Pages

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

MULTIPLE UPDATES: Bill Barr Is Dead To Me

I've been a loyal defender, but I can't abide this:


AG Barr to AP: DOJ Has No Evidence of Fraud That Would Change Election Outcome


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.

UPDATE 1: BREAKING: The Durham Probe is Now a Special Counsel Investigation.

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.


96 comments:

  1. It's interesting that this statement refutes his statements to Wolf Blitzer on mail in ballots and many other previous statements...this is just bizarre. I get what he's saying about using criminal justice system as a 'fix all'...but this doesn't make any sense considering his actions and statements to date on this.

    So, I guess we need to gird the loins for a Biden "presidency" and all that comes from that (or doesn't come from that).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ dave.

      No. No. No. We do not do any such thing. Biden is being installed as the head of a criminal enterprise with the very possibile connivance and or direction of China. King George was a mere piker in comparison. We dishonor our heritage if we cave in to this tyranny. That's what we are seeing here. Fight now. Summon every quotable quote from your favorite patriots but banish any thought of giving in or giving up.

      Delete
  2. Durham has turned into special counsel being reported https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/12/01/breaking-the-durham-probe-is-now-a-special-counsel-investigation-n2580893

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I literally was going to ask what you all thought Barr's move would be with Durham and all the work of the US Attorney's across the US related to 'SpyGate'. This is promising news, I think?

      Delete
    2. Promising news? Unlikely.
      A Dem-run DS should have no trouble getting goods on Durham etc's family, like Mueller etc. did to Flynn's son.

      Delete
    3. FTA: Biden would have the ability to fire Durham, but given Democrats' record of defending Special Counsel Robert Mueller, doing so would be a tough political move.

      Delete
    4. @ Bebe

      If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there ...

      Delete
    5. Mark, my mental reset has not happened yet. :-)

      Delete
  3. Have you seen this?
    On Twitter today, @llinwood: https://twitter.com/LLinWood
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1827586/000182758620000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have now. It seems like a lot of money, but maybe that just means I'm one of the little people.

      Delete
    2. https://graphcommons.com/graphs/d208e5f8-aa2a-429b-b576-63e676d9f3e3

      Delete
    3. CCP Controls Dominion, the Biden's are part of that... LLinwood has proof, follow the money

      Delete
    4. Getting “that page does not exist” from Twitter..

      Delete
    5. the little people are We the People... I am one of those also... there are much more of us than there are the billionaire ruling class. The numbers are on our side.

      Delete
    6. There were two pages:
      https://graphcommons.com/graphs/d208e5f8-aa2a-429b-b576-63e676d9f3e3
      is a interactive graphic all the entities and individuals tied to Dominion the second link is the evidence of the money trail ... here goes
      https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1827586/000182758620000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
      The twitter account that is breaking the China-Dominion Election fraud is L. Lin Wood his twitter account can be found at https://twitter.com/LLinWood He is making an announcement tomorrow in Georgia.

      Delete
  4. That is very disappointing. I am afraid that will not go down in history well. Provided there are any historians left to chronicle what is going to come after this whirlwind. The claims are "particularized" are they Bill? WTF is a "systemic allegation" -- he's reduced to gibberish in the face of those mean and nasty dems. That's okay Bill, Sidney will pick up your slack. Coward.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have had a sense of foreboding about this possibility, but I still feel that I have been kicked in the stomach. I agree with Dave that Barr's comments were dismissive and haughty, as reported. Something is going on around the Administration, and it is not going well for us! Furthermore, what does this portend for the interminable Durham investigation? Let's hope DoJ can actually "fix" something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ""focused on the activities of the crossfire hurricane investigation within the FBI,” Barr said."

      https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/12/01/breaking-john-durham-appointed-as-special-counsel-to-keep-obamagate-investigation-active-n1183922

      Weismann, Brennan, Clapper all can breath easy, not that they were worried to begin with. Some low level loser will get a stern talking to then everything will get back to normal as players rotate between high end law partnerships and gov't. This is what's referred to as "managed decline". Durham's job is no longer to prosecute, but to bring in a "report" about FBI procedures?
      Tom S.

