Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud

[abum 324]

4 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

 

 

so which lawsuit is it that is going to use that "evidence" from this Tim?

 

a lot of people are waiting in anticipation. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, abum said:

 

so which lawsuit is it that is going to use that "evidence" from this Tim?

 

a lot of people are waiting in anticipation. 

There are a number of lawsuits floating around from citizens and citizen rights groups. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

There are a number of lawsuits floating around from citizens and citizen rights groups. 

 

   Hopefully they can come up with something better than the Trump legal team did, or the results won't be any different.

[abum 324]

5 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

There are a number of lawsuits floating around from citizens and citizen rights groups. 

so the Justice Department jumped the gun? Barr , Trump's pick for AG, is incompetent? 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Hopefully they can come up with something better than the Trump legal team did, or the results won't be any different.

I was reading this yesterday and it is pretty striking what is on page 19. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/486098384/Michigan-Vote-Analysis?fbclid=IwAR3CeCLg9NepBS9koJP4s1CX0r2-oIPnHl4Ec5B5cOa_ii8qJDkHfbuRucY#from_embed

Just now, abum said:

so the Justice Department jumped the gun? Barr , Trump's pick for AG, is incompetent? 

I have no idea at all. 

[abum 324]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

I was reading this yesterday and it is pretty striking what is on page 19. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/486098384/Michigan-Vote-Analysis?fbclid=IwAR3CeCLg9NepBS9koJP4s1CX0r2-oIPnHl4Ec5B5cOa_ii8qJDkHfbuRucY#from_embed

I have no idea at all. 

Well Barr did say no widespread fraud, and the outcome wont be changed anyway. 

 

Somehow this Tim claimed to have evidence of fraud.  

 

Perhaps this one? https://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporter-voter-fraud-president-viral-video-1546876 

(though that was 2016)

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

You post this yet @Cyberfx1024?

 

 

God, this election is an absolute mess. 

[abum 324]

 

9 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

You post this yet @Cyberfx1024?

 

 

God, this election is an absolute mess. 

 

is this gonna be like one of the twitter threads posted here that, once countered, you wont admit to quoting baseless twitter threads ?  

i hope you had read the LINK and the QUOTES that I posted here, on this initial post. 

because you might be surprised, that IT WAS FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS .. tadaaaaaaaaaa.  

 

8 hours ago, abum said:

 

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-elections-william-barr-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d 

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday the Justice Department has not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

His comments in an interview with The Associated Press come despite President Donald Trump’s repeated baseless claims that the election was stolen, Trump’s effort to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election and his refusal to concede his loss to President-Elect Joe Biden.

Barr said U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but they’ve uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election. Barr was headed to the White House later for a previously scheduled meeting.

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP.

 

So what "absolute mess" are you talking about? 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Quote

“Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department 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. "The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/barr-says-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-defying-trump-n1249581

 

tl;dr-> This has to do with the word "widespread" and not about "fraud". Widespread likely means "national", but the elections are conducted on the state and local level. This is why a DOJ spokesman pointed out that there's no conclusive "fraud" determination and that they'll continue pursuing all "specific" and credible allegations. As usual, you have people only reading what they want to read. 🤡

[abum 324]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/barr-says-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-defying-trump-n1249581

 

tl;dr-> This has to do with the word "widespread" and not about "fraud". Widespread likely means "national", but the elections are conducted on the state and local level. This is why a DOJ spokesman pointed out that there's no conclusive "fraud" determination and that they'll continue pursuing all "specific" and credible allegations. As usual, you have people only reading what they want to read. 🤡

 

so on my post where i quoted the Associated Press, (so you have verbatim of what AP reported), you quoted a twitter thread sort of wanting to cast doubt on the news report, and even in the twitter thread, it stated "That is not what the Associated Press reported" but how does that relate to the AP report i shared here?

