Connect with us

Democrats

Top Five Liberal Lies Attny. Gen. William Barr Demolished During Testimony

U.S. Attorney General William Barr was able to take a wrecking ball to the Democrats’ lies last week.

Published

on

U.S. Attorney General William Barr was able to take a wrecking ball to the Democrats’ lies last week, even though they tried to muzzle him during the hearing.

The Democrats’ behavior was despicable as they blatantly impugned Barr’s integrity, called him names, lied about his actions, and then constantly interrupted him to prevent him from even attempting to reply to their questions.

Still, when he was able to speak, he got in some very good licks against the lying Democrats that day.

The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland identified eight liberal lies that Barr debunked during the July 28 House Oversight Committee hearing.

Trending: Coroner Saying George Floyd Died of Drug Overdose, Not Police Brutality

Here are the top five:

Myth 1: Barr overruled prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone because of a Donald Trump tweet

Several of Democrats’ attacks focused on President Trump associate Roger Stone. Democrat committee Chair Jerry Nadler accused Barr of personally interfering “with ongoing criminal investigations to protect the president and his allies from the consequences of their actions,” and then “when career investigators and prosecutors resisted these brazen unprecedented actions, you replaced them with less qualified staff who appear to be singularly beholden to you.” Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, drilled more specifically into the Stone case, misrepresenting the facts in the process.

“Isn’t it true that when prosecutors in the Roger Stone case filed a memo with the court recommending a sentence of seven to nine years in prison, a few hours later, President Trump tweeted that the sentence recommendation was quote, ‘a disgrace,’” Johnson began. Barr acknowledged that reality. Johnson then asked Barr whether, “several hours after that, you filed a pleading with the court stating that the sentence recommendation would be changed and that you would be asking for a lighter sentence for Roger Stone?”

Barr attempted to explain that Johnson was mispresenting the circumstances, but the Democrat cut Barr short to grandstand. “You’re expecting the American people to believe that you did not do what Trump wanted you to do when you changed that sentencing recommendation and lowered it for Roger Stone?” Johnson asked rhetorically.

However, when Republicans allowed him to explain the circumstances of the about-face, the attorney general exposed the ridiculous nature of the charge that he was cutting breaks for Stone. “Stone was prosecuted under me, and I said all along, I thought that was a righteous prosecution,” the attorney general explained. But “line prosecutors were trying to advocate for a sentence that was more than twice anyone else in a similar position had ever served, and this is a 67-year-old man, first-time offender, no violence,” Barr continued. “I wasn’t going to advocate that because that is not the rule of law.”

The attorney general also testified that he “never discussed our sentencing recommendation with anyone outside the Department of Justice.” Barr then laid out the timeline: On Monday, Barr explained, he had concluded that the Department of Justice (DOJ) “should not affirmatively advocate for seven to nine years,” but would leave the decision to the sentencing judge. However, that night, the prosecutors filed a sentencing memorandum that did not reflect Barr’s decision.

“That night I told people we had to fix it first thing in the morning. We did as soon as I got in,” Barr said. Only then did Barr learn about the president’s tweet. Barr explained that he then “hesitated because I knew that I would be attacked for doing it. People would argue that I did it because of the tweet, but I felt at the end of the day, I really had to go forward with our filing because it was the right thing to do.”

Barr did do the right thing: In sentencing Stone, the presiding judge stated she was concerned seven to nine years would be greater than necessary,” and that she “agree[d] with the defense and with the government’s second memorandum.”

Myth 2: Barr dropped the case against Flynn because he was Trump’s friend

Democrats likewise pushed the narrative that Barr filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn because of Flynn’s connection to the president. Barr countered this charge both generally and specifically.

“I agree the president’s friends don’t deserve special breaks, but they also don’t deserve to be treated more harshly than other people, and sometimes that’s a difficult decision to make, especially when you’re going to be castigated for it,” Barr told the Judiciary Committee. “But that is what the rule of law is, and that’s what fairness to the individual ultimately comes to, being willing to do what’s fair to the individual.”

