Archive for the ‘Bill Barr’ Category

I’ve never seen the type of firestorm that’s happening with USAG William Barr. There’s little doubt that Protect Democracy is targeting AG Barr because he isn’t a go-along-to-get-along type. Unlike previous AGs, Barr is a heavyweight.

When Barr didn’t show up for the House Judiciary Committee’s clown show, Steve Cohen Left a bucket of KFC at the table where Barr would’ve sat had he testified. According to the report, “Barr balked at the opportunity to testify for a second day after spending more than five hours on Wednesday defending his summary of the report’s findings.”

The reason AG Barr frightens the Deep State is because he didn’t hesitate in overruling the Deep State prosecutors’ excessive sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. After that shot against the Deep State prosecutors, Barr sent a shot across President Trump’s bow, too. Before departing for California, President Trump admitted that he’d made Barr’s life more difficult with his tweets.

Next, Deep State Democrats tried getting AG Barr to quit by circulating this gossip:

The Justice Department pushed back Tuesday night at multiple reports claiming Attorney General William Barr told people close to him he’s considering stepping down over President Trump’s tweets, days after Barr admitted that Trump’s tweeting made it “‘impossible for me to do my job.”

AG Barr knows how to fight the bureaucrats who think that they run the DOJ. They don’t run the DOJ. AG Barr does. He let them know that with his sentencing recommendation in the Stone case.

With Washington, DC all aflutter, AG Barr continues doing what he’s paid to do while ignoring DC’s drama:

Speaking before the Senate Wednesday, Barr referred to the letter as “snitty” and suggested a Mueller staffer had written it. Democrats, including a swath of 2020 presidential contenders, have since called for Barr to resign.

Democrats don’t like this guy because he doesn’t play the DC game. Democrats typically can’t get things done legislatively so they rely heavily on the courts. With Democrat corruption running rampant, they can’t afford a strong USAG in place.

The Deep State is legitimately frightened now that John Durham is questioning the FISA warrant process. Democrats don’t want the truth to come out about that. There’s tons of signs out there that the Obama administration weaponized the Intel Community, then used that weaponized IC to surveil the Trump campaign. The last thing that the Deep State wants is a legitimate change agent who won’t settle for the status quo.

Last fall, the buzz was that impeachment was a way to prevent the Barr DOJ from shining a light on the DOJ/FBI corruption.

Julie Kelly’s article highlights the Swampy critters dedicated to the destruction of all things Trump. The first exhibit is Bill Barr. AG Barr had the audacity to insist that Roger Stone not serve more time in prison than a rapist. When Protect Democracy heard that, they cried ‘injustice’. Within a day, Protect Democracy had found 1,100 “former federal prosecutors” to sign this letter calling for Bill Barr’s resignation.

These 1,100 former federal prosecutors wrote “Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case.”

The Deep State, aka the Swamp, is actually run by a hyperpartisan organization called Protect Democracy. Saying that Protect Democracy is dedicated to preserving the Constitution isn’t tethered to the truth. The first line in Article II, Section 1 clearly states “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:”

Within that presidential chain of command, it’s absurd to think that the Attorney General wouldn’t have the constitutional authority to overrule line prosecutors. The president is elected. The Attorney General is appointed by the president, then confirmed by the Senate. Line prosecutors are neither elected, appointed or confirmed; they’re hired.

The Constitution is worthless without accountability. The president is accountable to those that elected him. The attorney general is accountable to the president who appointed him. Line prosecutors are only accountable to the people that hired them or that are above them in the chain of command.

About Protect Democracy

It’s worth noting that Protect Democracy wasn’t founded until “early 2017.” Protect Democracy wasn’t started until after the Obama administration politicized the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, the CIA and the State Department. What a coincidence. Further, Protect Democracy didn’t speak out about the Obama administration’s DOJ surveilling newspaper reporters and TV correspondents. Protect Democracy didn’t complain that the IRS was weaponized to prevent TEA Party organizations from fully participating in the 2012 presidential election.

