• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Dems Show Off Fascistic Skills to Gain Control of the White House!

The seven funniest moments at the Democrats’ first debate

by Thomas Lifson  at  American Thinker:

 

Last night saw the expression “clown car” gain considerable justification as a description of the Democrats’ presidential field. It was “9 candidates with no shot at anything and the tenth, the first fake Native American candidate,” in Daniel Greenfield’s apt description of the farce.  But there were moments of hilarity that punctuated the tedium, so it was not a total loss for those who subjected themselves to the entire broadcast, a marathon competition in pandering to the hard-left activists that shout the loudest on Twitter.

I confess that my secret hope of Robert F. O’Rourke jumping on top of his podium like some Iowa coffee shop counter was dashed, but the humor content was, by the standards of American political theatre, fairly impressive from the standpoint of a conservative.

In descending order of laughter potential:

#7 Bill de Blasio goes full commie

This is humor of the grim humor genre, so it loses points in the hilarity competition, but gains them in the meaningfulness column. The Mayor of New York reflects a growing sentiment among Democrats with his implicit claim to spearhead the re-assignment of wealth from the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who want it. Bill and his crypto-commie associates know which hands are the wrong ones to have money. “There’s plenty of money… it’s just in the wrong hands”

#6 NBC declares us a bi-lingual country, with moderator asking first-ever Spanish Language question in a US presidential debate

More grim humor. Because Quebec is such a model of the utility of having two language groups hostile to each other (I am old enough to remember when Montreal was the largest city in Canada and the economic capital – a title it lost to Toronto starting the moment Francophone fanatics started kidnapping and killing official they regarded as Anglophone enemies), it was grimly funny (as in strange) to see a debate moderator pose a question in a language most viewers did not understand. This is such a good idea that I recommend MSNBC use Spanish for half of the minutes of each broadcast hour. It should do wonders for their ratings.

#5

#5 Warmist fanatic Jay Inslee’s non-sequitur claim that the filibuster is flooding Miami Beach.

Hey, it’s Democrats, Jake. Don’t expect it to make sense.

#4 Robert F. O’Rourke randomly starts speaking Spanish with a Gringo accent (very appropriate for an Irish-American, but unhelpful in the pandering department)

#3 Cory Booker tells us, “‘We Don’t Talk Enough About Trans Americans, Especially African American Trans Americans’

On behalf of handicapped differently-abled African American trans Americans, I protest this appalling lack of consideration of a minority that is even more persecuted by an America which is so horribly unjust that nobody would ever want to violate our border. We need to spend several minutes every waking hour discussing their plight. Or else we are bad people.

#2 Julian Castro calls for taxpayer-funded abortions for biological males who are pretending to be women. Because it’s only “justice.”

The words need a little parsing because there may be some attempt to wiggle lout of this absurdity:

LESTER HOLT: Would your plan cover abortion, Mr. Secretary?”
CASTRO: “Yes, it would. I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. (Cheering and Applause) And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion. More than that, everybody in this crowd and watching at home knows that in our country today, a person’s right to choose is under assault in places like Missouri, in Alabama, in Georgia. I would appoint judges to the federal bench that understand the precedent of Roe V. Wade and will respect it, and in addition to that make sure that we fight hard as we transition our health care system to one where everybody can get and exercise that right.”

A “trans female” is a biological male who wishes really, really hard he were a woman, and who goes to self-destructive ends (hormones or even genital mutilation) in order to make the masquerade slightly less ridiculous. For such a person to pretend to get pregnant, the services of an actual womb must be rented, along with an egg acquisition from a biological female.  Under such circumstances, accidental pregnancies are impossible, and any pretend pregnancy comes at considerable cost and effort on the part of more than one person.

#1 Pandering pre-emption: Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren’s reactions when Robert F. O’Rourke randomly switches to Spanish.