Barr then stressed what Democrats ignore—that it was an independent U.S. attorney in St. Louis “who had 10 years in the FBI and 10 years in the Department of Justice as a career prosecutor, who “determined, based on documents that had not been provided to Flynn’s side and not been provided to the court that in fact there was no basis to investigate Flynn.”

Rather, Missouri-based U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen concluded “that the only purpose was to try to catch him in saying something that they could then say was a lie.” “Furthermore, it was clearly established by the documents that the FBI agents who interviewed him did not believe that he thought he was lying,” Barr added.

Knowing what we know now, Barr concluded, “We don’t think any of the U.S. attorneys in the department would have prosecuted this case.” And what “I’m trying to establish is that we will use the same standards for everybody before we indict anybody. This goes for both sides,” Barr stressed. He later added that “the true two standards of justice were really during the tail end of the Obama administration.”

Myth 3: Barr fired an acting U.S. attorney for investigating Trump associates

Another line of attack focused on Barr’s firing of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman. In June, Barr had decided to replace Berman as acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York until the permanent U.S. attorney could be confirmed. Barr had announced Berman would be “stepping down” because he intended Berman to remain in the DOJ. Yet after the announcement, Berman went public with a statement that he wasn’t going anywhere. Berman’s insubordination led to his immediate firing.

At the time, the media narrative ran that Barr had fired Berman because he was investigating Trump associates, and possibly even Trump. The House Judiciary Committee attempted to push that theory too, but Barr shot it down,” calling it “nonsense.” “Anyone familiar with the Department of Justice would say that removing a component head is not going to have any effect on any pending investigation,” Barr noted.

Myth 4: Barr punished Michael Cohen but rewarded Paul Manafort

Democrats on the committee also attempted to paint the attorney general as showing favoritism to former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort while retaliating against former Trump-attorney turned Trump critic Michael Cohen. Rep. Eric Swalwell took the lead in pushing the myth that Barr had retaliated against Cohen.

“Did you know that as a condition of Cohen’s release from prison, the government intended to direct Cohen not to engage with the media and not to write a book?” Swalwell asked Barr. Barr said “no,” then attempted to explain that situation.

Cohen had been furloughed from prison, Barr explained, and the conditions of that home confinement were set, not by the Bureau of Prisons but “by the probation office, which is part of the U.S. Court System.” “And it was the U.S. Court System that had the requirements about not writing,” Barr explained.

Swalwell ignored Barr’s response, claiming this condition of release was retaliatory, even though Barr’s office had nothing to do with the condition. Swalwell also attempted to paint Cohen’s return to prison as retaliatory, but again, Barr countered it was the probation office that had determined Cohen was being “uncooperative.” At that point, the Bureau of Prisons determined Cohen was no longer eligible for home confinement. Barr would also later testify he “didn’t even know [of] the decision to send Cohen back to prison.”

Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) pivoted from Swalwell’s charge of retaliation against Cohen to an allegation that Barr favored Manafort by arranging his release from prison out of concern for the coronavirus.

“In March 26 and April 3rd, your department released guidelines, criteria, setting priorities by which people would be released early,” Garcia began. “By your own Department’s admission, Manafort did not meet that criteria. Since the start of this pandemic, we have repeatedly urged you to use your authority to protect vulnerable populations in prisons. Instead, you release the president’s former campaign manager.”

Barr had little chance to respond to the charge, with Garcia—like the rest of the Democrats on the committee—interrupting when he tried to correct the record. Yet, as she ended her tirade, Barr succinctly countered the claim: “The director of the BOP testified under oath: No one from Justice Department was involved” in the decision to release Manafort from prison.

Myths 5, 6: Barr used tear gas to clear out peaceful protestors for a photo op for Trump

The myth that Trump and Barr are supposedly squashing peaceful protests throughout the country also held top billing at Tuesday’s hearing. One main line of this attack focused on the narrative that Barr had directed the removal of peaceful protestors, including with tear gas, from Lafayette Square in Washington, DC so Trump could walk to St. John’s Church for a photo op.

