I know attorneys who were disbarred for far, far less than what Barr did. If he were not the AG of the US, there is no doubt in my mind that he would be fired from whatever firm he worked for -- if not self employed -- and there would be a bar referral.

An attorney in his/her licensing is prohibited from misleading a tribunal -- in general this is a rule of professional conduct in all bars of the states and territories of the US. What Barr did in my opinion was knowing violation of this prohibition.

Link to tweet

Just heard him say that Mueller in the CALL said different than Mueller in the LETTER, implying that in the call Mueller sanctioned his (Barr's) memo. Downplayed Mueller's EXPLICIT criticism ("context, nature, substance&quot in the letter. Of course, no record of the call...

If not so much bullshit, I would laugh out loud.

Right?

...an "out of court statement offered to prove the matter."

So, if Barr is quoting a verbal communication, it is hearsay -- since this is a hearing before a "tribunal" under oath and the statement Barr is referring to was made outside of the tribunal. Tribunal does not necessarily have to be a regular courtroom. It can be a proceeding like today's before the Senate committee.

The letter if authenticated -- which is easy in this case because Mueller would and could identify it and say it is his writing -- is evidence of the communication and supports any statement that the verbal communication -- tel call -- was the same or similar in its contents as alleged by the maker of the letter.

Notes of the call by Barr would be hearsay, just under Federal Rules with some trustworthiness -- if it can be shown that the notes are contemporaneous -- but still hearsay: Out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter. Because the statement is written rather than verbal, does not get rid of the hearsay issue.

Not a lawyer obviously but I do have an accounting degree and the rule in any office is - if it isn’t documented it didn’t happen. That was what I clumsily was getting at.

My hat is off to you! Yep, lawyers and accountants LOVE documentation!

You are more than welcome!

Oh, wait...that is defined by being a bloviating, lying piece of shit!

Spewing his liquid feces all over the networks

His responses to DiFi re McGahn are enough to have him disbarred - this is madness

When she talks.

Durbin is smooth and has the facts on his side.

They are completely off the grid. Maybe they can get joint accommodations at a cut rate!

that they feel they can prepare for this kind of questioning by reading the headline while ignoring the substance. Barr, Graham etc must believe that they are doing a GREAT job in this hearing, when their amateurism and elitism is what comes through plain as day.

There simply is NO way those two phrases are equal, one to the other!

Geeeeeeeeeez, what a lying POS!

... Barr summary.

he heard feedback from Mueller but then strawman'd the question to intimate Mueller wasn't part of the team by saying "I didn't hear from the team"

He is looking worried as he should.

Barr blurted out some garbage response and with humor in his voice Whitehouse said, "I cannot even follow that down the road."

LMAO!

Jabba-the-Barr never met a lie he didn't like.

i've only heard snatches, i have an interview and i get upset. he seems to be stumbling and sounding quite weak? transparently working for trump and against the USA.

anything, waiver, admit wrong. Today is helping Dipshit more than hurting him. Imho.

I'd like to agree with you. But, I'm not in a charitable enough mood to describe Barr merely as a bloviating, lying piece of shit. My words to describe him would embarrass a sailor on a Greek freighter.

My gawd.