      Delete
  6. Seems like a rather premature and unnecessary conclusion from Barr.

    The Mike Kelly case from PA has made it to Alito's desk at the SC according to Epoch Times:

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-plaintiffs-ask-scotus-to-block-pennsylvania-certification_3600076.html

    And SWC has an extensive take on that case here:

    https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/12/01/has-the-penn-supreme-court-invited-ridicule-and-rebuke-by-relying-on-laches-to-dismiss-an-incovenient-complaint-n286518

    Why would Barr want to his finger on the scale like that?

    Hopefully Alito would swing the other way. I have not seen the SCOTUS appeal by Kelly at any other news channel? Wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My view precisely. Look, I get that the feds don't have jurisdiction over many of the violations we've seen--the Pennsylvania SCt rulings, etc., that were unconstitutional. But Barr should not have made those statements in the circs.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, as I said in a prior thread, I can't see why Barr would so "especially direct" about this now, esp. insofar as his probe is still ongoing.
      If it's been closed, he should come clean about that.

      Delete
    3. Barr says DHS and DOJ have looked into whether machines were programmed. How exactly did they do that? Did they have the Frankfurt servers? Special counsel will not be looking into Hunter.
      Beyond disappointing.

      Delete
    4. I saw the SWC article earlier today. Not being a lawyer, I was concerned that the laches argument was substantive, but now I realize that the PA SC had already carefully constrained its applicability in the very cases they chose to cite.

      I suppose to you law-folk their dismissal was something of a joke.

      Delete
    5. If you've lost Bill Barr...

      I'm beginning to wonder if Barr doesn't have a little bit of the quisling in him, a la John Roberts.

      OTOH, much as I hate to admit this, there's at least an outside chance that Barr is right.

      We don't know for certain, not yet, that enough votes were stolen or manipulated to change the outcome of the election. We deeply suspect.

      Myself, I believe the worst case scenario. There was ballot stuffing, as Yancy Ward maintains, and on an almost unimaginable scale. And votes were systematically moved around via computer programming. Moreover, this isn't the first time this has happened in an election.

      It's down to the SC. Alas, I hold out no hope that the Supreme Court is going to right this.

      I'll give Trump credit. He is unbreakable.

      We owe him, bigly.

      Delete
    6. If I understand his statements today, he's saying the DOJ pursues criminal investigations, not civil, correct? If that's the case, then the indictments and arrests the DOJ made during 2020 related to election fraud must have been slam-dunk. Are we to believe that the level of fraud for those indictments was actually greater than the level of fraud we're seeing now?

      That seems a possibility, but unlikely.

      If we step back and look at this election and leverage the exact, same methodology the US and UK govt's have used for decades to determine if an election was fraudulent or not - and we did ONLY that - this election would be thrown out or otherwise considered invalidated.

      That would exclude the hundreds of affidavits of electioneering, intimidation, good old fashioned ballot stuffing...etc.

      I am hoping* that something was lost in translation of this quote by Barr, or he's just f**ed it up...that seems highly unlikely.

      Maybe we've all been completely and utterly duped, eh?

      That would be a hard one to swallow..

      Delete
    7. If he was gonna talk about that then he should've explained about that.

      Delete
    8. @ Titan

      I get what you're saying. If ...

      1) he though he was being statesmanlike for the good of the country, IMO he shoulda waited for the Electoral College or the courts to play out.

      2) If he felt he needed to defend DoJ/FBI from the slams they've been getting, IMO he should've considered the lack of results from the Russia Hoax (and his own characterizations of it) and/or been for precise and forthcoming about what DoJ/FBI are looking at and what they're not looking at.

      Otherwise, say nothing.

      Delete
    9. @ Dave

      It's not as easy as that. DoJ DOES have a large and active Civil component--for example I worked closely with them for a few years doing Civil forfeiture work. Also, e.g., DoJ is pursuing civil cases against Cuomo for his handling of nursing homes.

      Delete
    10. Thanks Mark - that makes sense.