This one wins the crown because it is visual, and because it captures both the pandering nature of the event and the phoniness of all the virtue-signalers. Watching a fake Hispanic worry a fake Indian and pre-empt a fake public housing project resident with a fake friend named T-bone is just fakelicious and captures the essence of the Democratic Party in 2019, You already saw the video of the Gringo-accented Spanish, so this one just gets a screen, cropped for your viewing convenience.

(Grabien screen grab, croppepd)

 

Please view the above  clowns of Dem State control  more intimately by clicking below:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/the_seven_funniest_moments_at_the_democrats_first_debate.html

Robert Mueller’s Great Touch for Evil Expands!!

WHAT WAS MUELLER UP TO? HIS VICTIMS SPEAK

by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

Earlier this month RealClearPolitics posted Paul Sperry’s intensely reported account of the Mueller investigation from the perspective of its objects in “‘Scorched Earth’: Mueller’s Targets Speak Out.” Sperry prefaced his report:

Now that [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller has ended his probe finding no election collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, 10 witnesses and targets of his sprawling, $35 million investigation agreed to speak with RealClearInvestigations because they no longer feel in legal jeopardy. They include several people who became household names during the two-year probe – including George Papadopoulos, Carter Page and Roger Stone – as well as lesser-known figures whose lives were also upended and finances imperiled when they came into Mueller’s crosshairs. Only three of the 10, Papadopoulos, Stone and a political consultant named Sam Patten, were charged with a crime. Patten received three years probation but no jail time for failing to register as a foreign agent; Papadopoulos served 12 days for lying to federal agents; and Stone awaits trial on false statements, witness-tampering and obstruction charges.

Their firsthand accounts pull back the curtain on the secret inner workings of the Mueller probe, revealing how the special counsel’s nearly two dozen prosecutors and 40 FBI agents used harshly aggressive tactics to pressure individuals to either cop to crimes or implicate others in felonies involving collusion.

Sperry’s mind-boggling account seems to have escaped attention. Is this the way it was supposed to go down? While some of the stories are familiar, they remain shocking. Moreover, several of the stories Sperry tells are unfamiliar. I learn from Sperry’s account that our old friend Michael Ledeen was caught up in the Mueller probe:

Mueller also targeted former Reagan official Michael Ledeen, who happened to co-author a book with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — “The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies” — that was released during the 2016 campaign.

The Mueller report cites Ledeen as someone former Trump national security adviser Flynn spoke with before returning a call from the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition. It says he talked with Ledeen “for 20 minutes.” The report refers to “call records of Michael Ledeen,” followed by a redacted section related to grand jury action.

“That was a surprise to us,” said Ledeen’s wife, Barbara, a Senate Judiciary Committee aide who is also mentioned in the report.

“They went to the grand jury and got a subpoena to get my husband’s phone records and they got them and we never knew,” she fumed. “I guess it was because Michael wrote the book with Flynn.”

Neither Ledeen nor his wife were charged or even subjects in the investigation.

Michael’s experience is the least of it, but it is disgusting.

Quotable quote (Sam Patten): “He said Mueller’s team used the seldom-prosecuted [FARA] law to squeeze him for information about ‘this bullshit story about collusion.’ Agents first interviewed him last May, poring over his emails and texts, but came up dry. He said the fishing expedition wiped out his savings. He racked up some $140,000 in legal bills and had to cash out his retirement account. ‘I’m still digging my way out of the legal hole,’ Patten said.”

Dishonest Dem John Dean Stars for Jerrold Nader’s Fascists in the Once Honorable House of Representatives

HOUSE DEMOCRATS SINK TO A NEW LOW

by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Today the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from John Dean, the former Nixon White House Counsel who went to jail for his role in Watergate. What John Dean knows about Russiagate is anyone’s guess. News reports indicate that he described “six striking parallels” between Watergate and the failed Trump/Russia investigation. For example, Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, while Trump fired James Comey. Got that?

