There is real evidence of voter fraud in connection with the presidential election and it was “really bizarre” for Attorney General William Barr to comment that there wasn’t any proof of fraudulent activities that took place that would have changed the election results, Jenna Ellis, one of the attorneys leading President Donald Trump’s court fight, said Wednesday.
“That really in the media undercut the election integrity efforts,” Ellis told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo on “Mornings With Maria.” “To our knowledge, the Department of Justice has not interviewed any of our witnesses, looked at any of our evidence. Everyone I think, every concerned American and the 74 million Americans that voted for President Trump is wondering, where’s the Department of Justice?”
Read more at NEWSMAX.
{Matzav.com}
I agree. It’s really bizarre. But it’s one of many bizarre and strange phenomenon we’re witnessing – especially in the political arena. The fact that so many voted for the senile criminal vice president – even legally – is bizarre, strange but mostly worrying
Actually, it’s brilliant!!! No fraud = no civil court = directly to the military tribunals = Sidney Powell military lawyer
Let’s look at reality. Barr himself is not an investigator. He is the one who authorizes others to investigate. As soon as Barr sent a memo that he is authorizing voter fraud investigation, “the department’s top elections crime official” resigned outright in protest. Thus, not only was the investigation crippled at the outset through the loss, but it implicitly sent a message to others that (if and when) the Democrats regain control there will be a serious price to pay to anyone doing such an investigation (please look up such things as the “Trump Accountability Project”).
Further, and more to the point, Barr instructed that only substantial fraud – in terms of making a difference to the election outcome – is authorized to be carried out. That is like a chicken-and-egg question (how do you know if the fraud is large enough to investigate unless you investigate the allegation of fraud, but you cannot investigate the allegation of fraud until you prove the fraud is large enough to investigate).
Further, Barr (unlike the Democrats who stick federal noses everywhere where they do not belong) has a very strict conservative interpretation of the Constitutional division between sate and federal roles. Thus, the nature of the fraud is (in Barr’s extreme conservative view) usually a state matter. I quote Barr on the matter:
> a remedy for those complaints would be a top-down audit conducted by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department
And finally, Barr never said that he finished the investigation and came to a conclusion. Barr was given a progress report, not a conclusion. To quote Barr (note the wrods “to date”):
> “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election”