↓
 
Home » I wonder whether the Democrats…

I wonder whether the Democrats…

The New Neo Posted on by

…are now, even as we speak, trying to find someone to accuse Bill Barr of sexual molestation, harassment, abuse.

Comments

I wonder whether the Democrats… — 33 Comments

  2. The frantic search is on. Maybe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is auditioning at this moment. Tawana Brawley might also reappear.

  3. Hard at work looking through high school and college yearbooks I’m sure.

  4. I’m confident they’ve pulled out all the stops; trying everything and anything in hopes of preventing him from shining a bright light on the truth.

  5. The politics of personal destruction. It’s what they do. If Barr gave some kid a noogie in high school , it will be touted as first degree assault and bullying.

    I’m sure they are probing his record as AG under Papa Bush. Maybe his record as AG shows a disturbing tendency to follow the law – a tendency that cannot be accepted under present circumstances. A tendency that shows he is a danger – to the perps who instigated the Russia hoax. Can’t have that, can we? 🙂

  7. I noticed that when a female aide passed by his table during the Senate hearings, Barr exhibited illegal eyeball movement. He must resign forthwith !

  8. Rabid, vicious, Leftist character assassination has now been loosed upon the land.

    The other night on Tucker Carlson’s show Stephen Moore, the economist who withdrew his name from consideration for a position at the Fed because of the attacks on him by the Left said that, as part of this attack on him the Washington Post and CNN had managed to get his 10 year old divorce papers unsealed, so that they could examine them to find something to use against him, and that his attackers had even gone so far as to troll through his annual family Christmas letters, looking for some word or phrase they could use against him.

    You can imagine, then, just how this army of Leftists/Stalinists are now avidly examining every aspect of Barr’s life to find something–anything–that they can twist into something they can use against him.

    The Left is running scared, folks, and there’s gonna be a “run” on Depends, because a lot of people are going to be indicted, and some of them–hopefully most of them–are going to end up in Jail.

    Here’s hoping that those indicted and tried are the big Tunas, and not some little sacrificial gold fish.

  10. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/david-brooks-the-second-mountain.html

    Here’s a link from New York magazine about Never Trumper and fancy Italian sandwich guru David Brooks.

    Until deep state operator Jim Comey came along, Brooks was arguably the most sensitive white man roaming the Acela corridor. Both savants quote Reinhold Niebuhr compulsively. Although Brooks is in despair because Trump, he has now found love with a woman “23 years his junior”. She’s his research assistant at the NYT. Where’s MeToo when you need them ?

  12. If they can’t find “it” they will just make “it” up. There is always a first time for everything after all. The last first time was Justice Kavanaugh; the first was that it didn’t work. Not that it didn’t damage the process and him, but that was egg shells for the omelette.

  13. Just wait until Barr’s housekeeper spills the beans. I’ve heard he lives on a caviar diet and Putin’s autobiography has been on his night stand since the summer of 2016. He’s been in on it from the beginning guys!

  14. I mean come on, Barr has been working as an attorney in DC for years and the Russian ambassador has been in DC all that time.

    Coincidence, you say? I think not!

  15. Jerrold “Jerry” Nadler is investigating Barr’s VHS rentals from the Bush 41 era.

    Dr. Anita Hill tipped Jerrold that while Clarence was viewing “Long Dong Silver”, cineaste Bill Barr spent couch potato time watching “On Golden Blonde”.

    He’s nothing more than far-right prevert !

  16. Why are you wondering? Of course they are. Male, female, or whatever- doesn’t matter.

  17. Remember the Cambridge Five?

    Those were amateurs compared to Trump (he begged the Russians to spy on Hillary you know), Barr (somebody has to cover for the others), Sessions (he talked to a Russian once), Flynn (he talked to another Russian another time) and Stone (every group of five has to have the fuck up).

    Farfetched you say? I think not!

  18. Molly Brown on May 4, 2019 at 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm said:
    You betcha!
    * * *
    Thread winner.

  19. We know what they’re going to try to do to Barr. (There are plenty of precedents—Trump, Kavanaugh, Page, Papadopolous, Nunes, Dershowitz, in fact, everyone connected with Trump.)

    But here’s a rather interesting development:
    https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/obama-furious-soulless-hillary-clinton-destroying-legacy

    How on earth did they ever allow Obama to go so off-script? (Unless, unless…)

    (Most interestingly, the part about “Americans …. [turning] on him” should raise a few eyebrows….or, actually, maybe not!)

  20. No doubt but too late, they should have done so before his confirmation.

    The Democrats, especially those that were in power, from Obama down, are deathly afraid that Barr and the Inspector General (and Nunes and Graham) will uncover and make public the crimes they committed against the United States and Constitution in their attempt to take down Trump. Being desperate they will do anything.

  23. yes, but probably too late without better evidence than what they’ve been showing for most accusations.

    Did you see Moby’s thing against Trump almost 20 years ago (Althouse).

  24. eClerc on May 5, 2019 at 9:54 am at 9:54 am said:
    …
    Now Dems claim mean GOP is trying to make Dems impeach Trump.
    * * *
    That article drives “political theater” to new heights!
    So, when they finally do impeach Trump and fail to convict, they will claim that “we didn’t want to impeach the president, but his own party made us do it.”

    Underneath the bluster and backtracking (because the relatively sane leadership knows impeachment will fail), there actually is the possibility that some Republicans are egging them on. There are no credible facts to support impeachment, and the GOP Senate has the votes right now to acquit, and the Democrats know that a lot of the public now only remembers that Clinton beat the rap, and doesn’t know or has forgotten all the dirt under the carpet.

    I know of an actual case where the innocent party did force his opponent to take legal action against him in order to clear his name. An Army officer was told by his superior to fake some armaments records and he refused; rather than accepting a bad conduct report for insubordination — details unspecified — he forced the Army to court-martial him, and of course was acquitted. I don’t remember what happened to the other man, but I doubt if the Army was very happy with him afterward.

  25. Oh, I’m sure they’ve already found her (or him). It’s really about weaving enough murk and obscurantism into the details to make the allegations plausible enough to their credulous base.

  28. Jan Jekielek interviews Michael Anton on a number of subjects, beginning with the Mueller report, attacks on AG Barr, what happened to begin the spying hoax or “setup” as Anton calls it, then moving on to other, broader political subjects as for instance the administrative state, never trumpets, the Republican party and more. It’s an interesting hour, just published last night on the Epoch Times YouTube channel. Another good use of YouTube, by the by.

    https://youtu.be/SAHy51O0dVg

  31. Victor Davis Hanson, as usual, does an admirable—sober—job of summing up the whole sordid scheme, focusing on Comey’s opaque (if not criminal) “tranparencies” and weaving in practically everyone except Ben Rhodes, Obama’s mind-melding compeer. (Alas, poor Ben….)

    The calm before the storm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