Overall, I think you'll be impressed with Barr's grasp of what went down beginning in 2016, his understanding of both the big picture as well as the details, and his sense of outrage.
Here are some of the snippets from the article:
On the FBI investigation generally:
“It’s hard to look at this stuff and not think that it was a gross abuse.”
On the absurd claim that the single setup conversation of Downer with George Papadopoulos provided credible predication for a full investigation:
"Where I disagree with Mike, I just think this was very flimsy," ... "a comment made by a 28-year-old volunteer."
On FBI dishonesty and fraud on the FISC:
"They withheld from the court all the exculpatory information," "the dossier was a sham."
On the FBI failure to provide a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign. [I would point out that, even if there had been reservations about who to speak with on the campaign, Comey could have gone to the top, to Trump himself. It was never done. Which is a clear indication that Trump himself was the real target, from beginning to end.]
“The normal thing to do in this situation is to go to the campaign, and here I don’t think there’s a legitimate explanation for why they didn’t.”
On Horowitz's explanation for his no-improper-motivation conclusion:
“All he said was, people gave me an explanation and I didn't find anything to contradict it.”
On the MSM:
"I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press."
And now, what Barr thinks is "the meat of the issue":
This is the meat of the issue, and if you actually spend time to look at what happened I think you'd be appalled. Remember, they [the FBI] say, 'We're not gonna go talk to the campaign. We're gonna send people in'--wire 'em up and talk to the individuals [the "four Americans" inside the campaign who were subjects of the FBI investigation]. That happened. That happened in August, September, and October and it all came back exculpatory.
People [those targeted and approached] said, 'Don't know what you're talking about!' Not only exculpatory as to relationship to the Russians but as to the specific facts. And that "A" they [the FBI] never did anything about that, they just pressed ahead, but "B" they never informed the court.
They were told they didn't have probable cause to get a warrant [the first FISA attempt that was turned down], and so they took the Steele "dossier"--which they had done nothing to verify--and they used that to get the warrant. They just collapsed everything. They withheld from the court all the exculpatory information and they withheld from the court information about the lack of reliability of Steele.
The real interesting thing here--to me, the major takeaway--actually is after the election, because in January they went to ... Steele was dealing with one person. He only talked to one person, and that's what we call the primary sub-source. It was that person who had the so-called network of sub-sources. When they finally got around to talking to him, he said, 'I don't know what Steele's talking about. I didn't tell him this stuff. It was mostly bar room talk, and rumor. I made it clear to him this was my own suppositions and theories.' And at that point it was clear that the "dossier" was a sham. So what happens? What happens at that point? They [the FBI] don't tell the court, and they continue to get FISA warrants based on that "dossier". And more damning is that they actually file with the court a statement saying, 'We talked with the sub-source and we found him credible and cooperative.' And they put that in to bolster [crosstalk] ... What he was being truthful about was that the "dossier" was garbage.
So, it's hard to look at this stuff, and, I think it was a gross abuse.
I don't think Barr is letting go of this.
UPDATE 1: More confirmation that Barr is not backing off this in any way, is not going to allow the Horowitz Dossier to influence the Durham investigation. He also emphasizes the importance of the post-election period and his backing of Durham in this transcript of an MSNBC interview. The guy is, to me, masterful:
Q: Do you still stand by your statement that the [Trump] campaign was spied upon?
Barr: Oh, it was clearly spied upon. I mean, that's what electronic surveillance is. I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying. I think going through people's emails--which they did as a result of the FISA warrant. They went through everything, from Page's life --
Q: But he wasn't in the campaign at the point when they began the surveillance --
Barr: No, but, yes, but his emails go back. The main reason they were going for the FISA warrant initially was to go back historically and seize all his emails, and texts, and all that stuff from BACK--months and even years! So they were covering the period when he was in the campaign and that's EXACTLY the reason they went for the FISA--to get THAT stuff.
Q: What questions will John Durham address that the IG didn't?
Barr: Well, Durham is looking at the whole waterfront. He's looking at the issue of how it got started. He's looking at whether or not the narrative of Trump being involved in the Russian interference actually preceded July and was, in fact, the precipitating trigger for the investigation. He's also looking at the conduct of the investigation--there are some things that were done in the investigation that are not included in Horowitz's report and he's looking at those things. But also, a few weeks ago, I told him that he should spend just as much attention on the post election period, and I did that because of some of the stuff that Horowitz has uncovered, which to me is inexplicable. [other voice inaudible] What I said! Their case collapsed after the election! And they never told the court, and they kept on getting renewals of these [FISA] applications. There were documents falsified in order to get these renewals. There was all kinds of withholding of information from the court. And the question really is, what was the agenda after the election that kept them pressing ahead, after their case collapsed? This is the president of the United States!
Q: You, of course, went to three countries with him. Why did you have to do that? And some people have said, 'This is clearly, Bill Barr's in charge of the investigation.'
Barr: Well [laughing] the presentation of that in the media has been silly. The person running the investigation is John Durham. But this is a very unusual circumstance where we are going to foreign governments and asking them to assist and cooperate, including some of their sensitive materials and personnel. And a US Attorney doesn't show on the doorstep in some of these countries, like London, and say, 'Hey, I wanna talk to your intelligence people' and so forth. All the regularities were followed. I went through, my purpose was to introduce Durham to the proper people and set up a channel that he could work with these countries. At the request of, I went through the ambassadors of each country, and the governments wanted initially to talk to me to find out, 'What is this about? What are the ground rules? Is this gonna be a criminal case? Are you gonna do a public report?' They wanted to understand the ground rules before they met with Durham, and I met with them and then I set up appropriate channels. This was perfectly appropriate.
Q: Speaking of whether something was appropriate or not, was it appropriate for John Durham to issue his statement yesterday? Given that he's a United States Attorney with a grand jury and his investigation isn't done yet.
Barr: Oh, yeah, I think it was DEFINITELY appropriate! Because I think it was necessary to avoid public confusion. I think it was sort of being reported by the press that the issue of predication was sort of done and over, even though it was a very limited look at that issue by the IG--given the narrowness of the evidence available to him. And I think it was important for people to understand that Durham's work was NOT being pre-empted, and that Durham was doing something different. And he explains what he's doing different and that there are areas of disagreement. I think it was perfectly appropriate, so that the public understood the relationship between the two exercises.
UPDATE 2: At the top I briefly referenced the significant fact that the same group of people who were involved in the Crossfire Hurricane pretense investigation were also involved in the Mueller witchhunt. To understand what I'm getting at, recall that Barr specifically mentions that his direction to Durham to concentrate just as much on the post-election period as on the origins stems from things that Horowitz uncovered. One of the things that Horowitz uncovered--actually, we've known this for a long time and I've placed great stress on it--is that Bruce Ohr was keeping several DoJ attorneys apprised of the FBI case. All three attorneys who were named by Ohr in his House testimony went on to play key roles on Team Mueller--Andrew Weissmann, Zainab Ahmad, and Bruce Swartz. These attorneys had actually met with Steele before the FISA. So when I say that the same people are involved, it's not just Strzok and Page. And, importantly, Horowitz points out that those attorneys had no reason to be involved during that time period, and that it was improper for Ohr to be briefing them. This is why Durham will necessarily be examining the Team Mueller operation.
UPDATE 3: Here's the full 24 minute interview from Youtube. Every minute is important, including the part where Barr goes after the Obama Administration.
Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation: