Quantcast
Connect with us

Conservative columnist bashes AG Bill Barr with 7 brutal reasons why no one should trust him

Published

on

Attorney General William Barr (C-SPAN3)

On Thursday, Never-Trump conservative columnist and talk radio host Charlie Sykes penned an editorial explaining why he has no faith in Attorney General William Barr — and offered seven reasons why the rest of America shouldn’t trust him either.

“My Barr-skepticism admittedly runs deep,” he wrote, but “The case against blindly trusting Barr has grown more compelling in the weeks since, and especially given his testimony before the Senate on Tuesday.”

ADVERTISEMENT

His reasons include: Barr was handpicked by President Donald Trump to be his personal “Roy Cohn”; he auditioned for the role with a memo arguing the president could not be accused of obstruction of justice; he followed through with this promise by intervening in special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings; his explanation of the investigation was inadequate; he has shown he cannot act independently of Trump’s personal whims; and he is not taking the steps he legally can to make the Justice Department’s findings transparent to the American people.

The seventh and most damning reason, Sykes wrote, is his reckless decision to say in an open Senate hearing, with no evidence, that he believes the FBI was “spying” on the Trump campaign — an act that seemed calculated to please the president rather than serve any legitimate investigative purpose.

“Predictably, Barr’s comments were eagerly received by his audience of one,” concluded Sykes, noting that Trump referred to the Mueller probe as “treason” shortly before Barr’s testimony began. “And now, it appears, he has an attorney general willing to do something about it.”


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

2020 Election

Outrage against Dianne Feinstein as potential Judiciary chair comes out against Senate reform

Published

on

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) received harsh criticism on Monday after coming out against Senate reform of the filibuster.

“I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose," Feinstein argued.

"It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself," Feinstein falsely claimed.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1308169580658012160

Feinstein is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee if Democrats regain the Senate, despite never attending law school or having ever tried a case.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Lindsey Graham announces embattled Sen. Joni Ernst will vote for whomever Trump nominates to replace RBG

Published

on

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday announced that GOP members of the body would be united in voting for whomever President Donald Trump nominates to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The nominee’s going to be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, as reported by The Washington Post's Aaron Blake.

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1308223330357518336

If Graham is correct, that would mean that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) would be backing the nomination, despite trailing Democratic challenger Theresa Greenfield.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

A Never-Trump Republican changed her mind — then crumbled when she tried to explain why

Published

on

In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, Republican Danielle Pletka declared that despite the fact that she refused to vote for Donald Trump in 2016, she now feels compelled to support him in 2020. The piece quickly caught fire online, inspiring ridicule and sympathy from differing corners and triggering a surprising amount of discussion.

In one sense, it’s hard to see what the big deal was. The Post publishes opinion pieces in support of Trump frequently, and this one was not particularly special. Pletka herself is not a particularly notable figure. Like many op-eds, it was sloppy and unpersuasive, making huge leaps of reasoning and glossing over critical points in the argument. It didn’t take seriously any compelling counterarguments. It was, in other words, a mere display of partisan loyalty from a Republican who would prefer to be inside the tent than outside of it.

Continue Reading
 
 
Democracy is in peril. Invest in progressive news. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free. LEARN MORE