Michael Goodwin: Barr eats Nadler's lunch during testimony
By: Michael Goodwin (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
close
Video
House Democrats pepper Attorney General William Barr with questions on range of issues; chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel reports.
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.
Video
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.
Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
123 visitors
It was obvious to anyone who watched that this was political theatre orchestrated by the democrats in which the AG was not going to be heard. It is the first hearing I have ever seen where the witness was not given the ability to provide meaningful answers.
Barr played it so well, at one point asking “This is a hearing; I thought I was the one who was supposed to be heard?”
Another bad day for House democrats!
Vic, get a grip, buy a clue. You are cloistering yourself among right wing media such as Michael Goodwin, and that is shielding you from reality. Barr spent most of his time not replying directly to the questions, causing the Democrats to "reclaim my time" which is committee speak for "I am not going to let you filibuster my questions".
People can have honest disagreements as to whether the protesters are peaceful or violent depending on what one wishes to emphasize, there is no honest disagreement about whether or not Barr is a toad of Trump. He uses his office to protect and promote the worst president in US history. History is not going to be kind to William Barr.
And that is why your representatives in the House sounded and acted like radical haters yesterday - their supporters demand it!
If they do this to a man of impeccable legal credentials and experience, imagine what they’ll do to Americans when they have control of the US Government. Voters beware!
People can have honest disagreements as to whether the protesters are peaceful or violent
Gee thanks!
One of the Democratic congressmen asked Barr this question
" Is it ever appropriate for a president or a presidential candidate to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?"
Sounds pretty straightforward , right?
This was Barr's answer
(shrugs shoulders) "It depends on what kind of assistance."
The congressmen repeated his question adding the words "any kind" and Barr hung his head a little and said "no it is not".
The congressman then said "Sorry you had to struggle with that ."
It is a crime to accept foreign assistance in a US election. Barr tried to weasel through that question to comply with Trump's beliefs about it.
See 1.1.4
It's too bad you can't admit that.
No, it sounds like they are making an accusation against the President. Maybe we should replay that shameful back in forth with the hate-filled Hank Johnson:
Does anyone believe that was a fair hearing?
Anyone who agrees with that little worm Nadler, is nuts
Barr ate the bastards up and spit them out for all of America to see...once again.
Things are going from bad to very bad for the Dems this summer and they are going to get worse as the Barr and Durham investigations bear fruit before the election
Barr knows that it is a crime for a presidential candidate to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election. Why did he answer "it depends on what kind of assistance" ?
I know why. He knows that Trump likes foreign assistance in his elections and Barr wanted to conform with Trump.
At the cost of his own reputation.
The questions themselves were all either loaded or incoherent.
For instance, let's use John favorite question:
" Is it ever appropriate for a president or a presidential candidate to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?"
Anyone in this country knows the questioner is talking about Donald Trump and is suggesting that he had help from Russia! The answer is almost of no consequence.
Because many times the "help" was not solicited by a presidential candidate (as with what China just did for Joe Biden). In that case the assistance might not even be known to the candidate, never mind accepted.
The question implies that Donald Trump requested help from Russia. It's called a loaded question. Disgusting lawyers & politicians ask those kinds of questions.
Trump IS ON VIDEO saying he would accept help from foreign sources.
That is why Barr struggled with the question.
Link please.
An hour has passed. I'm assuming JR is referring to the night when candidate Trump facetiously said “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” !
Hillary Clinton'd destroyed emails!
How much does the left intend to make out of that?
It's truly pathetic.
Oh, ya how could we forget that silly remark with George Stephanopolous standing over him in that disgraceful way.
Sorry John, that won't do it!
[DELETED]
That's problem with people on the left - they actually think that a Fascist style hearing looks good!
Yesterday....Remember ? ? ?
Absolutely everyone without a severe liberal bias thinks Barr acquitted himself well and is ashamed of how the Dems at the hearing treated him.
They offered only shameful displays of bias and disrespect.
Sad!
You would have had to torture William Barr to get him to give a straight answer at that hearing.
