Wednesday, February 12, 2020

MAJOR UPDATE: Prediction: Nadler Will Regret Having Barr Testify

That is, if he has an ounce of self awareness.

Of course the Dems are seeking to demonize Barr ahead of the revelations of the Durham investigation. Good luck with that!

I assume that, as usual, Barr will refuse to be interrogated by staff attorneys, which means that clowns like Nadler and other Dem reps on the committee will have to tangle with Barr themselves. The fact that staff attorneys will have provided them with questions won't make their task any easier.

Barr has the law and the constitution on his side. I fully expect him to swat these lightweights aside, treating them with the same good humored contempt he exhibited toward Dem senators during his Senate testimony. But this time he may be more inclined to go on the offensive.

UPDATE--Major but brief. Nunes with Maria: AG Barr’s testimony would be bad for Democrats:

About two minutes in, Nunes enters into a major discussion of the whole trajectory of the Russia Hoax after the election. He states specifically that by January, 2017, DoJ knew the Russia Hoax was BS, and by February, 2017, Nunes' HPSCI had heard back from all 17 members of the Intel Community, and there was no evidence of "collusion". This is undoubtedly what's driving Barr/Durham. It's what leads through Boente and Rosenstein straight to Team Mueller. It's what has Dems soiling their pants.


  1. Just speculating that Dems don't actually believe that they will nail Barr in this hearing, but rather their objective is to generate useful sound-bites/video for the Fall Congressional Election advertisements, in which they will vilify Barr as the Devil Incarnate.

    I still think they may regret calling him to testify, if, by that time Durham or other DOJ prosecutors have charged some of the conspirators in these various plots to fabricate allegations of wrongdoing against Trump and the Administration for partisan political purposes.

  2. Indeed. These common grifters will have no idea how to defend their canned questions. What's that printed on t-shirts - "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
    I would hope that the first time someone addresses him as Mr. Barr he responds with, "That's General Barr if you don't mind," which is indeed the correct formal means of address. It'll set their hair on fire; not only in the committee room, but in newsrooms throughout Demdom..
    Tom S.

    1. "That's General Barr if you don't mind".
      Please don't give them such a juicy sound bite, to spin as Barr styling himself to have "militaristic" authority.

      That it'll be indeed technically, the correct formal means of address, will be irrelevant to these Lefties, who seek fodder for agitprop, to spur their flock to a fever pitch, of hate vs. the "white patriarchy".
      They're probably fine enough with losing the majority, if they can thereby gain a *fanatical* minority.

  3. It seems kind of unfair, Barr vs. all those outmatched Dems.

    I look forward to the fun.

  4. Cynically, I do not think any major Democrat or Republican NeverTrumper will face anything more than a public rebuke, which will be buried in the newx.

  5. You mean those revelations about a political campaign knowingly causing false information alleging a criminal conspiracy to be communicated to the FBI with the intention of triggering a criminal investigation of the candidate's opponent?

    Isn't that a felony punishable by a substantial period of incarceration in federal penitentiary?