Who's More biased? William Barr or Kamala Harris?

The sudden urgency with which Democrats are flinging themselves like kamikazes with buckets of fried chicken at Attorney General William Barr reveals that they actually know what he has sniffed out, and their jig is about to be up.  Having an out-of-control, ethical, and nonpartisan attorney general was not part of the plot to unseat Trump:

When William Barr took over as attorney general, it was the first time in years the agency had any real political accountability[.] ... His public vow to examine whether the widespread spying operation against Trump and his affiliates was lawful and appropriate sent shockwaves through an organized anti-Trump political operation that had completely controlled the narrative until recently.

The most strident and desperate of these Obama operatives is Kamikaze Kamala Harris, who revealed her awareness of the stakes on May 1 by launching a no-holds-barred (if completely ineffective) attempt to dislodge the insouciant Barr.  In her rude, abrasive attempt to discredit Attorney General Barr, she suddenly challenged him to recuse himself (at 4:35), upon which he scoffingly retorted, "What's my conflict?" (at 5.00).  Nodding her head confidently, Ms. Harris asserts a "clear conflict of interest[.] ... I think the American public has seen quite well that you are biased in this situation and you've not been objective, and that would arguably be the conflict of interest."

A trained prosecutor like Kamala Harris knows full well that casting naked aspersions with absolutely no facts would be impermissible in any court — but not in the bucket-o'-chicken circus these people are willing to create to subvert normal rules of decency and law.  They are desperate.  A.G. Barr is that scariest of all tails that wag dogs — the principled and intelligent attorney, imperturbable.

The grounds for Harris's call for Barr's dismissal are that he is obviously biased because he didn't do what these obviously biased Democrats had planned prior to his ethical meddling: recommend charges against Trump and assist in the frame-up.  That justification being so patently weak, Harris kamikazed herself again a few days later and called Barr a liar — on what grounds?  Well, just because.  What's next?  Barr colluded with the Russians?  Barr's a pedophile?  Desperate times for desperate (arguably criminal) presidential hopefuls, who lose credibility daily.

Objectively, and arguably (to use Kamala's words), there is a great deal more evidence to compel her to recuse her-self than anything proffered against Attorney General Barr.  Barack Obama endorsed her run for U.S. Senate.  Remarkably, Obama once called her "the best-looking attorney-general in the country," and in the ensuing kerfuffle, each side gushed to express what extremely close friends they were.  Senator Harris now yearns for Obama's blessing for her 2020 presidential run as she seeks money from Wall Street donors.

It is obvious that Barack Obama was responsible for this criminal conspiracy.  (Or will he say he didn't know?)  This operation was elaborate, multi-agency, and long-term.  The modus operandi smacks of Operation Fast and Furious, that despicable escapade by the Obama faction for which "Teflon Barack" was never held accountable.

Given what is unfolding in Spygate, it is eerie when candidate Harris proposes to double the Justice Department's civil rights division and use government to regulate social media platforms.  Facebook's recent ban of right-wing commentators is coincidentally very helpful for those on the Left who wish to barrage Barr with unsupported ad hominem barbs.  But wouldn't Kamala Harris support Facebook's ban, only more widely enforced via U.S. government agencies?

As William Barr tenaciously draws back the curtain to expose this dark cabal, Kamala Harris is guilty by association, and by her increasingly desperate attempts to discredit him on the eve of revelations about the entrapment and smear effort by federal spies under Obama.  (The New York Times story was published the next day: May 2.)  The American people can see full well who is biased here.

Kamala Harris looks like Guy Fawkes, apprehended guarding the explosives.  The Obama administration treated the Rule of Law with contempt, committing treason in an unsuccessful effort to entice Donald Trump or his campaign staff to commit a crime.  It strains credulity — especially after her recent hijinks — to suggest that Kamala Harris is not intimately aware of this fiasco.  Indeed, her desperation points directly to Obama's involvement: she knows because he knows. 

In her assaults on the integrity and credibility of William Barr, Kamala Harris is the fox guarding the henhouse.  Her evident bias disqualifies her exponentially more than any evidence presented against Barr.

Image: Mobilus in Mobili via Wikimedia Commons.

