Res Ipsa Loquitur At The Barr Hearing

No, this wasn’t Fox spin…this was the main theme of the hearings.

Yesterday’s House hearing featuring Attorney General Barr was a new low in partisan grandstanding in Congressional hearings, which by itself is astounding. That condition has made many hearings unwatchable and embarrassing for a very long time, and during the Trump administration, in  fiascos like Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing, the spectacle scarred the image of representative democracy itself. I tried to watch the recording of Barr’s hearing, and was shocked—shocked that the Democrats have become so uninterested in presenting even the illusion of fairness, shocked at the inability of the committee’s repulsive chairman, Rep. Nadler, to restrain his hateful demeanor. I cannot imagine an uglier image of the legislative branch. The transcript excerpts—I’m still waiting for the whole thing— were little easier to take. A little.

Among my Facebook friends, one particularly, a former D.C. journalist, is certifiably Trump Deranged. He literally is unable to go a day without posting a Charles Blow op-ed or the equivalent, or “Look at the horrible thing Trump tweeted!” message to go with pictures of his meals. His Facebook page is a nest of anti-Trump crazies—they flock there like addicts would head for a crack house. Yet in the middle of the Barr hearing, HE wrote, “Why won’t the Democrats give Barr a chance to speak?”

“I know your story,”  one of the more infamously dim-bulb Congressmen, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia told Barr, interrupting him before he could complete a thought. “I’m telling my story. That’s what I’m here to do,” Barr replied.

Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the committtee’s ranking Republican, protested, “For months you have tried to get the attorney general to come, He is here. Why don’t you let him speak?”

“The gentleman’s rudeness is not recognized,”  Nadler answered.  “Rudeness? Rudeness? Rudeness?” Mr. Jordan shot back. “Time after time, you refuse to let the attorney general answer the questions posed to him.”

This was  another epic “It isn’t what it is” moment, the Democratic leader called an objection to his party’s unrestrained rudeness in its treatment of the #1 law enforcement official in the nation “rudeness.” At a certain level, even derangement and denial yields to reality. Trust me on this: if my friend was offended at the Democrats’ treatment of Barr, the Democrats are out of control. Oh, we knew that because it’s been objectively obvious for about four years. But now “the resistance” is noticing.

Russell Berman of The Atlantic, a relentless basher of all things Trump, was moved to write an article criticizing yesterday’s debacle. How could he not? At one point, Barr asked for a 5 minute break, and Nadler refused!

That’s the Left’s reaction; naturally the Right is going bonkers, but still making some salient points. John Hinderaker over at his Powerline blog wrote, after making the lay-up point that the Democratic treatment of Barr was both unconscionable and self-destructive, wrote, echoing Ethics Alarms “The Great Stupid” diagnosis:

The Democrats are committed to the view that what is happening in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta and other cities is mere “peaceful protest.” Thus, the Trump administration is unjustified in sending in federal officers to protect federal property, like courthouses. And to the extent that anything untoward happens, it is Donald Trump’s fault. This was the main theory that the Democrats tried to advance through their “questioning” of Attorney General Barr.

This theme is so stupid that it boggles the mind. Presumably most people have seen video footage of the violence that has taken place in cities like Portland and Minneapolis. They have seen violent assaults and burning buildings, long before any federal agents arrived. They have seen massed, armed criminals doing battle with police officers. Can the Democrats possibly be fooling anyone?

We are approaching a very weird election in which one of our major parties is taking a stand in favor of rioting, looting, arson, destruction of federal property, and violent attacks on law enforcement. The Democrats seem to think that this is a winning formula. If it is, our republic is doomed.

Do spare me the “yes, our republic is doomed” responses; despair and surrender are not constructive.  I will, however, relate this depressing note: a member of my family, a  brilliant lawyer and a moderate Democrat by current standards, actually argued to me that there was no reason local U.S. Marshals in Seattle couldn’t have protected the federal courthouse against those “mostly peaceful” rioters throwing Molotov cocktails.  He really did.


