More Than “One Damn Thing,” with Bill Barr

 

 

William P. Barr is one of only two people to have served as attorney general of the United States under two presidents and the only one to have done it in two different centuries (under George H. W. Bush from 1991 to 1993 and under Donald Trump from 2019 to 2020). In his new book, One Damn Thing after Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General, Barr goes into great detail about the chaos, the troubles, and the triumph that occurred during the time of his service under President Trump. This wide-ranging interview covers Russiagate, the COVID outbreak, civil unrest, the impeachment, and the 2020 election fallout. Barr is very candid and forthcoming in his opinions on those events and his thoughts on his former boss.

Recorded on May 17, 2022

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 91 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Eugene Kriegsmann Member
    Eugene Kriegsmann
    @EugeneKriegsmann

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    The Cynthonian (View Comment):
    This is by far the most condescending comment in this entire thread. I know a lot of Trump supporters, and none of us thinks he’s divine.

    The contempt the Nevers express toward Trump voters is pathetic and endemic.

    Nevers” is that the new RACIST, a simple and convenient way to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with you? More and more it sounds like the left.

    “Leftist?” Is that this is the simple and convenient way to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with you?

    Because I’ve been getting that here lately every time I suggest maybe we shouldn’t be starting World War III in Ukraine.

    You misunderstand the use of the adjective. It doesn’t refer to you personally. It refers to the technique of calling someone a name in order to dismiss their argument. It is a common technique we all have experienced since the use of the word “racist” came into common use beginning in the 1970s. Referring to someone who doesn’t drool over Trump as a never falls into that general category. Bill Barr isn’t a Never Trump, nor am I. Both of us voted for Trump, and we have both been more than willing to talk about the great accomplishments he made. However, using Richard Epstein’s idea of taking Trump ala carte does not make either of us a “never”. This isn’t a Manichaean contest.

    • #31
  2. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    The Cynthonian (View Comment):
    This is by far the most condescending comment in this entire thread. I know a lot of Trump supporters, and none of us thinks he’s divine.

    The contempt the Nevers express toward Trump voters is pathetic and endemic.

    Nevers” is that the new RACIST, a simple and convenient way to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with you? More and more it sounds like the left.

    “Leftist?” Is that this is the simple and convenient way to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with you?

    Because I’ve been getting that here lately every time I suggest maybe we shouldn’t be starting World War III in Ukraine.

    You misunderstand the use of the adjective. It doesn’t refer to you personally. It refers to the technique of calling someone a name in order to dismiss their argument. It is a common technique we all have experienced since the use of the word “racist” came into common use beginning in the 1970s. Referring to someone who doesn’t drool over Trump as a never falls into that general category. Bill Barr isn’t a Never Trump, nor am I. Both of us voted for Trump, and we have both been more than willing to talk about the great accomplishments he made. However, using Richard Epstein’s idea of taking Trump ala carte does not make either of us a “never”. This isn’t a Manichaean contest.

    If you voted for Trump, I don’t think you qualify as “Never Trump.”  I did not vote for Trump or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.  So, I might qualify as “Never Trump.”  I think many people, both those who voted for Trump and those who didn’t might agree with Bill Barr and decide that it would be better to go with Ron DeSantis in 2024 instead of Trump.  

    • #32
  3. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    One sees here the divisions our sides suffers.  Was there fraud?  Was there not fraud?   How many of you have lived and studied in other countries that have elections, that don’t allow fraudulent voting, and take specific steps to prevent it.  I’ve only lived through elections in 8 other countries.  None of them have the lack of control we had in the last election.   All of them require proof of citizenship and make it difficult to vote more than once.    So  folks can’t prove or disprove fraud or its extent in the US but one has to believe that from a basement without campaigning a senile old fool got more votes than anyone in history and that there was no fraud anywhere or even in the 5 states that counted votes late and just found enough to change the outcome.  I think they want to move on to more important future voting and the changes we have to enact should we win.   Let’s be clear, gathering votes from folks too senile or sick to vote in person, and from folks who can legally vote but don’t care, or care but wouldn’t vote can be considered non fraud, but the country can’t survive with these kinds of practices.  It’s pretty simple, one must show up on Election Day and prove ones identity and right to vote.   Ignoring likely reality can’t be good for the next elections or the future of the country.  

    • #33
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    The Cynthonian (View Comment):
    This is by far the most condescending comment in this entire thread. I know a lot of Trump supporters, and none of us thinks he’s divine.

    The contempt the Nevers express toward Trump voters is pathetic and endemic.

    Nevers” is that the new RACIST, a simple and convenient way to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with you? More and more it sounds like the left.

    “Leftist?” Is that this is the simple and convenient way to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with you?

    Because I’ve been getting that here lately every time I suggest maybe we shouldn’t be starting World War III in Ukraine.

    You misunderstand the use of the adjective. It doesn’t refer to you personally. It refers to the technique of calling someone a name in order to dismiss their argument.

    Like suggesting Trump voters believe in his “divinity.”

     

    • #34
  5. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    I Walton (View Comment):

    One sees here the divisions our sides suffers. Was there fraud? Was there not fraud? How many of you have lived and studied in other countries that have elections, that don’t allow fraudulent voting, and take specific steps to prevent it. I’ve only lived through elections in 8 other countries. None of them have the lack of control we had in the last election. All of them require proof of citizenship and make it difficult to vote more than once. So folks can’t prove or disprove fraud or its extent in the US but one has to believe that from a basement without campaigning a senile old fool got more votes than anyone in history and that there was no fraud anywhere or even in the 5 states that counted votes late and just found enough to change the outcome. I think they want to move on to more important future voting and the changes we have to enact should we win. Let’s be clear, gathering votes from folks too senile or sick to vote in person, and from folks who can legally vote but don’t care, or care but wouldn’t vote can be considered non fraud, but the country can’t survive with these kinds of practices. It’s pretty simple, one must show up on Election Day and prove ones identity and right to vote. Ignoring likely reality can’t be good for the next elections or the future of the country.

    I think it’s that “we have to pretend this was the cleanest election ever™ because otherwise people won’t trust our electoral system.”

    So we’re supposed to prop up the obvious falsehood — no fraud — to help prop up our corrupt electoral system.

    Don’t we need to stare the fraud squarely in the face in order to address it?

    Oh heavens no! It’s the crime that shall not be mentioned!

    • #35
  6. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    I Walton (View Comment):

    One sees here the divisions our sides suffers. Was there fraud? Was there not fraud?

    Trump’s AG, Bill Barr, mentioned that Trump’s “the election was stolen” argument was bs.  

    But then you have to make excuses for why Trump hired Bill Barr to begin with (since Trump hired Jeff Sessions and then decided he made a bad pick by choosing Sessions) and couldn’t hire a team of election attorneys competent enough to convince state/federal judges that Trump actually won the election.  

    It’s all Trump saying, “I won.  I won,” while even Trump’s own Attorney General and Trump nominated judges are saying, “No you didn’t.”  

    Even Trump’s daughter was convinced, mostly by Bill Barr, that Trump lost.  

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.  

    • #36
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    One sees here the divisions our sides suffers. Was there fraud? Was there not fraud?

    Trump’s AG, Bill Barr, mentioned that Trump’s “the election was stolen” argument was bs.

    But then you have to make excuses for why Trump hired Bill Barr to begin with (since Trump hired Jeff Sessions and then decided he made a bad pick by choosing Sessions) and couldn’t hire a team of election attorneys competent enough to convince state/federal judges that Trump actually won the election.

    It’s all Trump saying, “I won. I won,” while even Trump’s own Attorney General and Trump nominated judges are saying, “No you didn’t.”

    Even Trump’s daughter was convinced, mostly by Bill Barr, that Trump lost.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.

    There’s no possible way Barr could have known that with any certainty, so early.

    Also, the courts were a joke because cases filed before the election over illegal voting changes etc were dismissed for no “standing” – i.e., “too early” because no “damage” had yet occurred – and cases filed after the election were dismissed for “laches” or “moot” or whatever,  i.e., “too late.”  The kind of BS claptrap nonsense that only lawyers believe.