The sudden urgency with which Democrats are flinging themselves like kamikazes with buckets of fried chicken at Attorney General William Barr reveals that they actually know what he has sniffed out, and their jig is about to be up.  Having an out-of-control, ethical, and nonpartisan attorney general was not part of the plot to unseat Trump:

When William Barr took over as attorney general, it was the first time in years the agency had any real political accountability[.] ... His public vow to examine whether the widespread spying operation against Trump and his affiliates was lawful and appropriate sent shockwaves through an organized anti-Trump political operation that had completely controlled the narrative until recently.

The most strident and desperate of these Obama operatives is Kamikaze Kamala Harris, who revealed her awareness of the stakes on May 1 by launching a no-holds-barred (if completely ineffective) attempt to dislodge the insouciant Barr.  In her rude, abrasive attempt to discredit Attorney General Barr, she suddenly challenged him to recuse himself (at 4:35), upon which he scoffingly retorted, "What's my conflict?" (at 5.00).  Nodding her head confidently, Ms. Harris asserts a "clear conflict of interest[.] ... I think the American public has seen quite well that you are biased in this situation and you've not been objective, and that would arguably be the conflict of interest."

A trained prosecutor like Kamala Harris knows full well that casting naked aspersions with absolutely no facts would be impermissible in any court — but not in the bucket-o'-chicken circus these people are willing to create to subvert normal rules of decency and law.  They are desperate.  A.G. Barr is that scariest of all tails that wag dogs — the principled and intelligent attorney, imperturbable.

The grounds for Harris's call for Barr's dismissal are that he is obviously biased because he didn't do what these obviously biased Democrats had planned prior to his ethical meddling: recommend charges against Trump and assist in the frame-up.  That justification being so patently weak, Harris kamikazed herself again a few days later and called Barr a liar — on what grounds?  Well, just because.  What's next?  Barr colluded with the Russians?  Barr's a pedophile?  Desperate times for desperate (arguably criminal) presidential hopefuls, who lose credibility daily.

Objectively, and arguably (to use Kamala's words), there is a great deal more evidence to compel her to recuse her-self than anything proffered against Attorney General Barr.  Barack Obama endorsed her run for U.S. Senate.  Remarkably, Obama once called her "the best-looking attorney-general in the country," and in the ensuing kerfuffle, each side gushed to express what extremely close friends they were.  Senator Harris now yearns for Obama's blessing for her 2020 presidential run as she seeks money from Wall Street donors.

It is obvious that Barack Obama was responsible for this criminal conspiracy.  (Or will he say he didn't know?)  This operation was elaborate, multi-agency, and long-term.  The modus operandi smacks of Operation Fast and Furious, that despicable escapade by the Obama faction for which "Teflon Barack" was never held accountable.

Given what is unfolding in Spygate, it is eerie when candidate Harris proposes to double the Justice Department's civil rights division and use government to regulate social media platforms.  Facebook's recent ban of right-wing commentators is coincidentally very helpful for those on the Left who wish to barrage Barr with unsupported ad hominem barbs.  But wouldn't Kamala Harris support Facebook's ban, only more widely enforced via U.S. government agencies?

As William Barr tenaciously draws back the curtain to expose this dark cabal, Kamala Harris is guilty by association, and by her increasingly desperate attempts to discredit him on the eve of revelations about the entrapment and smear effort by federal spies under Obama.  (The New York Times story was published the next day: May 2.)  The American people can see full well who is biased here.

Kamala Harris looks like Guy Fawkes, apprehended guarding the explosives.  The Obama administration treated the Rule of Law with contempt, committing treason in an unsuccessful effort to entice Donald Trump or his campaign staff to commit a crime.  It strains credulity — especially after her recent hijinks — to suggest that Kamala Harris is not intimately aware of this fiasco.  Indeed, her desperation points directly to Obama's involvement: she knows because he knows. 

In her assaults on the integrity and credibility of William Barr, Kamala Harris is the fox guarding the henhouse.  Her evident bias disqualifies her exponentially more than any evidence presented against Barr.

Image: Mobilus in Mobili via Wikimedia Commons.