On Tuesday afternoon’s CNN Newsroom, host Brianna Keilar tag-teamed with senior legal analyst Laura Coates to assist the House Democrats bashing Attorney General William Barr’s responses at the House Judicial Hearing. Coates insanely attacked the “baffling” Barr as a racist and for daring to cite black on black crime statistics to express his concern for black lives. Along with expressing open disgust for Barr’s lack of wokeness, they did not once fact check the Democrats. Coates began her vehement blitz on Barr by negating his concern with stopping the widespread violence at Black Lives Matter protests:     First of all, there were righteous peaceful protesters who were protesting not only the actual killing of George Floyd but what he also symbolizes. The number of unarmed black men and women, boys and girls in this country who have been killed at the hands of law enforcement officers. They are protesting peacefully with that respect. Now what they tried to do instead is to take those people who have hijacked that otherwise righteous and peaceful message, those who have tried to loot and vandalize and destroy and commit arson in the form of self-gain trying to acquire whatever material good that they wanted that day. They're trying to conflate these two as if they are ideological twins. They are not. He did say that there was distinction. But instead of actually acknowledging it and showing that there is a clear demarcation between the views and the conduct, he instead tried to use it all as a conflated attempt to provide justification for why there are so many agents who are going to places like Portland and otherwise as if it were in the name of George Floyd protesters. Never mind that the “peaceful protesters” in Portland who have been assaulting the federal court and those who set up Seattle’s violent CHOP zone said their motivation was social justice. Forget that violence broke out almost immediately in Minneapolis or that Black Lives Matter protesters chanted to “fry” cops “like pigs.” The BLM leader of New York was being extremely “peaceful” when he stated that “if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.” Coates then attacked Barr for caring about black lives: And finally, what I think I found most disturbing was in his opening statement in particular was -- is he was called on a number of times today Brianna with this idea of trying to use black-on-black crime statistics as some way to justify people turning away from the movement towards social justice, accountability for police officers who often stand unprosecuted in these sort of cases. And instead to point out which was baffling to me to use statistics that actually showed just how close the -- how the proportionality impact of black and white Americans in this country at the hands of police officers somehow justified us turning a blind eye towards it. Or the impression that people cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.  “Walk and chew gum at the same time?” It does not appear that Coates can do that. She can only focus on the minuscule number of unarmed African Americans who are killed by police every year and not black on black murder, which accounts for around 90 percent of violent deaths for African Americans. Keilar and Coates then both went on a woke rant about systemic racism (click "expand"): KEILAR: That -- that was a point that seemed to very much undercut the lack of people in power being black Americans as the country is confronting this discussion and this debate and these protests over social injustice.  COATES: Well, naturally. And of course our colleague Fredericka Whitfield -- Whitfield does a fabulous job in her series on unconscious bias. And he was speaking about to that effect and also the conscious bias. And remember, the idea -- the absence of diversity, the lack of inclusion is not coincidental in America. It never has been coincidental. It's not as if there should be these great epiphanies of oh, were there qualified people in positions of attorneys who were in the Justice Department who could rightly advise and assist the Attorney General of the United States? Oh, are you -- do you exist? My colleagues are, in fact, there. And the idea here he was actually trying to illuminate even further here, Brianna, was this idea that how are you -- how are you expected to tackle what is such an obvious example and evolution of systemic racism in America if you deny its existence as if it's a ghost of some sort? He even mentions in his opening statement, he calls Jim Crow an edifice. Well, that's a fancy word as we all know for a building. And God, I wish Jim Crow had been a building. Then it could have been broken down like removing bricks from a wall. I wish it had been tangible, I could have destroyed it with paper. But unfortunately, Jim Crow only codified existing mental views, existing biases, and it was allowed to perpetuate based on a system of justice that emboldened those who refused to acknowledge its absurdity.  The ship has sailed for CNN being a news network. It now just spits absurd woke talking points and assists the Democrats in attacking Republicans. There were no commercials due to rolling coverage of the hearing, but check out the MRC's Conservatives Fight Back page to let CNN’s sponsors know what you think about this content. Read the full July 28th transcript here: CNN Newsroom 07/28/20 1:51:59 PM BRIANNA KEILAR: Alright, I'm Brianna Keilar live from CNN's Washington headquarters and we've been watching a fiery showdown on Capitol Hill. A defiant Attorney General Bill Barr coming out swinging against Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. And they are as we heard, taking a break here for about five minutes. So let's break this down with a number of experts who can help us understand some of what we have been watching here with the Attorney General testifying. I want to bring in our CNN -- CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates as well as CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash, senior justice correspondent Evan Perez to talk about this. Laura Coates, to you first. There was a lot of discussion about the use of federal forces in cities around the country when it came to protesters. We saw from Republicans that they were trying to make it clear that they felt that all protests -- that at -- at some point there is some violence in a protest. That it -- they were painting all of it kind of with the same brush. Actually, the -- the Attorney General seemed to be a little more nuanced when he was talking about peaceful protesters versus the people who were being violent. And that was even a distinction between him and Republicans on this committee.  