    • #37
  8. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    One sees here the divisions our sides suffers. Was there fraud? Was there not fraud?

    Trump’s AG, Bill Barr, mentioned that Trump’s “the election was stolen” argument was bs.

    But then you have to make excuses for why Trump hired Bill Barr to begin with (since Trump hired Jeff Sessions and then decided he made a bad pick by choosing Sessions) and couldn’t hire a team of election attorneys competent enough to convince state/federal judges that Trump actually won the election.

    It’s all Trump saying, “I won. I won,” while even Trump’s own Attorney General and Trump nominated judges are saying, “No you didn’t.”

    Even Trump’s daughter was convinced, mostly by Bill Barr, that Trump lost.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.

    There’s no possible way Barr could have known that with any certainty, so early.

    Also, the courts were a joke because cases filed before the election over illegal voting changes etc were dismissed for no “standing” – i.e., “too early” because no “damage” had yet occurred – and cases filed after the election were dismissed for “laches” or “moot” or whatever, i.e., “too late.” The kind of BS claptrap nonsense that only lawyers believe.

    Bill Barr evaluated the claims made by Trump and Bill Barr concluded that Trump’s claims were bs.  

    Consider that Trump hired Bill Barr to be his attorney general out of all of the possible people Trump could have chosen.  

    Consider that Trump’s own daughter was persuaded by Bill Barr not her own father on the issue of election fraud. 

    You can deny, deny, deny all day long.  All that is going to do is convince a large majority of voters that you are delusional and unable to cope with the facts.  It’s not a good look.  

    It’s a bit like when Stacey Abrams says that she actually won the Georgia governor’s race in 2018.  Sorry, she’s delusional, just like Trump.  

    • #38
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    One sees here the divisions our sides suffers. Was there fraud? Was there not fraud?

    Trump’s AG, Bill Barr, mentioned that Trump’s “the election was stolen” argument was bs.

    But then you have to make excuses for why Trump hired Bill Barr to begin with (since Trump hired Jeff Sessions and then decided he made a bad pick by choosing Sessions) and couldn’t hire a team of election attorneys competent enough to convince state/federal judges that Trump actually won the election.

    It’s all Trump saying, “I won. I won,” while even Trump’s own Attorney General and Trump nominated judges are saying, “No you didn’t.”

    Even Trump’s daughter was convinced, mostly by Bill Barr, that Trump lost.

    Denial is not a river in Egypt.

    There’s no possible way Barr could have known that with any certainty, so early.

    Also, the courts were a joke because cases filed before the election over illegal voting changes etc were dismissed for no “standing” – i.e., “too early” because no “damage” had yet occurred – and cases filed after the election were dismissed for “laches” or “moot” or whatever, i.e., “too late.” The kind of BS claptrap nonsense that only lawyers believe.

    Bill Barr evaluated the claims made by Trump and Bill Barr concluded that Trump’s claims were bs.

    Consider that Trump hired Bill Barr to be his attorney general out of all of the possible people Trump could have chosen.

    Consider that Trump’s own daughter was persuaded by Bill Barr not her own father on the issue of election fraud.

    You can deny, deny, deny all day long. All that is going to do is convince a large majority of voters that you are delusional and unable to cope with the facts. It’s not a good look.

    It’s a bit like when Stacey Abrams says that she actually won the Georgia governor’s race in 2018. Sorry, she’s delusional, just like Trump.

    Doesn’t matter who he hired, NOBODY could reasonably state with certainty that Biden legitimately won, as early as Barr claimed to know.  It might have been slightly credible without all the improper/illegal changes to voting, but that’s not what happened.  And look how long it’s taken for evidence to come out, with Democrats and many Republicans fighting against disclosure every step of the way.  Barr claiming to have confidence in the election, just a couple weeks after, and with all the drop-box shenanigans etc that were completely new in 2020, is nonsense.

    • #39
  10. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

     

    Doesn’t matter who he hired, NOBODY could reasonably state with certainty that Biden legitimately won, as early as Barr claimed to know. It might have been slightly credible without all the improper/illegal changes to voting, but that’s not what happened. And look how long it’s taken for evidence to come out, with Democrats and many Republicans fighting against disclosure every step of the way. Barr claiming to have confidence in the election, just a couple weeks after, and with all the drop-box shenanigans etc that were completely new in 2020, is nonsense.

