reement with Mueller and Barr was over just how the news was treating it or maybe it was that Barr shaded the narrative in a way that to change it after that. So any kind of details are gonna get lost because the main spin that Barr put on it... Barr put on it. Seriously the audio is going again. Seriously I'm gonna wait until somebody tells me the audio is back. Yeah I know you can't hear it. I'm just waiting. Hold on, hold on.

Interestingly I'm back. Okay interestingly this is exactly the same point where my Periscope broke up yesterday. Probably total coincidence. So I'm going to say at the point again and see if it breaks up again.

Barr put a spin on the Mueller report by being the first one to talk about it and summarizing it. All summaries are a narrative. There isn't... and they're also all inaccurate. You can't create a summary that is also accurate. Those two things are opposites. The summary gets rid of the accuracy in order to make sure that you understand at least the central point. So saying that Barr's summary was inaccurate or misleading is probably not understanding how the world works. Because somebody was going to spin this thing and it was whoever went first.

If Mueller's summary, apparently Mueller had his own summary, if that had gone first it would have been one of the members of his team would decide how we interpreted it. Is that fair? Well don't know because we don't know whether we should trust... we don't know much about this member of the team, that member of the team. Was not an elected person and we can't, you know it's sort of not transparent. But when Barr does it he's doing it in public. He's showing his work. He's fully qualified for this kind of decision. He went to Congress. He answered questions. He showed the entire Mueller report, all the data. But he did it with his own narrative. Somebody was gonna add a narrative.

So if you're complaining that Barr added a narrative you're not really complaining about anything 'cause somebody was gonna do that. Who's better? Do you want the fake news to put their narrative on it? Because they would have and you know that. So you don't have a choice of somebody... here's what you don't have. You never had the choice of nobody going first. That's not a choice. Somebody was gonna build a narrative and sell it to the country and it was going to be the main one that other people complained about but it was going to be the main one.

I think Barr being recently appointed or recently confirmed by Congress... did we lose the signal again? Anyway I think that Barr having recently been in his job through a public process is the most credible person to do it. Even though we accept that he's spinning the narrative in a positive way for the president. I think we'd all agree they spun it in a positive way for the president. But remember there was no underlying crime. There's going to be a narrative. There's no such thing as a neutral narrative in our world. It doesn't happen. Can't happen. You couldn't do it if you tried. He had to spin it either anti-Trump or pro-Trump. There wasn't anything like a neutral way to do it.

So the fact that he leaned pro-Trump says to me he's doing the job the way you'd want him to do it. And I would say the same whether it was Hillary Clinton or somebody else in the office. It doesn't matter. If the underlying crime has been found to be just vapor, I don't mind at all that the Attorney General said all right this whole thing was sort of a witch hunt. And even if you can make some technical case on obstruction, do we want to do that as a country? Is that who we want to be? Do we want to be that country that would make a technical argument on this BS which hunt stuff that maybe if you read the law just right and interpret it just a cert