|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Election Biden / Trump
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 This is REAL news...(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) By Matt Zapotosky Dec. 1, 2020 at 3:45 p.m. EST Attorney General William P. Barr told the Associated Press on Tuesday that he has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” undercutting claims that President Trump and his allies have made — without evidence — of widespread and significant voting irregularities. In an interview, Barr suggested the FBI and Justice Department have looked into some fraud claims, and seemed to take particular aim at one, by attorney Sidney Powell, who alleged a grand conspiracy involving election software changing voting tallies. “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 told the Associated Press, referring to the departments of Homeland Security and Justice. Trump allies allege widespread voter fraud then refuse to provide evidence Since President Trump lost the 2020 election, his campaign aides have repeatedly appeared on Fox News to tease baseless allegations of widespread voter fraud. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post) Though, privately, Justice Department officials have for weeks said that there was not evidence to substantiate the claims of Trump and his allies, Barr’s publicly breaking with the president is particularly significant. Before the election, Barr had warned repeatedly and forcefully about possible fraud that might come with mass mail-in voting, echoing the president’s attacks on the practice. Afterward, he reversed long-standing Justice Department policy and authorized prosecutors to take overt steps to pursue allegations of “vote tabulation irregularities” in certain cases before results are certified — drawing criticism that he was trying to magnify Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud. That memo, though, only authorized actions in cases which could change the outcome of the election, and officials have previously told The Washington Post they were aware of no such investigations or evidence that would warrant them. AD In the interview, Barr said that most of the claims of fraud that had come to the department were “very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. They are not systemic allegations. And those have been run down; they are being run down.” “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes,” he said. “They have been followed up on.” In a statement, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, and Jenna Ellis, a legal adviser to the campaign, said, “With all due respect to the Attorney General, there hasn’t been any semblance of a Department of Justice investigation.” “Nonetheless, we will continue our pursuit of the truth through the judicial system and state legislatures, and continue toward the Constitution’s mandate and ensuring that every legal vote is counted and every illegal vote is not,” their statement said. “Again, with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud.” Since it became clear that Joe Biden won the election, Trump and his allies have sought to discredit the results, mounting unsuccessful court challenges and publicly decrying what they claim to be fraud and other irregularities. Even as news broke of Barr’s statements to the Associated Press, Trump was tweeting about “hundreds of thousands of fraudulent (FAKE) ballots” and a news conference advancing similar claims. Barr, meanwhile, was spotted at the White House, though a spokeswoman said it was a previously scheduled meeting, not with the president. An administration official, like others speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail a sensitive topic, told The Post that in recent months, Barr and Trump have “barely spoken” though they did have a conversation the week before Thanksgiving. The official said Barr has clashed with the president or his advisers recently. Before the election, the president was frustrated that John Durham, the U.S. attorney specially tapped by Barr to investigate the FBI’s 2016 investigation of Trump’s campaign, was not producing results that might publicly discredit his political opponents and aid his reelection bid. Then, Trump was upset the Justice Department was not doing more to support his claims of massive fraud, the official said. Trump had made his displeasure known publicly. In October, after it was reported that Durham would not release a report before the election, Trump said the delay was “a disgrace” and said he would relay his thoughts directly to Barr. “If that’s the case, I’m very disappointed,” Trump said during an interview with radio host Rush Limbaugh. “I think it’s a terrible thing. And I’ll say it to his face.” This past weekend, Trump took aim at the Justice Department and the FBI over their failure to back his election fraud claims, “You would think if you’re in the FBI or Department of Justice, this is the biggest thing you could be looking at,” Trump said on the show Sunday Morning Futures. “Where are they? I’ve not seen anything.” The president also suggested the bureau and the Justice Department were possibly “involved,” though did not offer any clarity. An administration official said those public disputes have also played out in private, as Barr did not come out publicly in recent months to support the president. “There have been clashes,” the official said. In the interview with the Associated Press, Barr endeavored to make clear that whatever disputes Trump might have with the election, the Justice Department would not be the appropriate institution to resolve them. The Justice Department, he said, examines crimes, while state or local officials audit voting results. “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 told the Associated Press. |
||||||||||||||||
|
- AG Barr I think this is an appropriate statement from our AG. He is supposed to uphold the rule of law in an even-handed way. He is not supposed to take a side. Criminal investigation of the election can not be done in time to effect the results of the election. There may be investigations and prosecutions - but nothing conclusive right now. To really get a read on what is happening, look at the state legislative hearings. The State Legislatures determine the Electors - not the FBI. In any case, time will tell. |
||||||||||||||||
|
And yes the states certify, and ya know what, every single one scheduled to certify by now, including all the battleground states, have already certified. It is game, set and match my friend, and not even the craziest of the false conspiracy theories is going to help, but feel free to continue live in an alternative reality, where you seem to be most comfortable. Personally, I am waiting to find out if Biden is going to have a public inauguration (due to Covid he may skip the theatrics and balls) because I plan to attend (since I live 45 minutes from DC). My reasons for wanting to attend is to celebrate the exit of the country's worst, most hated, and most polarizing president after he squandered his 4 years attacking all groups but his core of uneducated rural white males. That is why he lost, and he most definitely deserved to lose. This election was much more about the nation firing Trump (which rarely happens to a first term president) than electing Biden. Any centrist Democrat would have won. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Is anyone really surprised at this? www.nbcnews.com |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