 

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

27 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/barr-says-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-defying-trump-n1249581

 

tl;dr-> This has to do with the word "widespread" and not about "fraud". Widespread likely means "national", but the elections are conducted on the state and local level. This is why a DOJ spokesman pointed out that there's no conclusive "fraud" determination and that they'll continue pursuing all "specific" and credible allegations. As usual, you have people only reading what they want to read. 🤡

This is about the words Barr used. No + Widespread + Fraud. You choose to see it as national, you choose to say this "not about "fraud"."  If you think there was an opportunity to say "we found some cases of fraud and are pursuing those to the full extent of the law" he would have kept that under wraps?  No way. ,"Widespread"  is just a disclaimer for there may be a case out there that may popup later where a son filled in his mom's ballot and I don't want to get nailed because I said "no cases" 

 

 

Right now, Barr is just trying to pick up the tatters of his reputation and hope we forget all if the Unitary Executive BS he has been peddling since before 9/11.  Less than 9 Scaramucci's left till it's time to pack up the clown car. 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by CanAm1980

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

49 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

This is about the words Barr used. No + Widespread + Fraud. You choose to see it as national, you choose to say this "not about "fraud"."  If you think there was an opportunity to say "we found some cases of fraud and are pursuing those to the full extent of the law" he would have kept that under wraps?  No way. ,"Widespread"  is just a disclaimer for there may be a case out there that may popup later where a son filled in his mom's ballot and I don't want to get nailed because I said "no cases" 

 

 

Right now, Barr is just trying to pick up the tatters of his reputation and hope we forget all if the Unitary Executive BS he has been peddling since before 9/11.  Less than 9 Scaramucci's left till it's time to pack up the clown car. 

 

 

 

Barr is not investigating all aspects of fraud. "Fraud" is not the only issue either. 

 

Also.. what would the DOJ do if it found fraud? Overturn elections? Throw out votes? It would go to court. He wouldn't have the power or knowledge of scope of what to throw out because it wouldn't be argued before the court of DOJ. So he wouldn't be able to determine if it affects outcomes or not. 

 

So the loosest interpretation possible is the most comical one, especially in light of hearings and lawsuits still going today.

 

About the other stuff.. I've told people from the start not to expect anything from Barr. He and Kavanaugh are examples of neoconservative proponents of UET, all under Bush and Kavanagh has already shown his devotion to it. That being said.. rogue executive branches undermining the Chief Executive policies as some fourth or even superior branch clearly are a concern, but not likely the one considered by Barr and co. As we saw with Gonzales they simply were pretty straight forward about giving the finger to other important concepts/rights like due process just because. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

3 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Barr is not investigating all aspects of fraud. "Fraud" is not the only issue either. 

What is the issue then if not fraud? 

 

 

Quote

Also.. what would the DOJ do if it found fraud? Overturn elections? Throw out votes? It would go to court. He wouldn't have the power or knowledge of scope of what to throw out because it wouldn't be argued before the court of DOJ. So he wouldn't be able to determine if it affects outcomes or not. 

What is the court of DOJ? If there is Federal law violated, prosecute. Overturning the election shouldn't impact law enforcement, it is independent of the election outcome.

 

Quote

 

So the loosest interpretation possible is the most comical one, especially in light of hearings and lawsuits still going today.

There are no credible legal challenge(s). Nothing has come of any challenge.  This is about creating more havoc, confusion and funds.  It's past time to let go move on.

 

Quote

 

About the other stuff.. I've told people from the start not to expect anything from Barr. He and Kavanaugh are examples of neoconservative proponents of UET, all under Bush and Kavanagh has already shown his devotion to it. That being said.. rogue executive branches undermining the Chief Executive policies as some fourth or even superior branch clearly are a concern, but not likely the one considered by Barr and co. As we saw with Gonzales they simply were pretty straight forward about giving the finger to other important concepts/rights like due process just because. 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

19 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

What is the issue then if not fraud? 

Relating to the discussion, the issue is "widespread" fraud. Being a federal cabinet secretary, clearly Barr would deal with that sort of large scope, and likely fraud that crossed state lines. Very, very few complaints are of the "widespread fraud" variety which is why states and local governments are handling them. Easy. 

 

19 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

What is the court of DOJ? If there is Federal law violated, prosecute. Overturning the election shouldn't impact law enforcement, it is independent of the election outcome.

If votes are in question as a result then that is what a court is there to help with and if it happens to result in a different election outcome then it does. The court of DOJ was sarcasm, you shouldn't have any problems figuring that out and then understand the judgments an actual court can render. 

 

19 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

There are no credible legal challenge(s). Nothing has come of any challenge.  This is about creating more havoc, confusion and funds.  It's past time to let go move on.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree and think Trump and others are owed their challenges and if they can't convince anyone beyond the few positive results already achieved then one simply deals with the results like any other election. 

[Prizm123 1,086]

10 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Hopefully they can come up with something better than the Trump legal team did, or the results won't be any different.

they cant, and they wont