    Elections aren’t decided years after they are held.  We hold our elections in November and the electoral votes are cast in December, counted in early January.  

    Trump was the person who was claiming that he, not Biden, won the election, despite the fact that the official counts said that Biden won.  

    Bill Barr called Trump’s claim bs based on his evaluation of the claims made by Trump and others.  

    Sorry, but Trump’s claim of having actually won the 2020 election is no more persuasive than Stacey Abrams’ claim of having actually won the 2018 governor’s election in Georgia.  

    You can dismiss what Bill Barr said just as others can dismiss what Donald Trump said.  That’s not going to change the fact that Biden is in the White House and Trump no longer is.  

    • #40
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

     

    Doesn’t matter who he hired, NOBODY could reasonably state with certainty that Biden legitimately won, as early as Barr claimed to know. It might have been slightly credible without all the improper/illegal changes to voting, but that’s not what happened. And look how long it’s taken for evidence to come out, with Democrats and many Republicans fighting against disclosure every step of the way. Barr claiming to have confidence in the election, just a couple weeks after, and with all the drop-box shenanigans etc that were completely new in 2020, is nonsense.

    Elections aren’t decided years after they are held. We hold our elections in November and the electoral votes are cast in December, counted in early January.

    Trump was the person who was claiming that he, not Biden, won the election, despite the fact that the official counts said that Biden won.

    Bill Barr called Trump’s claim bs based on his evaluation of the claims made by Trump and others.

    Sorry, but Trump’s claim of having actually won the 2020 election is no more persuasive than Stacey Abrams’ claim of having actually won the 2018 governor’s election in Georgia.

    You can dismiss what Bill Barr said just as others can dismiss what Donald Trump said. That’s not going to change the fact that Biden is in the White House and Trump no longer is.

    Actually I don’t doubt that the count of “votes” or “ballots” might show that Biden won, most of the problem was on the “input” side: were those ballots actually legal?  There’s good evidence that at least several million of them weren’t.

    And what you mention about “years later” is part of the problem mentioned earlier:  the rules were changed illegally, challenges to those changes were improperly/illegally/fraudulently ignored by the courts and others…  You sound like the Left who do as much as they can to slow down/stop capital punishment, and then argue that capital punishment is unacceptable because it “takes too long.”

    You might as well say that the the kid with the jet engine on the back of his Soap Box Derby car “won fairly” because he crossed the finish line first, and nothing else matters.  It’s BS claptrap nonsense, and it’s a shame you apparently don’t know better.

    • #41
  12. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

     

    Actually I don’t doubt that the count of “votes” or “ballots” might show that Biden won, most of the problem was on the “input” side: were those ballots actually legal? There’s good evidence that at least several million of them weren’t.

    But the evidence wasn’t good enough to hold up in any court of law.  

    So, it wasn’t actually “good evidence” at all.  

    And what you mention about “years later” is part of the problem mentioned earlier: the rules were changed illegally, challenges to those changes were improperly/illegally/fraudulently ignored by the courts and others… You sound like the Left who do as much as they can to slow down/stop capital punishment, and then argue that capital punishment is unacceptable because it “takes too long.”

    You might as well say that the the kid with the jet engine on the back of his Soap Box Derby car “won fairly” because he crossed the finish line first, and nothing else matters. It’s BS claptrap nonsense, and it’s a shame you apparently don’t know better.

    Bill Barr mentioned this too.  Barr mentioned that if one thinks that the rules are being changed illegally, you can challenge those rule changes in a state or federal court and then you have to actually persuade a state or federal judge.  

    If you can’t persuade a state or federal judge, then you have to play by these “new rules.”  Sorry, but there’s no other way to change the rules in that late stage.  

    You say that I sound like the Left but it is Trump and his allies that sound like Stacey Abrams, a woman of the Left.  