You would have to torture most of the Dems in that hearing to get them to shut their pie-holes long enough to let Barr actually testify.
A shameful lack of decorum is about all they had to present.
But boy, they all do like the sound of their own voices ..... that is for sure.
Actually John, at the beginning of the hearing we saw that Barr easily parried the hostile questions, thus the democrats quickly changed gears and thereafter whenever Barr tried to answer their loaded questions, they would cut him off with "reclaiming my time." Shall we replay it John?
It was pretty bad ..... almost childlike with some of them.
If this is what politics has come to in our country God help us all.
Slightly worse than the "impeachment farce" but not quite at the level of the "Kavanaugh Hearings!"
I saw or listened to much of it. Barr wanted to ramble off on side roads instead of directly answering questions. He knows they only have five minutes each and he wanted to spend as much of the five minutes as possible avoiding the implications of the questions. That is why they reclaimed their time.
If they ask him "do you ever talk about the election with the president , yes or no ? he should answer yes or no, and THEN expand on his answer if the questioner desires that. Barr did not want to ever answer yes or no. He wanted to spin.
He barely got a chance to speak.
No, it was obvious to anyone with an ounce of objectivity that they didn't want to allow him to answer, They got a taste early on of how well prepared he was. This was an election campaign vehicle. It was shameful.
I saw or listened to much of it.
I watched all of it!
Near the end of the hearing Barr asked for a brief recess, which Chairman Nadler initially denied. The AG then asked "I waited for you almost an hour this morning (Nadler was in a minor car accident), can't I have a few minutes?" As he asked that question Barr kind of let out a laugh at how absurd Nadler's denial was. Nadler also couldn't hold back the grin either as he said "we are almost done, but ok, we can take a break. It was a rare moment of humanity. You see, people like Nadler have to act the way they do - their supporters expect them to act that way - their supporters are the kind of people we see in the streets of Portland!
They were within the last 15 minutes of the hearing, it was not unreasonable to presume Barr would be willing to wait 15 or 20 minutes to eat a sandwich at that point. Of course he would rather make a scene.
I don't ever recall a Committee Chairman not allowing a witness to have a brief break, especially at a 6 hour hearing in which no breaks were built in. Are you really going to defend that too? (Even Nadler had even common sense to laugh at himself)
You won't admit that Barr won the battle hands down, and most American citizens agree with him and are embarrassed by the actions of the Democrats.
He played them well - every time he opened his mouth an uttered a sound we heard the stamping of feet and the "reclaiming my time"
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63718978/1140595257.jpg.0.jpg)
And those looks Barr gave were priceless:
Democrats out did themselves.
They portrayed themselves more full of hatred than ever.
I swear one was going to light a match and throw it at Barr.
Judging by Barr's appearance, I am sure he has eaten more than one lunch at these gatherings.
Now down to attacking his appearance?
Lighten up Francis! I was just having some fun with the title.
Well he and Nadler are about the same size. But that hasn't always been the case.
I think Rep Jim Jordan spoke for most of America when he thanked the AG:
“Mr. Attorney General, I want to thank you for having the courage to say we’re going to get the politics out of the Department of Justice that was there in the previous administration”
I think we need to adopt the "Thunder Dome" principle in congress. They disagree or disrespect each other it's on to the Thunder Dome for a last man (or woman at it were) standing contest. No nads .... crushed by Crenshaw, Pelosi .... mashed by McSally, Shifty Shiftzell ..... bitch slapped by Scott, etc, etc
THUNDER DOME!
We did learn something in that sham of a hearing didn't we?
There is another investigation going on......Of the unmasking!
The House Democrats were an embarrassment. They obviously were so afraid of Barr that they pretty much refused to let him speak.
Who knew that in 2020, it would be controversial to say it was wrong to try and burn down a federal courthouse? The Timothy McVeigh wing of the Democratic Party thinks its 1861, I guess.
the left's message is clear....
elect the democrats to destroy our country, or, the democrats will destroy our country