Attorney General William P. Barr said Tuesday that the Justice Department has not uncovered voting fraud at a scale that could have affected the results of the presidential election, reaffirming Joseph R. Biden Jr.âs win despite President Trumpâs groundless claims that he was defrauded.
Mr. Barrâs comments, in an interview with The Associated Press, were a prominent repudiation of Mr. Trumpâs baseless assertions and came days after the president implied that the Justice Department and the F.B.I. may have played a role in an election fraud.
Oh, bummer, you beat me to it. BUT I found this headline pretty damned funny:
Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trumpâs lawyer who has led the most extensive efforts to damage his clientâs political rivals and undermine the election results, discussed with him as recently as last week the possibility of receiving a pre-emptive pardon before Mr. Trump leaves office, according to two people told of the discussion.
It was not clear who raised the topic. The men had also talked previously about a pardon for Mr. Giuliani, according to the people. Mr. Trump has not indicated what he will do, one of the people said.
Mr. Giulianiâs potential criminal exposure is unclear. He was under investigation as recently as this summer by federal prosecutors in Manhattan for his business dealings in Ukraine and his role in ousting the American ambassador there, a plot that was at the heart of the impeachment of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Giuliani has expressed concern that any federal investigations of his conduct that appear to have been dormant under the Trump administration could be revived in a Biden administration, according to people who have spoken to him.
Legal experts say that if Mr. Trump wants to fully protect Mr. Giuliani from prosecution after he leaves office, the president would most likely have to detail what crimes he believed Mr. Giuliani had committed in the language of the pardon.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have been investigating since 2019 the role of Mr. Giuliani and two other associates in a wide-ranging pressure campaign directed at pushing the Ukrainian government to investigate Mr. Trumpâs rivals, namely the son of Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The two Giuliani associates â Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman â were arrested in October 2019 as they prepared to board a flight from Washington to Frankfurt with one-way tickets. Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman were charged with violating campaign finance laws as part of a complex scheme to undermine the former American ambassador in Kyiv, Marie L. Yovanovitch, who Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump believed should have been doing more to pressure the Ukrainians.
Prosecutors in Manhattan continued to investigate Mr. Giulianiâs role in the scheme over the past year, focusing on whether he was, in pushing to oust the American ambassador to Ukraine, essentially double dipping: working not only for Mr. Trump but also for Ukrainian officials who wanted the ambassador gone for their own reasons, according to people briefed on the matter.
It is a federal crime to try to influence the United States government at the request or direction of a foreign official without disclosing their involvement. Mr. Giuliani has said that he did nothing wrong and that he did not register as a foreign agent because he was acting on behalf of Mr. Trump, not any Ukrainians.
One of the witnesses in Sidney Powellâs new Michigan lawsuit says in a declaration he thinks thereâs something fishy about election returns in Edison County, MI. Thing is, there is no Edison County in Michigan. pic.twitter.com/yZfDWMAFSP
Attorney General William P. Barr said Tuesday that the Justice Department has not uncovered voting fraud at a scale that could have affected the results of the presidential election, reaffirming Joseph R. Biden Jr.âs win despite President Trumpâs groundless claims that he was defrauded.
Mr. Barrâs comments, in an interview with The Associated Press, were a prominent repudiation of Mr. Trumpâs baseless assertions and came days after the president implied that the Justice Department and the F.B.I. may have played a role in an election fraud.
"Nearly every tweet from the president at this point is labeled for misinfo. Which had me thinking. Why doesnât Twitter just take the step of labeling his entire account as a known source of election disinfo?"
I was responding to two separate and unfounded accusations of being called an outright liar and defending myself. I started nothing. Just tried to finish it.
So you fully support islander. Good to know. I will now treat you accordingly.
Don't bother me and I won't bother you. If you do initiate any contact with me at all going forward I will assume you are simply trolling or bullying based on your support of islander's actions towards me. Yeah, I know that you don't care, but I said it anyway.
Later, much ...
But you do bother me, whenever it suits you. If you are uncomfortable with being responded to, that's not my problem. All of us are open to responses for whatever we put out here. I'm tired of the 'pounce - retreat - complain if you get a response' routine. If you're going to pontificate you're world views out here, you're fair game for the responses you elicit. None of us get a free pass to use this as our blog without expectation of whatever comes back. Man up, dude.
