1. The new defense of Barr& #39;s conduct over the weekend is that he was just trying "to find a job for [Jay] Clayton."

There are at least three problems with this effort to whitewash what Barr did and said—all of which suggest that he was, indeed, acting in bad faith.

A #thread:

2. First, the Clayton story makes no sense because the Senate still uses blue slips for U.S. Attorneys.

There is a 0.0% chance that both Sen. Schumer and Sen. Gillibrand would& #39;ve signed off on confirming someone to that job with zero prosecutorial experience—and Barr knows that.

3. Second, Barr& #39;s Friday night statement—in his own words—is affirmatively misleading. Leaving aside Carpenito (more on him in a moment), the statement claimed that Berman was "stepping down," even though Barr (1) knew he wasn& #39;t; and (2) lacked the power to fire him directly.

3. Then there& #39;s Saturday& #39;s letter—which (1) says nothing about Carpenito (Friday& #39;s statement said Trump *appointed* him, not that he intended to); (2) claims Trump removed Berman (which the President denied); & (3) holds out the IG (who Barr has constantly undermined) as a check.

4. I don& #39;t know *why* Barr did this. But the Attorney General ought to turn square corners when taking these kinds of actions. Given the above considerations, I don& #39;t see how one can look at Friday& #39;s statement and Saturday& #39;s letter and conclude that Barr acted above board.

/end