I've been a loyal defender, but I can't abide this:
I've seen plenty enough evidence of fraud sufficient to change the election outcome. I don't care that he qualifies his statement with a "so far."
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP.
Barr didn't name Powell specifically but said: "There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that,” Barr said.
He said people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said such a remedy for those complaints would be a top-down audit conducted by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department.
“There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all, and people don’t like something they want the Department of Justice to come in and ‘investigate,’” Barr said.
He said first of all there must be a basis to believe there is a crime to investigate.
“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. They are not systemic allegations and. And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on."
ADDENDUM: Just to be clear, my judgment won't change no matter what happens with Durham and the Russia Hoax. I don't apologize for being pro-Barr and defending him--he has in many ways been an exemplary AG. But this statement runs against against clear evidence and is unjustifiable.
Whatever. As I said, this won't change my judgment.
UPDATE 2: For the first time in weeks--maybe months--the lead story on my wife's News Radio station was NOT Covid.
Again, I want to be clear. I understand--as I say in the comments--that in many cases of election hanky panky DoJ may not have jurisdiction. I'm thinking here especially of the many very questionable decisions made by state and local courts and government officials. Nevertheless, these decisions were highly questionable--both legally and because they tended to strongly encourage fraudulent voting-- and they were unquestionably partisan. To make blanket statements about no evidence of fraud that would change the outcome--I paraphrase but, I think, fairly--was reckless and unfair in the circumstances. Statements like that are bound to be misunderstood by non-lawyers, even with Barr's "so far" caveat. Statements like that are bound to be used and misused by a collusive media. It was very badly done.