If You Don't Let Barr Answer, What's the Point of a Hearing?
Farking children need a spanking. What is going on in their little pointy heads that makes them think that this looks good to ordinary, normal people? You know, the Independents that they will need in great numbers to beat Trump.
They are desperate and now just playing to their base of loons. They lost their marbles long ago but dayum.........
RE: If You Don't Let Barr Answer, What's the Point of a Hearing?
Grandstanding, that was the point of the hearing. The D's never were really interested in what Barr had to day. If they were they would have let him speak.
RE: If You Don't Let Barr Answer, What's the Point of a Hearing?
All of the Dems together don’t add up to a brain, fully outclassed by Barr.
Quote:He came, he saw, he ate their lunch. Bill Barr, denied a meal break, feasted instead on a gaggle of Democratic amateurs.
Another congressional hearing, another Dem disaster. They planned a public hanging of the attorney general and spent weeks constructing their scaffold. He is corrupt, a liar, a toady, they and their media handmaidens assured us, and the House Judiciary Committee will reveal all.
Two obstacles quickly became apparent. The first is that the Dems were led by Rep. Jerry Nadler, whose rabidness is exceeded only by his haplessness.
The start was delayed because Nadler was in a minor car accident. That was obviously an omen, but Nadler doesn’t take hints, so he plowed forward into a head-on crash with a heavyweight opponent superior in every way.
Nadler specializes in duds, demanding that former special counsel Robert Mueller testify a year ago, only to see the Russia, Russia, Russia hysteria collapse on national TV. Then Nadler, bearing a lifetime grudge against President Trump, did such a terrible job in the first impeachment hearings on Ukraine that Speaker Nancy Pelosi demoted him and turned the task over to Rep. Adam Schiff.
Yet Nadler is a slow learner and there he was Tuesday, opening the ballyhooed attack on the AG with a statement that was a farrago of lies, fake news and slanderous attacks on law enforcement, Barr and Trump. It was so over-the-top, so fact-free and unsupportable, that it had zero chance of setting the stage for a meaningful interrogation.
Then again, honest interrogation was not the intent. Pelosi’s House only does character assassination.
Recently caught on camera calling Antifa violence in Portland a “myth,” Nadler repeated the gist of that. He said Barr had “endangered Americans and violated their constitutional rights by flooding federal law enforcement into the streets of American cities . . . to forcefully and unconstitutionally suppress dissent.”
So hundreds of black-masked Antifa-types using guns, knifes, Molotov cocktails, commercial-grade fireworks, lasers and Tasers to attack federal agents on federal property is now called “dissent.” Got it.
After the GOP’s Jim Jordan countered with an attack on the FBI’s spying on Trump’s campaign and played a video of pundits calling the violence in Portland and elsewhere “peaceful protests,” the air had left the room before Barr said a word.
When he got his chance, he didn’t just defend his tenure — he went on offense to demand an end to the “demonizing of police” and the dangerous defunding movement.
The war against law enforcement, he said, is making police “more risk-averse,” and that is part of the reason crime is soaring across America — leading to the deaths of the very people the Black Lives Matter movement says it wants to help.
“The leading cause of death for young black males is homicide,” he said, adding that about 7,500 are murdered each year, 90 percent by other black Americans.
“Each of those lives matter,” the attorney general declared.
Thankfully, somebody is not afraid the truth will get him canceled.
The growing political violence, 99 percent of it from the far left, is a direct consequence, yet most Democrats don’t dare denounce the insurrection
It was the first of many times Barr turned the tables on his would-be tormentors. He often appeared bored, but when he was allowed to speak, his words cut through the room like a knife. He called the attacks in Portland and elsewhere “an assault on the government of the United States.”
Later, he chided Nadler & Co. for their silence in the face of clear criminal activity.
“This is the first time in my memory that the leaders of one of our two great political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence,” he said. “Can’t we just say the violence against the federal courts has to stop? Could we hear something like that?”
The room was silent. The attorney general challenged their loyalty, and not a single Democrat objected. For them, it was just another day at the office.
Nearly every time I watch Barr in extended interviews or read one of his substantive speeches, I find myself saying, “If only.”
If only Barr had been Trump’s first attorney general, the last four years would have been dramatically different. Bob Mueller could have stayed in retirement because there was never real evidence of Russian collusion, not even enough, we now know, to start an FBI investigation.
