Image 01 Image 03

Democrats Disgrace Themselves During AG Barr Hearing With ‘Reclaiming My Time’ Constant Interruptions

Democrats Disgrace Themselves During AG Barr Hearing With ‘Reclaiming My Time’ Constant Interruptions

Barr: “Well, this is a hearing. I thought I was the one who was supposed to be heard.”

AG Bill Barr testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee this morning. For exactly what I do not know because it didn’t take long for it to go off the rails.

In other words, right away:

Once the hearing, which lasted until mid-afternoon, [Chairman Jerry] Nadler did not hesitate to express his scorn for Barr and his Justice Department.

“Thank you for being here, Mr. Barr,” Nadler said with a note of sarcasm, pointing out that this was the attorney general’s first time appearing before the committee.

Nadler brought up the death of George Floyd, the protests, the collusion investigation, prosecutions against those involved in the investigation, re-elections, etc.

Like I said. Who knows the actual point of the hearing except to try to embarrass Barr on TV.

Nadler’s opening statement:

Ranking Member Jim Jordan fired back with a video of those peaceful protesters Nadler called a myth:

Nadler’s reaction? He hopes that Jordan never complains about the length of his opening statements.

Barr’s opening statement:

The Democrats could not stop interrupting Barr. They asked him stupid questions.

Barr with the mic drop:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I hope a certain 38-year William Jacobson fan wasn’t watching. We get enough obscenity-laced commenting around here already.

The Friendly Grizzly | July 29, 2020 at 7:12 am

One would think Barr was in Judge Freisler’s court in Germany.

    The Waddler doesn’t have the class Roland possessed.

      Virginia42 in reply to Edward. | July 29, 2020 at 12:23 pm

      Considering what a douche Freisler was, that’s saying something.

      GatorGuy in reply to Edward. | July 29, 2020 at 1:23 pm

      I don’t know that Roland Freisler, President of the Third Reich (TR)’s People’s Court, possessed any such “class” as you say, Ed. (On the other hand, I can find you speaking ironically, if that’s the case, in the same way the AG did in direct response to the Waddler’s attempt to wiggle out from the arbitrary and most bizarre petulance he displayed with his infantile “No!” in answer to the AG’s 5-minute-break request.

      Anyway, in case you meant class not so ironically, but plainly, here’s a tad of minimal infamy I found out about his judicial temperament — his special kind of judicial activism, we might say:

      “Between 1942 and 1945 Freisler put to death 5,000 people – in three years he put as many defendants in front of the executioner as the People’s Court had done in the years 1934-1945. He even sent the family of Joseph Muller, a Catholic priest, the bill for his execution by guillotine.”

      Could be that one of our other DC celebrities, Judge Emmet Sullivan, over at the DCDC, might be a big fan of the ‘ol Nazi (and possibly, yeah, former Bolshevik-friendly) attendant adviser to the 1942 Wannsee Conference, attended only by significant- enough Reich principals duly entrusted to craft a legal and efficacious predicate-document to move along The Reich’s Final Solution for immediate implementation. The Conference, including Freisler’s indispensable input, got it done, to be sure.

      So, class?

      (I know this is very much by the way of the present article, let alone probably heavy-handed, but for me, the tone and tenor displayed by the Dem-Left-Globee Committee members yesterday was, to tell you the truth, Ed, alarming in and of itself, apart from its context of current events and other possible, future implications. Forgive me if you feel I overdid it in this entry, even if you didn’t write so “ironically,” as I suggest you might have, above.)

    Exactly. Like those brought into Freisler’s court, the purpose of this “hearing” wasn’t to hear the testimony of the accused but for him to hear the harangues of his judges.

    Some of them will probably run their next campaign using video clips of their performance, as proof of their “speaking truth to power” and “sticking it to the Man.”

      House rules don’t allow video of official proceedings to be use for campaign purposes.

      J. Maccabee in reply to CorkyAgain. | August 3, 2020 at 6:45 pm

      Fascinating inversion of reality demonstrating Herr Drumpf’s personal lawyer, who is supposed to execute his Office of Attorney General of the United States Of America FOR THE COUNTRY, not the Lyin’ King, and carry out his duties pursuant to his Constitutional Oath is operating more in line with the fanatic Nazi-murderer judge than any of Barr’s interrogators.