42 thoughts on “Res Ipsa Loquitur At The Barr Hearing

  1. Do spare me the “yes, our republic is doomed” responses; despair and surrender are not constructive.

    It is clear that the Republic is in a severe crisis. I am uncertain if there has occurred anything like it before. If one can name, accurately and fairly, the causes that led to these effects, this outcome, one might be in a position to forestall disaster that will surely come. But if the causes cannot be seen, and will not be seen, if there is ignorance and unawareness (or unconcern) for the causes that bring all this about, there is no hope that one can address it, correct it, forestall it as I say.

    And it would be and it is realistic, in any situation of life, to recognize with clarity and with resignation (or acceptance) when something is so damaged that it cannot be recovered. In that situation wisdom is found, again, in clear seeing, not in denial.

    But a larger point still is that there is extreme division in the interpretation about What Is Happening, why, what it means, and where it tends.

    • “It is clear that the Republic is in a severe crisis. I am uncertain if there has occurred anything like it before.”

      I mean there was that one time that over 1 in 50 Americans was killed in a little scuffle we had and even more diseased, displaced and impoverished.

      Certainly we’re facing an actual attempt by insurrectionists to instigate a leftist revolution, but we aren’t quite to the level of the 1860s when an entire section of the nation in near unison went to war with another section of nation in near unison.

        • I meant in the 20th century. I should have made that clear. But what you are doing now, so predictably, is to focus on the small detail while you avoid the larger one. You cannot see, and you therefore will not see, the depth of this crisis. And anyone who makes efforts to bring to your attention information or perspectives that unsettle you, you shoot down.

          Certainly we’re facing an actual attempt by insurrectionists to instigate a leftist revolution, but we aren’t quite to the level of the 1860s when an entire section of the nation in near unison went to war with another section of nation in near unison.

          You are describing one facet, but you are not seeing the full issue. You cannot (I suggest) because it will involve you in having to examine information and perspectives that you have adamantly shut out of your mind.

          • Well since all you seemed to ramble about was how *uniquely* serious the current situation is, it really only seemed apt to respond with an example that indeed, was much more serious.

            But hey, make of it what you will…just don’t pretend that you said anything else which you now claim was ignored.

            • Given your general approach, I believe I can understand that you’d see what you say as ‘apt response’. You have to work with what you have.

              I am at this point quite certain that the largest parts of my position, or perhaps my *contribution*, is not understood, and more often than not resented. I could have said ‘not appreciated’ and that would be more neutral. But I think the word resentment is more fitting.

              What I ‘make of it’ is what I constantly say! Day after glorious day and always with a cheery smile!

              (And my new Mac allows these ridiculous emoticons so there’s that! 🥰)

        • You mean we’re NOT headed for a Rifts scenario with the State of Atlantica running from Maine to Baltimore and DC to Harrisburg, the New Confederate States of America in the South, the People’s Republic of Pacifica on the West Coast, and the Alliance of the Plains in between?

    • Is it really worse than the late 60’s early 70’s Vietnam War protests? I recall hearing about Kent State. I think we tend to forget the past and cast the present as the most troubled time. I am not so sure that is the case though.

      • I was there, and no, it’s not. The lack of historical perspective in so much of the public is crippling. Then there were the draft riots during the Civil War, and the labor battles at from the late 19th Century into the 20th.

        • I was there, and no, it’s not. The lack of historical perspective in so much of the public is crippling. Then there were the draft riots during the Civil War, and the labor battles at from the late 19th Century into the 20th.

          I notice a couple of things:

          1) Your declarations (my word that indicates especially charged statements, I call these ‘declarations’) are part-and-parcel of your view and your interpretation. You are it seems to me a classic ‘patriot’. But not in the full, positive sense. Without wishing to offend, and in the most respectful terms I have available, I have reservations. Your patriotism blinds you, in the sense that bias blinds, to ‘reality’. But I am still uncertain who has the ‘fuller interpretation’ I think is possible. So, I do not think I am in a better position necessarily. But the questions are still open, the definitions have to be arrived at.