      Delete
  7. Yesterday - before Barr's expression of impotence, Sidney Powell expressed her own disgust with the DoJ's lack of action. She and Rudy Giuliani are still in the fight. And they can still win.
    As for Barr - either make something happen, resign, or STFU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For those of you who missed this news,
      Rudy & Sidney have dissed this Barr outburst, claiming that the DoJ has done virtually zip, to follow up the leads they've given the dept.

      Delete
  8. Interesting interview on General Flynn:
    https://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/wvw-tv-exclusive-lt-general-michael-flynns-first-interview-president-trumps-pardon

    Strange part was after:
    - Kraken is nickname of an army military battalion
    - us soldiers killed in operation to get servers
    - talk if Russia Pearl Harbor through Buying Citco which has us oil terminals

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have also seen a few references to an actual gun-battle over the servers in Germany, but I don't believe it's been corroborated, or would ever* be (all things considered).

      Delete
  9. He spoke out of turn and undoubtedly with insufficient information, which is unforgivable. The article seems to boil down to his relying on reports from DoJ people in the field. Surely he isn’t living in a vacuum where that is all the information he gets. Whatever his reason for this immense mistake, he should have kept his mouth shut.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just heard radio news report Barr appoint Durham as SC in OCTOBER.

    The implication is that if Durham had no expectation of indicting anyone else, there would be no reason to make him a SC.

    Ergo, he's likely to indict more people.

    N.B. scope specifically includes Mueller probe!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, EZ. While that's all to the good--unless Durham is fired before indicting--my view is that a fraudulent election is a worse thing for the country than a government run hoax. I don't mean to split hairs. That's my considered view.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, a fraudulent election is a far worse thing for the country than a government run hoax, esp. if the election result leads to the government run hoax being buried anyway, as will be a done deal here.

      Delete
    3. Thoughts on this article from Sundance, indicating that Durham couldn't be lawfully appointed as special counsel unless he resigned first (which we haven't heard that he did)?

      Delete
    4. Agreed. The fraudulent election is no less than the end of the Republic.

      Delete
    5. @ Michael

      Barr is a super smart guy. I can't pretend to answer this. The section sundance cites DOES specifically state "from outside the US government" and Barr--did I mention that he's a super smart guy?--specifically states in his appointment letter that John Durham is the "US Attorney for the District of Connecticut." IOW, Durham, at the time of his appointment, appears to be INSIDE the US Government. Mueller, otoh and as an example, was OUTSIDE the US Government when he was appointed.

      Delete
  11. the appt of Durham as Special Counsel seems rather limited in scope...doubt there will be the carte blanche Mueller enjoyed...before and after the facts!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why would Barr jam a shiv in Trump’s back in this fashion? You know the media are now going to go ape**** with this now 24/7. More juice to keep banging the “Trump must concede” drum. This is a real gut punch.

    As far as Barr appointing Durham SC, unimpressive window dressing IMHO. Biden can/probably will fire him & the media will cover it up just like they did Tony Bobulinsky’s testimony & Hunter’s Laptop. The Fix is in. Dems get to break any rule/law they want & there are never any repercussions for them. They’ve proven it over & over, they’re above the law.

    The Republic hangs by a very slender thread & that thread is rapidly slipping away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Biden won't fire him. He's part of the big show, just like elections.

      The serfs need to "believe". They need to believe elections matter, "leaders" are chosen by them, not merely seneschals installed by nobility. They need to believe that there is only one law for all. They need to believe that media has some passing acquaintance with truth rather than mere swineherds set to keep them from straying. They need to believe their gov't is more protector than keeper. They will cling to the least proof.

      Durham will be allowed to play it out per the script, the nothing-burger will be served, digested, and the agenda will hardly pause.
      Tom S.

      Delete
  13. It was CNN, but I saw that Barr has promoted Durham to Special Counsel.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/politics/special-counsel-barr-durham-fbi/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Also, what about the Hunter Biden 'criminal investigation' into money laundering? In late October, a DOJ official said that was still an active investigation; where is that one? And WTF with Sydney Powell's "Biblical Kraken" case? Where is that right now?

    We're getting creamed in the information war, folks. Just...creamed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where's the Hunter Biden case? OIG is investigating why FBI didn't do anything.

      Delete
    2. "OIG is investigating why FBI didn't do anything."
      Should I detect any facetiousness there?