LAURA COATES (CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST): It was. But his nuance was only a little bit nuanced because he did what so many other people today were doing and that is they were conflating two things. And conflating it with an eye towards trying to justify the use of police or federal presence. And here's the problem with that. First of all, there were righteous peaceful protesters who were protesting not only the actual killing of George Floyd but what he also symbolizes. The number of unarmed black men and women, boys and girls in this country who have been killed at the hands of law enforcement officers. They are protesting peacefully with that respect. Now what they tried to do instead is to take those people who have hijacked that otherwise righteous and peaceful message, those who have tried to loot and vandalize and destroy and commit arson in the form of self-gain trying to acquire whatever material good that they wanted that day. They're trying to conflate these two as if they are ideological twins. They are not. He did say that there was distinction. But instead of actually acknowledging it and showing that there is a clear demarcation between the views and the conduct, he instead tried to use it all as a conflated attempt to provide justification for why there are so many agents who are going to places like Portland and otherwise as if it were in the name of George Floyd protesters. This conflation’s very dangerous because it all speaks the notion of a pre-textual reason Brianna. Can the federal government send in federal agents to try to quell riot and unrest? Of course they can. Do you want them to be able to do so? Yes, we do want that. But to try to hook it as if there is some pre-textual reason that they’ve created a self-fulfilling prophecy that I'm going to create a scenario in many respects that shows you it's all painted in one brush and justify the conduct is absurd. And finally, what I think I found most disturbing was in his opening statement in particular was -- is he was called on a number of times today Brianna with this idea of trying to use black-on-black crime statistics as some way to justify people turning away from the movement towards social justice, accountability for police officers who often stand unprosecuted in these sort of cases. And instead to point out which was baffling to me to use statistics that actually showed just how close the -- how the proportionality impact of black and white Americans in this country at the hands of police officers somehow justified us turning a blind eye towards it. Or the impression that people cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. On the one hand, being completely disgusted by violence and killing at any hand and also turning to those who are not accountable when they have sworn an oath of office and duty. It -- it's just baffling and infuriating to hear this Attorney General of the Department of Justice, I no longer recognize if he is at the helm.  KEILAR: I -- I also thought there was a very interesting moment because as we heard and we have heard before, right? We've heard the Attorney General reject the idea that there is systemic racism in law enforcement. And there was a moment where Cedric Richmond said to him one thing because we’d heard the Attorney General bring up John Lewis. And his description of John Lewis actually I mean, we can dissect that another time. But, Cedric Richmond said one thing that you have in common with your two predecessors, both Attorney -- Attorney Generals Sessions and Whittaker, when you brought the top staff -- when you brought your top staff you brought no black people. And he said that, sir, is systemic racism. He said that is what John Lewis spent his life fighting. And so I would suggest that actions speak louder than words and keep the name of the honorable John Lewis out of the Department of Justice's mouth. That -- that was a point that seemed to very much undercut the lack of people in power being black Americans as the country is confronting this discussion and this debate and these protests over social injustice.  COATES: Well, naturally. And of course our colleague Fredericka Whitfield -- Whitfield does a fabulous job in her series on unconscious bias. And he was speaking about to that effect and also the conscious bias. And remember, the idea -- the absence of diversity, the lack of inclusion is not coincidental in America. It never has been coincidental. It's not as if there should be these great epiphanies of oh, were there qualified people in positions of attorneys who were in the Justice Department who could rightly advise and assist the Attorney General of the United States? Oh, are you -- do you exist? My colleagues are, in fact, there. And the idea here he was actually trying to illuminate even further here, Brianna, was this idea that how are you -- how are you expected to tackle what is such an obvious example and evolution of systemic racism in America if you deny its existence as if it's a ghost of some sort? He even mentions in his opening statement, he calls Jim Crow an edifice. Well, that's a fancy word as we all know for a building. And God, I wish Jim Crow had been a building. Then it could have been broken down like removing bricks from a wall. I wish it had been tangible, I could have destroyed it with paper. But unfortunately, Jim Crow only codified existing mental views, existing biases, and it was allowed to perpetuate based on a system of justice that emboldened those who refused to acknowledge its absurdity. And now you have the -- you have the Attorney General who is saying in some respects that oh I know your concerns by talking to two black people. One a black professional, he is unnamed, and Senator Tim Scott. I guess your concerns are legitimate about there being some ambivalence, I think he said, and distrust. But on the other hand he’s dismissive of it and says that somehow you're over-simplifying it by racism alone and I would love to know at what point in time anyone thought that racism was simple. If it had been, I guess it would have been the edifice of Jim Crow and could have been dealt with a long time ago.