On Thursday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” the host discusses how the mainstream media has been fully aligned with the Democrat Party in its coverage of the recent Senate hearings with Attorney General William Barr. As the Democrats peppered him with questions, the commentators in the media parroted every talking point. Transcript and video below.
Bill Barr was being questioned by the Senate yesterday. The day before he's going up to talk to the Senate, amazingly, astoundingly, someone leaks Robert Mueller's letter to The Washington Post. No one asks who leaked it, why was it leaked right now, why is the Washington Post publishing the letter... It's fine that they publish a letter but [it was] without putting it in the context of "Oh, somebody is putting a hit out on the Attorney General."
Obviously, this is a political hit. Barr asked Mueller if he wanted to look at his summary before he sent it out and Mueller said no. And then [Barr] gets this kind of whiny letter saying “well, you know, the media took this out of context, and it didn't really have the feeling of my 19-page preface to my report.” I mean look, it's pretty clear that Mueller doesn't like Trump — that Mueller wanted to get Trump, but he couldn't. He couldn't turn this dead horse into a pony. He just couldn't do it. It just wasn't going to happen. There was no Russian collusion and he couldn't really get him on obstruction. He wasn't gonna put his reputation in the crapper, basically, to get Donald Trump, but he wanted to hurt him as much as possible. The New York Times said, "Barr took control of the narrative" because that is what the Democrats were worried about. When I say the Democrats, I mean The New York Times, I mean The Washington Post, I mean all of these people who are working for the Democrats. Because they ain't asking any questions about what the Democrats did.
By the way, who cares what Mueller thinks? Mueller's job is to go out and make recommendations. He didn't even do his job. He didn't even make a recommendation about obstruction of justice, so Barr had to make the recommendation. He works for Barr. He brings this thing into Barr and he makes a recommendation. Barr decides what to do with that recommendation. He said there was no Russian collusion. And so, this is what they turned it into. I’ll just take one example because [all of the Democrats] were doing it. Here's Mazie Hirono from Hawaii unleashing on the Attorney General:
Hirono: When you finally did decide to release the report, over a congressional recess and on the eve of two major religious holidays, you called a press conference to, once again, try to clear Donald Trump before anyone had a chance to read the special counsel's report and come to their own conclusions. But when we read the report, we knew Robert Mueller's concerns were valid and that your version of events was false. You used every advantage of your office to create the impression that the president was cleared of misconduct. You selectively quoted fragments from the special counsel's report-- taking some of the most important statements out of context and ignoring the rest. You put the power and authority of the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice behind a public relations effort to help Donald Trump protect himself. Finally, you lied to Congress. You told Representative Charlie Crist that you didn't know what objections Mueller's team might have to your March 24th so-called summary. You told Senator Chris Van Hollen that you didn't know if Bob Muller supported your conclusions, but you knew. You lied and now we know.
Just to show you that, of course, the Democrats and the media are the same [people]. One of them wears a press card in his fedora and the other one sitting in the committee but they're just the same. It's just the same party. The reason that’s important is because something really bad might have happened here. I can't say for sure that the FBI targeted Donald Trump at Obama's behest, but it just looks very suspicious here — the questions that aren't being asked. When did this investigation really start? There is evidence now that it started way before the Papadopoulos thing happened. That's what they're saying. There are questions about whether even what Papadopoulos said was fed to him. But here's the media, we'll take Joe Scarborough as representative of it, just echoing this Democrat line:
Scarborough: When Barr is saying a president if he doesn't like an investigation if he thinks he's wrongly accused he can shut it down. That's how autocrats think that's how lawyers for autocrats talk. You look at everything else that Barr did yesterday, stumbling and hesitating. The lies that he told in front of everybody. I understand that it doesn't make political sense to impeach Donald Trump. But for the life of me, I don't know why Democrats would not start gathering evidence to impeach this man. He is actually as dangerous in the position of Attorney General as Donald Trump is as President of the United States and he's unfit and unworthy to be there. Barr is not an Attorney General of the United States. He is Donald Trump's defense attorney. He's his lackey. He's his stooge.
So we start out with the charge that Donald Trump committed treason by selling us out to Putin. That's what we started with. Now we're down to "Mueller sent you a letter complaining about something and you had a phone call with him, and you didn't mention it." I mean, by the time we're finished it's like [if] you're wearing brown shoes with white socks you've got to be thrown out of office. Charges have gotten smaller and smaller smaller and more trivial, and all it is is this constant attempt to keep us from saying, “Hold on, you spied on the opposition party’s campaign? What was your reasoning for this?”