      Delete
  15. So the SC has greater independence theoretically than Durham's current position reporting to AG, correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely not. Whoever Durham will report to Durham will not be independent. That's why Barr was able to shut Mueller down.

      Delete
  16. I don't believe the Trump legal team ever expected much, if any, assistance from DoJ or the FBI in the post-election challenges, ergo Sidney Powell's recent comments that the DoJ and FBI should be washed out with Chlorox and a fire hose. Perhaps that piqued AG Barr. They will have to take their challenges through the states and then hopefully to the Supreme Court. There is just too much circumstantial and statistical evidence being amassed not to have a case worth hearing, IMO.

    DJL

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with all the anger about Barr.

    One caveat for me: I have not seen the full interview - neither transcript or video. I only see what AP wrote.

    AP, like Reuters, they are all unmitigated propaganda machines. They take single comments out of context and shift the meaning by this and other means. They leave out important facts that the interviewed person said, to serve pushing their own narrative. Remember what 60 minutes edits from a DJT interview. Mainstream journalists, with very few exceptions, are a devilish PITA.

    Apart from that, if all is true, Barr should be fired. Oh, hang on, who is his DAG?!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, they are all unmitigated propaganda machines, and Barr has to know this, and (if he says anything) either
      1) demand a veto over any omissions of key material, or
      2) issue a DoJ statement, rather than OK an interview.
      Governance 101.

      Delete
    2. Ike's pressers involved him having control over (any omissions of) key material.
      It was JFK who gambled on live pressers.

      Delete
  18. "Dead to me" seems a bit harsh. Sure we're all disappointed in this announcement; however the DOJ / FBI hands are tied without coming across partisan. It's a tough spot. I feel the congressman in both chambers should be more vocal, similar to Rand Paul today. Fear of repercussions from speaking out on a position is what is holding many back. I'm sure they're all asking themselves "is it worth it"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are partisan already and have been in many ways long before Obama.

      If Barr was attempting to not appear partisan, he shot himself, the DoJ, and the American people in the foot.

      The Special Counsel is beholden to the current AG only. The AG has the full authority to shut it down for a myriad of reasons that could be valid or partisan.

      So, expect Sally Yates or some other Trump “resister” to euthanize it early on. Barr did it to Mueller.

      Doing a full non-partisan investigation is what you should do, but does anyone really remember that Col North got off on appeal?

      Yes, getting heads to roll would have appeared to be partisan and maybe lead to the cases getting stuffed on appeal, but I betcha we will soon see the cases just go away.

      Not doing is an act just as consequential as actually doing.

      Delete
  19. the no.1 most popular post on reddit right now is "Barr proclaiming no widespread election fraud" already with over 3,500 responses as of 5pm, 12/1. Nothing like giving comfort to the enemy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fox now reporting that the DoJ clarified Barr's words, to say that the probe isn't over.
      How nice of them.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, he did say "so far", but please: The guy's been around for how long? There's no way he didn't understand how his words would be construed.

      Delete
  20. I think it's time to stop acting like Pollyanna.

    Barr has been playing for the time. So has Durham. It's as simple as that. Let's accept and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  21. My spidey senses are up on this one. Something about this Barr statement seems a bit too contrived and pointed. I wonder whether it is a smokescreen of some sort. May be just hopeful thinking, but, it feels like something else may be going on here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matter of fact, the proprietor of this very blog reminded me that there is such a thing as 'tactical feint,' where the spider pretends to be going another direction, tricking the fly into.......becoming lunch.

      I'm of mixed mind on Barr. Never an unalloyed fan, but not quite on the "he's pure evil" bandwagon.

      Delete
    2. If you can cite me ever using the phrase "tactical feint" I would be obliged.

      I never said Barr is "pure evil".

      Delete
    3. You didn't use those precise words which is why I did not use full-quotation marks. Your phrase was so elegant that I cannot repeat it!

      You never said Barr is pure evil; I used that description as contrast to 'unalloyed fan.' I remember his position vis-a-vis Ruby Ridge, so I am NOT an unalloyed fan.