Whatever floats yer boat. You support islander's 2 unwarranted drive by personal attacks on me yet find fault with me when I push back and defend myself.
My current reaction to you is based upon your support of islander's blatant and long standing open hostility to me. I only told you how I will regard anything you initiate with me going forward based upon this event and your support for islander. Nothing more. You too must accept any responses to your positions, same as you insist that I do. This is my response to your support for islander.
You're no less partisan in your participation here than me. Quit pretending otherwise.
How you or anyone reacts to anything I post is on you / them. I'm not telling you how or what to do about anything. I just will not be bothering you directly as in the past.
I was responding to two separate and unfounded accusations of being called an outright liar and defending myself. I started nothing. Just tried to finish it.
So you fully support islander. Good to know. I will now treat you accordingly.
Don't bother me and I won't bother you. If you do initiate any contact with me at all going forward I will assume you are simply trolling or bullying based on your support of islander's actions towards me. Yeah, I know that you don't care, but I said it anyway.
Later, much ...
But you do bother me, whenever it suits you. If you are uncomfortable with being responded to, that's not my problem. All of us are open to responses for whatever we put out here. I'm tired of the 'pounce - retreat - complain if you get a response' routine. If you're going to pontificate you're world views out here, you're fair game for the responses you elicit. None of us get a free pass to use this as our blog without expectation of whatever comes back. Man up, dude.
I knew you were going there. You are simply a brain dead a$$hole, hell bent on f*cking with me for your personal amusement and to try and push my buttons enough to go off the rails to get DD'ed here. Same as always as you have stalked me on these boards for years. I really do rent space your head for free.
I am an optician and have never said otherwise. That you confuse my profession with ophthalmology is beyond belief especially with your father having been an MD, IIRC.
There you go, it's all about you, the poor victim. Your problem is you love to prod & provoke but you can't take it like you give it. How ironic that as an optician you can't see that.
Soooooo tired of your act. Tough luck if you don't like it.
I was responding to two separate and unfounded accusations of being called an outright liar and defending myself. I started nothing. Just tried to finish it.
So you fully support islander. Good to know. I will now treat you accordingly.
Don't bother me and I won't bother you. If you do initiate any contact with me at all going forward I will assume you are simply trolling or bullying based on your support of islander's actions towards me. Yeah, I know that you don't care, but I said it anyway.
I knew you were going there. You are simply a brain dead a$$hole, hell bent on f*cking with me for your personal amusement and to try and push my buttons enough to go off the rails to get DD'ed here. Same as always as you have stalked me on these boards for years. I really do rent space your head for free.
I am an optician and have never said otherwise. That you confuse my profession with ophthalmology is beyond belief especially with your father having been an MD, IIRC.
There you go, it's all about you, the poor victim. Your problem is you love to prod & provoke but you can't take it like you give it. How ironic that as an optician you can't see that.
Soooooo tired of your act. Tough luck if you don't like it.
Sidney Powell was held up as a legal legend who would lend credibility to a campaign that desperately needed it. Below is one of her filings in Michigan...that included a sworn affidavit of election fraud.
By the time of the Treaty of Versailles the following year, the myth was already well established. The harsh conditions imposed by the Allies, including painful reparation payments, burnished the sense of betrayal. It was especially incomprehensible that Germany, in just a couple of years, had gone from one of the worldâs most respected nations to its biggest loser.
WW I begat -> Treaty of Versailles which begat -> WW II and so much glorious fun!
That is an excellent article. Tallies well with what I know about my adopted country.
The biggest fear I have is that the internet has created conflicting bubble-domain realities that no longer communicate with each other but nevertheless fight to occupy the same public space. This cannot end well.
Since the election, surveys have consistently found that about 70 percent to 80 percent of Republicans donât buy the results. They donât agree that Joe Biden won fair and square. They say the election was rigged. And they say enough fraud occurred to tip the outcome.
Those numbers sound alarmingly high, and they imply that the overwhelming majority of people in one political party in America doubt the legitimacy of a presidential election. But the reality is more complicated, political scientists say. Research has shown that the answers that partisans (on the left as well as on the right) give to political questions often reflect not what they know as fact, but what they wish were true. Or what they think they should say. (...)