    Seems so, Friendly Grizz. The Dem-Left-Globees are certainly continuing, with a downshift to boot, the tone and tenor they displayed in the House’s ramp up Intelligence and then Judiciary Committee hearings, leading to the Impeachment Trial (when they wore their more recently pressed suits and better behavior).

    So, such public and official governmental abuses are, I agree, definitely headed toward a terrible fate. And facing Presdient Judge Roland Freisler in the Third Reich’s People’s Court would, barring some unrulier Bolshevik or Maoist jurist, be the worst possible for any similarly, strongly disliked witness at a Reich proceeding, your really good humor aside. A Monty Pythonish scene comes to mind here as complement.

      J. Maccabee in reply to GatorGuy. | August 3, 2020 at 7:10 pm

      Wonder when Herr Drumpf will burn the Reichstag er, the U.S. Capitol Building, since he’s following Hitler’s playbook with lie after traitorous lie, about global warming, Putin, Russia, Red China, his income taxes, patriotic employees of the State Department, patriotic employees of the U.S. Armed Forces, the CDC, more income tax breaks for 1%ers at the expense of what’s left of the American middle class. And last, but not least, his incompetent, non-existent, science denying leadership for his political benefit has resulted in as many unnecessary deaths (or possibly more) to date in the past three-plus years than all the years of the tragic Vietnam War. Science says so, that’s who, before you ask. Do some research of the scientific investigation that has begun about the avoidable resurgent COVID-19 disease while you’re enjoying a beer at the bar while not social distancing or wearing a mask in public.

Once Barr laid down the card of the Republicans being the only ones against violence and destruction in the metropolitan cities….it really scorched the whole Democratic accomplishments of the Hearing. It begs the question….is this a Democratic Party agenda item?

You know why they did this, right? They are desperate to hide the violence, and Barr answering freely does nothing but expose it. The other day Nadler made the laughable comment that Antifa is a myth. These people are all vile and evil.

    J. Maccabee in reply to NotCoach. | August 3, 2020 at 7:21 pm

    I agree that Herr Drumpf’s regime is vile, un-American, evil and traitorous. On the other hand, what can one expect from the grandson of a “businessman” who operated saloons that were fronts for prostitution? Herr Drumpf certainly is carrying on in the family tradition–on a grand scale–by screwing the bottom 95% least wealthy Americans with even more Republiconartist tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

I was amazed at Barr’s fortitude against this verbal attack. That he remained calm and didn’t go up and punch one of these leftist jerks in the nose is a testament to his character.

Nadler is a “real” class act. As in zero class.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to oldgoat36. | July 29, 2020 at 7:46 am

    Nadler is nothing more, and nothing less, than just another pushy lout from New York.

      Dantzig93101 in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | July 29, 2020 at 10:32 am

      Please don’t slander pushy louts from New York by associating them with Mr. Nadler.

      You said “pushy” and “New York”. We all know what that’s code for. You stand denounced. (Or, if you prefer, you may sit denounced; or do somersaults denounced. We aim to please.)

        The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | July 29, 2020 at 11:35 am

        It’s a pretty day here. I think I’ll put the top down on my “Sunday car” and go for a drive in the country denonced.


        Menachem in reply to Milhouse. | July 31, 2020 at 3:29 am

        I don’t think ” pushy lout from New York ” is necessarily a code word for Jew. Being a Jew myself, authentic and unafraid, born in the heart of NYC, and quite proud of it, I consider Nadler something far worse than a, ” lout “. Satanic, like the rest of his comrades comes to mind.

    Voyager in reply to oldgoat36. | July 29, 2020 at 7:59 pm

    If I had to guess, he’s got some idea of what’s coming down the pike at them, and that it is substantial. He does not act like he fears or respect them.

    The challenge of justice, is that true justice is prosaic rather than dramatic.

    We shall see what happens.

    J. Maccabee in reply to oldgoat36. | August 3, 2020 at 7:22 pm

    “Fartitude” was misspelled.

The vile Dhimmi-crats are evil, infantile and obnoxious totalitarians, incapable of sharing political power, and, undeserving of ever wielding it.

