Democrat senators like Sen. Mazie Hirono seem to want to keep the Mueller collusion investigation going in any way they can, as she so “eloquently” explained during the Justice committee hearing with Attorney General William Barr.
But instead of shedding truth on problems in the Justice Department, Democrats have settled into the role of the circus ringmaster, the grifter, attracting attention through their rudeness, disrespect, therein demanding more attention from the American people.
For more than two years Democrats and liberals lied to the American people. Now that the circus is over, and they got nothing from it, they don’t want to give up their role as circus ringmaster.
The result is rude and disrespectful behavior from senators like Hirono and people like Rep. Steve Cohen from Memphis, TN. Despite her behavior, Barr still attempted to answer the few questions at the end of her monologue.
What does this demonstrate? It demonstrates that Barr is the right person for the job of switching the topic of conversation (or investigation) from Trump and Russia, to the Democrat Party (Hillary Clinton) and Russia. It’s about time. We’ve waited for this moment for two and a half years.
Yet, it’s important to watch this hearing on C-Span, because it’s probably the last time Barr will address it in public, at length, before the Inspector General finishes the investigation into why we started this Russian collusion with Trump investigation in the first place.
And it’s important to understand how much (and why) Democrats and members of the liberal mainstream media are reluctant to let go of this investigation. They invested about two years of their lives to it. They failed to make a case. They don’t want to give up.
Here is the text of her prepared statement to Barr, followed by brief questions:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barr, now the American people know that you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kelly Anne Conway or any other of the people who sacrificed their once decent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the oval office.
You once turned down a job offer from Donald Trump to represent him as his private attorney.
At your confirmation hearing, you told Sen. Feinstein that quote, “The job of the attorney general is not the same as representing the president.”
So you know the difference, but you have chosen to be the president’s lawyer and side with him over the interest of the American people.
To start with, you should never have been involved in supervising the Robert Mueller investigation.
You wrote a 19-page unsolicited memo, which you admit is not based on any facts, attacking the premise of half the investigation.
You also should have insisted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recuse himself. He wasn’t just a witness to some of the president’s obstructive behavior. We now know he was in frequent personal contact with the president, a subject of the investigation. You should have left it to career officials.
Then, once the report was delivered by the special counsel, you delayed its release for more than two weeks. You let the president’s personal lawyers look at it before you even deigned to let congress or the public see it.
During the time you submitted your own political judgment and the special counsel’s legal conclusions in a four-page letter to congress, and now we know thanks to a free press, that Mr. Mueller wrote a letter objecting to your so-called summary.
When you called Mueller to discuss his letter, the reports are that he thought that your summary was giving the public a misleading impression of his work.
He asked you to release the report summaries to correct the misinformation. When you finally decided to release the report over congressional recess and during 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 of the 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 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 Rep. Charlie Crist that you did not know what objections Mueller’s team might have to your March 24 so-called summary. You told Christ you did not know if Bob Mueller supported your conclusions, but you knew, you lied. And now we know.
A lot of respected nonpartisan legal experts and elected officials were surprised by your efforts to protect the president. But I wasn’t surprised.
You did exactly what I thought you would do. It’s why I voted against you at the confirmation.
I expected you would try to protect the president and indeed you did.
In 1989, this isn’t something you have not done before.
In 1989, when you would not show congress an opinion that led to the arrest of Manuel Noriega.
In 1992, when you recommended pardons for the subject of the Iran Contra scandal. And Last year when you wrote a memo telling Donald Trump as president can’t be guilty of obstruction of justice.
Then you didn’t recuse yourself from the matter.
From the beginning you were addressing an audience of one - that person being Donald Trump.
That is why, before the bombshell news of yesterday evening, 11 of my senate colleagues and I called on the Department of Justice Inspector General, and Office of Professional Responsibiity toinvestigate the way that you handled the Mueller report.
I wanted them to determine whether your actions complied with the department policies and practices and whether you would have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters that Special Counsel referred to other parts of the Department of Justice.
But now, we know more about your deep involvement in trying to cover up for Donald Trump. Being attorney general of the United States is a sacred trust.
You have betrayed that trust.
America deserves better. You should resign. I have some questions for you. Is the White House exerting any influence on your decision whether to allow special counsel Mueller to testify in congress and when?
Now, you have been clear today that you don’t think that any of the 10 episodes of possible obstruction that the special counsel outlined is a crime.
I disagree. But you seem to think that if it’s not a crime, then there is no problem, nothing to see here, nothing to worry about.
So with apologies to (Rep.) Adam Schiff, do you think all of those things that Pres. Trump did are okay?
Are they what the Pres. of the United States should be doing? For example, do you think it is okay for a president to fire an FBI director, or direct him to stop him fro investigating links between his campaign in Russia? It may not be a crime, but do you think it is ok?
Barr: Well, I think the report is clear that (interrupted) I’m talking about.
I’m not talking about the report. I’m asking you if this is not a crime, but do you think it is okay for the president to do what he did, to fire the special counsel, to keep him from investigating?
Barr: I do think it’s okay for him to do what he did, and I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition to stop the investigation.
I guess you think it’s okay. Do you think it is okay for the president to ask the White House counsel to lie?
