‘Masterful snark’: Brit Hume applies Avenatti rule in crusade against fools criticizing AG Barr

(File Photo: screenshot)

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume seems to make it a habit to be a voice of reason in the toxic feeding frenzy known as social media.

With the anti-Trump brigade not overly satisfied with the early returns on Robert Mueller’s final report on so-called Russian collusion, and many in this cabal turning their sights on Attorney General William Barr, Hume offered an astute observation on this newfound criticism.

In light of the sudden fall of creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti, who was revered by many in the Trump-hating media when he was actively trying to bury President Trump, Hume said to compare any and all criticism of Barr to how the individual analyzed Avenatti.

Hume tweeted: “When you hear people criticizing Attorney General Barr, check and see how they reacted to Michael Avenatti. That will give you an idea how seriously to take them as judges of lawyers and the law.”

Talking Point Memo’s Josh Marshall responded with the expected downplaying of  Avenatti, now that he has been hit with a bevy of criminal charges, to include fraud, perjury, tax dodging and embezzlement from clients.

“Yes, random plaintiffs lawyer and attorney general. Good comparison!” he tweeted, taking a pot shot at Hume.

Putting his suggested rule off thumb to work, Hume responded by reminding his antagonist of his own response to Avenatti.

“Random plaintiff’s lawyer? Please,” he tweeted. “Avenatti was the most celebrated private lawyer in America for most of last year thanks to the adoring coverage he got from people including yourself. You called him ‘top-flight’ and boosted his claims as ‘exciting stuff.'”

Now that’s an instant classic.

Minimizing Avenatti’s stature now that he has been exposed for what he is looked to be a common practice, as seen from CNN legal analyst Renato Mariotti.

But Marshall and Mariotto weren’t the only liberals to serve themselves up to Hume, as seen when MSNBC’s Chris Hayes weighed in with an apparent joke, tweeting: “For the record, I thought Avenatti was a terrible Attorney General and said so at the time.”

Again, Hume applied his newfound standard in responding.

“You must think my tweet was about the two men,” Hume tweeted. “It was not. It was about the reactions to them. You might have some personal familiarity with that.”

That familiarity would begin with a March 2018 interview Hayes had with Avenatti.

But then, Hume reminded his followers back when Avenatti was first hit with charges just how many times MSNBC and CNN featured the creepy porn lawyer during a short period last year.

Time that equated to some seriously expensive exposure.

Hume also did a little sparring with Mimi Rocah, a legal analyst at NBC and MSNBC, who admitted to being taken in by Avenatti, but dismissing Hume’s argument.

Again, he took her to school: “If you were taken in by Avenatti initially, I suspect it had something to do with his being a Trump antagonist. If you are now suspicious of Barr, I suspect it’s because you think he’s a Trump defender. IOW, it turns out it’s all about Trump.”

All in all, Hume served up some nice entertainment for social media users, as seen in the reactions:


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Tom Tillison


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles