Three times that Barr was left speechless

Attorney General William Barr, facing calls for his impeachment in the wake of yesterday’s release of “the Mueller letter“, was forced to once again testify under oath today. I’m tempted to just rant about the absurdity of Lindsey Graham and the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who spent their time rehashing long debunked conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server and the like, but, as time is short, I want to get right to these three pivotal exchanges between Barr and Democratic members of the Committee.

CLIP ONE: Senator Kamala Harris asks Barr if the President has ever suggested that he open an investigation on anyone, and Barr pretends not to have heard her, hoping that, in the time it takes her to repeat the question, he can think of a way to answer that won’t eventually bring perjury charges.

CLIP TWO: Senator Chris Coons asks Barr to confirm his position that there’s nothing wrong with a U.S. presidential candidate accepting campaign assistance from a hostile foreign government. Again, Barr is left speechless, as he attempts to formulate a response.

CLIP THREE: Senator Kamala Harris, an accomplished prosecutor, gets Barr to acknowledge that he did not look at the underlying evidence gathered by Robert Mueller before offering his verdict the President would not be charged with obstruction of justice. This, as Harris pointed out, is particularly troublesome, seeing as how Mueller, who actually did look at the evidence, said that it didn’t lead him to a determination one way or the other. In other words, Mueller said he couldn’t make a determination based on the evidence, and Barr stepped in saying that the same evidence led him to pronounce Donald Trump innocent, but, by his own admission, he never looked at the underlying evidence.

There was a lot more, but that’s got to be it for me tonight, as I have other things to tend to. If you have time, though, I’d encourage you to watch all 8 minutes of the exchange between Harris and Barr. While I appreciated some of the other questions posed by Democrats, Harris was the most affective, by far. [If all of the Democrats had yielded their time to her, I suspect we’d all be looking at photos of Barr is shackles right now.]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

73 Comments

  1. Posted May 1, 2019 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    OK, I know I said that I didn’t have time, but this whole thing really pissed me off. It’s just so transparent. For Barr to come out and say that Mueller wasn’t upset with him, but that he was instead upset by the way the press had misinterpreted the 4-page memo was just so laughably transparent. And, of course, it all fell apart later in the day when Barr slipped and referred to Mueller’s letter as being “snitty“. The truth is that Mueller was pissed, with good reason, that Barr had interceded on the President’s behalf to spin the report before its release, and it’s obvious. That’s the only reason why a written letter would have been sent, and everyone knows it. And for Barr to continue this charade is just fucking laughable.

  2. Anonymous
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 5:48 am | Permalink

    Barr is refusing to appear before the House today.

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/01/politics/barr-skips-house-hearing/index.html

  3. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    “If you have time, though, I’d encourage you to watch all 8 minutes of the exchange between Harris and Barr.”

    I second this suggestion but for different reasons.

  4. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    You’re about at the end of your rope, Bark Baynard. These points are so weak and there is so much in store for the politicians and intelligence agents that you like. It’s funny how the weaker you get the more you bare your teeth and snarl.

  5. Meta
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler: “Attorney General Barr has informed us he will not appear today” to testify on the Mueller report https://cnn.it/2LkO2Sv

  6. Meta
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Rep. Steve Cohen Brings KFC and Rubber Chicken to Mock Barr’s No-Show at Hearing

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-barr-rep-steve-cohen-brings-kfc-and-rubber-chicken-to-mock-attorney-generals-no-show-at-hearing

  7. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    “The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Wednesday to allow members of its staff to question Attorney General William Barr”

    Pretty sure that is why he is not appearing today. The rules say congressmen can ask questions, not staff.

  8. Jean Henry
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    HW— yes. That rule is why Barr isn’t testifying, because, clearly, the man is a stickler for following the rules.

  9. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    That’s right.

  10. Anonymous
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    The birth canal

  11. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    The utter incompetence of Nadler on full display

    https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1123621541462167552

  12. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Aloha JH and HW. Here is a copy of the House Judiciary Committee Rules. I have read them twice and see no prohibition on staff being allowed/directed to ask questions. In fact the Rule on Other Procedures clearly allows the Chair Person of the committee to
    “OTHER PROCEDURES

    (f) The Chair may establish such other Committee procedures and take such actions as may be necessary to carry out these rules or to facilitate the effective operation of the Committee and its subcommittees in a manner consistent with these rules.”

