Senate Democratic Jackasses and Elmer Fudd

The Blue Dogs suddenly have remorse over supporting the nomination of what’s-his-name . . . Elmer Fudd or was it William Barr?

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) The most vulnerable Democratic Senator up for reelection next year, said he is “’greatly, greatly’ disappointed in what I am seeing in the attorney general.” While Barr did follow through on releasing a redacted version of the Mueller report and did not quash the investigation, Jones now has much deeper concerns.

“I thought he would bring this institutional stability to the Department of Justice — and not be the president’s personal lawyer. And he seems like he is moving and has moved toward a less independent role. That bothers me for the 12 remaining investigations out there.”

He is a Republican and for Republicans it is party over country blinkity, blink you frickin hmmmm fool.

Does he regret his vote? “I’m getting close to that. I haven’t said that yet. But it sure is so disappointing. I’m getting close. You might want to check tomorrow”

So disappointing Senator Jones . . .

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) “Absolutely, I have buyer’s remorse. I would have made a big mistake.” In retrospect, Democratic mannequin Manchin may think he will lean on Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to bring Mueller in for a hearing even though Graham has said he has no plans to do so.

Do not hold your breathe Manchin. Graham is not going to do squat and as a result you will walk. Another faux Democrat . .

“It’s troubling, absolutely. The difference between the interpretation between what Mueller really meant and what he intended. And he thought he didn’t present it properly. And Barr said he basically did represent properly,

“We’ve got to get that cleared up. And I would encourage my friend Lindsey Graham to bring Mueller in as quickly as possible.”

Graham is a wuss and afraid of Trump.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Senator Sinema has requested a meeting with Barr about the discrepancies between his view of the special counsel’s report and Mueller’s. She is new. One can only hope. Maybe she can show the other two how this is done.

Barr was only the man who blessed the Contra-Affair as the AG for Bush I.

“In August 1992, Safire wrote about Barr’s refusal to appoint an independent counsel to investigate what he (Safire) called Iraqgate – the shadowy diversion of funds that Saddam Hussein used to build up his military after the Iran-Iraq War. It is now a nearly forgotten chapter of history, but Safire lasered in on what he thought was ‘the Bush Administration’s fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice.’”

U.S. Attorney General William Barr, in rejecting the House Judiciary Committee’s call for a prosecutor not beholden to the Bush Administration to investigate the crimes of Iraqgate, has taken personal charge of the cover-up.

The document that will be Exhibit A in a future prosecution of obstruction of justice is an unsigned 97-page apologia that accompanied Mr. Barr’s unprecedented refusal to recognize a “political conflict of interest,” as called for in the law.

Read it for yourself; though intended to explain in detail why Congress does not understand the intent of Congress, Barr’s Apology does the opposite: its strained defensiveness will cause any objective reader to say “something smells fishy here.”

Safire: “Barr’s clear strategy has been to stall past Dec. 15, when the law authorizing independent counsel expires; Republicans recently filibustered its extension to death.” Whoever won the 1992 election, “no autonomous prosecutor could then be named; Iraqgate might then become a matter between departing and incoming Presidents, and bygones could be bygones, and that is pretty much what happened.”

Continuing Barr had one more misadventure left. He was one of the driving forces behind what Safire called the “Christmas eve massacre” of the Iran-contra probe. Barr pushed hard for last minute pardons for six individuals caught up in the investigation which included former defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. The dramatic move on December 24, 1992, aborted Weinberger’s trial, which was slated to begin the next month, “virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh’s effort, which began in 1986.”

Walsh denounced the pardons as part of the cover-up that “has continued for more than six years.” The decision to issue pardons, he said, “undermines the principle that no man is above the law. It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office, deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences.”

Barr is going down the same road. Thank you Blue Dogs.

Comments (7) | |