    I understand that losing an election isn’t easy.  That’s why I think Ron DeSantis would be a better choice in 2024.  If you win, you don’t have to whine.  Trump couldn’t win, so he just continues to whine and he thinks all Republicans should just listen to his whining for the next 2 years.  No thanks.  Trump lost.  Let’s move on.  

     

    • #42
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

     

    Actually I don’t doubt that the count of “votes” or “ballots” might show that Biden won, most of the problem was on the “input” side: were those ballots actually legal? There’s good evidence that at least several million of them weren’t.

    But the evidence wasn’t good enough to hold up in any court of law.

    So, it wasn’t actually “good evidence” at all.

    As I recall, very few courts actually looked at evidence.  As mentioned previously, they dismissed before the election for “standing” and dismissed after the election for “moot.”  A few courts did look at evidence and decided the evidence was valid, but wouldn’t do anything about it.  I remember reading that one court actually announced in advance that even if the plaintiff “won” they wouldn’t do anything.

     

    And what you mention about “years later” is part of the problem mentioned earlier: the rules were changed illegally, challenges to those changes were improperly/illegally/fraudulently ignored by the courts and others… You sound like the Left who do as much as they can to slow down/stop capital punishment, and then argue that capital punishment is unacceptable because it “takes too long.”

    You might as well say that the the kid with the jet engine on the back of his Soap Box Derby car “won fairly” because he crossed the finish line first, and nothing else matters. It’s BS claptrap nonsense, and it’s a shame you apparently don’t know better.

    Bill Barr mentioned this too. Barr mentioned that if one thinks that the rules are being changed illegally, you can challenge those rule changes in a state or federal court and then you have to actually persuade a state or federal judge.

    “Persuading” is impossible if courts decide that there’s no “standing” before the election and then “moot” after the election.  That’s somewhat crooked at minimum.

     

    If you can’t persuade a state or federal judge, then you have to play by these “new rules.” Sorry, but there’s no other way to change the rules in that late stage.

    Or you continue to point out the crookedness of it all even when the HeavyWaters call it “whining” or whatever.

    Would you just shut up and go away if the kid with the jet engine on the back of his Soap Box Derby car is declared the “winner” ahead of you despite the evidence and the rules, which the race judges who are supposed to be honest, flatly ignore?

    • #43
  14. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Of course the comparison with a Soap Box Derby race isn’t fair because there’s a lot more at stake with an election.  As the kids say, “elections have consequences.”  Things like high inflation, job loss, wars…

    How is that “free and fair” 2020 election working out so far?

    • #44
  15. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Of course the comparison with a Soap Box Derby race isn’t fair because there’s a lot more at stake with an election. As the kids say, “elections have consequences.” Things like high inflation, job loss, wars…

    How is that “free and fair” 2020 election working out so far?

    Donald Trump can say that he was the actual winner of the 2020 presidential election just as Stacey Abrams can say that she was the actual winner of the 2018 election for governor of Georgia.  

    But the reality is that Brian Kemp became the governor of Georgia as a result of the 2018 governor’s election in Georgia and Joe Biden became the president of the United States as a result of the 2020 presidential election. 

    Same for Al Gore in 2000.  Many supporters of Al Gore in 2000 believed then and still believe now that George W. Bush was not legitimately elected in 2000.  

    In 2004 many John Kerry supporters believed that there were voting machines that rigged the election in Ohio for George W. Bush.  

    All of these assertions didn’t impact who actually became governor or president.  

    If Trump couldn’t convince his own Attorney General and couldn’t convince his own daughter and couldn’t convince federal judges that he, himself, nominated to the bench, at some point the rest of us can simply dismiss Trump’s whining as typical Trump childishness and move on.  

    Even Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and Trump’s Secretary of Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, discussed using the 25th Amendment on Trump after January 6.  

    • #45
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President. Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    Is Bill Barr still correct? Or have the last 18 months shown us something different?

     

    • #46
  17. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way.  The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    • #47
  18. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way. The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    You seem unaware of what the last 18 months have shown with regard to electoral fraud. (To say nothing of what we saw the night of the election itself.) This feels like wishcasting on your part.

    • #48
  19. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way. The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    You seem unaware of what the last 18 months have shown with regard to electoral fraud. (To say nothing of what we saw the night of the election itself.) This feels like wishcasting on your part.