    In addition under the staff rules, “IN GENERAL

    (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the professional and other staff of the Committee shall be appointed, by the Chair, and shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Chair.”

    Barr refusing to testify is just so much hand waving. If the Democrats had any spine they would Subpoena Barr, and if he refused to answer the Subpoena, they initiate impeachment proceedings against him for his perjury, his obstruction of Congress.

    As always HW seems to have his facts wrong, and JH wants to provide cover for the establishment Democrats, so lets invent a rule that does not exist.
    Until the Democrats actually demonstrate they care about the law, this is just so much political posturing.
    https://rules.house.gov/rules-committee-rules

  13. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    How can you say I get my facts wrong when I have been correct over and over and most all of you have been wrong every time? Nothing you got HYSTERICAL about has amounted to shit.

    “Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler subpoenaed Attorney General William Barr on Friday for a full, unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and the underlying evidence by May 1.”

    Does Barr have to do that do you think?

  14. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    “(2) The five-minute rule shall be observed in the interrogation of each witness before the Committee until each member of the Committee has had an opportunity to question the witness.”

    BOOM. Wrong again, wobs.

  15. EOS
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    I’d like to see Barack Obama Questioned Under Oath about SpyGate & Trump Targeting

  16. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    This is really about the panicking over the DOJ is doing it’s job regarding un-predicated spying on the Trump campaign by the Obama white house. They have to destroy Barr, the “Immovable Monolith” as one commentator described him. Good luck.

  17. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Really about the *dems* panicking…

  18. mtp
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Nadler warns after AG’s no-show: ‘Mr. Barr’s moment of accountability will come soon enough’ https://nbcnews.to/2ZQPqiR

  19. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    I think we are all going to get to see that, EOS. Jean Henry swore to lick my boot and give me a thousand dollars at the Tap Room if Obama, Hillary et al are convicted. I don’t know if I want her mouth getting on my footwear but I would take her money for sure.

    NEEL!!! Hahahaha

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y-_eWs9l5o

  20. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Aloha HW, here are the comments of some one who actually knows how the system works.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/william-barr-testimony-house-judiciary-committee-iran-contra-history.html

  21. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    *KNEEL* that is.

    I am the Ultimate Warlord
    Kneel before my Sword of Light
    I am the Ultimate Warlord
    Better get your planet to right

  22. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    If that is how it is supposed to be all the time then why did they have to pass a resolution to do it now?

  23. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, Private censorship of “public space” continues at pace. Will any Democrats or Republicans stand up for freedom of speech?
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech/facebook-ban-louis-farrakhan-infowars-alex-jones-milo-laura-loomer/index.html

  24. Big Ben
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    William Barr is the Honey Badger. Honey Badger is smarter than everyone in Congress combined. Honey Badger don’t play politics and will get to the bottom of these shenanigans. Honey Badger is about to chew up and spit out anyone that did actually commit obstruction of Justice. Democrats fear the Honey Badger. Also wait until Muller testifies and pees in the Democrats Cheerios again. Liberals and Democrats are just bad people.

  25. Sad
    Posted May 2, 2019 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Honey badger

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Honey%20Badger&page=5

  26. Big Ben
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 5:20 am | Permalink

    Dear Sad
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Democrat

  27. Sad
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    Tell me about it. I’m so tired of Mueller, Barr, impeachment that I could just about throw up.

    Oust Trump at the election. I keep hoping that HW and EOS are right and all the old Democrats will be swept from power within the party so a new generation of leadership can take control.

    Don’t trust anyone over 40!

  28. Sad
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 5:31 am | Permalink

    Except Stacey Abrams.

  29. Jim Monsoon
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    I know it’s hopeless to try and make sense of EOS and HW, but I have to ask: if the FBI gets a tip that a foreign adversary may have committed crimes to influence our elections – possibly with help from one of the campaigns – don’t you think they should investigate?

  30. Anonymous
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    Jim Monsoon,

    I think it should be obvious that they do not think anyone in Trump’s team should be investigated for anything.

  31. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    You call the dirty dossier a “tip”? What if they came up with a phony tip about you? And proceeded to try to delete you using it?

  32. EOS
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    Hi Jim,

    The “tip” came from a fabricated dossier that was paid for by his opponent in the campaign. And as the nearly two year investigation determined, it was unsubstantiated. I’ve read that more details about this will be revealed to the general public in May or June.

  33. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    POTUS: “It’ll ALL be declassified.” Just like Q has been saying for a year and a half. You act cool but so does the frog in the warming pot.

