Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Hearing of Attorney General Barr Is an Abomination
I can’t take it anymore. Watching the attack by Democrats on AG Barr at his hearing is a demonstration of the worst kind of politics imaginable. The House Judiciary Committee is not interested in receiving any kind of information. They are only interested in insulting, attacking, and silencing the Attorney General. I’ve seen my share of hearings, but this one was beyond the pale.
Grandstanding and false statements by the Democrats are very familiar. But they clearly coordinated their strategy with each other. First, they would insult him, state hyperbole, and eventually they would ask him a question, demanding a yes or no answer. They repeatedly cut him off when he tried to explain his response, or when he asked for clarification of what was supposed to be a question, and they continued to interrupt him. It’s clear they were trying to establish a basis for impeaching him, but every one of them should be removed from office.
I called out loud when one Representative said she was disappointed at how he had treated her so disrespectfully. Good grief.
I’m ashamed to think that these people are supposed to represent this country. As we say in Yiddish, it’s a schande (shame).
Published in Politics
Barr did get in a couple of good jabs but not nearly enough.
I wasn’t watching but listening because I was typing in my comments on my ricochet thread so I didn’t see Raskin’s reaction. That befuddled face he made was a classic.
But you missed the good news:
Representative Pramila Jayapai (WA-7) was the most unfair questioner. She asked a convoluted compound question that had me answering her out loud from my living room. She also ran out her time, so AG Barr had no time to answer. If I had been the chair, I would have said that that compound question was unfair, and “Attorney General Barr, you must be given a fair opportunity to answer that compound question. Since the question took 3 minutes to ask, you may have 3 minutes to answer.” The Democrats would go wild.
If I were a trial judge I would have objected to her on my own motion. If she wouldn’t shut up, I would hold her in contempt.
She represents a D+33 district; Washington State’s next most liberal district, WA-9, is only D+23. She represents Seattle’s notorious Capitol Hill neighborhood, home of “CHAZ” or the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” The only way to knock her out will be in the primary. I will see if she has a strong challenger next cycle. There is something gratifying in giving money to the opponents running against Squad-like members like Pramila Jayapai!
What a terrible human being.
Jayapal also has no clue what jurisdiction means- she complained that federal law enforcement officials didn’t intervene in an altercation between right wing protesters and STATE officials on a state facility but did in Portland on a FEDERAL facility.
I was shouting that at her, but she wouldn’t stop talking.
I want a t-shirt that says “You’re A Real Class Act.”
What is telling is that anyone needs polling to determine if people are against rioting, burning and looting.
This nation’s only hope is to agree that rioting, burning and looting are the worst option in the decision tree.
In these times, @julespa, getting consensus on condemning that option may be too optimistic. Sigh.
If someone actually took a shot at Trump, I really don’t think we’d even get consensus from the mainstream media outlets and the people they employ on whether or not that’s a bad thing, and certainly not from the sewer that is Twitter and the rest of social media (any eventual media consensus that arrived that attempting to assassinate a president while a Republican is in the White House is a bad thing would probably be because flash surveys showed it was polling badly among the voters….)
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/29/democrats-refused-to-let-barr-speak-because-they-know-hes-right/
Clips of them not allowing Barr to respond.
Primarying her would at least mean that her replacement would have no seniority, but the problem with Leftist districts like hers is that any challengers may well be even more radical and insane.
The Post-Intelligencer put her performance like this:
I love that “debunked.” What the Democrats were doing was classic bunk. Not quite literally, in that they represent many more places than Buncome County, but they were all “speaking to Buncome,” not to AG Barr. It remains to be seen if all of them were speaking for Buncome as well.
If the P-I is any indication, at least some of them were.
I think the Republicans will gain more than the Democrats will gain. The opportunities to have fun with it abound. This collection of clips with Barr playing bagpipes in the background is funny.
https://twitter.com/danscavino/status/1288284820041236481?s=21
Bless you! Look what I’m missing by not being on Twitter! Then again . . .
L.O.V.E.
Thank you for wading through the swamp that is Twitter and sharing your gold.
I really love how the Dems keep saying that national guardsmen Adam Demarco said that excessive force was used in Lafayette park-yet neglecting to mention he is a failed Democratic candidate for the Congress
I intend to point to this hearing when dealing with anyone who objects to Trump primarily because of his uncouth or “crude” tone.
I hope that the White House refuses any future invitations or subpoenas to appear at a “hearing” before any committee of the House of Representatives, and cites this “hearing” as the reason for the refusal. This “hearing” demonstrates that the House is not pursuing its Constitutionally set forth role of oversight, since they refused to hear any information from the witness.
Yes. They insist they need the testimony of the witness for the information they and the public don’t yet have and then they lecture and badger the witness as if they are scolding a child. The witness delivers very little information in the process because the Congress Members use most of the time making speeches attacking the witness and the Administration.
They only knew to call him because he wanted them to use his words.
Sorry to show my ignorance but where in the Constitution does Congress have oversight of the Executive Branch?
I think it’s primarily in Congress’s spending power. Making sure the money they appropriate is being used for the purposes for which they appropriated it.
I suppose one can make an argument that the Executive should never submit to Congressional inquiries, but I was trying to be as charitable as possible toward the Congressional motives here.
And the Executive Branch has oversight to be sure laws aren’t followed. It needs to do a little more re the Legislative Branch.
Where in the time frame of the recorded session is that? I watched it on c-span. I also wanted to hear his response on Russia. I watched it up until a few minutes beyond his five minute recess. It was appalling – all of it. I don’t want to watch it all – they would not let him talk.
When they asked Barr about the church officers condemning the government response, Barr asked if it was before or after they put out the fire.