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. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    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.

    I already understand that you’re okay with the kid who has a jet engine on the back of his car “winning” the Soap Box Derby, but that’s your problem, not mine.

    • #61
  2. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    So, it isn’t only Trump’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, who is biased against Trump’s fraud allegations, it’s also judges that Trump nominated.  

    I think you need to consider the possibility that Trump actually lost the election and Trump and his allies responded, not by admitting that Trump lost, but by accusing Biden of having cheated his way towards victory.  

    Now consider whether accusing his opponent of winning through fraud, even if this wasn’t the case, would fit fairly easily with Trump’s personality and character.  

    Many Trump supporters acknowledge that Trump doesn’t have perfect character, since no human being does.  This is why some of those who voted for Trump think that Trump actually lost the election to Biden but refused to admit it.  

    You can claim that Biden’s victory was based on fraud.  But you can’t prove it in a court of law.  And when you can’t prove voter fraud in a court of law you claim biased judges, even though some of the judges that ruled against Trump and his allies were nominated by . . . . . Trump.  Even Trump’s own Attorney General thinks Trump lost.  Even Trump’s daughter thinks Trump lost. 

    Because Trump lost. 

    • #62
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    So, it isn’t only Trump’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, who is biased against Trump’s fraud allegations, it’s also judges that Trump nominated.

    I think you need to consider the possibility that Trump actually lost the election and Trump and his allies responded, not by admitting that Trump lost, but by accusing Biden of having cheated his way towards victory.

    Now consider whether accusing his opponent of winning through fraud, even if this wasn’t the case, would fit fairly easily with Trump’s personality and character.

    Many Trump supporters acknowledge that Trump doesn’t have perfect character, since no human being does. This is why some of those who voted for Trump think that Trump actually lost the election to Biden but refused to admit it.

    You can claim that Biden’s victory was based on fraud. But you can’t prove it in a court of law. And when you can’t prove voter fraud in a court of law you claim biased judges, even though some of the judges that ruled against Trump and his allies were nominated by . . . . . Trump. Even Trump’s own Attorney General thinks Trump lost. Even Trump’s daughter thinks Trump lost.

    Because Trump lost.

    Your level of obtuseness and obsequiousness is truly sad.

    Just for starters, what makes you think BLM/Antifa wouldn’t “peacefully protest” at the homes of Trump-appointed judges?  Especially considering they’re doing it right now!

    • #63
  4. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    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.

    And yet it clearly happened.

    • #64
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (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.

    And yet it clearly happened.

    Except for those who refuse to see the evidence in front of them.

    • #65
  6. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    So, it isn’t only Trump’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, who is biased against Trump’s fraud allegations, it’s also judges that Trump nominated.

    I think you need to consider the possibility that Trump actually lost the election and Trump and his allies responded, not by admitting that Trump lost, but by accusing Biden of having cheated his way towards victory.

    Now consider whether accusing his opponent of winning through fraud, even if this wasn’t the case, would fit fairly easily with Trump’s personality and character.

    Many Trump supporters acknowledge that Trump doesn’t have perfect character, since no human being does. This is why some of those who voted for Trump think that Trump actually lost the election to Biden but refused to admit it.

    You can claim that Biden’s victory was based on fraud. But you can’t prove it in a court of law. And when you can’t prove voter fraud in a court of law you claim biased judges, even though some of the judges that ruled against Trump and his allies were nominated by . . . . . Trump. Even Trump’s own Attorney General thinks Trump lost. Even Trump’s daughter thinks Trump lost.

    Because Trump lost.

    Your level of obtuseness and obsequiousness is truly sad.

    Just for starters, what makes you think BLM/Antifa wouldn’t “peacefully protest” at the homes of Trump-appointed judges? Especially considering they’re doing it right now!

    I never said that BLM/Antifa wouldn’t protest at the homes of Trump appointed judges. 

    You seem to be confusing possibility with certainty.  You think that since it is possible that a Trump appointed judge decided to rule against Trump in a court case because he feared BLM/Antifa that this certainly is what happened.  

    I admit that a multitude of things are possible.  That you can’t just say, “But maybe this happened,” and use that possibility as a pretext for overturning election results that you don’t like.  

    • #66
  7. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    BDB (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.

    And yet it clearly happened.

    In your imagination, yes. 

    • #67
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    BDB (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.

    And yet it clearly happened.

    In your imagination, yes.

    You’re wrong about that too, of course.  Here is just one example:

    https://ricochet.com/1270895/the-quest-and-questions-continue-some-election-2020-updates-2/#comment-6267177

    Or would you like to argue that the Pennsylvania Court is delusional too?

    • #68
  9. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    BDB (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.

    And yet it clearly happened.

    In your imagination, yes.

    You’re wrong about that too, of course. Here is just one example:

    https://ricochet.com/1270895/the-quest-and-questions-continue-some-election-2020-updates-2/#comment-6267177

    Or would you like to argue that the Pennsylvania Court is delusional too?