Two points:

1) Whenever the network’s camera focused on the Committee’s Chairman, all I could really see was Jabba the Hutt.

2) What was with the largely Dem-panel-wide, more usual than not, reduced honor-form of address to the witness — “Mr Barr,” rather than the more customary “Mr Attorney General,” or “General Barr,” or simply “General”? (Let me guess — a plied intro to intentional disrespect, especially aggravated, sarcastic and annoyed condescension?)

3) The Committee’s Ranking Member, Jim Jordan, asked the Chairman best, and I’ll paraphrase: Why have the hearing, Mr Chairman, if the witness is never given the chance to speak and be heard?

4) The above pretty much sums up my (very reserved) response to this disgrace-filled, blatantly pathetic event.

    Milhouse in reply to GatorGuy. | July 29, 2020 at 11:15 am

    What’s with the whole idea of addressing an AG as “General”? “Attorney” is not a modifier to “general”; “general” modifies “attorney”. An AG is a general kind of attorney, not an attorney kind of general.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | July 29, 2020 at 11:37 am

      Perhaps so, Milhous, but, does it keep him from being the very model of a moderm major general?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 29, 2020 at 12:02 pm

      That bugs the shit out of me too, Milhouse!

      GatorGuy in reply to Milhouse. | July 29, 2020 at 12:34 pm

      I couldn’t agree with you more re the grammar for “General,” Mil. I was merely replicating here what I’d heard viewing other congressional hearings over the years. Committee members sometimes, though far less often than occurred w/r/t the others I mention, address the AG by that, yes, ungrammatical and illogical form.

      In the meantime, because I know you care about the soundness and reliability of such matters for the sake of law and order — naturally, even more intensely than I do, Mil — I’m providing below what seems like trustworthy info from a specialty website on just this thing.

      Also, in calling the House Parliamentarian in DC (202-224-3121, w/transfer), whose assistant was so interested and helpful that he promised to contact his friend at The Library of Congress to help confirm his own dig before getting back with me later to close out the inquiry. Nice, I thought; so maybe I’ll follow up again here with a final, authoritative word. Of course, we aim to find the unwoke truth, so help us, God. ________________________________________________________________

      Q: Is an Attorney General Addressed as ‘General’? ‘General’ is a military rank and honorific of a person holding the rank of general. Why do some journalists (print and broadcast) address the attorney general (US or of a state) as ‘General?’ Isn’t this grammatically incorrect because in the title ‘Attorney General’, the word ‘general’ is an adjective modifying/limiting the noun ‘attorney’?
      – R. F.

      A: Dear R. F.:

      An attorney general is an attorney with general duties as opposed to an attorney with some limited scope of duties. The title has the same structure as inspector general, solicitor general, postmaster general, auditor general, consul general and surgeon general.

      Court documents confirm an attorney general and solicitor general are addressed and referred to as ‘General (Surname)’ in courtroom settings. Federal and state supreme and appellate court proceedings refer to attorneys general as ‘General (Surname)’.

      A law librarian at the Library of Congress did some research on this at my request and confirms in oral arguments, court documents record the Attorney General and Solicitor General as ‘Gen. (Full Name), Esq.’

      * * *

      To me it seems addressing an attorney general as ‘General (Name)’ is an internal practice within the legal profession. It makes sense in the context of a courtroom to identify the role of an attorney general in a way to separate him from others addressed ‘Mr.’. But outside the courtroom when (as happens in DC pretty often) there are Army, Marine Corp, and Air Force Generals in the room – addressing an attorney general as ‘General (Name)’ make no sense.

      Further among the range of offices with ‘general duties’ … solicitor general, surgeon general, inspector general …. None are ever addressed as ‘General (Name)’

      Lastly, the plural of attorney general in the dictionary is not ‘attorney generals’ but is ‘attorneys general’ … emphasizing the office is an ‘attorney’, and ‘general’ is an adjective describing the attorney with a broad range of duties for the state. Thus, there is no way they would be generals.

      – Robert Hickey

        Milhouse in reply to GatorGuy. | July 29, 2020 at 4:22 pm

        Thanks, GatorGuy. (I’ve also heard people call the surgeon general “General”! But I’ve never heard that of a consul general or postmaster general, etc.)

        The legal usage still seems wrong, even if it’s common.