          2) Your interpretation — in so many areas — is infused with your political and also your ideological impositions (an *imposition* in my lexicon is a view imposed on reality through the will of the person who needs to do this). But I am not convinced that your interpretation is correct. I even tend to think it is substantially off-the-mark. I suspect this is the case, but I cannot — yet — present a full alternative that satisfies me.

          3) It is possible, and I tend to agree, that lack of historical perspective is *crippling*. But if you recognize the lack of information, or understanding, in this arena, that can *cripple*, and as I often mention that I think you and others here demonstrate whole realms of lack of information and consideration, at the very least you may see that my position has integrity. Or ‘potential integrity’.

          Still, you bring up an interesting point. It is really a question and it has to do with the *seriousness* of this crisis and the ultimate ramifications of it.

          I tend to see this as an evolution or a continuation of the Sixties political and social movement. But the culture, in a wide sense, is that much more decadent, and that much more perverted, and those who were Sixties radicals — their views, the ideas, their misconceptions — are now more actuated, more systemic.

          • Nonsense. The verdict that present “crises” are worse than past challenges that the nation navigated well is not based on politics, ideology or patriotism It is based on knowing what the hell we’re talking about. Unambiguous facts are not ideological.

            • What I said is this:

              “It is clear that the Republic is in a severe crisis. I am uncertain if there has occurred anything like it before.”

              The first sentence is not *nonsense*.

              And the second sentence was more of a question than any conclusive statement. It seems to me though that this crisis is qualitatively different. And it also has a global dimension. And it is tied to America’s position in the world and a great deal about what America is and what it represents.

              But no matter what, the issue is to try to understand what it means and what it portends. Not to bicker about irrelevancies.

              As I said, I am aware that you calculatingly block those questions and concerns that are unsettling to you. and you encourage others to do this (and of course they do), and you do this using what I have come to understand are a lawyer’s tactics. But I say this respectfully and I do not wish to offend.

              But you will not be able to push down and out the questions, the concerns, nor the ideas, that are developing in and among people who are trying to come to fair and useful definitions.

              We note your blocking effort though.

              That is a fair statement, it seems to me.

      • From what I can tell, hundreds of thousands of businesses have been vandalized, looted, and/or burned across the country, based on the data released by the few cities I can find. I don’t think that it was that bad during the Vietnam war protests. Over 1/3 of all the pharmacies in Philadelphia were looted (roughly 1000 businesses in all reported looting). All the pharmacies in a 3 mile radius were looted in Chicago. Look at the damage in Portland, Seattle, NYC, Atlanta, LA… This is bad. We have a mayor negotiating a ‘cease fire’ between his troops and the federal law enforcement officers in his city. When has this happened since Ft. Sumter?

        This is the 3rd time in US history the Democratic Party has acted this way.
        Incident #1. Reconstruction.
        In areas completely controlled by the Democratic Party, their paramilitary wing terrorized and intimidated people into voting Democrat (or not at all). These attacks were particularly focused on newly freed slaves. Local Democratic governments made sure local police ignored these attacks, arresting the victims in some instances. Prosecutors refused to prosecute, judges ruled in the favor of the terrorists. Once the violence became too bad to ignore, U.S. Grant had to establish the Justice Department to go into these Democratic-controlled areas to arrest and prosecute these criminals. Only then was peace and justice restored.

        Incident #2. Civil Rights Era.
        In areas completely controlled by the Democratic Party, their paramilitary wing terrorized and intimidated people into voting Democrat (or not at all). These attacks were particularly focused on blacks and civil rights activists. Local Democratic governments made sure local police ignored these attacks, arresting the victims in some instances. Prosecutors refused to prosecute, judges ruled in the favor of the terrorists. Once the violence became too bad to ignore, the Justice Department had to go into these Democratic-controlled areas to arrest and prosecute the criminals. Only then was peace and justice restored.