“On the first day of June, the world watched in horror on live television as federal agents deployed by the administration, and with you present and telling him to get it done, used force to clear Lafayette Park so that the president, with you and others at your side, could walk across the park and have a photo op in front of St. John’s church,” one committee member charged. Rep. Pramila Jayapal repeated this claim, saying Barr had directed “federal officers to close in on the protesters and to use shields offensively as weapons, tear gas, pepper balls, irritants, explosive devices, batons and horses to clear the area just so the president could get a photo op.”
‘There was unprecedented rioting right around the White House. Very violent.’

While Democrats refused to allow Barr to respond to the charges, Republicans provided the attorney general a chance to detail the facts. “There was unprecedented rioting right around the White House,” Barr explained. “Very violent.”

“During that time about 90 officers were injured. In fact, the Secret Service was so concerned it recommended the president go down to the shelter,” Barr noted. “There was a breach of the Treasury Department, the lodge—an historical building on Lafayette Park—was burned down, and St. John’s Church was set on fire,” Barr added.

On Monday, Barr explained, “there was total consensus that we couldn’t allow that to happen so close to the White House, that kind of rioting,” and “therefore we had to move the perimeter out one block and push it up toward I Street.” This plan had nothing to do with the president’s decision to walk to St. John’s Church, Barr explained.

Barr also responded to another falsehood, noting that no tear gas had been used in moving the perimeter. Rather, tear gas was used to clear the way for a fire truck to put out the fire at St. John’s Church the previous evening.

To say the protest was peaceful was also not accurate: “It is a fact that the park police reported, and I saw myself projectiles being thrown from that crowd,” Barr explained, “so I did not consider them at all peaceful protesters.”

Click on over to Cleveland’s full report to see the rest.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Democrats

Riot Fund Promoted By Kamala Helped Bail Out Child Predator

Why hasn’t she been forced to explain her support for this fund?

Published

on

By

Riot Fund Promoted By Kamala Helped Bail Out Child Predator

A recent Daily Caller News Foundation’s investigation discovered that a bail fund promoted by Sen. Kamala Harris actually helped bail out a man accused of sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund allowed the child predator to get out of jail in July, according to court documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

TDC:

A bail fund promoted by Sen. Kamala Harris helped a man accused of sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl get out of jail in July, according to court documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) also helped post bail in August for a man accused of assaulting a 71-year-old woman as he burglarized her home, court documents show. One week after his release the man was found to be in violation of his bail. The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office told the DCNF on Wednesday there is still an active felony warrant out for that man’s arrest.

Court documents reviewed by the DCNF reveal that the bail fund also provided support in June to a man who allegedly stomped on and robbed a victim on the streets of Minneapolis on May 25, the same day George Floyd died while in police custody.

During the nationwide wave of protests and riots following Floyd’s death, Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, called on her followers to donate to the MFF in a June 1 tweet. The California senator said contributions to the fund would “help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota” against Floyd’s death.

The fundraising page Harris linked to in her tweet, which contains her picture and the slogan of her former presidential campaign, was still actively accepting donations as of Wednesday. More

I don’t understand why leftists are so enthralled with the idea of getting people out of jail who have been charged with legitimate crimes. That is unless it is designed to destabilize the United States and wreak havoc.

Continue Reading

Democrats

FBI Raids Home Of ‘Netflix Star and Biden Surrogate’ For Allegedly Soliciting Sex From Minors

Published

on

By

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gthl_4Qa-k

Netflix Cheer star and former Joe Biden presidential campaign surrogate Jerry Harris is under investigation by the FBI for allegedly soliciting sexually explicit images and sex from minors, according to a new report.

TIME magazine reported on how the Biden team recruited Harris and other Hollywood figures Last month: Biden’s digital team knows the former VP’s online following doesn’t begin to compete with Trump’s. So its strategy has revolved partly around leveraging the popularity of others. “Where are people already talking about this? Where are the people who are already fired up about this?” says Biden senior adviser Caitlin Mitchell, 34, who is leading much of the digital strategy. Biden’s team has organized Instagram Live sessions with influencers including TV personality Keke Palmer and Jerry Harris from the Netflix series Cheer. (The idea of working with Harris earned the support of Biden’s college-age granddaughter Finnegan, who has the candidate’s ear on digital matters.)