Two points became four, obviously.

What would have been the consequences had Barr simply stood up and walked out?

The interesting thing to me is that the Democrats clearly planned out their approach, together, ahead of time. Their pettiness and nastiness was an intentional strategy.

What did they think they were gaining?

TheOldZombie | July 29, 2020 at 9:27 am

“I reclaim my time”

What a disaster for the Democrats. They looked really bad and even though they prevented Barr from speaking with that stupid line when he did speak he wiped the floor with them.

The Democrats just made themselves look really petty. I hope this hearing is used in campaign commercials.

And I do hope the Durham “report” the Dems were yipping and yapping about isn’t a report but a slate of indictments for a bunch of Obama’s goons.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to TheOldZombie. | July 30, 2020 at 9:14 am

    And I do hope the Durham “report” the Dems were yipping and yapping about isn’t a report but a slate of indictments for a bunch of Obama’s goons.

    That’s a joke. The “Durham Report” will be just like every other investigation, report, hearing and interview that has been given. It’ll point to all the criminal actions on the part of the democrats and then . . . a big nothing burger. Nothing will happen. AG Barr will sit on his fat hindside and do nothing. And the usual democrat suspects will laugh all the way to the bank knowing they will never be held accountable for their criminal, treasonous actions. Guaranteed.

    J. Maccabee in reply to TheOldZombie. | August 3, 2020 at 7:30 pm

    Democrats were trying to carry out their Constitutionally mandated duty. Barr doesn’t and acts like the partisan personal attorney for the Grifter In Chief, not the attorney for the citizens of the United States of America whom he is supposed to serve.

I watched the whole thing. It looked like something out of a Kurt Vonnegut story. How did we get so many people from one Party that are unfit for their high public office?

Meanwhile, I admire Barr’s intellect and character. His answers, when he was allowed to give them, were calm, precise and devastating.

    nordic_prince in reply to Valerie. | July 29, 2020 at 10:47 am

    “How did we get so many people from one Party that are unfit for their high public office?”

    That party goes out of its way to attract scum.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Valerie. | July 29, 2020 at 12:05 pm

    “How did we get so many people from one Party that are unfit for their high public office?”
    Our only qualifications for voting are age and a heartbeat (although some leeway is often afforded those who don’t have the latter).

    amwick in reply to Valerie. | July 29, 2020 at 1:24 pm

    Great question. They get re elected, because they get re elected.. wash, rinse repeat. There were a few fresh faces, but the bulk of them are lifers. Why congress has no term limits is a real puzzle.

      CorkyAgain in reply to amwick. | July 29, 2020 at 1:36 pm

      No puzzle at all, since the people who would have to pass the law are the same lifers it would be designed to pry out of office.

    GatorGuy in reply to Valerie. | July 29, 2020 at 2:25 pm

    Or, like Vonnegut, maybe Kafka, particularly The Trial; the non-listeners’-led hearing was thus so damn awfully Kafkaesque.

    Neo in reply to Valerie. | July 30, 2020 at 11:14 am

    Frankly, the private sector legitimately pays better than even a Congresscritter, Senator or President, thus you get the best of the cr@p.

    J. Maccabee in reply to Valerie. | August 3, 2020 at 7:33 pm

    You are clearly referring to the U.S. Senate. Or, are you referring to the anti-science, anti-American Governors of Texas or Florida?

Mary, why no video of Nadler apparently dozing off during the hearing, it is making the rounds on social media?

I do not think the Democrats realize how bad this hearing made them look to normal people.

“Did they do that before or after the fire was put out?”

I’d say Barr plays this game pretty well.

Disgraced themselves in whose eyes?

“Those who are opposed to armed uprising … must be ruthlessly kicked out as enemies, traitors and cowards.” ~ Vladimir Lenin

    J. Maccabee in reply to JHogan. | August 3, 2020 at 7:42 pm

    In the eyes of the childish, entitled, unpatriotic Bozos who invaded some State Capitols while brandishing automatic weapons because they couldn’t hang out in saloons or movie houses or didn’t want to wear masks in public to protect their fellow Americans. Compare those disgraceful tantrums to our parents’ and grandparents’ substantial sacrifices during WWII.