The opening paragraph of Protect Democracy’s letter:

We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.

What has President Trump or Attorney General Barr done that’s violated the Constitution? Further, it’s impossible for President Trump and Attorney General Barr to “interfere” in DOJ’s operations. They’re the ones in charge, not the line prosecutors. Then there’s this:

The Justice Manual, the DOJ’s rulebook for its lawyers, states that “the rule of law depends on the evenhanded administration of justice”; that the Department’s legal decisions “must be impartial and insulated from political influence”; and that the Department’s prosecutorial powers, in particular, must be “exercised free from partisan consideration.”

This paragraph is BS. The line prosecutors recommended a sentence of 9 years for a non-violent felony committed by a first-time offender. How is that evenhanded when compared with average sentences of 4.2 years for violent rapists?

But Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign. But because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.

It’s frightening to think that Protect Democracy would sanction DOJ line prosecutors to undercut their boss based on subjective standards. That’s what’s happening.

This morning, Jessica Tarlov tried pushing the Barr-Stone ‘controversy’. It was a pathetic attempt at spin. Predictably, Tarlov implied that it was wrong for Barr to overrule the 4 rogue Deep State prosecutors who recommended that the court sentence Roger Stone to 9 years in prison.

That’s BS. Barr is their boss, not vice versa. They take their orders from Barr. The Democrats have hinted that this is a major scandal. That’s BS, too. If anything, it’s a major scandal that Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando defied Attorney General Barr’s orders. They didn’t have a right to do that.

Further, do Kravis, Zelinsky, Jed and Marando think that Roger Stone deserve twice as long of a prison sentence as a rapist? How did Kravis, Zelinsky, Jed and Marando arrive at that sentence recommendation? Have this quartet made a habit of defying their boss’s orders? If they haven’t, why did they start defying them now?

The thing that Democrats haven’t explained is why they think Roger Stone deserves twice as much prison time as a convicted rapist. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi quickly insisted that there be an investigation. They should be ignored. President Trump should hold a press conference, then tell the nation that the prosecutors lied to Attorney General Barr, then submitted a sentencing recommendation that Attorney General Barr shot down.

Check out this mini-speech by Sen. Schumer about the Barr sentencing recommendation:

This is why Sen. Schumer shouldn’t ever be allowed to be the majority leader. Sen. Schumer knows the facts but he’s ignored them. This is why timelines matter. Let’s go through the timeline.

  1. The jury convicted Roger Stone of lying to Congress.
  2. The Deep State prosecutors, the ones that Sen. Schumer called patriots, met with U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea about a sentencing recommendation.
  3. Shea met with AG Barr. Barr recommended that the prosecutors just lay out the facts of the case and let the judge decide the sentence.
  4. After the prosecutors met with Shea, the prosecutors insisted on recommending a sentence of 7-9 years.
  5. When Barr heard about the sentencing recommendation filing, he told his staff to prepare a different filing to reduce the recommendation to 2-3 years.
  6. When the Deep State prosecutors heard that they’d been overruled by their boss, they resigned one-by-one.
  7. A day later, President Trump tweeted that the Deep State prosecutors (my words, not his) had mistreated Stone.
  8. President Trump praised AG Barr for rectifying the situation.

At no point did President Trump contact AG Barr about the Stone sentencing recommendation. AG Barr, however, went on ABC News for an interview:

According to George Stephanopoulos, the prosecutors made their recommendation on “Monday afternoon. Hours later, on Thursday afternoon, President Trump tweeted”:


Catherine Herridge reported that “Senior DOJ official tells CBS News [that the] Department was shocked to see sentencing recommendation Stone case. This is not what was briefed to Dept. The Dept. believes recommendation is extreme, excessive, grossly disproportionate to offenses.”