    I never argued that any court was delusional. 

    I think you were arguing that the courts intentionally ruled against Trump in order to protect themselves from BLM/Antifa.  

    • #69
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Anyone — including Barr — who can’t admit that the 2020 elections were riddled with fraud, is not someone who should be taken seriously.

    • #70
  11. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):You’re assuming a lot of people, especially judges, are essentially angelic.  They’re not.

    And you’re making charges and assertions about people’s ethics based on no evidence. If you think there are crooked judges out there conspiring to keep Trump out of the White House, then name them and show us the evidence. Otherwise, stop.

    kedavis (View Comment):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.

    You been putting out garbage like this for over a year now and as we have just seen with Dobbs and the SCOTUS Justices (whom you also accused of being scared of public pushback and Antifa over the Trump elections cases) this is bunk. They make the tough decisions and live with the safety issues when it is required of them.

    It’s almost as if you want something to happen to a judge.

    • #71
  12. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):
    Anyone — including Barr — who can’t admit that the 2020 elections were riddled with fraud, is not someone who should be taken seriously.

    So in your mind, Dinesh DeSouza has more credibility than Bill Barr?

     

    • #72
  13. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):
    Anyone — including Barr — who can’t admit that the 2020 elections were riddled with fraud, is not someone who should be taken seriously.

    So in your mind, Dinesh DeSouza has more credibility than Bill Barr?

    On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    • #73
  14. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    • #74
  15. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them,. . .

    Ah, poisoning the well again.

     

     

    • #75
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that’s (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    1977 law school graduate Bill Barr is going to tell us why computerized/wifi/etc voting machine are secure and cellphone location data isn’t credible?  That should be good for some laughs.

    • #76
  17. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that’s (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    1977 law school graduate Bill Barr is going to tell us why computerized/wifi/etc voting machine are secure and cellphone location data isn’t credible? That should be good for some laughs.

    It’s legal thinking and strategy like this that completely demonstrates why Trump and his supporters have won so many legal cases around this issue and why Trump is still President. Genius.

    • #77
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that’s (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    1977 law school graduate Bill Barr is going to tell us why computerized/wifi/etc voting machine are secure and cellphone location data isn’t credible? That should be good for some laughs.

    It’s legal thinking and strategy like this that completely demonstrates why Trump and his supporters have won so many legal cases around this issue and why Trump is still President. Genius.

    You see how you argue against your own argument, don’t you?

    No, of course you don’t.

    • #78
  19. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    I watched Bill Barr’s testimony, presented at the hearings.  It reminded me of how laughable Trump’s assertions of voter fraud were back in December 2020 and provided clues as to why the state and federal judges laughed those lawsuits brought by Trump’s attorneys and attorneys allied with Trump out of court.  

    • #79
  20. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that’s (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    1977 law school graduate Bill Barr is going to tell us why computerized/wifi/etc voting machine are secure and cellphone location data isn’t credible? That should be good for some laughs.

    It’s legal thinking and strategy like this that completely demonstrates why Trump and his supporters have won so many legal cases around this issue and why Trump is still President. Genius.

    At least we can all agree that he’ll always be the President of our hearts.

    • #80
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    I watched Bill Barr’s testimony, presented at the hearings. It reminded me of how laughable Trump’s assertions of voter fraud were back in December 2020 and provided clues as to why the state and federal judges laughed those lawsuits brought by Trump’s attorneys and attorneys allied with Trump out of court.

    Fact check:  False.  They were not “laughed” out of court.  They were mostly dismissed for “standing” before the election, and dismissed for “laches” or “moot” after the election.  i.e., “Heads we win, tails you lose.”

    A few – a VERY few – situations where evidence was actually reviewed, it was sometimes even announced in advance that there would be no “relief” even if the case was proven.

    Whether that’s because the judges involved were so wrapped up in legalese they couldn’t tell their ass from a hole in the ground, or because they wanted Trump gone too and didn’t much care how, or just because they didn’t want BLM/Antifa/etc coming to THEIR homes, doesn’t really matter.

    • #81
  22. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    I watched Bill Barr’s testimony, presented at the hearings. It reminded me of how laughable Trump’s assertions of voter fraud were back in December 2020 and provided clues as to why the state and federal judges laughed those lawsuits brought by Trump’s attorneys and attorneys allied with Trump out of court.

     

    Whether that’s because the judges involved were so wrapped up in legalese they couldn’t tell their ass from a hole in the ground, or because they wanted Trump gone too and didn’t much care how, or just because they didn’t want BLM/Antifa/etc coming to THEIR homes, doesn’t really matter.

    Occam’s Razor: it’s none of those convoluted  theories or excuses. It’s because the evidence didn’t support the charges  the Trump legal team were making.