SpaceInvader | July 29, 2020 at 11:13 am

Next time they should just put up a cardboard cutout of the AG. They can have the same hearing.

    tom_swift in reply to SpaceInvader. | July 30, 2020 at 2:12 am

    They were probably hoping for some dramatic visuals. If they act like clowns and yahoos, maybe Barr will realize he’s wasting time and just walk out. Then the D’rats can trumpet that they drove Barr out with his tail between his legs, and the Fake News will be happy to spread this fantasy. All of which Barr probably realizes as well as anybody.

    J. Maccabee in reply to SpaceInvader. | August 3, 2020 at 7:46 pm

    Will the cardboard honor Barr’s Constitutional Oath or resign? Not a bad idea.

Look, the Dems are desperate. They can read the real, internal poles and know just how strong the President’s chances of reelection really are. Biden is a total disaster. He is simply the Dem placeholder in the campaign AGAINST Trump. The economic shutdown, along with the terror campaign surrounding the COVID BS is the only thing that is working and embarrassing questions are arising about that. The street terror campaign is now producing negative effects among the general population. Impeachment sunk like the Titanic. And, evidence of the coup attempt is coming out. So, the Dem House attacks Barr. The fact that Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s surrogate, is in custody and reportedly has access to masses of evidence against important people, probably plays a large part in this as well.

Cornered rats will fight.

    J. Maccabee in reply to Mac45. | August 3, 2020 at 7:54 pm

    I think our internal Poles will be insulted by your insinuations. As the States of Florida, Georgia and the like, led by science-denying Republiconartist Governors, are reporting record numbers of their citizens infected with resurgent COVID-19 disease. D’oh!

The Friendly Grizzly | July 29, 2020 at 11:53 am

Off topic, but is about this article: when I bring it up in my browser, it jumps all the way down to about 3/4 way through the article; it doesn’t remain at the top. Anyone else seeing this?

    It seemed normal using Firefox.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | July 30, 2020 at 9:31 am

    The scrolling happens to me too. And I’m using Safari. In any case, I’m guessing that every time the page re-renders the twitter embeds are the last to show up and render on the page and as they are added to the page it forces the page to move downwards. And that it’s just very visible (and highly annoying) on this article because there are so many of them (14 embeds in total on this post) that actually take time to retrieve over the intertubes and then render on the page.

    Compare this page with the following that doesn’t have any twitter embeds and you’ll see that the page doesn’t scroll all over the place. It renders and that’s it.

I honestly don’t know much about Jim Jordan, but I’m very tempted to toss a few $$ at him with a thumbs up about his line of questioning yesterday.

Remember. The fact that they ALL DID IT, tells you that it was preplanned and coordinated.


That’s the stupidity of the House Democrats that the RINOs keep losing to.

    J. Maccabee in reply to Olinser. | August 3, 2020 at 8:04 pm

    Uh, read the Constitution, which establishes three (3) CO-EQUAL branches of the federal government and a mechanism of checks and balances. I thought American children had to pass a Constitution test to graduate elementary school and begin high school, but after reading the the comments about this Constitutional hearing of this anti-Constitution Attorney General, I wonder how so many people escaped from Wonderland en masse. Anybody know if Alice intends to vote for the P*()y Grabber In Chief in November?

    J. Maccabee in reply to Olinser. | August 3, 2020 at 8:09 pm

    For the sake of the Republic, most of us who aren’t rich, hereditary aristocrats hope that REAL Republiconartist, Mitch McConartist is able to retire to a turtle sanctuary thousands of miles from the U.S. mainland–excluding the Hawaiian Islands. Or Moscow, his choice.

What a hearing! Not enough independent, jaw-dropping, and right-in-the-middle-of-things-based testimony to set the record of violence, and the myth-busting, active, repeated participation and instigation by Antifa at Portland’s US Courthouse completely straight, once and for all vis-a-vis these rabidly hot-for-multi-trillion-dollar-climate-change-legislation, the Dem-Left-Globee namby-pamby members of the notoriously Freislerische, Jabba-the-Hutt-and-Waddler-chaired House Judiciary Committee.

