Martha MacCallum Grills Eric Swalwell Over Pathetic AG Barr Hearing
- 22.7K Views
During an interview on Tuesday with far-left Democratic representative Eric Swalwell, Fox News host Martha MacCallum hammered the Democratic lawmaker for the "raucous hearing" with Attorney General Bill Barr earlier in the day.
The show host asked Swalwell why he and his Democratic colleagues didn't allow the attorney general to “breathe and answer” their questions.
“How is that a fair process?” she asked.
"Well, the Attorney general doesn’t need an ice-cream cone before he sits down …” Swalwell joked, clearly avoiding the question.
“No, but he needs to be allowed to answer the question,” MacCallum shot back.
“He’s a big boy, he answered the questions,” Swalwell falsely claimed as he then mentioned a “productive” exchange that the two had.
“They kept saying, ‘oh, give me back my time, give me back my time.’ So here’s my question,” MacCallum said. “Your committee has wanted him to come in here for a long time, right? I might think myself and a lot of other Americans wanted to see the exchange, because many of you have accused him of sidling up to the president, acting on his behalf. This was a golden opportunity for the country to hear what his answer was, and they didn’t get to hear what his answer was and I’m wondering if there was a fear that if he was given that opportunity that he might be persuasive to some people.”
As the two continued to argue back and forth, MacCallum then shared a clip of the hearing where Barr said: “This is a hearing. I thought I was the one that was supposed to be heard.”
“Good question,” she said. “I mean, you could have just propped up a picture of him and yelled at it.”
“I don’t think he’s as weak as you are describing him,” Swalwell said.
“You brought him in there to answer questions and then you didn’t give him a chance to answer,” she fired back. “It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you are on, anybody can watch that process and say that it was not a hearing. That was not a hearing.”
During the hearing, Swalwell tried cornering Barr which immediately backfired.
After being asked why he wasn't investigating President Trump for pardoning Roger Stone, Barr replied, "Why should I?"
Shortly before the hearing, AG Barr released a statement where he reflects on multiple topics including the Russiagate scandal and the death of George Floyd:
We are in a time when the political discourse in Washington often reflects the politically divided nation in which we live, and too often drives that divide even deeper. Political rhetoric is inherent in our democratic system, and politics is to be expected by politicians, especially in an election year. While that may be appropriate here on Capitol Hill or on cable news, it is not acceptable at the Department of Justice. At the Department, decisions must be made with no regard to political pressure—pressure from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, or from the media or mobs.
Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus “Russiagate” scandal, many of the Democrats on this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions. Judging from the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda today. So let me turn to that first.
As I said in my confirmation hearing, the Attorney General has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice. He must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally and that criminal cases are handled evenhandedly, based on the law and the facts, and without regard to political or personal considerations. I can tell you that I have handled criminal matters that have come to me for decision in this way. The President has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right. That is precisely what I have done.
On the George Floyd incident and its aftermath:
Unfortunately, some have chosen to respond to George Floyd’s death in a far less productive way – by demonizing the police, promoting slogans like ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards), and making grossly irresponsible proposals to defund the police. The demonization of police is not only unfair and inconsistent with the principle that all people should be treated as individuals, but gravely injurious to our inner city communities. There is no harder job in America today than being a police officer. When officers respond to an emergency, whether a catastrophe like 9/11 or an everyday crime, they do not set out to protect white people or black people. They risk and sometimes give their lives to protect and serve all people, and all people owe them thanks.
When a community turns on and pillories its own police, officers naturally become more risk averse and crime rates soar. Unfortunately, we are seeing that now in many of our major cities. This is a critical problem that exists apart from disagreements on other issues. The threat to black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater than any threat posed by police misconduct. The leading cause of death for young black males is homicide. Every year approximately 7,500 black Americans are victims of homicide, and the vast majority of them – around 90 percent – are killed by other blacks, mainly by gunfire. Each of those lives matter.
On the riots, AG Barr said the following:
Finally, I want to address a different breakdown in the rule of law that we have witnessed over the past two months. In the wake of George Floyd’s death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims. The current situation in Portland is a telling example. Every night for the past two months, a mob of hundreds of rioters has laid siege to the federal courthouse and other nearby federal property. The rioters arrive equipped for a fight, armed with powerful slingshots, tasers, sledgehammers, saws, knives, rifles, and explosive devices. Inside the courthouse are a relatively small number of federal law enforcement personnel charged with a defensive mission: to protect the courthouse, home to Article III federal judges, from being overrun and destroyed.
What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the Government of the United States. In recent nights, rioters have barricaded the front door of the courthouse, pried plywood off the windows with crowbars, and thrown commercial-grade fireworks into the building in an apparent attempt to burn it down with federal personnel inside. The rioters have started fires outside the building, and then systematically attacked federal law enforcement officers who attempt to put them out—for example, by pelting the officers with rocks, frozen water bottles, cans of food, and balloons filled with fecal matter. A recent video showed a mob enthusiastically beating a Deputy U.S. Marshal who was trying to protect the courthouse – a property of the United States government funded by this Congress – from further destruction. A number of federal officers have been injured, including one severely burned by a mortar-style firework and three who have suffered serious eye injuries and may be permanently blind.
Largely absent from these scenes of destruction are even superficial attempts by the rioters to connect their actions to George Floyd’s death or any legitimate call for reform. Nor could such brazen acts of lawlessness plausibly be justified by a concern that police officers in Minnesota or elsewhere defied the law.
Remarkably, the response from many in the media and local elected offices to this organized assault has been to blame the federal government. To state what should be obvious, peaceful protesters do not throw explosives into federal courthouses, tear down plywood with crowbars, or launch fecal matter at federal officers. Such acts are in fact federal crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress.
As elected officials of the federal government, every Member of this Committee – regardless of your political views or your feelings about the Trump Administration – should condemn violence against federal officers and destruction of federal property. So should state and local leaders who have a responsibility to keep their communities safe. To tacitly condone destruction and anarchy is to abandon the basic rule-of-law principles that should unite us even in a politically divisive time.
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below!