It was all ginned up to thwart Trump during the campaign, and then upend his presidency. Yet because Trump picked Jeff Sessions to be AG, and because Sessions, in a supreme act of selfishness, took the job knowing he would recuse himself from overseeing the FBI probe, the nation got put through the wringer.
Dems were able to cow Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein into appointing Mueller and succeeded in putting the White House under a cloud of suspicion for nearly three years. All those leaks and screaming headlines — they were all just a bunch of nothingburgers. Some were Pulitzer Prize-winning nothingburgers.
The entire episode, starring Jim Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, Hillary Clinton and other unindicted co-conspirators of the Obama-Biden administration, was the dirtiest dirty trick in American political history. And although there was no collusion, Dems and much of the media have never let go of the red-baiting insinuation that Trump is a Russian agent and an illegitimate president.
The growing political violence, 99 percent of it from the far left, is a direct consequence, yet most Democrats don’t dare denounce the insurrection. They save their condemnation for the federal officers who are under attack.
At one point Tuesday, Barr said flatly, “We have to take a stand.” He was talking to Congress, but he meant all of us.
Quote:On Tuesday afternoon’s CNN Newsroom, host Brianna Keilar tag-teamed with senior legal analyst Laura Coates to assist the House Democrats bashing Attorney General William Barr’s responses at the House Judicial Hearing. Coates insanely attacked the “baffling” Barr as a racist and for daring to cite black on black crime statistics to express his concern for black lives. Along with expressing open disgust for Barr’s lack of wokeness, they did not once fact check the Democrats.
Coates began her vehement blitz on Barr by negating his concern with stopping the widespread violence at Black Lives Matter protests:
First of all, there were righteous peaceful protesters who were protesting not only the actual killing of George Floyd but what he also symbolizes. The number of unarmed black men and women, boys and girls in this country who have been killed at the hands of law enforcement officers. They are protesting peacefully with that respect. Now what they tried to do instead is to take those people who have hijacked that otherwise righteous and peaceful message, those who have tried to loot and vandalize and destroy and commit arson in the form of self-gain trying to acquire whatever material good that they wanted that day. They're trying to conflate these two as if they are ideological twins. They are not. He did say that there was distinction. But instead of actually acknowledging it and showing that there is a clear demarcation between the views and the conduct, he instead tried to use it all as a conflated attempt to provide justification for why there are so many agents who are going to places like Portland and otherwise as if it were in the name of George Floyd protesters.
Never mind that the “peaceful protesters” in Portland who have been assaulting the federal court and those who set up Seattle’s violent CHOP zone said their motivation was social justice. Forget that violence broke out almost immediately in Minneapolis or that Black Lives Matter protesters chanted to “fry” cops “like pigs.” The BLM leader of New York was being extremely “peaceful” when he stated that “if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.”
Coates then attacked Barr for caring about black lives:
And finally, what I think I found most disturbing was in his opening statement in particular was -- is he was called on a number of times today Brianna with this idea of trying to use black-on-black crime statistics as some way to justify people turning away from the movement towards social justice, accountability for police officers who often stand unprosecuted in these sort of cases. And instead to point out which was baffling to me to use statistics that actually showed just how close the -- how the proportionality impact of black and white Americans in this country at the hands of police officers somehow justified us turning a blind eye towards it. Or the impression that people cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
“Walk and chew gum at the same time?” It does not appear that Coates can do that. She can only focus on the minuscule number of unarmed African Americans who are killed by police every year and not black on black murder, which accounts for around 90 percent of violent deaths for African Americans.
Keilar and Coates then both went on a woke rant about systemic racism (click "expand"):
KEILAR: That -- that was a point that seemed to very much undercut the lack of people in power being black Americans as the country is confronting this discussion and this debate and these protests over social injustice.