I repeat: where’s the scandal? The prosecutors (Kravis, Zelinsky, Jed and Marando) disobeyed AG Barr’s order. When AG Barr submitted a lighter sentence, the Deep State prosecutors either got reassigned or left the DOJ. Now, it’s come out that the jury foreperson is a Democrat activist with an axe to grind against both Trump and Stone. The judge (Obama appointee Amy Berman-Jackson) and Stone’s defense attorney did a sloppy job during voir dire and let Tomeka Hart (the vitriolic activist) become a juror, then become the jury foreperson.

Let me state this emphatically. If Roger Stone lied to Congress, he deserves to go to prison. He just doesn’t deserve to serve 9 years. Democrats should quit their yapping about investigating President Trump. His tweet made AG Barr’s job a bit difficult but it wasn’t illegal by any stretch of the imagination. PERIOD. Lindsey Graham’s Senate Judiciary Committee should investigate the 4 Deep State prosecutors to find out why they made the sentencing recommendation they did despite AG Barr’s lighter recommendation.

Whether we’re talking about Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch or Sally Yates, we aren’t talking about people of integrity. Holder is the only US Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress. In fact, the “vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder.”

Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton to talk about their grandkids while she, coincidentally I’m sure, was investigating his wife. Sally Yates served as acting US Attorney General before getting terminated. Later, Jeff Sessions was confirmed as President Trump’s Attorney General. Yates was terminated because she “ordered Justice Dept. lawyers to stop defending Mr. Trump’s executive order banning new arrivals to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.” It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court eventually upheld President Trump’s executive order.

In this article, Ms. Yates wrote “The president has attempted to order up investigations of his perceived political enemies and enlist the department to protect his friends. With every blow, the wall of Justice independence has wobbled a bit more. This week, it teetered on the verge of collapse.”

That’s frightening, but predictable. It’s predictable because Ms. Yates was terminated for insubordination. She defied President Trump’s order to defend his travel ban, a ban that the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional. That’s the textbook case of insubordination or mutiny. Yates continued:

The facts are well known: After federal prosecutors in the Roger Stone case filed the department’s sentencing memorandum, the president publicly attacked Justice’s position as “horrible and very unfair.” He called for prosecution of the “real crimes … on the other side,” a mantra that has become so commonplace from him that it goes largely without comment. The prosecutors were ordered by Justice Department leadership to significantly cut their recommendation; they refused, and all four resigned from the case, with one quitting his job entirely.

What’s most disgusting is that Bill Barr, the properly confirmed Attorney General, overruled the rogue prosecutors, not President Trump. What’s next most disgusting is Ms. Yates’ insinuation that the so-called career prosecutors are pure-hearted people who play by the rules and only have America’s best interests at heart. That’s BS.

These prosecutors ignored what the Attorney General and the US Attorney for DC recommended for sentencing. Then these rogue prosecutors quit when their supervisors clipped their wings after the prosecutors recommended Roger Stone serve a prison sentence of 7-to-9 years. That’s twice the length that the average rapist in DC receives in that court.

I’d love hearing Ms. Yates justify why a first time offender who didn’t commit a violent crime should receive a 9-year sentence but a violent offender should get a 4 year sentence. Further, I’d love hearing Ms. Yates explain why she thinks it’s ok for prosecutors to ignore the orders of their supervisors. Frankly, if they hadn’t quit, I would’ve wished that Barr would’ve fired them. Check out the montage in this video:

Since Ms. Yates didn’t tell you what happened, Kim Strassel will:

Justice sources tell me that interim U.S. Attorney Tim Shea had told the department’s leadership he and other career officials in the office felt the proposed sentence was excessive. As the deadline for the filing neared, the prosecutors on the case nonetheless threatened to withdraw from the case unless they got their demands for these stiffest of penalties. Mr. Shea—new to the job—suffered a moment of cowardice and submitted to this ultimatum. The filing took Justice Department leaders by surprise, and the decision to reverse was made well before Mr. Trump tweeted, and with no communication with the White House. The revised filing, meanwhile, had the signature of the acting supervisor of the office’s criminal division, who is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.