      Delete
  22. He's been so good about keeping his mouth shut. And I have respected that. So many times the President has railed against him for not saying anything about obviously hinky stuff, and I have admired the discipline--and Mark has defended Barr--that it's not for the AG to comment publicly on things until they're ready to go to trial.

    Now, when all this suspicious, mathematically dubious electoral activity is going on, Barr decides to drop the nuances, the studious legalese and self-discipline. As an aside, I can't help but notice that Durham hasn't resigned as a US Attorney yet, so his appointment as a special counsel doesn't matter, nor will it matter if Biden gets his AG quickly confirmed--hardly the sop he thought it would be.

    The one tenable defense Barr has left is "hey, I didn't make Jeff Sessions AG for almost 2 years, and I didn't shut the nation down (including GJ's) for over 6 months over the COVID panic." But if you're gonna go with the "boss already shot himself in the foot, I'm getting out of here" play, then GTFO, don't stick around for color commentary...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Response of Trump legal team:

    https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1333863535538032650

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  24. Amistad project just blew up Barr's excuse. They announced they HAVE BEEN in comm with FBI & US Attorneys regarding interstate transportation of completed, signed, ballots shipped from NY to PA.
    They have the trucker testifying to transporting the ballots.

    https://youtu.be/av-yC4mR5xo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I saw that. And as I understood it was LOTS of ballots.

      Delete
  25. https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/01/whistleblower-i-drove-thousands-of-ballots-from-new-york-to-pennsylvania-n1184008

    "...
    Phill Kline, a former attorney general of Kansas and director of The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, said The Amistad Project had corroborated the truck driver’s story.
    ...Col. Tony Schaeffer, who is working with The Amistad Project team, said the organization had backed up Morgan’s story.
    ..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OH! That's interesting--that Shaffer is working with The Amistad Project.

      Delete
  26. It seems like the walls are indeed closing in this time. I’m feeling pretty defeated. Well I sure hope Trump and the DNI do scorched earth declassification. Hype it big time. 12 days of Christmas declass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, another one of the wunderwaffen that will never materialize.
      Tom S.

      Delete
  27. "But if you're gonna go with the "boss already shot himself in the foot, I'm getting out of here" play, then GTFO, don't stick around for color commentary..."
    If so, then yes.

    I sincerely hope that statement Barr made to the press was taken completely out of context

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sounds like backroom deals being made. Too many people saying they don't understand what is going on.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Tom Fitton is saying that Barr actually appointed Durham as SC 3 weeks BEFORE the election and kept it secret. #%#%+>#^!!.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barr says as much directly. For what it's worth, that's just what you would do if you wanted to say that the appointment was not related to the results of the election.

      Delete
  30. Senator Cruz has an encouraging statement:
    #SCOTUS should hear the emergency appeal on the Pennsylvania election challenge.

    See full text here:
    https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/cruzmissile-senator-ted-cruz-demands-supreme-court-hear-pa-emergency-appeal/

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lin Wood has just tweeted that he is holding off on judgment viz Barr until he sees a transcript or hears more from Barr given APs track record of propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good grief, that’s a great point...is AP full throttle disinformation mode? Silly me...when have they not been?

      Delete
    2. I'm waiting for more also, following the 24 hour rule.

      But it reminds me of Ruby Ridge.

      Delete
  32. I guess this blows the Germany server theory out of the water.

    Mark you have my empathy, I was once a believer in principled men being of like mind and strong moral character would prevail and lead good against evil.

    My mistake was to believe that others would conduct themselves as I attempted to conduct my own affairs in life.

    Now im just a jaded middle aged guy that's pretty pissed of at the current representation of the human race and particularly the government presented before me.

    Those awakings are not fun but kudos to you for calling BS by your own morale compass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My own "morale" compass is pretty low right now.

      Delete
    2. But why would Sydney Powell make these claims? IF there is one person in this entire cluster f**k of a fraudulent election who you know* says what she means and means what she says, it’s her.

      For that matter, how do we really know the video of Barr today wasn’t a ‘Deep Fake’ published by the CCP? ;)

      Kidding....sort of.

