his decisions based on Mueller's factual findings. But if you read Vol. 2, you discover that Barr disregards and disagrees with virtually *all* Mueller's factual findings. Stunning.

1/ In order for Barr to render the decision he did on obstruction, he had to *disagree with and disregard entirely* the vast majority of Mueller's factual findings, which underscores why Sen. Harris revealing that Barr didn't read Mueller's case file is such a *huge* revelation.

2/ One of many examples: Mueller found Trump ordering McGahn to dispute an NYT story could be obstruction because even though McGahn had already spoken to the SCO, he could be questioned again. Barr told Congress there couldn't be obstruction there, as McGahn already testified.

3/ Mueller saying that McGahn was still open to be called for further testimony was a *finding of fact*. If Barr accepts the finding as "true," he cannot without committing perjury tell Congress that he believes McGahn's role in offering testimony had been completed by that time.

4/ Barr did this in his testimony over and over and over again: he disputed Mueller's findings of fact *even while telling Kamala Harris* that he didn't have to read the underlying case file because he *accepted* all Mueller's findings of fact. One of those answers is a bald lie.


You can follow @SethAbramson.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.