State Legislatures? "Electors can be elected officials or party leaders in the state, or people who have some kind of personal or professional connection with the party’s candidate." www.history.com Electors must be US citizens, eligible to vote in the general election, who have never been convicted of treason or are a member of the US congress (house or senate). |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bribery for Pardon I wonder how far up the chain this goes. I suspect, of course, all the way to the tippy top. The president kind of has to be in on any pardon he signs. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Justice Dept. investigated potential ‘bribery-for-pardon’ scheme involving Trump White House in August By Spencer S. Hsu Dec. 1, 2020 at 8:30 p.m. EST The Justice Department this summer and fall investigated a potential “bribery-for-pardon” scheme in which a large political contribution would be offered in exchange for a presidential pardon by the Trump White House, according to court records unsealed Tuesday. The documents show that U.S. prosecutors were scrutinizing whether two individuals approached senior Trump White House officials as unregistered lobbyists, and a related scheme in which cash would be funneled through intermediaries for a pardon or reprieve of a sentence for a defendant apparently in U.S. Bureau of Prisons custody at some point. The status of the investigation is unclear. The slender record is heavily redacted and does not identify the investigation’s targets or whether anyone has been or will be charged. It also does not indicate what senior Trump White House officials did after allegedly being approached or whether they had sought any bribes. The records were unsealed by Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, who released an August 28 opinion describing the government’s theory. The opinion granted prosecutors’ request to access search warrant evidence, including confidential emails sent among at least three individuals and their agents that could have been protected by attorney-client privilege. Justice Department spokespeople did not return messages seeking comment. The White House had no comment. |
||||||||||||||||
|
one US senator and one US congress person. At that point, there is a debate. If electoral votes are thrown out, and no candidate reaches 270, the vote falls to the Congress - one vote per state. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
It Looks Like Classica is Right But several House Republican lawmakers and aides now tell POLITICO they’re considering this option to aid Trump’s quest. “Nothing is off the table,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). Matt Gaetz is an imbecile, easily capable of the grossest stupidity, and he has demonstrated this propensity on multiple occasions. If he didn't do it, Gomer (My Mask Gave me Covid) Gohmert might. Would Moscow Mitch or Lindsey Graham go along with this in the senate? I don't know about those two, but there are 48 other Republican senators. One among them might be found. |
||||||||||||||||
|
said it. |
||||||||||||||||
|
If a single House member and a single senator join forces, they can object to entire slates of presidential electors. They must do so in writing and provide an explanation, though there are no guidelines on how detailed it must be. If they do, the House and Senate must retreat to their chambers and debate the outcome for up to two hours before voting on the matter. Each state’s electors are certified separately, meaning lawmakers bent on challenging the results have multiple chances to force lengthy delays. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Arizona hearing This goes beyond election fraud into the realm of warfare. As an act of war the military cyber division comes into play. If anyone ever followed blackboxvoting .org they know this has been going on for decades. At least we now have someone to stand against it. 300 cyber teams are investigating this. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Save America Super PAC Now he is talking about pardoning his children, his lawyer, himself, and those willing to pay fat campaign bribes. Cool! What a totally awesome president. I am so proud he can commit any crime without penalty. |
||||||||||||||||
|
A great title for a Trump bio |
||||||||||||||||
|
It is important to keep in mind that Trump cannot pardon people convicted of state crimes. Also, Trump cannot pardon people for crimes they commit in the future. For instance, if Trump pardons himself for tax evasion for the last 20 years, his pardon would not protect him when he cheats on his taxes again next year. |
||||||||||||||||
|
The beginning shows the cyber theft. The end shows concluding statements of the legislature. This committee of the legislature is thoroughly convinced of fraud. It's best to look at evidence and think for yourself, instead of believing what the "official" media tells you to. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
classica Why is it that the only place that fraud is claimed is in the court of public opinion? When presenting in actual court they were asked by a Judge of fraud was alleged they said NO. Are you aware of what a confidence Con is? It really astounds me as to why such smart people like you fully believe a known obsessive compulsive lying narcissist, to whom appearance is everything. It really is quite remarkable. |
||||||||||||||||
|
I could vote for Mitt Romney though if he runs again for President, and if he is a Mormon or a Latter Dau Saint, it would make no difference to me. I think he is a man of great character. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Proud to Support Trump If Trump pardons himself, his family, and friends who promise big campaign donations in exchange, why that is his sacred right. Ivanka was indicted today? All the more reason he needs blanket preemptive pardons to protect himself from justice. Michael Flynn is suggesting the president declare martial law, just as he has declared himself he winner, to overturn the election. Trump likely does not understand how he could have lost given how hard he cheated. He must truly feel out cheated. I know how bad I feel when I cheat and still lose. It just in't fair! |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
JohnClark "We've all been there. Some of us not by choice..." |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
www.youtube.com |
||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