In other words, the rogue prosecutors persecuted Mr. Stone because he’s a longtime political ally of President Trump. I’m not condoning what Stone did, though I don’t know that there shouldn’t be a mistrial due to the jury foreperson’s blatant bias. If he’s guilty of lying to Congress, then it’s proper for him to serve 2-3 years.

The DOJ can’t properly function without people of integrity who follow the rules. These prosecutors aren’t, in my opinion, people of integrity. They certainly didn’t follow the chain of command. President Trump tweeted after Bill Barr filed a new recommendation with the court. It’s impossible for President Trump to interfere after-the-fact.

Adam Schiff thought that he had another impeachment scandal within his grasp. Unfortunately for him, Nancy Pelosi won’t get rolled by AOC this time. Kim Strassel’s article highlights the silliness of the latest fiasco. Democrats of all persuasions criticized Bill Barr for politicizing the Roger Stone case. Virtually immediately, Pelosi and Schumer insisted that Barr resign and that an investigation be started. Richard Blumenthal demanded Barr’s resignation. From the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren said that Barr should be impeached if Barr doesn’t resign.

Well.

Let’s get to the bottom of the situation. Thanks to Ms. Strassel, we know that she acted like the adult in charge rather than the infants whining for attention. (The infants are Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren and Blumenthal.) Rather than whining, Ms. Strassel called one of her contacts within the DOJ and asked some basic questions. Here’s what Ms. Strassel found out:

Justice sources tell me that interim U.S. Attorney Tim Shea had told the department’s leadership he and other career officials in the office felt the proposed sentence was excessive. As the deadline for the filing neared, the prosecutors on the case nonetheless threatened to withdraw from the case unless they got their demands for these stiffest of penalties. Mr. Shea—new to the job—suffered a moment of cowardice and submitted to this ultimatum. The filing took Justice Department leaders by surprise, and the decision to reverse was made well before Mr. Trump tweeted, and with no communication with the White House. The revised filing, meanwhile, had the signature of the acting supervisor of the office’s criminal division, who is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.

My first reaction is this: that’s it? My next reaction is similar. Democrats must really hate President Trump if they’re going to make this molehill into a mountain. Either that or they’re too stupid to run anything beyond a kid’s lemonade stand.

Ms. Strassel didn’t act like an infant. Instead, she asked some questions before insisting that Barr resign or be impeached. That’s what rational people do. They find out the facts first. Democrats (like Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer) insist that Barr resign. That’s immaturity personified.

Next, let’s factor in Andy McCarthy’s opinions on the Stone sentence:

The fact is, it was well within the legitimate power of the attorney general to countermand the Stone prosecutors’ submission to the court — i.e., to substitute a recommendation that the court impose a stiff but reasonable prison sentence on Stone, in place of the prosecutors’ suggestion of an excessive term.

More to the point, what we are witnessing in the media-Democrat commentariat is a manufactured controversy, reminiscent of their mau-mauing the president’s Ukraine indiscretion into an impeachable offense. Hence, the unhinged calls for Barr’s impeachment. The judge, not the Department of Justice (DOJ), will determine Stone’s sentence. The shrieking over DOJ’s Stone sentencing memos, topped by the theatrical resignation of the four prosecutors (who now want to be seen as stalwarts against politicized law enforcement after they conducted a patently politicized prosecution), is much ado about nothing.

This might’ve been a bigger deal if President Trump had interfered with an investigation, instead of with a sentencing. It isn’t like President Trump has the authority to overrule the jury without pardoning Stone. That’s something that’s done for all the world to see. The people would get to consider that when voting. That’s the ultimate check and balance.

It’s time for Adam Schiff to put his impeachment gavel down, take a deep breath, then go back to doing intelligence oversight like he’s supposed to do.

With more information coming out about Tomeka Hart, the foreperson on the Roger Stone trial, it’s time to question Democrats like Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. It’s another classic case of Democrats jumping to conclusions before gathering facts. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Hint: YES! But I digress.