        Incident #3. Today
        In areas completely controlled by the Democratic Party, their paramilitary wing is terrorizing and intimidating people, demanding an end to …well…Western Civilization and democracy. These attacks are particularly focused on minority areas resulting in significant increases in crime, victimization, loss of economic opportunities there. Local Democratic governments make sure local police ignore these attacks, arresting the victims in some instances. Prosecutors refuse to prosecute, judges rule in the favor of the terrorists. The Justice Department employees, however, are now overwhelmingly Democrat and are on the side of the violence and intimidation. Just think if the DOJ was like this in 1965.

  2. I’m not ready to sound the “knell of doom” yet, at least not today, but I think this should sound a lot of “alarm bells” among voters for this November. The House was interested in sound bites and mugging for the camera, not getting answers so they could do their job of oversight. That’s been going on at least since February 2019 when Ilhan Omar attempted to beat up Elliott Abrams over El Mozote. This was just a more egregious form of that. I’m not surprised. If the parties were reversed I’m sure the GOP would be doing the same, although not being as obvious about it…if they could get the AG to come in and testify, I seem to remember Eric Holder giving Congress the brush-off more than once. Of course, in that case the mainstream media would be talking about how the GOP lawmakers “never laid a glove on him,” whereas here the Washington Post just said it proved he was all-in as a partisan hack.

    What I am a little more surprised at, though not much, and think is a particularly loud “alarm bell” is what I can only describe as the lying among the Democratic Party regarding the recent riots. We’ve all seen the pictures and the videos. We’ve all heard the reports of the deaths. Yet Jerry Nadler sticks by the story that these are peaceful protests and any violence is Trump’s fault, and so does the rest of the party. With regard to Lafayette Park they might have a smidgeon of legitimacy, since there are conflicting accounts of what happened (and doing that photo-op was probably a bad idea), but that’s about it. With regard to everything else? Forget it. Peaceful protests don’t involve vandalism, setting fires, or first responders getting injured. Peaceful protests don’t require the police on the scene to call for the SWAT team to back them up. Peaceful protests don’t involve burning vehicles. Peaceful protests don’t involve deaths, especially not of children. Peaceful protests don’t involve tweets about the People putting a courthouse under siege. There was already a dress rehearsal for this in Portland when antifa laid siege to an ICE facility there for several weeks and Mayor Wheeler (who now wants to “negotiate a ceasefire” between the Feds and the rioters like he’s George Mitchell and Portland is Northern Ireland – BREAKING – apparently it’s been arranged for the Oregon State Police to step in) told the Portland Police Bureau not to get involved, forcing the Feds to pull together their own force and clear the area, which they did rather decisively. Apparently it didn’t get the point across.

    The Democratic Party is playing with fire here. They are banking on the belief that once they are back in power this will all dissipate. They might be right up to a point, activists like Cindy Sheehan, who were prominent during the Bush 43 administration, vanished pretty quickly once Obama was in power (and she has not been trotted out again). However, she was one person, and her followers were few. At this point you have a movement in a large number of cities where the Democrats are already in unchallenged power which is further left than those Democrats, with the Portland antifa calling Wheeler “tear-gas Ted,” and BLM in Minneapolis telling mayor Jacob Frey to GTFOH if he won’t commit to defunding the MPD. I’m not so sure these folks will simply stand down after an election. I know I keep coming back to the issue of Ireland, but the fact is that Michael Collins tried to end the bloodshed by arranging a treaty with the British that created the Irish Free State rather than the Republic, only to have that touch off the Irish Civil War between his people and those unsatisfied with the arrangement who wanted to keep fighting. The Irish Civil War claimed the lives of many more Irishmen than the Anglo-Irish War they’d just finished, and it ultimately claimed his life as well. The man who’d arranged so many ambushes and assassinations got caught in an ambush and got a bullet in the head, the same as he’d personally given to several British soldiers and police and ordered given to many others. Those who vote for them are also playing with fire and should think really hard before they pull that lever.

    • “The Democratic Party is playing with fire here. They are banking on the belief that once they are back in power this will all dissipate.”

      Yep, they’re dancing with the devil in the hopes to gain power. Only he’s not going to leave the dance.

