anyone else read the Berman testimony to the House Judiciary ?

[dweller]

i read through it over several days, not that it was boring but i wanted to think over what i had read before continuing ... it wasn't riveting or exciting, but informative ...
my takeaway:
Berman answered a bit more questions than he declined to answer.. whatever parameters and restrictions that were agreed to by himself, DOJ and the committee aren't really revealed, but he declined to answer the Dem's questions
almost equally to the repug's questions..
it appears he was adamant about procedure being strictly followed on his being replaced, and *i think in some of his answers he was alluding to telling Barr he was not going to allow Barr to break the law* in his method to replace him ...
ie. he knew it was illegal but didn't come out and say so to Barr, just gave him every opportunity to do the right thing in advancing his deputy to his position, which he eventually did, then stepped down.

what i find the most interesting though are the questions he didn't answer, from whatever reasons, for they speak more of where the Judicial Committee is looking to explore, such as when Barr comes before them, or a potential Barr impeachment if the circumstances lead there 🤔

anyway, curious what others gleened from his testimony?
that's all i got, ymmv
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/berman_transcript.pdf?utm_campaign=4124-519

✌🏼

[soothsayer]

1. Yeah I read it all

Mostly got that he was saying — without saying — that there were hidden motives and it was likely that Barr was trying to install an outsider to disrupt ongoing investigations

[dweller]

2. without saying

exactly, just like i noted he was trying to block Barr from breaking the law, as
his firing would have been illegal also, and challenged in court... but installing the outsider was going to bring down some major damage to the DOJ

✌🏼