      Delete
    3. Mark. Feeling your pain. I too had confidence in and therefore high hopes for Barr. My morale has certainly taken a beating today. And yet, tomorrow (or rather today 12/2) is a new day. Here’s hoping against today’s seeming realities that hope springs eternal.

      Delete
  33. And why would Barr keep the appointment secret?

    To not do a Comey?

    Good one there (rolling my eyes).

    ReplyDelete
  34. Barr’s goal goal is to non politicize the DOJ. My guess is he is trying very hard to be non political with his comments.

    His comments were probably taken out of context, the other side is full bore on operation demoralize and censor.

    Everyday more and more facts are coming out about the election fraud. I view this as very positive.

    We will see if Trump gets a 2nd term. I hope he does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We will see if Trump gets a 2nd term. I hope he does"

      Absolutely he will, no doubt about it.

      Trump hasn't disappointed yet... no reason to expect he will now.

      Frank

      Delete
  35. "he is trying very hard to be non political with his comments", by popping off about something he had no need to address?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I also don't believe DOJ could do much of anything in less than 4-5 years. So the civil courts is the only way to do something before January.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes you have been a very loyal defender of Bill Barr, more then he deserved based on his actions. It's been said he came in to "preserve the institutions", and I believe that. His crash landing of the Mueller scam gave me hope. But it seems that Barr's priorities are in fact limited to the institutions (aka swamp). The needle being threaded by Barr here seems to be to help push Trump out the door while keeping the big corrupt game going. IMO that's been the play all along. It is enlightening that after being so quiet up until election day McConnell is all over the airwaves asking for help to save his institution- his Senate majority. It is no surprise that after playing this dangerous game with the Dems, they are now coming for him. Good luck with that Mitch.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Today from the Epoch Times,

    DOJ Not Done Investigating Election Fraud, Spokesperson Says

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a statement on Tuesday in response to the backlash from an article by The Associated Press which quoted Attorney General William Barr saying that “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

    “Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the DOJ has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election. That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated,” a DOJ spokesperson said, according to CBS News reporter Catherine Herridge.

    “The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.” (Snip)

    In its headline, The Associated Press twisted Barr’s comment to suggest that the attorney general has passed final judgment on whether fraud occurred in the 2020 election. “Disputing [President Donald] Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud,” the wire service reported.

    But the AP’s own article prefaced Trump’s comment on the matter by saying that “Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received.”


    https://www.theepochtimes.com/doj-not-done-investigating-election-fraud-spokesperson-says_3601350.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2020-12-02

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not one of those media outlets. I specifically noted Barr said "so far", but I also specifically noted that his statements were outrageous anyway. And then we find out that the brave woman who was a Dominion worker who complained to the FBI in Detroit was never contacted by the FBI about her complaints, even after multiple media appearances. Barr says they're "following up," but now we know that's not true.

      Delete
  39. Anyway you slice it, Barr is a savvy and experienced enough operator to know that any statement he makes to the AP that seems to show any amount of sunlight between him and the President's campaign lawyers will immediately be blown out of all proportion.

    Barr could tell the AP that, contrary to what his physique might lead them to believe, he doesn't ever feel particularly hungry at midday, and their headline would be, "GOP plans to abolish lunch."

    His failure to anticipate this was either an extremely uncharacteristic unforced error or a deliberate attempt on his part to distance the DOJ from the WH and the Trump Campaign. I'm going with option 2. And I get it, I wouldn't want to work for Donald Trump either, even though he's the only major party candidate for President I've ever voted for, and that certain decisions made this year--not lease of which shutting down the GJ's from 16MAR-21JUN--made it next to impossible for DOJ to do its job.

    But if you wanna throw shade at your boss, at least have the decency to resign first--even Mattis could manage that. Maybe this is why I've always tapped out in middle management--I simply cannot fathom doing anything to make the guy you're working for less than successful WHILE you're still working for him. Especially when it's a job you had a choice in pursuing and accepting. After you quit write a tell all documenting all the ways he was a douchebag if that's what your heart desires, but make sure no one can ever say you didn't give it your all before you left. Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we all knew AG Barr was never going to be literally crossing any finish lines, but it looks like now he won't be figuratively finishing any races either--ol boy has checked out and is waiting for January 20th...

    ReplyDelete