Here is a really striking parallel between Watergate and the Trump/Russia investigation: both Nixon and Trump were Republicans. One more: the Washington Post and the New York Times were out to get both Nixon and Trump. How striking can a parallel get?

House Democrats are making fools of themselves, but it isn’t clear whether they know it or not. Their main purpose seems to be to produce headlines in obliging newspapers (the Washington Post and the New York Times, for instance) where “President Trump” is in the same sentence as “impeachment” or, if they are quoting Nancy Pelosi, “locked up.” I doubt that there is a single voter left who will be influenced by such partisan heavy breathing.

Mueller Continues His Creep Against President Trump

MUELLER CLARIFIES

by John Hinderaker   at  PowerLine:

Robert Mueller’s mini-press conference yesterday had what must have been the intended effect: it cast another cloud over President Trump, and gave rise to renewed talk about impeachment among Democrats. The takeaway, for most naive observers, likely was that the president may be “guilty” after all. This headline on the front page of my local newspaper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, was typical:

The casual observer likely won’t understand that President Trump has, in fact, been exonerated with respect to colluding with Russia, which is what Mueller’s investigation was supposed to be about. It is only with regard to the absurd “obstruction of justice” theory–which most people don’t care about, given that justice obviously was not obstructed–that Mueller tried to leave the door open.

Yesterday, following Mueller’s statement to the press, the Department of Justice and the spokesman for the Special Counsel’s Office released this statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC [Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.

Maybe that will help, but I doubt it. President Trump responded more directly on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

That was actually the conclusion of a tweet storm on Mueller that included this:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Robert Mueller came to the Oval Office (along with other potential candidates) seeking to be named the Director of the FBI. He had already been in that position for 12 years, I told him NO. The next day he was named Special Counsel – A total Conflict of Interest. NICE!

Has that been in the public domain? I can’t keep track!

Finally, Michael Ramirez comments on Mueller’s performance yesterday. Click to enlarge:

 

Mueller Clarifies

Devious Comey, Clapper, and Brennan Begin Their Dance Trio

He Did It, Not Me!

There is something Kafkaesque about the current round of investigating possible FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Justice Department, and National Security Council wrongdoing during the 2016 election, Trump transition, and early presidency.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller had been permitted to range well beyond his mandate of “Russian collusion.” He outsourced much of the selection of his “dream team” and “all-star” staff of attorneys to his deputy, Andrew Weissman. In turn, Weissman—who commiserated with Hillary Clinton at her ill-fated “victory” party on the evening of her defeat—stocked the team with Trump-haters, liberals and progressives, Clinton donors, a few who had previously served as attorneys for the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton or Obama aides. Most of these were themselves briefed during the early dissemination of the fraudulent Steele dossier.

Yet after all the bias, prosecutorial leveraging, the process crimes, the perjury traps, and after 22 months, $34 million, and a 440-plus page report, Mueller’s “hunter-killer” team did not establish that President Trump colluded with the Russians to warp the 2016 election.

In fact, Mueller could not find prosecutable “obstruction” of justice by Trump to impair the investigation of what Mueller concluded was not a crime.

The Wolves Turn On Each Other

Now we turn to the real unspoken question: how did it happen that the top machinery of the U.S. government meddled in an election, and sought to sabotage a presidential transition and early presidency?

Note well: none of the leveraged targets of Robert Mueller turned state’s evidence to accuse Donald Trump of “collusion,” the object of the special counsel’s investigation, although to have done so would have mightily helped their cause and given them John Dean iconic status among leftists. In contrast, we have scarcely begun to investigate wrongdoing at the intelligence and justice departments and already the suspects are fingering each other.

James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?

Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced?

Why would not they still be vying to take credit for warning President Obama that Donald J. Trump was a likely sexual pervert, with a pathological hatred of Obama, as manifested in Trump’s alleged Moscow debauchery—a reprobate who used his subordinates to steal the election from Hillary Clinton and who still must somehow be stopped at all costs?