    Did Democrats change vote by mail procedures prior to the election? They sure did. But it was the responsibility of the Trump campaign on the ground in the states where the changes were the most egregious to put up a fight. They didn’t. That’s on them.

    • #82
  23. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    After all we’ve learned in the last year and a half, so-called “conservatives” continuing to believe the 2020 election was legit are like precious children who still believe in the Tooth Fairy. Except their ignorance is  cute. Yours just makes you useful tools of the Democrats.

    • #83
  24. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    After all we’ve learned in the last year and a half, so-called “conservatives” continuing to believe the 2020 election was legit are like precious children who still believe in the Tooth Fairy. Except their ignorance is cute. Yours just makes you useful tools of the Democrats.

    You’re right, Drew.  Repeatedly claiming that the election was stolen without actually providing the evidence for that claim is exactly like believing in the Tooth Fairy (unless you have evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists). 

    • #84
  25. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    After all we’ve learned in the last year and a half, so-called “conservatives” continuing to believe the 2020 election was legit are like precious children who still believe in the Tooth Fairy. Except their ignorance is cute. Yours just makes you useful tools of the Democrats.

    You’re right, Drew. Repeatedly claiming that the election was stolen without actually providing the evidence for that claim is exactly like believing in the Tooth Fairy (unless you have evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists).

    • #85
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):On this issue (and probably several others)? Yes, duh.

    For one, he actually bothered to look into it. Barr didn’t give a [REDACTED].

    Sure, if by “looking into it,” you mean DeSouza started with a premise and then built a documentary that supported his premise. Because that (by his own admission) is exactly what he did.

    I won’t link to the numerous fact checks of 2000 Mules because I know you won’t accept them, so I’ll leave you with Barr’s comments on the documentary (he was asked about it during his testimony to the 1/6 Commission), which he was open-minded enough to watch to see if he missed anything. Spoiler Alert: he doesn’t think much of it, but he does go into detail as to why he thinks it lacks credibility.

     

     

     

    I watched Bill Barr’s testimony, presented at the hearings. It reminded me of how laughable Trump’s assertions of voter fraud were back in December 2020 and provided clues as to why the state and federal judges laughed those lawsuits brought by Trump’s attorneys and attorneys allied with Trump out of court.

     

    Whether that’s because the judges involved were so wrapped up in legalese they couldn’t tell their ass from a hole in the ground, or because they wanted Trump gone too and didn’t much care how, or just because they didn’t want BLM/Antifa/etc coming to THEIR homes, doesn’t really matter.

    Occam’s Razor: it’s none of those convoluted theories or excuses. It’s because the evidence didn’t support the charges the Trump legal team were making.

    False, because in most cases the evidence was never looked at.

     

    Did Democrats change vote by mail procedures prior to the election? They sure did. But it was the responsibility of the Trump campaign on the ground in the states where the changes were the most egregious to put up a fight. They didn’t. That’s on them.

    False, because in most cases where they tried to put up a fight, they were blocked.  Blocked before the election for “standing,” and blocked after the election because “laches” or “moot.”

    • #86
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    After all we’ve learned in the last year and a half, so-called “conservatives” continuing to believe the 2020 election was legit are like precious children who still believe in the Tooth Fairy. Except their ignorance is cute. Yours just makes you useful tools of the Democrats.

    You’re right, Drew. Repeatedly claiming that the election was stolen without actually providing the evidence for that claim is exactly like believing in the Tooth Fairy (unless you have evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists).

    “I don’t see any evidence!” says the blind man.

    • #87
  28. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    kedavis (View Comment):

    False, because in most cases the evidence was never looked at.

    Did Democrats change vote by mail procedures prior to the election? They sure did. But it was the responsibility of the Trump campaign on the ground in the states where the changes were the most egregious to put up a fight. They didn’t. That’s on them.

    False, because in most cases where they tried to put up a fight, they were blocked. Blocked before the election for “standing,” and blocked after the election because “laches” or “moot.”

    How do people still not know this stuff?

    • #88
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    False, because in most cases the evidence was never looked at.

    Did Democrats change vote by mail procedures prior to the election? They sure did. But it was the responsibility of the Trump campaign on the ground in the states where the changes were the most egregious to put up a fight. They didn’t. That’s on them.

    False, because in most cases where they tried to put up a fight, they were blocked. Blocked before the election for “standing,” and blocked after the election because “laches” or “moot.”

    How do people still not know this stuff?

    Maybe they close their eyes and cover their ears and hum loudly, like my benighted mother.

    • #89
  30. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Classy, Dinesh. Very classy:

    For the record, I spent several hours with Barr when we shot this interview, and the AG gets around just fine. If Dinesh’s clumsy swipe is indicative of the level of fact checking in his documentary (there’s lots and lots of footage of Barr walking around), well, not a good look for Mr. DeSouza. 

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.