Attorney General William Barr authorizes DOJ to probe ‘substantial allegations’ of voting irregularities despite little evidence of fraud

[Lutherf]

https://www.dailypress.com/nation-w...0201109-iu7idw7vundzrg7cjpktmwg7o4-story.html

Attorney General William Barr has authorized federal prosecutors across the U.S. to pursue “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities before the 2020 presidential election is certified, despite little evidence of fraud.

First off, this is an AP story, not something that originated with a small, local media outlet.

Second, why is it biased? It's biased because in 2016 and continuing to this day we have seen the media run with a "Trump/Russia Collusion" story that also had little evidence. In fact, even after a two years special prosecutor probe of the matter there was still "little evidence" of the validity of the accusation. In fact the finding of the special prosecutor was that NO AMERICAN conspired with Russia to manipulate the 2016 election (note that nobody bothered to investigate Clinton along those lines).

This headline and this "story" are the absolute epitome of media bias.

 

[Redress]

By "little evidence" you mean no evidence except all that found by our intelligence community, congress, and Mueller?

 

[iliveonramen]

By "little evidence" you mean no evidence except all that found by our intelligence community, congress, and Mueller?

Just a minor detail..

 

[Lutherf]

By "little evidence" you mean no evidence except all that found by our intelligence community, congress, and Mueller?

There was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election and no evidence that such a thing occurred. There was an accusation and that's it.

 

[Common Sense 1]

There was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election and no evidence that such a thing occurred. There was an accusation and that's it.

Mueller Report, Volume I, page 66, second paragraph:

[In particular,] the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the
Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.


Now back to the 2020 election fraud investigation! Thank you AG Barr!

 

[JasperL]

https://www.dailypress.com/nation-w...0201109-iu7idw7vundzrg7cjpktmwg7o4-story.html

First off, this is an AP story, not something that originated with a small, local media outlet.

Second, why is it biased? It's biased because in 2016 and continuing to this day we have seen the media run with a "Trump/Russia Collusion" story that also had little evidence. In fact, even after a two years special prosecutor probe of the matter there was still "little evidence" of the validity of the accusation. In fact the finding of the special prosecutor was that NO AMERICAN conspired with Russia to manipulate the 2016 election (note that nobody bothered to investigate Clinton along those lines).

This headline and this "story" are the absolute epitome of media bias.

Your logic dots aren't connecting, like at all.

Whether that headline and story is biased is not affected at all by some other unrelated action such as the Russia investigation. Surely this is obvious to you.

E.g. That article that alleges Congressman X slept with a staffer is biased because some other story in 2016 about a Mayor robbing the city coffers turned out to be false!!! That's nonsense, right, obviously, because the story about the Congressman has no relationship at all to the story about the Mayor - they're unrelated.

The argument it's an example of media bias should read something like, "it's biased because.........[fill in the blank with something in THAT story that shows something in the story is misleading or false] BUTWHATABOUT THIS OTHER THINGS THAT HAS NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL TO THE CURRENT ALLEGATIONS is nonsense on stilts.

 

[VanceMack]

Even after its been clearly demonstrated that the Clinton team fabricated the whole Russian collusion lie to cover for the content of their emails, these 'people' persist in their lies.


"Former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s “plan” to tie the Trump campaign to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her private email server scandal before the 2016 election, according to newly declassified documents.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified Brennan’s handwritten notes along with a CIA memo showing that officials referred the alleged scheme to the FBI for potential investigation.

“Today, at the direction of President Trump, I declassified additional documents relevant to ongoing Congressional oversight and investigative activities,” Ratcliffe said in a statement.

Brennan’s notes, which were taken after he briefed Obama on the intelligence, cite “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service,” which was “alleged approved by Hillary Clinton.”


The heavily-redacted CIA memo references “an exchange discussing U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

DNI Releases CIA Documents on Clinton’s ‘Plan’ to Tie Trump Campaign to Russia

Former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton's "plan" to tie the Trump campaign to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her private email server scandal before the 2016 election, according to newly declassified documents.Director of National...

news.yahoo.com

On July 25, less than three weeks after the Comey press conference, the 2016 Democratic National Convention began in Philadelphia. Just three days earlier, on July 22, the hacked DNC emails began being published. By that point, former British spy Christopher Steele had been commissioned by the Clinton campaign (through a lawyer for the campaign and the DNC) to compile research tying Trump to Russia. Steele ran a London-based private intelligence business, whose clients include Russian oligarchs. Moreover, as I detailed in my column over the weekend, in compiling the dossier, Steele relied heavily on Igor Danchenko, a man the FBI investigated in 2009-10 on suspicion that he was a Russian spy.




