I was reading, “Barr spars with Nadler, threatens to skip testimony after dispute over hearing format” and became both agitated and amused.  This is some crazy stuff we are witnessing and I felt an overwhelming need to share the analogy that immediately came to mind.

Let’s say a reporter (real one) read the police report of a robbery & reported on it.  Reported strictly on what the report itself said.  No opinion.  No assumption.  Simply reported what was reported to law enforcement.

A suspect was arrested.

The reporter (real one) simply reported a suspect was arrested.

The suspect appeared at a hearing.

The D.A. stepped forward & asked that the suspect be released and all charges dismissed.  D.A. stated evidence had been found that this person was not guilty of the robbery after all.  The judge agreed & charges were dismissed.

The reporter (real one) reports:

“The D.A. stepped forward & asked that the suspect be released and all charges dismissed.  D.A. stated evidence had been found that this person was not guilty of the robbery after all.  The judge agreed & charges were dismissed.”

The left-leaning Committee becomes outraged. 

How dare the D.A. state there was evidence the suspect was not guilty?

How dare the D.A. ask for a dismissal of charges?

How dare the judge agree?

How dare the reporter (real one) report what transpired?

The Committee, after all, knows the suspect must be guilty.  It’s declared that the evidence is in plain-sight.  Some say they have seen it.  Many declare the suspect and reporter must be removed from their jobs.  There must be transparency – they will have a hearing and call the reporter (real one).  Yes, they are sure, they claim, they will expose the reporter’s (real one’s) attempted cover-up, find a way to make the suspect guilty and thereby over-ride the D.A. and judge.

The reporter (real one) was subpoenaed to the hearing.

It was obvious the Committee was hostile and determined to challenge the reporter’s (real one’s) integrity and right to continue in their position.

The reporter (real one) states upfront that they have no idea why they were asked to appear before the committee.  They weren’t involved in the crime, the reporting of it to the police, the investigation, the outcome of that investigation, the D.A. deciding to request a dismissal or what evidence he was talking about, nor the judge’s decision.  All they – the reporter (real one) – had done was to report what had transpired with nothing added or deleted, including personal commentary, especially regarding the evidence, individuals involved, or results thereof.

A robbery happened.

It was investigated.

A suspect was arrested.

A suspect went to court.

The D.A. stated further evidence proved they had the wrong person.

The D.A. asked for dismissal.

The judge agreed to the dismissal.

What part of that was the reporter (real one) responsible for? 

What part did the reporter (real one) influence in some way?

How is the reporter (real one) lacking in integrity?

How is the reporter (real one) being dishonest?

All of that being irrelevant to the Committee, they demanded the reporter (real one) present everything involved in the incident, investigation & conclusions to them.  The reporter (real one) reminded them that they already had access to all that information, excluding anything by law the officers & D.A. were not allowed to share.

Committee members, as often seen, postured during the hearing and afterwards rushed to appear in front of the cameras.  The reporter (real one), they claim with such righteous indignation, hadn’t been forthcoming with them and denied them the reports they needed to fully investigate the case and provide the public with the facts.

Okay.

The reporter (real one) – whose only part in this entire situation was to report on the actions and findings of others – is suddenly not forthcoming and hiding information from the Committee?  Information that they already have or can readily obtain?

Insanity comes to mind.

Attorney General Barr, did not hire the team to investigate the Russian interference, nor did he prepare the investigation summary and conclusion.  That was Mueller & Team.

(The reporter (real one) reporting the actions and conclusion of those handling the case.)

Attorney General Barr, did not alter anything.  He presented the report “AS IS” with only redaction of information not allowed to be readily shared.

(The reporter (real one) reporting the actions and conclusion of those handling the case.)

Attorney General Barr, was left to conclude one aspect.  Did anything the President do appear to actually be obstruction?  No.  It didn’t.  (A conclusion based on the information the Mueller Team presented.)

(The judge agreeing with the D.A.’s findings.)

The left-leaning Committees apparently don’t like Mueller & Team’s conclusions that President Trump neither engaged in collusion nor obstruction, so they are going to proceed with further investigation, until they can find something… anything… to blame him for?  And, part of their plan is to take down Barr for daring to report what transpired and what Mueller concluded as a result thereof?

Yes, insanity, or perhaps corruption and lack of actual integrity on the part of those participating in the dishonesty, crazy behavior and out-in-left field allegations are possibilities we should wonder about, shouldn’t we?  It matters not which.  What is transpiring is not what we should expect from rational adults, especially ones in control of the lives of others and our country.

A.G. Barr is guilty of nothing.

The left-leaning Committees, on the other hand, have much to answer for.

Copyright © 2019 Carrie K. Hutchens