Before illustrating just how two-faced Pelosi is, let’s play a clip of her from this morning’s press conference:

Next, let’s play a short game of Alan Dershowitz’s shoe-on-the-other-foot game. Let’s swap out Roger Stone’s name and swap in Peter Strzok’s name. Next, let’s swap out President Trump’s name and swap in President Obama’s name. I’m betting that the odds of Democrats complaining about President Obama making comments about reducing the prison sentence for Peter Strzok is virtually nonexistent.

I’m not basing this entirely on theory. I’m basing that opinion at least partially on President Obama’s statements prior to the infamous Beer Summit with President Obama, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley. Shortly thereafter, President Obama was asked what he thought of the confrontation. Here’s what he said:

For Pelosi to call for Bill Barr’s resignation is ridiculous. For these DOJ lawyers to make such a harsh recommendation is ridiculous, too. If these attorneys hadn’t quit, they should’ve been fired. Period. Today on Dana Perino’s program, Trey Gowdy, a former U.S. Attorney who never lost a case, said that he never made a sentence recommendation. When asked if he thought the sentence was too much, Gowdy explained the sentencing guidelines before telling Dana Perino that he knew violent criminals who got less than the 7-to-9 years.

In recent days, pundits have started speculating whether Joe Biden’s cheese has slid totally off the cracker. That’s a fair question. It’s equally fair, in my opinion, to ask if the cheese is sliding off of Nancy Pelosi’s cracker. In my estimation, she’s starting to lose it.

From the moment he was sworn in as the US Attorney General, Bill Barr has conducted himself professionally. He’s launched an investigation into the origins of the spying of the Trump campaign to see if it was started improperly. He’s made certain that Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election was finished. Then he published a published a nearly redaction-free Mueller report. He’s been the picture of professionalism.

Apparently, partisans aren’t happy with him, including former AG Eric Holder. When Holder left the position, he left as one of the most disgraced AGs in US history. He left as the architect of the failed Fast ‘n Furious gun-running fiasco. where he put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. One of those guns was used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. When he was asked about Operation Fast ‘n Furious, Holder refused to answer Congress’s question. That led to Holder’s getting held in Contempt of Congress.

Holder is also the corrupt AG who refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation.

It’s within this context that Holder told Fox News that “current Attorney General Bill Barr ‘is paying a price’ and sacrificing his credibility by spearheading U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing probe into possible misconduct by the intelligence community at the outset of the Russia investigation.”

Coming from one of the most corrupt AGs in US history, I’d consider that as proof that I’m doing the right thing. It isn’t like I’d take him seriously. Coming from Mr. Holder, I’d take these accusations with several pounds of salt:

Holder also remarked separately that it was a “reality” that Republicans will “cheat” in the 2020 elections by trying to “move polling places” and “a whole variety of things.”

Why should we think that this is an honest person? I listen to him only to the extent that he’s a troublemaker who wants to continue doing evil.

It’s impossible to trust Neal Katyal’s spin-piece. It’s what you’d expect from an Obama official.

Katyal’s piece starts by saying “There are two big questions about the now-completed investigation into President Trump, and the answers will determine what happens next. First, why didn’t former special counsel Robert Mueller render a judgment on whether Trump had obstructed justice? And second, since Attorney General William Barr did render such a judgment, why isn’t that the end of the matter?”

Then the spinning starts:

The public appearances last week of Mueller and Barr answer both questions. We saw a hyper-careful special counsel who bent over backward to be fair to Trump. And we saw an attorney general who was acting as the president’s personal lawyer, not the lawyer for the American people.

Mueller explained in his news conference that he would not answer the obstruction question, just as his report didn’t answer the question except to say he could not clear Trump because the facts would not permit him to. Justice Department guidance held that he could not indict a sitting president, he said, so he did not reach a conclusion as to whether the president committed crimes. He said it would be unfair to attack someone as a criminal without indicting them because there would be no legal process for them to prove the accusations wrong. That didn’t mean Mueller was acting as some “angry Democrat” (a hard thing for a Republican to do, in any event), it meant he was being careful to protect Trump’s rights.