Days after the hacked DNC emails began being published, Steele generated a dossier report alleging that Trump was in “a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” with “Russian leadership.” The “evidence of extensive conspiracy between Trump’s campaign team and [the] Kremlin,” Steele claimed, included the hacking and publication of DNC emails: “[T]the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the [DNC] to the WikiLeaks platform.” This “operation,” Steele maintained, “had the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.” In exchange, Trump had purportedly committed both to downplay Russian intervention in Ukraine and raise American defense commitments to NATO as campaign issues.


Ratcliffe elaborates that handwritten notes from former CIA director John Brennan show that Brennan briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials” about the intelligence, including the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.

Thereafter, on September 7, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials are said to have forwarded to FBI director Comey and agent Peter Strzok (then the bureau’s deputy assistant director of counterintelligence) an investigative referral regarding: U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.

Bombshell Allegation: Hillary Orchestrated Collusion Hoax to Distract From Her Emails, According to Russian Intel | National Review

National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe dropped this allegation in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

www.nationalreview.com

That wasnt from some Trump apologist...it was directly from the director of the CIA himself...a man that openly despises Trump.

 

[What if...?]

There was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election and no evidence that such a thing occurred. There was an accusation and that's it.

Well, the Mueller report did say that the trump tower meeting was illegal but he didn't think he could prove the idiots in attendance knew it was illegal. (Manafort bailed immediately. He could not claim to not know)

Further, long ago I said that the kind of evidence that would point to actual collusion would be sharing internal polling data.

I had no idea that manafort had done that more than once until much later.

 

[Redress]

There was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election and no evidence that such a thing occurred. There was an accusation and that's it.

Again, not true. There was insufficient evidence to prosecute Trump, not "no evidence". Further, we know, because the emails where released, that the Trump campaign was in fact willing and eager to conspire with Russia and only failed in that instance due to the incompetence of the campaign.

 

[Bullseye]

By "little evidence" you mean no evidence except all that found by our intelligence community, congress, and Mueller?

That is about as little as you can get. zip point shit.

 

[Bullseye]

Your logic dots aren't connecting, like at all.

Whether that headline and story is biased is not affected at all by some other unrelated action such as the Russia investigation. Surely this is obvious to you.

E.g. That article that alleges Congressman X slept with a staffer is biased because some other story in 2016 about a Mayor robbing the city coffers turned out to be false!!! That's nonsense, right, obviously, because the story about the Congressman has no relationship at all to the story about the Mayor - they're unrelated.

The argument it's an example of media bias should read something like, "it's biased because.........[fill in the blank with something in THAT story that shows something in the story is misleading or false] BUTWHATABOUT THIS OTHER THINGS THAT HAS NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL TO THE CURRENT ALLEGATIONS is nonsense on stilts.

Man you’re getting more and more desperate with every post.

 

[iliveonramen]

That is about as little as you can get. zip point shit.

Lol, well you’re clearly a man of reason

 

[CaughtInThe]

Expect more Hail Marys.

 

[What if...?]

That is about as little as you can get. zip point shit.

Were gonna see what really went on in the Ukraine thing once trump can't suppress the evidence.

You know there was evidence, right? Corroborating statements by the witnesses. Correspondence, emails, etc.

 

[lurchadams]

There was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election and no evidence that such a thing occurred. There was an accusation and that's it.

The two most stark examples proving you wrong are, 1: The trump tower meeting. Junior's email chain proved the intent of the trump campaign to use Russia to dig up dirt on Hillary. 2. Roger stone's coordination with wikileaks to hack into the DNC server and release emails to the public to do damage.

There were hundreds of other contacts between Russia and the campaign and trump and the campaign lied about all of them.
Anywho, you're dead wrong, my friend.

 

[bongsaway]

https://www.dailypress.com/nation-w...0201109-iu7idw7vundzrg7cjpktmwg7o4-story.html



First off, this is an AP story, not something that originated with a small, local media outlet.

Second, why is it biased? It's biased because in 2016 and continuing to this day we have seen the media run with a "Trump/Russia Collusion" story that also had little evidence. In fact, even after a two years special prosecutor probe of the matter there was still "little evidence" of the validity of the accusation. In fact the finding of the special prosecutor was that NO AMERICAN conspired with Russia to manipulate the 2016 election (note that nobody bothered to investigate Clinton along those lines).

This headline and this "story" are the absolute epitome of media bias.

Who is kidding who? The R's have never seen an investigation into the dems they didn't like. How many into benghazi did they have?
Substantial allegations? What does that mean? Is it like putin strongly denying russia interfered in our 2016 election?

 

[JasperL]

Man you’re getting more and more desperate with every post.

If you'd like to make an actual argument, go ahead. That's ^^^ the rhetorical equivalent of "NUH UHHH!!!!" Boring, and SAD!!

 

[GummyVitamins]

Again, not true. There was insufficient evidence to prosecute Trump, not "no evidence". Further, we know, because the emails where released, that the Trump campaign was in fact willing and eager to conspire with Russia and only failed in that instance due to the incompetence of the campaign.

