Yesterday, members of the House Judiciary Committee grilled Attorney General William Barr for nearly five hours. After a barrage of attempts by House Democrats to discredit him, berate him, get him in a gotcha lie or catch him off guard, they all failed. Ultimately, the members embarrassed themselves.
A drinking game could be made out of the hearing: every time a filibustering Democrat said, “I’m reclaiming my time” — leaving the AG without the ability to answer questions in this most surreal Q&A marathon — a player takes a drink. The last player still standing at the end of the hearing is the winner or loser depending on your perspective — did you really win if you endured the whole hearing?
The debacle began with AG Barr providing his opening statement in which he did not hold back any misgivings regarding why he was in front of the committee.
AG Barr said, “Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal, many of the Democrats on this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions. Judging from the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda today.”
He addressed those claims directly: “As I said in my confirmation hearing, the Attorney General has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice. He must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally and that criminal cases are handled even-handedly, based on the law and the facts, and without regard to political or personal considerations. I can tell you that I have handled criminal matters that have come to me for decision in this way.”
Yet, the committee insisted on grilling Barr, like they were on the People’s Court, forgetting this man’s four-decade long career as a litigator. He was unfazed, even as the tone of his interrogators elevated into a frenzy (here’s looking at you, Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington!)
Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) was late by an hour and even dozing off (maybe just resting his eyes?) at one point behind his mask. He was rude and interrupted Barr after asking him to answer questions — let alone his responses to Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) who tried to get Nadler to play fair.
Nadler interrupted AG Barr so often that it became almost automatic. In fact, it was quite reminiscent of the exact manner that the House handled the impeachment hearings last year.
Nadler wasn’t the only one who was blatantly rude asking to yield time back while Barr was attempting to answer the posed question.
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) was another rude member who had the audacity to tell Barr that he was being rude. It was almost comical if it had not been so aggravating.
Ultimately, every Democrat blurted out their talking points for the newspapermen in the audience, in the hopes their invective was worth more than any of the clear answers the AG could actually give to what were complex questions, impossible to answer, as they demanded, with a yes or a no, sir!
Every Democrat in the room seemed to go by the same script — use falsified media reports to build their arguments, justify the violent protests while maintaining that they were not violent, and that Barr’s authority to use Federal Agents was unjustified. And that he should stop talking, because he was “reclaiming [their] time!”
Barr was frustrated but in his typical king bullfrog of the swamp style, he remained calm, cool and collected and professionally answered questions, when he was able to. Yet his eye roll — a prolonged eyelash flutter, was telling.
Barr had some help on his side, with Republican Doug Collins (R-GA) on the committee and able to ask some pertinent questions to get AG Barr on the record with substantive answers, fully explaining his intentions and legal philosophy, as you’d think he was meant to with this august invitation to the Judiciary Committee Hearing.
Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was clearly getting upset at the Democrats attempt to discredit Barr and also impede his ability to answer the questions they asked him.
But Jim Jordan really got the pugilist award, with a long and angry rant. The fact that ever since Barr declared the Russia collusion hoax and went after the players, the Democrats have tried desperately to discredit him in the same vein as they have President Trump for the last four years — yes, he said it on record, but, too bad all the country’s newspapers won’t print that.
When Barr was finally able to complete a full sentence on the Federal Government’s decision to send backup to support the Federal Marshalls at the Portland Federal Courthouse, he posed some great questions to consider. He asked the committee if it would deem the destruction of the beautiful E. Barret Prettyman Courthouse at the bottom of the hill as acceptable? Because, after 61 days of nightly attacks, including fire bombs, fireworks in windows, and other homemade assault weapons on the building’s exterior, there was no way anyone could consider the protesters “peaceful” any longer.
He said it was the government’s obligation to protect the Federal buildings in the cities across the country in which the protests and violence are taking place and that the burden of that violence has been cast upon Federal officers sworn to protect those Federal properties — not the Army or the National Guard (yet) and definitely no “storm troopers,” as the Democrats suggested.
By the end of the hearing, it should have been clear to anyone watching that it was a farce: a political circus run by salty Democrats under the mounting pressure because they all know that the charade is up, their own unmasking will soon be upon us and the jig is up on their game to overthrow an elected President and derail an honorable, professional and experienced Attorney General.
The public has seen it firsthand, just like they witnessed the bogus impeachment trial. All thick smoke, cracked mirrors, an insanity maze inside our House of Horrors.
The underlying question they all wanted to know was what was happening with U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation?
This is otherwise known as FISAGATE and the “Dims” asked AG Barr to commit to not releasing the findings in a way that would interfere with the election. He refused that, just saying that, the conclusion was coming soon and he would manage it in a way based on the findings of the law and not the politics. One reading is that these first indictments won’t include politicians — leaving the heads of the CIA, John Brennan, the FBI thugs Peter Strozck and whole lists of compromised Deep Staters, but not politicians. We shall see.
Soon the world will know who the real enemies of the State are and, with any hope and all of our prayers, justice will be served and America will, indeed, be great again.