        • The BLM riots (depict any Federal response as fascist) and the Kung Fu virus (wreck the economy) are Plans X and Y on the list of “lettered” plans to get Trump removed. There are no other extant plans in play at the moment. They are all the Democrats have. They certainly don’t have a viable presidential candidate or a viable platform.

            • Stefano, I think the biggest problem with both these plans, as was the case with all the previous one, is that over a period of time they tend to collapse beneath their own weight. The over reach becomes more and more obvious as time goes by. I think people are getting tired of the flu hysteria. I think there will be a backlash on the BLM stuff. November 3 is just too far away for either of these current plans to work that long. The other factor is the Biden having to come out of his basement at some point in time factor. He’s got to pick a running mate from a bunch of women who were wildly unpopular even with Democrat voters or haven’t run for anything nationally. Plus, Biden will have to go off script and off the teleprompter at some point before the election. I think the Dems are running out of options on their lettered list. But I may be whistling past the graveyard. Again, I don’t see any reason why anyone who voted for Trump last time would switch to the radical Dems this year.

              • It’s just a question of timing and how long Biden can keep out of sight. Next week he said he will announce his running mate, and right now there are a few indicators it could be Kamala Harris. I do not believe she is a good choice, but she is better known than Rep. Bass and less repulsive than Stacey Abrams. Biden chose to box himself into a limited set of choices in the hopes that it would gain him enough female and black votes to put him over the top. We’ll see. People don’t vote for the No.2 spot in any significant numbers, and I don’t think she has wide enough appeal to bring out the full 13% the way Obama did.

                I do think a lot of folks are getting pandemic fatigue, but it’s not to the point of open defiance yet. In NJ everyone is still pretty much shrugging and saying what the governor says goes. I also think a lot of people are fed up with the BLM stuff, which is no longer about getting justice for George Floyd, but about using his death as nuclear fuel to ram a far left agenda down everyone’s throat while making them too afraid to say no. In the first few weeks that was one thing, but when people are still talking about yanking down statues 60 days after the fact, and still walking up to folks at an ice cream parlor, blowing electronic sirens, banging on drums, and telling them to put down their dessert and give them respect, then it’s not about justice anymore, it’s about bullying and the blacks saying “now it’s our turn, so shut up, sit down, and listen!” I think after they tear down a statue they expect the southerners, Italians, or whoever to genuflect and say “thank you, oh wise ones, for showing us the error of our ways.” If white guilt is really that crippling we have bigger problems.

                Biden is going to do everything he possibly can to stay out of sight and on script. He is going to do his best to avoid the debates, because he knows Trump will chew him up and spit him out. It’s just a question of can he do that without looking like he’s trying to hide? I don’t think it helped Hillary that she was revealed to be looking for ways to cheat in the last set of debates, because how is a president who needs to do that supposed to handle Putin or China or the ME rulers? The same could be true here. How is a president who can’t take on a political rival supposed to take on other countries? We shall see. I wonder what the VP debate will be like. I think Pence beat Tim Kaine pretty handily, but he could be painted as out of his depth against a strong black woman who wouldn’t be deferential like his wife or need a chaperone like his co-workers.

    • “The Democratic Party is playing with fire here. They are banking on the belief that once they are back in power this will all dissipate.”

      I mostly agree. What Rep. Nadler and the hard left of the Democrat Party seem to be doing is crowding out the centrist and moderate Democrats (who tend to be factory workers, coal miners, middle to upper middle class suburban whites). Where are they going to turn if the party is now effectively calling for a Marxist paradise? If the likes of Bernie Sanders (who is an independent and not a registered Democrat), Warren, Ocasio-Cortez and the gang of crazies have taken over the party, then that might not bode well for Democrats in November. Likewise, the real crazies – the hard left – is probably disillusioned because Biden, try as he might, is just not socialist enough for their liking. Maybe they stay home, too. Additionally, the suburbs are watching what is going on in the cities and they are saying, “well, hell, we ain’t drawn like moths to THAT city. We used to cruise those places for action, hoping to return to the relative safety of the suburbs to dream of somewhere to relax our restless flights. Those places are scary dangerous.”