Barr: I’m willing to talk about what (interrupted)
No, we already know that you think it’s not a crime. I’m asking if you think it is okay. Do you think it is okay for the president to ask his White House counsel to lie?
Barr: Which event are you talking about? Which event are you talking about?
If you’re just going to go back - you’re telling me it is okay. Let me ask you. Do you think it’s okay for the president to offer pardons to people who don’t testify against him to threaten the family of someone who does? Is that okay?
Barr: When did he offer to pardon someone?
I think you know what you are talking about. Please. Please, give us some credit for knowing what the hell is going on around here with you.
Sen. Lindsey Graham: Not really - to this line of questioning. You’ve slandered this man.
Barr: What I want to know is how did we get to this point . . . how do we get to the point where the . . .
Hirono: Mr. Chairman, I am done. Thank you very much.
Graham: You slandered this man, from top to bottom. So, if you want more of this, your not going to get it. If you want to ask him questions, you can.
Hirono: You certainly have your opinion, and I have mine.
If you look at Senator Hirono’s web site, it looks positive, amazing, in that she grew up in a family that did not speak english; she came fled with her mother from an abusive relationship in Yokohama, Japan. She did well in school, got a law degree.
All of that is good and commendable. Her behavior as a senator is not commendable, however. She is a radical of radicals. Where did her thinking go wrong? Where did she get her radical ideas? To get a clue, here are some statements attributed to her on the Mazie Hirono senate web site:
“I am privileged to serve the people of Hawaii in the United States Senate. As an immigrant who grew up under difficult circumstances, I recognize that my path to the Senate was unlikely. At the same time, my experiences have shown me the incredible opportunities available in America and have fueled my desire to give back.”
“Participating in grassroots student protests over the Vietnam War and what our government was doing was my political awakening and a path that eventually led me to elected office as a way of being of service.”
You can see some of the progression here. She attends college. She gets involved with Vietnam protesters.
“I went to law school to develop the skills I would need to more effectively advocate for others. I attended Georgetown University Law Center because it had a strong clinical program and I wanted to focus on public interest law. After graduation, I worked in the antitrust division of the Hawaii attorney general's office.”
“In 2006, I was elected to Congress by voters in Hawaii's second congressional district, representing the seat once held by Patsy Mink, who is credited with helping to pass Title IX, the legislation that disproportionately helps female sports by taking funds earned by popular men’s sports like televised basketball and football teams.”
“During (her) time in the House, she became a nationally recognized advocate for quality early childhood education, promoted food and energy sustainability and sponsored legislation to support Hawaii's critical tourism industry and create jobs.”
Early childhood education programs are liberal products that generally fail to change academic achievement for children because a bad family home environment can’t be duplicated by having young children attend school as pre-school students. But since it’s a liberal ideal in general to control how children are educated, it’s popular for liberals even though it’s known to be a failure.
She supports Hawaii’s critical tourism industry because Hawaii is known to have one of the worst business environments in the United States. As long as Hawaii can attract tourism business, people will ignore the fact that officials like Hirono don’t support the reforms that have been implemented by Pres. Trump.
“As Hawaii’s United States Senator, I have put the values, people, and communities of Hawaii at the forefront of my work every day.”
Let’s hope that Sen. Hirono’s values are not the values of the people of Hawaii.
. . . sitting down with and helping Hawaii constituents and businesses cut through federal red tape at home, my work as a Senator is driven by my connection to Hawaii and energized by the people and place that we call home.”
Pres. Trump has removed bundles or unnecessary regulations from bureaucrats at the EPA and other agencies. None of these efforts have been supported by Hirono.
“Efforts to take away health care, slash funding for public schools, or undermine the civil rights that so many rely on are things that I strongly oppose and have fought against. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee I have worked to promote these values in fighting against unqualified nominations, promote fairer treatment of immigrants and minority groups, and protect the civil rights of everyone.”
“It is a privilege to do my very best for Hawaii in the U.S. Senate. With my background and experiences, I never forget where I came from or who I fight for and why.”
In other words, she believes that illegal immigrants should be allowed to freely enter the U.S. no matter how many or how much it costs the U.S., or how much crime, death, rape, cruelty it causes immigrants or citizens of the U.S.
How did Sen. Mazie Hirono become such a radical in Hawaii, to the point of insulting the highly qualified attorney general William Barr? Is there a link between the ideas that she absorbed that led her to protest the Vietnam War and the radical that she is today? Lastly, why do radical liberals like those like Sen. Hirono not pay a price for their radical beliefs, ideology? Why are they given a pass in their home states?
Is it possible that the people living in populous areas like Honolulu really agree with what Hirono is doing? With how much Hawaii depends on tourism, why not have a senator who likes the pro business attitude of someone like Pres. Trump, instead of a senator who shows distain for someone who is a great businessman, someone who has helped the Hawaiian economy just as much as the economy and businesses in other states as well?
© 2019 Larry Ingram
Based in St Louis,
Larry Ingram writes about the news media, movies and culture, as well as topics like race, privilege, Christianity, religious expression and tolerance.
Many news articles are blatantly biased against Christians and conservatives in the news media, movies and culture.
Read his exclusive articles and columns that bring balance to mainstream, leftist and liberal thinking on a variety of topics.