  34. Jim Monsoon
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    That’s not what happened. The Australians told us what papadopolous had said about the Russians plans to help trump, which kicked off the investigation.
    But even if the dossier was the spark, the FBI knew Steele to have credibility.
    Would you really want law enforcement to ignore this kind of thing?

  35. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    Jim,

    Mr. Anonymous is a mini propaganda machine–always making stuff up in an attempt to smear and delegitimize others… I think it is normal to investigate based upon good cause. I also think it is normal to investigate the investigation. Were legal processes followed? What took so long?

    I try to be optimistic. I think this is all one long process. I hope the process sorts out the good and bad actors. Are you thinking it is abnormal to investigate the investigation?

  36. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Oops

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html

  37. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    The FBI fired Steele for breaking rules. Steele Dossier turned out to be garbage. Credible?

  38. Jim Monsoon
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Yes HW that’s called investigating.
    You haven’t engaged on the question though. It’s pretty basic: should suspected crimes be investigated?

  39. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    If the suspicion itself is phony; a pretext?

  40. Jim Monsoon
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Putting aside the fact that it wasn’t phony, how would they know if it’s legit without investigating?

  41. Anonymous
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    By definition, a suspicion cannot be phony. It can either be confirmed or shown to be wrong, but can’t be phony.

  42. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    That’s no fact. Not a true one. In answer to your question: easy. Don’t allow the DNC to hire someone to gather foreign disinfo to try to destroy an opponent. Recognize it for what it is. For sure don’t pay the guy yourself like the FBI did until they fired him (but kept using his disinfo).

  43. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think you understand the word definition. A phony suspicion: not a real suspicion but a pretext to spy.

  44. Jim Monsoon
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    What a weird warped world you live in

  45. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    I was framed up by someone who implicated me in something they did. They pushed a ‘phony suspicion’ of me to associates when they were the guilty party.

  46. EOS
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    The FBI should never have used the dossier to obtain the FISA warrant. They misrepresented its authenticity to the court. Those responsible for this will be charged. Wait and see.

    It is a weird warped world we live in. Sins can be forgiven, but their consequences cannot be avoided.

  47. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s weird for you to say that when I have been on the money over and over. You think the spying was properly predicated but they used disinfo to start it. How does that add up?

  48. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Anonymous
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
    By definition, a suspicion cannot be phony. It can either be confirmed or shown to be wrong, but can’t be phony.

    Everybody knows that we have rules regarding probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The whole point of those laws is to require law enforcement to pass a minimal threshold of evidence prior to search, seizure, arrest, or surveillance. It is illegal for the police to proceed with a search without passing the minimal threshold of evidence. Often the police, in an unlawful way, make up false reasons to justify a reasonable suspicion claim for stopping someone, searching someone etc…

  49. Sad
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    I think Mayor Pete is clean. I doubt he could have been involved in any of this from South Bend.

  50. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 3, 2019 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Jim,

    What makes you so certain they had reasonable suspicion? It feels like an open question to me… Don’t you think we ought to investigate the process?

  51. Anonymous
    Posted May 4, 2019 at 4:39 am | Permalink

    Business plan 101: See a need, fill a need.

    Business plan 401: Create a need, fill a need.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/john-kelly-joins-board-of-caliburn-international-company-operating-largest-unaccompanied-migrant-children-shelter/

    Not suspicious at all.

  52. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 4, 2019 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    Aloha, Never forget when the State turned on the people
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmd6CHah7Wg

  53. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 4, 2019 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Anonymous,

    Your convenient lack of skepticism in some areas gives rise to your suspicions in other areas.

    Do you remember when people were saying there must have been reasonable cause for the issuing of FISA warrants because FISA warrants are only issued if the evidence passes a relatively high threshold reasonable suspicion? Whether or not the evidence passed the reasonable threshold of suspicion is an open question.

    Whether or not there is a crisis at the border is an open question. How best to handle border issues is an open question.

    Is it reasonable to suspect there is some sort of reason that you chronically fail to identify and address the open questions?

  54. Sad
    Posted May 4, 2019 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    But there is no question about Mayor Pete being the best candidate to go up against a Trump.

  55. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 4, 2019 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    “The truth is that Mueller was pissed, with good reason, that Barr had interceded on the President’s behalf to spin the report before its release, and it’s obvious.”–Mark

    This is an honest question: What exactly was the spin?