      Maybe they look at Trump and think that he is a law and order president far and above what Biden and his soon-to-be-nominated Black Women Running Mate will offer.


      • What I am wondering is why the Democratic leadership are acting like there is a large, previous-ignored pro-riot constituency making up a significant proportion of voters in swing states and key swing districts? It is one thing to voice concern about civil rights of those accused of looting, rioting, and arson. It is a whole other thing to call federal law enforcement agents “Trump’s secret police”.

        Biden himself does have impressive law-and-order credentials; he did sponsor the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. But his biggest problem is not himself, but the rest of the party’s leadership who is doing asll they can to appear as if they are supporting the riots.

        Finally, I am surprised that Jack Marshall has not written an article devoted entirely to these riots, as well as the Democrats’ reaction to them. This started last week, and I have been waiting almost two weeks for the article.

        What has been the delay?

  3. If you look at the polls, and see where the state of the race is now, you have to say that no matter how unhinged, irresponsible, rude, and irredeemably horrible the Democrats acted yesterday, their strategy is working, and their strident tactics are not hurting them.

    For whatever reason, people seem willing to give the Dems a ton of latitude on this and any other issue that directly assaults President Trump or his minions. Even those who might be a little alarmed at first at their behavior will most likely find ways to rationalize it using rationalizations 1-all, 2-all, 7, 12, 13-all, 19-all, 26, 28, 31, 32, 38b, 41, 42, 45, 46, 51 (especially), 54, 58, 59, 64, 66, 69, either by themselves or in combinations.

    At this point, I think the lines are pretty clearly drawn. I believe that undecideds are a very small minority, and the reality is, they usually break for the challenger. Unless there turns out to be a significant “silent” vote out there for Trump and the Republicans, it is perfectly rational, if unethical, for the Democrats to believe their tactics are having success.

    One of the oldest sayings in the world is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The Democrats don’t believe their virulently unethical tactics are “broke” — in fact, they think they are a winning strategy, and many of the facts appear to support at least an argument that they are, even if they turn out to be a non- or slightly negative factor. In any case, it must feel pretty good to bash away unrestrained at a political opponent and ignore the rules of decorum with impunity. That’s because the Democrats feel empowered — they think they can do whatever they want and that it may actually help them with their base, and the people who are singularly revolted by Trump, and generate a “Meh, business as usual” from the rest. Based on what I see, they may well be right. In any case, these are not the tactics of a political party that feels threatened by potential defeat.

    If you look at Trump, you’ll see a guy who not only pioneered the tactic of bashing away at his enemies without concern for ethics or decorum, but essentially got himself elected by using those very tactics. Since then he has not balked at the least at shouting down people, punching down at citizens that other presidents would’ve never considered attacking, raising strawmen so transparent you could see the horizon through them, and going on childish rants at the drop of a pin.

    So while I abhor what the Democrats did, I am not surprised, nor particularly outraged. Our politics have devolved, and this is exactly what you can expect from the Republicans when the shoe gets on the other foot, as tit-for-tat is now the de-facto standard for political payback. For that vanishing majority out there who cares about decorum and ethics in politics, this had to be one of the last straws. For me, that straw left the building a long time ago.

    We are not doomed, probably, but the times are getting mighty interesting, and they are likely to get more interesting still.

    • We are not doomed, probably, but the times are getting mighty interesting, and they are likely to get more interesting still.

      I think *doom* requires a definition. My own view, which is certainly not popular here, is that the nature of crisis is spiritual. If there is ‘doom’ it comes about when a person loses, in essential senses, her or his bearings. Doom in my view has to do with a definite sort of perdition. The individual losing his or her bearings: the ability to guide and steer. When a nation as powerful, and as significant, as the United States goes off the track in this sense, or these senses, I would suggest that ‘doom’ is a logical consequence.

      But George Friedman, for example, who puts together meta-economic and meta-political interpretive narratives about America, points out that America is too vast, and too powerful, to simply burn out or self-destruct.

      The crises develop because people are internally in crisis. Perhaps that is an unreal basis for even having an opinion within politics and society. But this is the area I work in.

