My fellow Anons…

I apologize if this may be a bit lengthy. Vetfag here just weighing in with my thoughts of the Barr/AG hearing. When POTUS nominated Barr, I was hesitant at first, since he served under GHWB. So, I followed Qs approach, patience. I did some follow-up as well as watch what I could on the hearings. A few things struck me as interesting, and everyone is more than welcome to roast (correct) me if need be. I do not claim to be a know-it-all, just trying to stay well informed like many other Americans. My thoughts are as follow:

–Objectivity his answers were spot on. Clear, concise, and in speaking to my vetfag experience, compliance with said policies/instructions/regulations.

–He clearly has respect for the rule of law! In taking from his responses… he makes some interesting comments on how the law needs to be equally applied to ALL individuals. As well as touching upon the notion of tampering with evidence towards a pending investigation.

–Many reps seemed to question the shit out of the insurance policy, BMs investigation. So much to the point that much of the questions were targeted at the ever-popular notion of recusal. It was evident that the deep state is afraid. He is committed to doing his job IMPARTIALLY with no bias.

–When asked about border security, Barr was heavily pressed to focus on drug trafficking over more dangerous issues by some senators. CreepyCoryBooker. I personally like his stance on border security but shall exercise more patience with forthcoming accomplishments.

–I was a bit surprised the ShadyKamalaHarris talked about profitable prisons and thought she might tip her hand at asking about gitmo… but at this point I don’t think anyone has the guts to ask that question.

–It dawned on me how HRC was able to get away with tampering with her servers (evidence). I read his memo on 18 USC 1512 (c)(2) regarding BMs poor usage of this rule in a so-called ‘obstruction’ lens. Because HRC was not found guilty of the crime she was investigated for, hence there was no clear evidence of a crime or anticipated/actual proceedings, she could not be charged with obstruction. If I read the rule wrong, then let me know. OLC intended it to read as it should. However, should HRC be held to proceedings, she can still be charged. She was never charged, only investigated.

In closing, I will say this… many of his comments we neutral and in line with the questioning. One can’t ask more of an individual in a highly politicized setting, for the highest judiciary position, to answer the questions the way he did. MANY of his answers CAN be applied to HRC, and other corrupt things happening in our country… anti-trust laws (cough-cough). IMO, he has been very observant of things happening in our country and answered to that pretense.

The one question I am left with, after following Q since the beginning… is this our stealth bomber?