That last sentence is beyond laughable. Mueller trampled President Trump’s rights by insinuating that President Trump had to prove he was innocent when, in fact, he’s presumed innocent from the start. Supposedly, all Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Mueller’s team of partisan hack (Democrat) lawyers tried finding a crime to try Trump on but they couldn’t find a crime that he committed. These partisan Democrats tried finding Trump guilty of conspiracy but failed. Then they tried finding Trump guilty of obstruction of justice but that didn’t happen. (That’s what happens when the defendant keeps cooperating with prosecutors.)

Katyal lied through omission in this interview:

Katyal omitted the fact that Mueller later issued a joint statement saying that the OLC memo didn’t play a factor in his decision. Further, Katyal omitted the relevant DOJ rule about prosecutors not holding press conferences to say that a defendant was almost indicted. That’s what Mueller did. Mueller all but directed the House to start impeachment proceedings.

That’s hardly the way to protect a person’s civil rights.

Gregg Jarrett’s opinion piece reached a stunning conclusion when Jarrett said “The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality. This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.”

When Jim Comey announced that he wouldn’t indict Hillary Clinton, he first said that HRC had done some illegal things. Then he finished by saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against HRC. Back then, there were howls from the legal community, saying that the DOJ speaks in indictments. They don’t list things that a person did that were shady but that, in the end, the person wasn’t a criminal. Here’s Comey’s press conference ‘exonerating’ HRC:

Today’s performance by Bob Mueller was Act II of Jim Comey’s disgraceful exoneration of HRC. Mueller included in his report 10 instances of President Trump obstructing justice. In each of those instances, Mueller didn’t make a decision. Notice that I didn’t say that he didn’t indict. I said that Mueller refused to even make a decision.

Instead, in each of these instances, Mueller made the case for and against indicting President Trump of obstruction of justice. Then he essentially said that it was up to Congress to make the final decision. By comparison, when Kenneth Starr issued his report, he noted that then-President Clinton had committed 11 crimes, 6 of which were obstruction of justice charges.

Starr didn’t indict Clinton. He merely told the House of Representatives that Clinton had committed those crimes. Jarrett continues:

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion. If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent. In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report.

Again, Mueller’s thinking is out-of-step with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights presumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. According to Mueller’s thinking, Trump was guilty until he was exonerated. That’s bassackwards and then some.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Today is a sad day for the rule of law. Today, a special counsel decided he had the right to ignore the Bill of Rights. Today, a special counsel thought he was Jim Comey’s stand-in.

A year ago, CNN’s Don Lemon asked what is President Trump hiding? A month ago, MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace asked the same question. Yesterday on FNC’s The Five, Juan Williams asked the same question. Since this seems to be the Democrats’ favorite question, let’s try and determine what they’re talking about.

Yesterday, the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress. (This is as meaningful as finding out whether unicorns are real.) During the course of that kangaroo court, we learned that Part II, aka the obstruction of justice part, of the Mueller Report was 182 pages long from Rep. Tom McClintock, (R-Calif.) Later, we learned that a whopping total of 6 lines were redacted from those 182 pages.

That isn’t even enough to qualify as a rounding error.

Here’s a question for showboating Democrats. How is it possible to hide evidence of obstruction of justice in just 6 lines? Here’s another question. Is it possible to hide evidence of obstruction of justice 6 lines? Let’s remember that these 6 lines aren’t consecutive in the report. They’re spaced throughout those 182 pages.

What this provides is a picture of how intellectually unimpressive House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, (D-NY), is. Based on his performance thus far, I’m betting that boxes of cereal have more gravitas than Chairman Nadler. Then again, some of the sideline commentators aren’t the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, either:

Let’s be clear about something. Jerry Nadler is the opposite of a principled person. Nobody mistakes him for a man of integrity.