    Trump and his allies made assertions that fraud existed, but they could not prove their assertions in courts of law.  

    Bill Barr, Trump’s Attorney General, called Trump’s talk of fraud “bs.”  

    So, Trump supporters can assert that there was fraud, fraud, fraud while everyone else, including people who voted for Trump, can say, accurately, that Trump lost, lost, lost.  

    • #49
  20. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Trump and his allies made assertions that fraud existed, but they could not prove their assertions in courts of law.  

    Disingenuous response. I’m offended that you think I’m that stupid.

    • #50
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way. The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    You seem unaware of what the last 18 months have shown with regard to electoral fraud. (To say nothing of what we saw the night of the election itself.) This feels like wishcasting on your part.

    HW does sound like one of those who just wanted Trump out, and didn’t much care how it happened.

    • #51
  22. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way. The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    You seem unaware of what the last 18 months have shown with regard to electoral fraud. (To say nothing of what we saw the night of the election itself.) This feels like wishcasting on your part.

    HW does sound like one of those who just wanted Trump out, and didn’t much care how it happened.

    You sound like one of those who just wanted Trump in the White House and didn’t care much how he remained there.  

    • #52
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way. The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    You seem unaware of what the last 18 months have shown with regard to electoral fraud. (To say nothing of what we saw the night of the election itself.) This feels like wishcasting on your part.

    HW does sound like one of those who just wanted Trump out, and didn’t much care how it happened.

    You sound like one of those who just wanted Trump in the White House and didn’t care much how he remained there.

    If there was a valid election to replace Trump with Biden, I’m all in favor of the American people getting what they think they want – good and hard.  But the evidence is against that conjecture.

    You can recount the same fraudulent ballots over and over, all you want, and get whoever you want to “certify” whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true.

    • #53
  24. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Trump and his allies made assertions that fraud existed, but they could not prove their assertions in courts of law.

    Disingenuous response. I’m offended that you think I’m that stupid.

    If both Joe Biden and Donald Trump had claimed they were victims of voter fraud, clearly it would fall on the judicial system to determine if either of them had made a valid claim of voter fraud and what, if any, the remedy would be.  

    In other words, assertions of voter fraud don’t mean squat.  Trump had squat.  Trump lost.  

     

    • #54
  25. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way. The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    You seem unaware of what the last 18 months have shown with regard to electoral fraud. (To say nothing of what we saw the night of the election itself.) This feels like wishcasting on your part.

    HW does sound like one of those who just wanted Trump out, and didn’t much care how it happened.

    You sound like one of those who just wanted Trump in the White House and didn’t care much how he remained there.

    If there was a valid election to replace Trump with Biden, I’m all in favor of the American people getting what they think they want – good and hard. But the evidence is against that conjecture.

    You can recount the same fraudulent ballots over and over, all you want, and get whoever you want to “certify” whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true.

    You can claim voter fraud over and over, but that doesn’t make claims of voter fraud true.  

    • #55
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Trump and his allies made assertions that fraud existed, but they could not prove their assertions in courts of law.

    Disingenuous response. I’m offended that you think I’m that stupid.

    If both Joe Biden and Donald Trump had claimed they were victims of voter fraud, clearly it would fall on the judicial system to determine if either of them had made a valid claim of voter fraud and what, if any, the remedy would be.

    In other words, assertions of voter fraud don’t mean squat. Trump had squat. Trump lost.

     

    You’re assuming a lot of people, especially judges, are essentially angelic.  They’re not.

    • #56
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way. The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    You seem unaware of what the last 18 months have shown with regard to electoral fraud. (To say nothing of what we saw the night of the election itself.) This feels like wishcasting on your part.

    HW does sound like one of those who just wanted Trump out, and didn’t much care how it happened.

    You sound like one of those who just wanted Trump in the White House and didn’t care much how he remained there.

    If there was a valid election to replace Trump with Biden, I’m all in favor of the American people getting what they think they want – good and hard. But the evidence is against that conjecture.

