- Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:37 pm
#135137
"His Lordship has often contended that Barr investigated claims of election problems, but found nothing."-johbnfibs
No, I never said such a thing. What I said is that Barr found no evidence of widespread election fraud because he didn't. Not a single Trump supporter presented a shred of evidence of election fraud. As to any investigations into specific cases, johnforbes has no idea what Barr investigated. All he has is partisan propaganda without any more evidence to back it up than he had evidence to back up his insistence that the election was stolen.
Of course, the actual reason there were no investigations carried out as the result of Barr's memo was that when Barr authorized prosecutors to investigate, no one found reason to investigate because no one ever brought them any evidence of fraud. Then the top elections crime official quit rather than validate Trump's loss. When no prosecutors found any "substantial allegations" to investigate, Barr accepted their findings.
This is the key term that johnforbes is conveniently leaving out of his partisan propaganda, which is that there were never any "substantial" cases presented to any Justice Department officials to investigate. There was never any evidence to support an investigation of any of the purely partisan allegations, so why would any of them waste the time and resources to look into them further?
"Last month, Barr issued a directive to U.S. attorneys across the country allowing them to pursue any “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities before the 2020 presidential election was certified, despite no evidence at that time of widespread fraud. That memorandum gave prosecutors the ability to go around longstanding Justice Department policy that normally would prohibit such overt actions before the election was certified. Soon after it was issued, the department’s top elections crime official announced he would step aside from that position because of the memo."-AP
"Democrats disputed the 2000, 2004, 2016, and 2018 elections, so Democrats are serial election deniers."-johnfibs
johnny, disputing election results, but then accepting the results after their being looked into, is not "denying" the election, dimwit. Why must you always resort to lies to make an argument?
Accepting certified results is the exact opposite of "denying" an election. Denying election results is what Trump and his minions are still doing. They have never accepted the certified results.
johnforbes will now offer his apology for mindlessly accepting and regurgitating his usual swill of partisan slop from his handlers.