That entire bought fantasy was the subtext of why Mueller was appointed in the first place. It was the basis for the persistent support to this day among the media and progressives for the now discredited notion of “collusion.”

If our noble public servants really believed all that to be true, would not Comey and Brennan instead now be arguing that each, not the other, was bold and smart enough to have included the seminal dossier into a presidential briefing? Comey in public still insists that the dossier is not discredited, though in all his sanctimonious televised sermons, he never has provided any details that support the supposed veracity of Steele’s charges. Why then is Comey not demanding that the FBI take credit for bringing this key piece of intelligence to Obama’s attention rather than fobbing off such an important feat to the rival CIA?

Why, for that matter, are Andrew McCabe and James Comey at odds?

The commonality of their respective sworn testimonies has been that Trump was and remains a danger to the republic—to the extent that McCabe admittedly staged a comical coup attempt and Comey committed a likely felony in leaking to the media classified documents that had memorialized his versions of his own confidential conversations with the president.

Why, given their protestation of innocence and their cry-of-the-heart leaking to save us, would not McCabe and Comey be heaping praise on each other, as each tried to outdo the other in pursuing extraordinary measures to end the clear and present danger of Donald Trump?

McCabe has testified that the dossier was the anchoring evidence that the FBI presented to the FISA court. Comey denies that fact. But once more why would they disagree? And why would they be at odds over supposedly noble leaking to the press?

McCabe claims Comey allowed him to leak gossip and rumors about Trump’s culpability; Comey says he did no such thing. But should not both still be bragging that they had the guts to seed the dossier and related confidential information to the media to the stop the national threat of Donald Trump?

We know that Comey has no intrinsic objection to scattering classified information, because he has bragged that he did just that after his firing to help appoint a special counsel. We know in addition that McCabe has no problem with divulging confidential information because to the media he has accused Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in a confidential conversation, of volunteering to wear a wire in hopes of entrapping the President of the United States at some incriminating moment.

For the Good of the People?
Why again are McCabe and Comey pointing fingers at each other as leakers and purveyors or ruinous gossip, when both have admittedly leaked and are apparently proud of it, reasoning that they did it for us, the people, in our moment of peril from our president whom the people elected?

Why are McCabe and Rosenstein at odds? The former says the latter was willing to record stealthily his conversations with Trump in an effort to remove him, the latter says it was a joke and that McCabe engineered such a discussion. But why the disconnect? Both in varying ways have tried to obstruct declassification of government documents that might suggest government overreach under the Justice Department and FBI. Both seem at odds with Trump, both the man and his presidency. Why then are not each vying with the other for the greater credit of nearly engineering a coup to remove an existential threat like Donald Trump, a supposedly legal act under their allegedly mutually referenced application of the 25th Amendment?

These are rhetorical questions because we know the answers: our top officials at the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and NSC, as well as James Clapper as director of national intelligence, likely broke federal law, betrayed their agencies, and in general acted in an abjectly unethical manner on the premises that 1) Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their behavior would be rewarded; and 2) in the aftermath of her defeat and after Trump became president, that Trump could either be removed or so discredited that their own prior illegality would either never come to light or would be contextualized as noble resistance.

Until election night, they seemed to have been correct in their assumptions.

Given the subsequent serial efforts of #TheResistance to remove or destroy president-elect and President Trump—the suits to overturn the voting in three states, the attempted subversion of the Electoral College voting, the efforts to invoke the Emoluments Clause, the Logan Act, and the 25th Amendment, the early impeachment vote, the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Mueller investigation, and the brouhaha over Stormy Daniels, the Trump tax returns, Michael Cohen and Michael Avenatti—these officials still believed that their prior behavior would either eventually be praised or at least excused. But they bet foolishly against the viability of Trump.

The appointment of William Barr as attorney general has sobered the lawbreakers, and perhaps soon the media, which may not wish to go down the drain with their erstwhile FBI and CIA speaking-truth-to-power heroes.

