As Twitchy reported earlier, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for failing to provide them an unredacted copy of the Mueller report and about a zillion supporting documents — there’s an impeachable offense in there somewhere … either Barr blacked it out or it’s somewhere in the pile of two years’ worth of evidence collected.
Rep. Jerry Nadler then ran to the TV cameras to declare a “constitutional crisis,” a phrase quickly parroted by intrepid DNC stenographer Jim Acosta.
Never Trumper Bill Kristol posted what he must have considered some sort of “gotcha” moment with Sen. Marco Rubio, and it caught CNN’s Jake Tapper’s attention:
Kristol with the Rubio flashback to June 2012 when then-AG Holder was held in contempt of a GOP-led Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to "Fast and Furious" https://t.co/s3L2QLFGPe
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) May 8, 2019
Not a perfect comparison but some interested mirrored parallels — more from 2012 here https://t.co/ASRBkpbyiQ
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) May 8, 2019
It’s not a perfect comparison — it’s nowhere close — but Tapper thought he’d give it a signal boost anyway.
Not remotely similar. The subpoena required Barr to break the law re: grand jury testimony. @RepDougCollins pointed this out numerous times. Garbage take here. https://t.co/ZrflSPxtiC
— Stacey (@ScotsFyre) May 8, 2019
Honestly Barr wasn't legally obligated to release the report to begin with. Double garbage take.
— SergeantMonkeyBreath (@SgtMonkeyBreath) May 8, 2019
Seriously, how hard is it to understand? Democrats waited two years for Robert Mueller to come up with proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and that’s why Hillary Clinton lost, and they didn’t get what they wanted. Boo hoo.
Now show us Nadler in 2012
— Lil Dave (@FREERBUX) May 8, 2019
We’re old enough to remember Nadler practically sobbing on the House floor over “sexual McCarthyism” during Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
A lack of memory seems to be a prerequisite of contemporary politics pic.twitter.com/GMVOUh2wAJ
— James Heilman (@jkheilman) May 8, 2019
Wow Jake. That’s cool. What were Democrats saying at the time?
— The Streeter (@thestreeter) May 8, 2019
Was there a special counsel investigation in 2012? No there wasn’t!
— B (@Brianlance1775) May 8, 2019
Difference is Barr turned over the documents.
— Bill The Butcher (@BillButcher666) May 8, 2019
Did….Barr…not release the report?…..
— Danfromumbrella (@DanJosephsG) May 8, 2019
Just going to point out that you can buy a copy of the report on Amazon, the Mueller report.
— bucket of scallops (@Splatzor420) May 8, 2019
This is not a good analogy to be endorsing, Jake.
Barr turned over the report in its entirety with the exception of classified information (Grand jury testimony, sources & methods, etc.)
Holder turned over nothing comparable.
— Mike Hennessy (@TheMikeHennessy) May 8, 2019
17 House Democrats joined Republicans in holding Holder in contempt, because he refused to release *thousands* of pages of information.
Barr is refusing to release specific classified information from a ~400 page report in its entirety.
— Mike Hennessy (@TheMikeHennessy) May 8, 2019
Like this is the same situation. They want Barr to break the law by releasing documents so they can impeach him. And if he doesn’t they’ll hold him in contempt. They’re going to pay at the ballot box when it’s shown that they’ve done zero to actually get anything of value done.
— K Frost (@kfrost100) May 8, 2019
Honest question. Was Holder being asked to break a law in order to reveal the information, and was Holder willing to provide a minimally redacted version that shows 98% of the info requested?
— Lord Bob XIII (@LloydGraham7) May 8, 2019
I don’t remember there being grand jury testimony in the fast and furious
— Their nonnie ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@ceastwoo) May 8, 2019
People were killed because of Fast and Furious. Barr followed the law, and no deaths occurred.
— Mara (@maramasu) May 8, 2019
A border patrol agent died because of fast and furious. This is about memes and phishing.
— Dirk Reacher (@DirkReacher) May 8, 2019
Ummm, not sure about this one Jake. Apple's and oranges I think.
— W. Smith (@JWSmith59134702) May 8, 2019
Is this an apple or a banana?
Uncritically making this comparison is the reason no one trusts big media any longer.
— Amerigo Chattin (@AmerigoChattin) May 8, 2019
@BillKristol That flashback from @MarcoRubio would be more applicable if…
a) there wasn’t already a Special Counsel invoked
b) @RepJerryNadler had gotten off his ass to go read the redacted portions
c) Barr hadn’t already agreed to testify until Nadler grandstanded.— Aaron Von Gauss (@AVonGauss) May 8, 2019
Where's the flashback of the Dems protesting the Eric Holder contempt hearings?? There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of this issue, but the fact that Nadler had the ability to go look at the redacted material and chose not to makes this look worse!
— mama grout (@rgrout) May 8, 2019
Well it's great to know Holder spent time in a jail cell…oh he didn't?
Well it's good that he at least suffered some consequences for…oh, he didn't? He was even considering running for president up until recently?
Stop wasting everyone's time.
— E.B. Garrett (@EBGarrett1975) May 8, 2019
Related:
Rep. Nadler declares America in a ‘constitutional crisis’ (but impeachment ‘may not be the best answer’) https://t.co/U5WrcYnzJo
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) May 8, 2019