  4. The media provide the theme of hopelessness and chaos.
    However, here in S.C., I live in what would be called a mixed-race and economically depressed neighborhood. Everyone seems to get along fine and just wants everything to calm down.

  5. We’ve all seen the pictures and the videos. We’ve all heard the reports of the deaths.

    And we’ve all seen footage of the Democrats’ outrageous rudeness yesterday — if, by “we,” you mean those of us who read this blog. But, as far as I can tell, most voters have not. My friends and relatives, for the most part, have seen very few pictures and videos of the violence and no videos of Democrats acting badly yesterday. They believe with all of their hearts that the real violence and murders are being perpetrated by police and racists who are attacking peaceful protesters without justification. And they believe that Barr was rude to the Democrats, not vice versa. As long as the mainstream media keep reporting it that way, they’ll keep believing it.

  6. The interesting thing is that probably 70% of my FB “friends” are progs and liberals. My conservative friends are having a field day with Barr’s run in the star chamber, but the libs They’ve been remarkably quiet about yesterday’s dog and pony show, preferring older stuff like federal-officers-in-Portland-show-Trump-is-a-dictator, pandemic pearl clutching, and the like.

    Jack, I suspect your TDS-diminished friend isn’t the only liberal who found Nadler and Company embarrassing.

    • To which I’d add: for grins and giggles I checked out the opinion sections on CNN and MSNBC. They’ve posted nothing about the alleged hearing. One posted a boilerplate ad hominem attack on Barr; the other (obviously written before the hearing itself) attempted to shred his opening statement.

      But nothing on Barr’s appearance itself, or the appalling behavior of the Judiciary Committee.

      • I don’t know about MSBNC because watching that network is worse than watching asphalt dry, but CNN had Anderson Cooper and his guests talking about how horribly Barr acted during the hearing. They condemned Barr for being a brute and under Trump’s thumb. I guess it is a topsy-turvy world where up is down, black is white, left is right. Orwell was right he just got the year wrong.


    • This is the sort of news that our liberal friends heard about the Barr hearing:

      Gross lies.

      • Because in a hearing in which the other side is berating you, accusing you, and doing their level best to keep you from saying a word, you are still obligated to treat those doing this to you, if they are female, like they are Edwardian ladies of the house and you are their social inferior. It is very rude to speak over them, speak back to them, or speak at all unless they indicate you should speak. Republicans are like children, they should be seen and not heard, and when they are heard they should be very deferential. Also because every government office should be staffed only by women and people of color if at all possible. If you’re a white male MAYBE you’re allowed to have one other white male serving as one of your lieutenants, but he can’t be your top lieutenant, who should be a woman or person of color to properly advise you, and he can’t be your chief of staff, since chiefs of staff are the ones who control access to you and run interference. If you are not a white male, then there’s no excuse for having any members of that cancer on the world in your office.

  7. I’d say the shining moment in the hypocrisy of the hearing is Rep. Nadler stalling the hearing because someone had taken their mask down to drink some coffee. He forbid the drinking of coffee because it would require taking your mask down. Rep. Nadler said all this while his own mask was around his neck.

  8. I just finished watching the entire hearing on CSPAN and I’m so pissed off at how the Democrats conducted themselves I can hardly speak.

    It was very clear to me that the Democrats had no intention of letting the Attorney General directly address anything they spoke about or asked him. This was not a hearing to get answers from the Attorney General (AG) it was an attempt to political lynch the AG. What an absolutely disgraceful display of partisan political BULL SHIT from the Democratic Party members. After the partisan political impeachment bull shit this really shouldn’t come as a surprise but it was.

    The tactics of the Democrats was to spew their accusations, innuendo and lies without any repercussion and in doing so they knew that the Republicans would have to limit their questions and points and eat up their time to allow the AG to respond to the Democrats bull shit.

    The Democrats are morally bankrupt and seriously broken.

    P.S. There were a couple of Republicans on the committee that I wonder how the hell they ever got elected, their constituency must have really disliked the other candidate in the election to elect such inept Representative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.