COATES: Well, naturally. And of course our colleague Fredericka Whitfield -- Whitfield does a fabulous job in her series on unconscious bias. And he was speaking about to that effect and also the conscious bias. And remember, the idea -- the absence of diversity, the lack of inclusion is not coincidental in America. It never has been coincidental. It's not as if there should be these great epiphanies of oh, were there qualified people in positions of attorneys who were in the Justice Department who could rightly advise and assist the Attorney General of the United States? Oh, are you -- do you exist? My colleagues are, in fact, there. And the idea here he was actually trying to illuminate even further here, Brianna, was this idea that how are you -- how are you expected to tackle what is such an obvious example and evolution of systemic racism in America if you deny its existence as if it's a ghost of some sort? He even mentions in his opening statement, he calls Jim Crow an edifice. Well, that's a fancy word as we all know for a building. And God, I wish Jim Crow had been a building. Then it could have been broken down like removing bricks from a wall. I wish it had been tangible, I could have destroyed it with paper. But unfortunately, Jim Crow only codified existing mental views, existing biases, and it was allowed to perpetuate based on a system of justice that emboldened those who refused to acknowledge its absurdity.
The ship has sailed for CNN being a news network. It now just spits absurd woke talking points and assists the Democrats in attacking Republicans.
RE: If You Don't Let Barr Answer, What's the Point of a Hearing?
Quote:After Attorney General Bill Barr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Fox News correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera said on Wednesday that Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., “represents the state of denial” among the members of the Democratic Party.
“When the video of all the anarchy in Portland and in Seattle at the beginning of the Barr hearings at the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, there was like a silence because the Democrats were saying ‘are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?” Rivera told “Fox & Friends.” “There it was: the anarchy, the destruction, the violence, the injury being inflicted, the deaths."
Barr clashed with Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday over accusations that he is carrying out President Trump's political wishes, as he appeared for a long-awaited hearing where tensions also flared over protests and riots following George Floyd's death in police custody.
The hearing, originally scheduled for 10 a.m. local time, was delayed after committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., was in a car accident. Nadler did not suffer any injuries, and the hearing went into the mid-afternoon.
Once the hearing began, Nadler did not hesitate to express his scorn for Barr and his Justice Department.
"Thank you for being here, Mr. Barr,” Nadler said with a note of sarcasm, pointing out that this was the attorney general’s first time appearing before the committee.
The chairman went on to claim that Barr and his department have "downplayed the effects of systemic racism" in the wake of Floyd's death and ongoing protests.
Addressing the department's approach to cases related to the Russia probe, Nadler summed up the DOJ's attitude by claiming that "the president’s enemies will be punished, his friends will be protected," no matter the cost, and saying that the DOJ's actions have caused "real damage to our democratic norms."
"In your time at the department, you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president," Nadler said.
Rivera said that federal and state authorities who have been “probing” Antifa for years determined it to be a loosely organized but highly evolved group of anti-fascist protesters.
“They have become anarchists. They now want trouble, but for trouble's sake. They want dysfunction. They want to cause communities to be upset and uprooted. They use very sophisticated encryption, very slick on social media, they communicate in cells,” Rivera said.
He continued, “They are a malevolent version of the Occupy movement or Black Lives Matter. But, they are beyond that. They are really activist anarchists in the classic sense. Their job is to disrupt the government, their job is to unsettle people, their job is to uproot neighborhoods, their job is to menace society as we know it. It is no bologna.”
RE: If You Don't Let Barr Answer, What's the Point of a Hearing?
Gentlemen, at this time I'm "reclaiming my time" so DON'T INTERRUPT with common sense.
The Demons "reclaiming my time" is the new "la, la, la, la, with hands over one's ears so that one can't hear". You know like kids do to other kids when they know they won't like the answer. What a bunch of idiots. My kids have acted much more adult than these supercilious bastards did in that "HEARING". A hearing where they never intended to hear any answer from Barr, only their pontifications of how bad Trump and his administration is. But hey, that monkeyface Veronica from El Paso got her fifteen minutes of fame in the "hearing". She's in the in-crowd now.
RE: If You Don't Let Barr Answer, What's the Point of a Hearing?
What's that bitter-lemon sucking faced broad complaining about? I think that's a perfectly appropriate answer to her stupid gotcha question.
Dame: Is it ever Ok to pepper ball protesters?
Barr: No.
Dame: So, you agree these actions were inappropriate and uncalled for? (pp)
Barr: Well, rioters and looters, yes. Protestors, no.
What's the problem there?
Don't cry sweetheart, your term will be up soon enough.
RE: If You Don't Let Barr Answer, What's the Point of a Hearing?
She looks like one of the females that accused Judge Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her in high school but she didn’t remember it until conveniently just before his Supreme Court confirmation.
Either that or all those ultraliberal triggered females look the same.
/
If You Don't Let Barr Answer, What's the Point of a Hearing?