    You can recount the same fraudulent ballots over and over, all you want, and get whoever you want to “certify” whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true.

    You can claim voter fraud over and over, but that doesn’t make claims of voter fraud true.

    I can’t help it if you ignore the evidence, that’s on you.

    • #57
  28. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Trump and his allies made assertions that fraud existed, but they could not prove their assertions in courts of law.

    Disingenuous response. I’m offended that you think I’m that stupid.

    If both Joe Biden and Donald Trump had claimed they were victims of voter fraud, clearly it would fall on the judicial system to determine if either of them had made a valid claim of voter fraud and what, if any, the remedy would be.

    In other words, assertions of voter fraud don’t mean squat. Trump had squat. Trump lost.

     

    You’re assuming a lot of people, especially judges, are essentially angelic. They’re not.

    I’m not assuming anyone is angelic.  In fact, it’s best to not assume that anyone is angelic, including Trump and Trump’s allies.  

    It’s reasonable to assume that when someone asserts that their candidate lost due to voter fraud, they are either lying or mistaken.

    It’s reasonable to say to anyone asserting voter fraud, “Prove it in a court of law.”  

    • #58
  29. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Threading the needle there, HW. You talk of who became President, not who was legitimately elected President.

    Trump legitimately lost the 2020 presidential election.

    Talk of what people believed in 2000 and 2004 is just distraction, because neither of those elections are part of the discussion. Talk of people being convinced by Barr, or that Trump was unable to convince people is likewise a distraction. Doesn’t matter who can convince whom, what matters is the truth.

    The truth is that Biden won and Trump lost.

    Just because many people wish it were otherwise doesn’t change the truth.

    Many Trump supporters hold to this idea that if they really, really feel strongly that Trump won the election that this means that the 2020 election wasn’t legitimate.

    It doesn’t work that way. The legitimacy of an election isn’t vetoed by the gripes of the voters on the losing side.

    You seem unaware of what the last 18 months have shown with regard to electoral fraud. (To say nothing of what we saw the night of the election itself.) This feels like wishcasting on your part.

    HW does sound like one of those who just wanted Trump out, and didn’t much care how it happened.

    You sound like one of those who just wanted Trump in the White House and didn’t care much how he remained there.

    If there was a valid election to replace Trump with Biden, I’m all in favor of the American people getting what they think they want – good and hard. But the evidence is against that conjecture.

    You can recount the same fraudulent ballots over and over, all you want, and get whoever you want to “certify” whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true.

    You can claim voter fraud over and over, but that doesn’t make claims of voter fraud true.

    I can’t help it if you ignore the evidence, that’s on you.

    It is you that is mistaken.  Trump lost.  Get over it.

    • #59
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Trump and his allies made assertions that fraud existed, but they could not prove their assertions in courts of law.

    Disingenuous response. I’m offended that you think I’m that stupid.

    If both Joe Biden and Donald Trump had claimed they were victims of voter fraud, clearly it would fall on the judicial system to determine if either of them had made a valid claim of voter fraud and what, if any, the remedy would be.

    In other words, assertions of voter fraud don’t mean squat. Trump had squat. Trump lost.

     

    You’re assuming a lot of people, especially judges, are essentially angelic. They’re not.

    I’m not assuming anyone is angelic. In fact, it’s best to not assume that anyone is angelic, including Trump and Trump’s allies.

    It’s reasonable to assume that when someone asserts that their candidate lost due to voter fraud, they are either lying or mistaken.

    If there weren’t last-minute illegal voting changes etc, you may have a point.  But there were.  And if there was evidence/certainty that chain-of-custody laws were followed, etc.  But there wasn’t.  And so much more.  Merely assuming valid elections without evidence, even if  the Dims gave you a pinky-swear that they didn’t cheat THIS time, is silly.

     

    It’s reasonable to say to anyone asserting voter fraud, “Prove it in a court of law.”

    And then you have to find valid judges, who may not have their own reasons to wish Trump gone, and are not afraid of BLM/Antifa/etc showing up at their homes with pitchforks and torches…  And who didn’t announce in advance, as some did, that even if they concluded the evidence presented was valid, they wouldn’t do anything.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.