If only the late, great Doctor of Gonzo Journalism himself — carrying (with more film than he could possible need) his famous Canon 35-mm around his neck and earing sunlight-diminishing aviators on his nose and ears, but sans his customarily toted six-pack and signature dentally gripped, device-holding, unlit coffin nail (yielding, albeit grudgingly, to congressional decorum) — were to have been summoned by the Committee to pull up a chair alongside the AG and provide his sworn, complementary testimony re his immersed experience with the Mob at the same courthouse in Portland, for 7 straight evenings.

For this man of unquenchable learning and excitement — and concomitantly always seriously considered the right chemical intoxicant(s) by which to lower the world-events-inducing, toxically concentrated slush of his own stress-causing, work-distracting biochemicals, but with results, such as always meeting his editor’s deadline; and one known as nothing less than a comic extraordinaire by his own extraordinary peers* — such an undercover gig wouldn’t have been as challenging, demanding, risky, and downright life-threatening as the same kind of work he did in the mid-60s, riding cross-country with those none less menacing than the infamous and almost evil, Hell’s Angels themselves, the worst of the patriotic American bad bikers.
* “Author Tom Wolfe has called [Hunter S] Thompson the greatest American comic writer of the 20th century.

    J. Maccabee in reply to GatorGuy. | August 3, 2020 at 9:58 pm

    I enjoy incoherent rambling in the style of Lily Tomlin’s ditz-on-the-street interviews. Well done.

CaliforniaJimbo | July 29, 2020 at 4:49 pm

There was only one real question that was asked and it was asked near the end. They asked if Barr would State under oath that he would commit to not releasing the Durham report before the election, Barr said no.
This is why the Dems are going after him. They don’t want the Durham report to get any of their Dems in trouble.
Fear. It’s fear.

    J. Maccabee in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | August 3, 2020 at 11:27 pm

    It’s Republiconartists’ fear that their Fearless (and Brainless) Leader, The Lyin’ King, has finally laid bare the 80+ year plutocratic agenda. That politically corrupt scheme has created a wealthy hereditary aristocracy by rigging an unfair, regressive income tax system and encouraged a tiny number of incredibly rich plutocrats to widen the wealth gap year after year for decades by shipping good paying middle-class jobs and factories off shore. The Grifter In Chief, puppet President of the U.S.A. for his master, that great humanitarian and former KGB assassin Vlad Putin, has made America Raped Again, just like Republiconartists of the 1920s did. How many patriots will wake up and find that they’d rather be Americans in the tradition of those hair-on-fire radicals like Franklin, Jefferson, Revere, Hale, Adams and so on, rather than plantation workers for the likes of the Koch brothers (there’s still one) and Mitch McConartist.

By letting hillary clinton skate free, and failing to indict a single corrupt democrat (omar, cortez, etc.) including obama, Barr put himself – and us – in a situation where half the nation believes the bullshit coming out of the mouths of the likes of pelosi and nadler.

    J. Maccabee in reply to | August 4, 2020 at 12:03 am

    Republiconartists present a much greater target-rich environment for law enforcement officials. Based on over eighty years of demonstrable evidence, the Republiconartist Party government officials have engaged in Racketeer and Corrupt Influences Organizational activities that patently violate their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution and all Americans.

Would 39 separate individuals seeking to unmask the identity of Flynn between Trump’s election and the end of January be a “normal number?” Jordan asked. “Historically, that seems to be a high number,” Barr noted, adding “the other question you have to ask is why was this after the election.”

Jordan continued by noting that of those 39 Obama officials, seven people at the Treasury Department unmasked Flynn’s name. Is this an issue Durham is looking into, the ranking member asked, referring to Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr has tasked with investigating the targeting of the Trump campaign.

“I asked another U.S. attorney to look into the issue of unmasking because of the high number of unmaskings and some that do not readily appear to have been in the line of normal business,” Barr replied, identifying Texas-based U.S. Attorney John Bash as leading that probe.

    Neo in reply to Neo. | July 30, 2020 at 10:19 am

    But when Jordan asked for clarification that Bash was investigating the unmasking requests during the presidential transition period, Barr responded that the Texas U.S. attorney’s investigation was “actually” focused on “a much longer period of time.”

    J. Maccabee in reply to Neo. | August 4, 2020 at 12:10 am

    The simplest answer to Barr’s question-in-response is that it’s always in season to investigate treason.