There was insufficienct evidence to prosecute Trump for interfering with the sham of an investigation. There was no evidence whatsoever that Trump colluded with Russia. They spent a long time and a lot of money in an attempt to find even circumstantial evidence that Trump coordinated with Russia and failed.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Were gonna see what really went on in the Ukraine thing once trump can't suppress the evidence.

Did Trump withhold foreign aide unless they fired an investigatior looking into a corrupt company his family was directly profiting from? Let's be clear, you don't care about foreign Ukrainian corruption.

 

[Redress]

There was insufficienct evidence to prosecute Trump for interfering with the sham of an investigation. There was no evidence whatsoever that Trump colluded with Russia. They spent a long time and a lot of money in an attempt to find even circumstantial evidence that Trump coordinated with Russia and failed.

This is false. The reason given for not bringing charges against Trump for obstruction of justice was not evidentiary based, but because DOJ policy was to not charge a sitting president with obstruction of justice. Barr is the one who said there was not enough evidence to press charges on obstruction, and Barr is far from credible.

 

[Mr Person]

[snip]

But critics of Mr. Barr immediately condemned the memo as a political act that undermined the Justice Department’s typical independence from the White House. “It would be problematic enough if Barr were reversing longstanding Justice Department guidance because of significant, substantiated claims of misconduct — that could presumably be handled at the local and state level,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “But to do so when there is no such evidence — and when the president’s clear strategy is to delegitimize the results of a proper election — is one of the more problematic acts of any attorney general in my lifetime,” Mr. Vladeck added.

Mr. Pilger, a career prosecutor in the department’s Public Integrity Section who oversaw voting-fraud-related investigations, told colleagues he would move to a nonsupervisory role working on corruption prosecutions. “Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications,” he wrote, “I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch.” . . . . . Mr. Barr had been silent about voter fraud in recent weeks after previously issuing unsubstantiated warnings of widespread fraud because of the large number of mail-in ballots cast in this election. Voter fraud is rare, and no major instances of it have emerged in the election. At the same time, the department has made it easier for prosecutors to pursue voter fraud cases and publicized details from the investigations that generated headlines that helped Mr. Trump, prompting sharp criticism from Democrats and civil rights advocates.

Barr Hands Prosecutors the Authority to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims (Published 2020)

The attorney general said that he had authorized “instances” of investigative steps but that inquiries should not be based on specious claims.

www.nytimes.com

There was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election and no evidence that such a thing occurred. There was an accusation and that's it.

All elements of criminal conspiracy were there except that Team Trump did not leave behind evidence of an explicit agreement, which is required. They invited and knowingly accepted Russian interference for their benefit. There was a ton of evidence of that. You lie.

There were also a ton of instances of obstruction of justice, layed out in exquisite detail. Mueller explicitly did not exonerate Trump, and because DOJ policy prohibited him from seeking indictments he would not say if he thought Trump was guilty.

But you're you, so you'll post your deflections, distortions, and lies.

 

[What if...?]

Did Trump withhold foreign aide unless they fired an investigatior looking into a corrupt company his family was directly profiting from? Let's be clear, you don't care about foreign Ukrainian corruption.

No.

Nor did Biden. Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma at that time. The investigation was long on hold.

He even refused to prosecute the lawyers in his office caught with a bunch of cash and diamonds. Let's not try to pretend he was a paragon of virtue.

And in the interest of lenity, applying the trump protocol, he was fired, so anything he says later is just sour grapes, disgruntled former employee.

See how that works?

And Biden said it right out in the open, not on a phone call no one was supposed to hear.

 

[RealityNow]

Barr will likely have a debilitating medical condition at some point in the near future.... If COVID does not get to him first... Life just has a way to taking care of those who have promoted so much malice and violated standards, principles and ethics....

Evil is something that once people embrace it... it sooner or later brings the person to ruin or devastation by one means or the other or by many means... its just the nature of what Evil is and what it does and the end result to the evil supporter, promoters, creator and accessory to evil's malice.

 

[jgarden477]

The nation's current Director of Cybersecurity who stated publicly that there was no evidence of organized attempts to subvert the 2020 Election has been terminated by this President - can the CIA and FBI Directors be far behind?

The deafening silence of Republican politicians in itself speaks volumes as to fact that even after the 2020 Election, they are still living in fear of the consequences of this President's disapproval should they have the audacity to exercise their 1st Amendment Right to voice an independent opinion!

 

[CaughtInThe]

The nation's current Director of Cybersecurity who stated publicly that there was no evidence of organized attempts to subvert the 2020 Election has been terminated by this President - can the CIA and FBI Directors be far behind?

The deafening silence of Republican politicians in itself speaks volumes as to fact that even after the 2020 Election, they are still living in fear of the consequences of this President's disapproval should they have the audacity to exercise their 1st Amendment Right to voice an independent opinion!

they're either wimps or complicit.