TDW:

The FBI reportedly raided the home of Jerry Harris, a Netflix star who appeared in a video with Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden where he encouraged young blacks to vote, for allegedly soliciting sex from minors.

“The criminal investigation is based on allegations brought by 14-year-old twin brothers. In interviews with USA TODAY, the boys described a pattern of harassment, both online and at cheer competitions, that started when they were 13 and Harris was 19,” USA Today reported. “They said it continued for more than a year.”

Harris, a celebrity cheerleader who was recently featured in Netflix’s “Cheer” docuseries, appeared in a video with Biden earlier this summer.

In a piece titled “FBI Raids Home of Netflix Star and Biden Surrogate Over Underage Sex Allegation,” The Washington Free Beacon reported:

Just three months ago the Biden campaign used Harris, who has over a million followers on Instagram, as part of Biden’s push to sway young voters and “win back the internet,” Time magazine reported. The Instagram live video of Harris and Biden was viewed nearly 300,000 times and remains on social media. More

Continue Reading

Democrats

The Atlantic: Vote For Biden Or Democrats Burn The Country Down

Published

on

By

The Atlantic says a vote for Joe Biden or Democrats will lose their minds and burn our country down.

“A loss by Joe Biden under these circumstances is the worst case not because Trump will destroy America (he can’t), but because it is the outcome most likely to undermine faith in democracy, resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities including Portland, Oregon, and Seattle have seen in recent months. For this reason, strictly law-and-order Republicans who have responded in dismay to scenes of rioting and looting have an interest in Biden winning—even if they could never bring themselves to vote for him.”

The Atlantic:

This is the era of expecting the worst while hoping for the merely tolerable. Some might say that the worst is already happening—economic disaster and 190,000 dead from a pandemic—while the president and his surrogates insist, in a feat of self-delusion, that the “best is yet to come.” As someone who has argued against catastrophism—I don’t believe Donald Trump is a fascist or a dictator in the making, and I don’t believe America is a failed state—I find myself truly worried about only one scenario: that Trump will win reelection and Democrats and others on the left will be unwilling, even unable, to accept the result.

[…]

In presidential elections, once is a fluke; twice is a pattern. I struggle to imagine how, beyond utter shock, millions of Democrats will process a Trump victory. A loss for Biden, after having been the clear favorite all summer, would provoke mass disillusion with electoral politics as a means of change—at a time when disillusion is already dangerously high. If Democrats can’t beat a candidate as unpopular as Trump during a devastating pandemic and a massive economic contraction, then are they even capable of winning presidential elections anymore? Democracy, after all, is supposed to self-correct after mistakes, particularly mistakes as egregious as electing Donald Trump—whose unfitness for the nation’s highest office makes itself apparent with almost every passing day. More

They already know they’ve lost so the panic is setting in. This is nothing but a leftist call to arms. Let the games begin, and may they reap the whirlwind. The left believes this will stop if creepy basement-dwelling Joe Biden is elected. But Joe is way too weak, and they will roll over him to get total chaos. President Donald Trump is our only hope.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Pelosi Calls Trump’s Bahrain-Israel Peace Deal A “Distraction”

She would attack peace on earth if President Trump achieved it.

Published

on

By

Pelosi Calls Trump’s Bahrain-Israel Peace Deal A “Distraction”

Wolf Blitzer asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “How much credit do you give the president for these peace agreements?”

Pelosi said: We’ve been waiting for a very long time for the president’s proposal for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement that honored the two-state solution. It was coming in two weeks. It was coming in two months. It was coming in six months. It still hasn’t come in any way that has brought peace,” said Pelosi. “So, good for him for having a distraction on a day when the numbers of people who are affected and the numbers of people who are dying from this virus only increased.”