No longer are Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe along with a host of others insisting that they acted nobly. No longer are they in solidarity in their defiant opposition to Donald Trump.

Now, for the first time, they are pointing fingers at one another, because they have come to realize that their prior criminality may not be rewarded, praised, or even excused, but rather prosecuted.

And so in response, we now hear: “He did it, not me!”

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/19/he-did-it-not-me/

Alyssa Milano Demonstrates the She Human Animal Always Has the Power to be DITSY, When Needed!

SILLIEST PROTEST EVER?

by  John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

Actress Alyssa Milano recently tweeted that liberal women should go on a “sex strike” to protest anti-abortion laws that have been enacted in several states. Hilarity ensued. But model Emily Ratajkowski may have come up with an even dumber pro-abortion protest: she Instagramed a naked picture of herself. Click to enlarge:

I know little about Ms. Ratajkowski, but my impression is that it doesn’t take much to motivate her to undress publicly. Still, you may wonder: what does getting naked have to do with abortion? The answer is obvious: women’s bodies!

What is interesting about this model’s post, which has over two million likes, is how well it exemplifies liberal logic on the abortion issue. I have no idea what Ms. Ratajkowski’s educational attainments are, but what she wrote could have been penned by any of several million liberal, female college students. Which is likely where she got it.

This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape.

The “25 old white men” theme is ubiquitous. The anti-abortion bill passed Alabama’s Senate 25-6. All 25 who voted in favor of the measure were white men, although not many of them appear to be old. Four of the six who voted against the bill were also men. The bill passed Alabama’s House 74-3, with the legislation’s female sponsor and six other women voting in favor. The bill was signed into law by a female governor.

More basically, the idea that abortion is a male-sponsored imposition on “women’s bodies”–of course, those who are anti-abortion think they are protecting the bodies of unborn children, male and female–is a myth. Polls indicate that men are more likely to favor abortion than women. The demographic most enthusiastically in favor of abortion, for obvious reasons, is young single men.

Nor does race have anything to do with it. I haven’t seen any poll data recently, but I am pretty sure that African-Americans and Hispanics are both more likely to oppose abortion than whites.

These men in power are imposing their wills onto the bodies of women in order to uphold the patriarchy and perpetuate the industrial prison complex by preventing women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce.

If you can make sense of this you are a better man than I am. Emily’s theory apparently is that old white men “in power” want to produce more criminals who will be caught, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned–why? because it “perpetuates the industrial prison complex.” That is one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories I have ever seen. A far more plausible hypothesis is that liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg favor abortion in order to prevent “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The states trying to ban abortion are the states that have the highest proportion of black women living there.

So that means abortion opponents are pro-African American and want blacks to be a bigger portion of the population. This is how many anti-abortion blacks see the issue.

This is about class and race and is a direct attack on the fundamental human rights women in the US deserve and are protected by under Roe v. Wade.

Liberals think that any time they mention class and race they are scoring points. Actually, the truth here is the opposite. It is hard to explain why anyone who doesn’t like blacks or poor people would want more of them to be born. (Unless, of course, they think the object of public policy is to increase the prison population. Which, by the way, is a racist supposition, isn’t it?) Anti-abortion advocates believe that unborn babies have a “fundamental human right” to life, which they vote to protect regardless of race or class.

I personally don’t favor legislation along the lines recently enacted in Alabama, but the more idiotic attacks I see from the left, the more willing I am to consider that Alabama’s legislature could be right.

 

 

Hero AG Barr Reviewed by Star Political Writer, KIMBERLEY STRASSEL

The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.

Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.

These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?

TRUMP TELLS DEMS ‘IT’S OVER,’ SAYS MCGAHN WON’T TESTIFY, HITS BIDEN’S ‘VERY DUMB STATEMENT’ IN FOX NEWS INTERVIEW

Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching – that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

CLICK HERE TO KEEP READING KIMBERLEY STRASSEL’S COLUMN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY KIMBERLY STRASSEL