    1)Russia meddled. (check)
    2) Trump/ Trump’s team did not collude. (check)
    3) Obstruction was left an open question by Mueller. (check)

  56. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    Lots of neat quotes on this site.

    “Anonymous
    Posted August 3, 2018 at 9:35 pm

    “So, what happens to the Q Heads when Mueller recommends images eachment? Do they say that too was part of the plan?”

    So what happened to you? No recommendation of images eachment. Noko lusion, no nuthin’.

  57. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    Former Ypsilanti mayor and current councilman Pete Murdock has passed away.

    Peter J. Murdock, 76, of Ypsilanti, Michigan, passed away on May 4, 2019, at his home after a short illness.

    He maybe gone, but every Tuesday (my recycling day) I will remember him. One of the best of Ypsilanti.

  58. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Anonymous is one of those people who claims to know what can’t be known. You can’t know what is untrue. You can spin out a lot of lies, innuendo and deceit based on claims to knowing the unknowable however.

    It is dangerous if not pointed out. After it is pointed out it it is just seen as pathetic. By some miracle Anonymous does not see it for what it is–weak and pathetic.

  59. Anonymous
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    FF assumes that only one poster is anonymous, when the majority of them, including FF, are anonymous. How can FF know what is unknowable?

  60. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t get that out of what he said at all. Think logically. I know it is challenging.

  61. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Anonymous,

    I am not anonymous. I use a pseudonym.

    Don’t you see the difference?

    If a trend arises where intelligent comments are coming under the handle “Anonymous” then I will second guess my decision to treat everything posted under the handle “Anonymous” as if it is coming from one person. As it is there always seems to be the same stupid fingerprints all over the comments posted by “Anonymous”. Maybe it is one person posting as “Anonymous”? Maybe two soulmates and their buddy post regularly as “Anonymous”? Does knowing whether or not the handle “Anonymous” belongs to one person matter much? It does not matter to me. I have already made the decision to treat “Anonymous” as one big ball of stupidity. Knowledge of the true identity or identities of “Anonymous” will not change my decision but a trend toward intelligent comments under that handle would change my decision.

  62. Sad
    Posted May 5, 2019 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    Oh boy.

    Here we go……

  63. Anonymous
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    FF, I (we?) don’t think you’re stupid. Just unimportant. Two different things.

  64. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    FF’s words have great import. Can’t believe someone like you thinks you are “more important” than someone of FF’s caliber. You could learn how to reason by studying FF’s posts but nope. You want to try to degrade him for speaking with intelligence and wisdom.

  65. Sad
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Aww… that’s sweet!

  66. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    I am pretty nice to just about everyone, Sad. The only ones I have a problem with are people who try to attack me or screw me over somehow. Frosted Flakes has earned tremendous respect.

  67. John Brown
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    FF is a fucking bootlicker, who’s utterings support screwing the rest of his fellow humans. HW is a bootlickers bootlicker.

  68. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, Seems like the question is, Will the Democrats decide the President is above the law. “More than 450 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.62e6f48838f2

  69. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Too bad you won’t say things like that to my face you cowardly CIA fuckin’ tool.

  70. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    How is it being a bootlicker to TELL THE TRUTH? You’re a little bitch who lies and the world hates you for it. You and Bark are some of the only people left pushing this Russia shit. Oh, we can just keep going! We don’t have to eat all this shit we said.

  71. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Damn, if you are this unhinged now I can’t wait till the carnage begins. You have to run the gauntlet of current investigations on your people, the traitors beginning very soon. You are going to need psychiatric care for sure.

  72. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    It freaks you out I was correct once again on the issue dominating the first two years of Trump’s presidency, doesn’t it? There is no way it isn’t unsettling way deep down. Most eeeveryone but a few of us here has had to shut the fuck up. All but the ones you hate. Why do you hate the truth? Afraid of a little ego death when everything you believed comes crashing down? Hm.

  73. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 6, 2019 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    HW,

    Thank you for the kind words and for responding to Fake John Brown. I really don’t know what the hell he is thinking.

    Almost all of these people are pretty weird. I don’t see what the big deal is: 1) Try to identify the questions. 2) Try to answer the questions.

    Why are they choosing to parrot a bunch of stuff,that does not even make sense, that they heard on CNN. Do you think some of these people are receiving a paycheck to repeat all of this nonsense? I can’t figure it out. Many of these people have advanced degrees and yet they fail to think through anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect

Sidetrack ad Aubree’s ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Ark of Maynard