Twitter weighs in:

Continue Reading

Democrats

Biden Campaign Erupted In Anger, Refused To Answer If Biden Uses Teleprompter During Live Interviews

Published

on

By

Biden Campaign Erupted In Anger, Refused To Answer If Biden Uses Teleprompter During Live Interviews

2020 Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s National Press Secretary TJ Ducklo refused to answer questions on Biden’s teleprompter use prompting FNC’s Brett Baier to conclude that Ducklo “can’t answer the question.”

Daily Wire:

A top press secretary for Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden’s campaign erupted in anger on Thursday afternoon after he was asked during a live television interview if Biden has been using a teleprompter to answer questions during media interviews.

The segment is especially news worthy because Biden has faced repeated questions about his mental fitness for office and the Trump campaign has continually highlighted instances in which Biden appears to be using a teleprompter to answer questions during interviews. More

Here are a few of the examples of the Trump campaign documenting Joe Biden’s alleged use of a teleprompter to answer questions during live interviews:

Full video:

 

Continue Reading

Democrats

Left “Secretly Preps” For Violent Unrest If Joe Biden Loses (Report)

Published

on

By

Left "Secretly Preps" For Violent Unrest If Joe Biden Loses

The Left is mobilizing for ‘mass public unrest,’ and a ‘political apocalypse’ if Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden loses.

“Occupy shit, hold space, and shut things down, not just on Election Day but for weeks,” an unnamed source said in describing the coalition’s effort, dubbed the “Democracy Defense Nerve Center.”

Breitbart:

A coalition of leftist groups is “secretly” discussing how to mobilize and prepare for what it envisions as a “political apocalypse” full of violence and chaos if Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden fails to win a landslide victory on November 3, the Daily Beast reported Monday.

[…]

The leftist group, convened by the relatively secret Fight Back Table (FBT), reportedly discussed their plans in secret during a Zoom virtual meeting.

Referring to the meeting, the Daily Beast reported:

Over the course of two hours, participants broached the question of what the progressive political ecosystem can functionally do in a series of election scenarios. They began charting out what it would take to stand up a multi-state communications arm to fight disinformation, a training program for nonviolent civil disobedience, and the underpinnings of what one official described as “mass public unrest.”

An unnamed aide to the Biden campaign told the Daily Beast it is “aware of the concerns expressed by many of these [leftist] groups” that are “actively planning for all contingencies and scenarios.” More

When President Donald Trump is re-elected, he will then have nothing to lose. He can unleash the power of law enforcement. The cops have been caught in the middle of a political nightmare.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Two Biden Supporters Who Assaulted A 7-Year-Old Boy Charged Felony Hate Crimes

Wow! In a liberal state?

Published

on

By

DNC: 7-Year Old Child Attacked By Biden Supporters For Wearing A MAGA Hat

Outside of the DNC convention, two Joe Biden supporters attacked a 7-year-old boy for wearing a MAGA hat.

Here’s the video. It shows the heated confrontation between the suspects and adults coming to the defense of a 7-year-old supporter of President Donald Trump.

The News Journal reports: “Olivia Winslow and Camryn Amy, both 21 and from Wilmington, were indicted by a New Castle County grand jury on charges of second-degree robbery, second-degree conspiracy, endangering the welfare of a child, third-degree assault, attempted third-degree assault, offensive touching, and felony hate crimes.

The two women seen in a viral video confronting and taking a red “Make America Great Again” hat from supporters of President Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention in Wilmington last month have been indicted on hate crime charges.

Olivia Winslow and Camryn Amy, both 21 and from Wilmington, were indicted by a New Castle County grand jury on Tuesday on charges of second-degree robbery, second-degree conspiracy, endangering the welfare of a child, third-degree assault, attempted third-degree assault, offensive touching and felony hate crimes.

In a video posted on social media, Winslow and Amy were seen damaging signs and taking a red MAGA hat from a group of Trump supporters protesting the nomination of former Vice President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee for president.

A young boy in the video can be heard saying, “That’s somebody else’s hat,” after Winslow appears to pick it up off the ground and throws it. More

It’s amazing how it comes as a shock these days when someone is actually arrested for robbing and assaulting a 7-year-old child. Hopefully, this is the start of the violent left being held accountable for their horrid actions.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend