Mr Hinderaker, I Demur*

 

*Why Trump is right and you are not (although understandably so).

John Hinderaker, on Power Line blog, is critical of what he calls being “obsessed with righting the alleged (and to some extent imaginary) wrongs that Donald Trump suffered in 2020.” His occasion for these observations is President Trump’s remarks about removing his endorsement of Mo Brooks —

Last year I endorsed Mo Brooks for the U.S. Senate because I thought he was a Fighter, especially when it came to the Rigged and Stolen Presidential Election of 2020. The evidence is irrefutable. Then, out of nowhere, and for seemingly no reason, Mo backtracked and made a big mistake by going Woke at our massive Cullman, Alabama Rally. Instead of denouncing the Voter Fraud in the Election, Mo lectured the crowd of 63,000 people saying, “Put that behind you, put that behind you,” meaning that, in effect, forget the Rigged Election and go on to the future.

The problem is, if you do that, it will happen again. Also, why do Republicans allow Democrats to get away with rigging and stealing elections?

Mr. Hinderaker’s stance is that is not forward-looking and risks being mired in the past for President Trump’s vindication.

That is a respectable position if you take President Trump literally. But as Salena Zito remarked back in 2016–

It’s a familiar split. When [Trump] makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

Sorry to remind you, but a lot of people seem to have lost their President Trump decoder ring. It’s not entirely their fault. President Trump’s personality is such that it is easy to think it is all about him, even when it decidedly isn’t.

It’s about us and the needed electoral integrity for us to be a self-governing society. Hinderaker relies on the Hugh Hewitt formulation that “if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.” But there is evidence that 2020 wasn’t all that close, but they cheated anyway. But it will never be proved with forensic science because we did not require that our elections be auditable.

Hinderaker in his piece essentially accepts there to be cheating and only wants to limit, not eliminate, it. President Trump says it must be eliminated. And the only way it is going to be eliminated is if the truth about 2020 is laid bare. That is not the GOPe position, but it is patently true.

Half the nation gets this; half the nation doesn’t; few politicians are interested in truly buttoning up our electoral process. No, President Trump is not pushing 2020 for personal aggrandizement even though it would certainly personally vindicate him. Just as in 2016, he sees something wrong and he pounds on it. His pounding doesn’t make what he’s pounding about wrong. And some things just don’t get done without a pounding.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 182 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Rodin:

    Last year I endorsed Mo Brooks for the U.S. Senate because I thought he was a Fighter, especially when it came to the Rigged and Stolen Presidential Election of 2020. The evidence is irrefutable. Then, out of nowhere, and for seemingly no reason, Mo backtracked and made a big mistake by going Woke at our massive Cullman, Alabama Rally. Instead of denouncing the Voter Fraud in the Election, Mo lectured the crowd of 63,000 people saying, “Put that behind you, put that behind you,” meaning that, in effect, forget the Rigged Election and go on to the future.

    The problem is, if you do that, it will happen again. Also, why do Republicans allow Democrats to get away with rigging and stealing elections?

    At the risk of being criticized, I reject Trump’s comment for other reasons. First, I’m sick of his obsesssion. Attacking Mo Brooks was stupid, as well as calling him woke. What Trump doesn’t understand is that his pounding doesn’t necessarily ensure that elections will be better regulated; in fact, he may be building more resistance to taking those steps from all sides because people want him to just go away. At this moment, I don’t have to like Trump or endorse him. I don’t think we should move on, but our Republicans should be actively correcting election laws and regulations.

    • #2
  3. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I think one can be obsessed with the need to correct the crimes committed by tampering illegally with the election processes in the 2020 election without agreeing with every action taken by Trump. I am obsessed with this matter but I prefer Mo Brooks for the Senate seat.

    • #3
  4. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Necessary, but not sufficient is how I see Trump’s view of the 2020 election. I don’t know anything about the Alabama election. Trump makes lots of bad choices for endorsements. Last cycle it was Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. Both were terrible choices. Both for Trump and for the United States. Both are part of the Second Amendment surrender. Both are warmongering neocons. One is my Senator. Unfortunately. Once Tillis got past the primary, I still voted for him. I really regret it now. I’d rather have a liberal Democrat than a s**t like Tillis.

    Trump’s record in Alabama is pretty abysmal. 

    I agree that Trump had the election stolen from him. But there were plenty of things Trump could have done before the election as I understand it from someone who was part of his election legal team. There were plenty of things Trump could have done after the election and didn’t. 

    • #4
  5. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Rodin:

    Last year I endorsed Mo Brooks for the U.S. Senate because I thought he was a Fighter, especially when it came to the Rigged and Stolen Presidential Election of 2020. The evidence is irrefutable. Then, out of nowhere, and for seemingly no reason, Mo backtracked and made a big mistake by going Woke at our massive Cullman, Alabama Rally. Instead of denouncing the Voter Fraud in the Election, Mo lectured the crowd of 63,000 people saying, “Put that behind you, put that behind you,” meaning that, in effect, forget the Rigged Election and go on to the future.

    The problem is, if you do that, it will happen again. Also, why do Republicans allow Democrats to get away with rigging and stealing elections?

    At the risk of being criticized, I reject Trump’s comment for other reasons. First, I’m sick of his obsesssion. Attacking Mo Brooks was stupid, as well as calling him woke. What Trump doesn’t understand is that his pounding doesn’t necessarily ensure that elections will be better regulated; in fact, he may be building more resistance to taking those steps from all sides because people want him to just go away. At this moment, I don’t have to like Trump or endorse him. I don’t think we should move on, but our Republicans should be actively correcting election laws and regulations.

    Only the culpable are resisting. There’s been great strides in fixing what is broke and people are still adjudicating. This is good and needs to continue to be pushed.

    Trump is not wrong. No was wrong in saying we need to move on. The elections were a sham and to move on without correction enables future shams.

    If the right wants to ever win another election, they need to consider the lack of trust their base has in elections. Either tighten the security of them or we lose faith.

    • #5
  6. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    There’s the three boxes for getting things done:

    The soap box, the ballot box, the gun box.

    The right has been deprived the soap box. Their voters think the ballot box has been stolen from them. If they don’t take it seriously, the only other option left is the gun box.

    • #6
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Hang On (View Comment):
    I agree that Trump had the election stolen from him. But there were plenty of things Trump could have done before the election as I understand it from someone who was part of his election legal team. There were plenty of things Trump could have done after the election and didn’t. 

    THIS. For one, Bill Barr in his interview with Peter said (and I remember hearing this myself) that Trump was advised to have lawyers go all over the country to monitor the polls before the election. He declined.

    • #7
  8. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):
    I agree that Trump had the election stolen from him. But there were plenty of things Trump could have done before the election as I understand it from someone who was part of his election legal team. There were plenty of things Trump could have done after the election and didn’t.

    THIS. For one, Bill Barr in his interview with Peter said (and I remember hearing this myself) that Trump was advised to have lawyers go all over the country to monitor the polls before the election. He declined.

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    • #8
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    That’s not what he said. He was saying there could be fraud, and Trump should take steps at least to make it more difficult. He chose not to. Let’s put responsibilities where they belong.

    • #9
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    That’s not what he said. He was saying there could be fraud, and Trump should take steps at least to make it more difficult. He chose not to. Let’s put responsibilities where they belong.

    But I distinctly remember the charge “Oh, you needed to take this to court before the election. And after the election you have no standing.” Which never made any sense to me. How do you charge people with fraud before they commit fraud, but after they commit the fraud you just go “Welp! Too bad! Nothing we can do!”

    The American people deserve secure elections. Washington is uninterested in that.

     

    And then . . . shhh shhh don’t talk about election fraud or people won’t trust our electoral process!

    Guys, we need to talk about election fraud because people don’t trust our electoral process.

    • #10
  11. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    It’s about us and the needed electoral integrity for us to be a self-governing society . Hinderaker relies on the Hugh Hewitt formulation that “if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.” But there is evidence that 2020 wasn’t all that close, but they cheated anyway. But it will never be proved with forensic science because we did not require that our elections be auditable.

    If we want to audit elections, then we have to give up the secret ballot.  If we want a secret ballot, then we cannot have auditable elections.  The best solution that we can have is to require in-person voting.  Then there is, at least, a validation process to ensure that the voter is, at least, the person on the rolls.  I’m fine with early voting, but never same day registration.  With these process controls we still cannot truly audit an election, but it will be as secure as we can make it.

    Half the nation gets this; half the nation doesn’t; few politicians are interested in truly buttoning up our electoral process. No, President Trump is not pushing 2020 for personal aggrandizement even though it would certainly personally vindicate him. Just as in 2016, he sees something wrong and he pounds on it. His pounding doesn’t make what he’s pounding about wrong. And some things just don’t get done without a pounding.

    I agree with your formulation, but I suspect it smore like 5% of the country gets its, 10% doesn’t, and 85% has no clue about the issue at all.  Ms. Zito’s is certainly correct, and I will admit that once I started following her formulation he make a lot more sense to me, in that Trump is one the of most skilled politicians I have seen at articulating the gestalt of the issue in a way that people understand.  He makes them feel that he cares about them, and his policies seem to bear out that feeling.  Even in 2016 when I felt that Trump was the worst thing that could happen to the GOP, I admired that he never ceded any point to the media.  He fought them on every issue, every time, and so few Republicans would ever do that.  To accomplish things in politics, you have to be able to pound the message home over and over again.  Trump did that, which is why the Jan 6 committee exists in the first place.

    • #11
  12. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Rodin: Hinderaker in his piece essentially accepts there to be cheating and only wants to limit, not eliminate, it. President Trump says it must be eliminated. And the only way it is going to be eliminated is if the truth about 2020 is laid bare. That is not the GOPe position, but it is patently true. 

    First, cheating can’t be “eliminated,” any more than crime, poverty, or poor health can be “eliminated.” It can be reduced.

    Secondly, John pointed out, in his article, that “Republicans need to nominate candidates who will appeal to voters across a broad range of issues on which we conservatives have the advantage–a range which very much includes election integrity.”

    Anyone who imagines that a full exposé of the electoral crime, mischief, and irregularities of 2020 would or could result in the elimination of electoral fraud has embraced a utopian fantasy. John is right that improving our electoral integrity is important; he’s also right that most Americans are more concerned about the future than the past, particularly at this challenging moment. Losing an election because we ignored that truth would be both a catastrophe and an avoidable one: as John observes, Republicans and conservatives enjoy an enormous electoral advantage right now, based on issues more visceral and immediate than the cheating that occurred in 2020. Yes, continue to address election fraud. But don’t make that the cornerstone of the 2022 and 2024 elections.

    • #12
  13. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    Stina (View Comment):

    There’s the three boxes for getting things done:

    The soap box, the ballot box, the gun box.

    The right has been deprived the soap box. Their voters think the ballot box has been stolen from them. If they don’t take it seriously, the only other option left is the gun box.

    You are leaving out the Jury Box, but the aftermath of the ’20 election is it apparent that no one can count on THAT.

    The Cartridge Box might be all that is left, and we REALLY don’t want that.  It would be nice if the people who seem to think that censoring the Soap Box, and cheating at the Ballot Box, and denying the Jury Box would realize that if the Cartridge Box becomes the answer, then the destruction will be immense, as in 1860-1865 immense, if not worse.  It behooves us to do everything to not get to that level, but, alas, too many (on the Left, and the establishment Right) seem to think that no one will actually resort to that last box, but I think they are mistaken.  To the Left, political violence is a rheostat that they can turn up to get what they want (Summer of Fire), and down when they don’t need it (or at least don’t report on it).  To the Right, political violence has always been a switch…on or off.  But, I’m not sure that is true anymore.  I suspect it is one, among many, reasons that the Jan 6th committee exists, and that the Dems and the media (but I repeat myself) want to ensure that they try and force every Republican to decry it while they (of course), are not even asked about their support and encouragement of the Summer of Fire violence.  We shouldn’t accept political violence, but it is worse to allow one side to engage in violence and not the other.

    • #13
  14. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Unfortunately, Trump’s harping on the 2020 election issues is the only way they will ever get fixed. And without an honest election, we have no legitimate government.

    Millions of people are suffering in Ukraine because Bill Clinton did not respect our country’s government. Clinton should have converted the Budapest Memorandum into an actual treaty that would be subsequently ratified, or not, by our Senate. If not ratified, then Ukraine would get to keep their nukes.

    Trump respects our government. I appreciate that more every day. In his work on the Iran Deal and NAFTA and our trade agreements with China, his leaving the handling of the pandemic to the states, all I see is a powerful and largely successful one-man effort to get our government back under the control of the American people.

    He knows better than anyone that nothing good can happen in Washington if congressional and presidential elections are illegitimate. That’s how dictators take over their own countries. We saw it countless times in the twentieth century.

    • #14
  15. No Caesar Thatcher
    No Caesar
    @NoCaesar

    If we don’t win none of it matters.   Yes there was massive cheating of all types (“legal” and illegal) by the Dems in 2020.  Probably enough to have made a difference.  But we will never know for sure and it is impossible to prove at this point. 

    I want to win big in November, and bigger in 2024.  To keep harping on 2020 for other than election integrity purposes is a loser with the persuadables.  Like it or not, the winning majority of voters vote for the future, not to right wrongs or settle grievances.  If  we are obsessed with the past we set ourselves up to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.  

    I think the best move for Trump and the country is that he not run, but keep teasing and politicking like he’s going to run.  Because if he runs, there’s a very real chance he will lose.  If he runs it will not be against Biden, it will be against a younger Dem.  And the contrast will be unfavorable to him.    If he loses the Country is in even more trouble and he loses the ability to say he really won.  He goes down a loser.  

    DC leadership is too old: Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, and on.   They look like a mixture of Vampires and Frankenstein’s monster.  When they are coherent they act that way too.  Trump may act a lot younger than he is, but he’s old too.  He identified the problems and took the crucial first steps toward fixing them, but it’s time for a younger generation take the baton.  Fortunately, there are several promising candidates to do.

    The first party to put forward the next generation will capture the zeitgeist and set the tone as the party of the future.  The Dems did it in 1960, it’s our time.

    • #15
  16. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    That’s not what he said. He was saying there could be fraud, and Trump should take steps at least to make it more difficult. He chose not to. Let’s put responsibilities where they belong.

    Hmm. What sort of system is it that puts the onus for avoiding crime on the potential victim?

    • #16
  17. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Hang On (View Comment):

    But there were plenty of things Trump could have done before the election as I understand it from someone who was part of his election legal team. There were plenty of things Trump could have done after the election and didn’t.

    I’ve heard this often, but I’ve never had a good explanation (or any reasonable explanation) of what Trump could have done and didn’t do both before and after the election.  What are these things.?

    • #17
  18. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):
    I agree that Trump had the election stolen from him. But there were plenty of things Trump could have done before the election as I understand it from someone who was part of his election legal team. There were plenty of things Trump could have done after the election and didn’t.

    THIS. For one, Bill Barr in his interview with Peter said (and I remember hearing this myself) that Trump was advised to have lawyers go all over the country to monitor the polls before the election. He declined.

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    Yes, and Barr is a liar.  He plays humble very, very well, but he’s still CIA.

    • #18
  19. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    Stina (View Comment):

    There’s the three boxes for getting things done:

    The soap box, the ballot box, the gun box.

    The right has been deprived the soap box. Their voters think the ballot box has been stolen from them. If they don’t take it seriously, the only other option left is the gun box.

     

    This is the true danger in all of this, that abused systems may break down. The losers in an election need to believe that they have a chance to gather their forces and return to power in their turn.

    It does tremendous damage to deny a stolen election. We need to get back to the point where people can say “JFK’s election was sketchy. We’ll have to see what happens in the next one”. It’s very important that the next one be clean.

    • #19
  20. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    No Caesar (View Comment):
    I want to win big in November, and bigger in 2024. 

    If they cheat there’ll never be any big win, ever.  That’s why it’s so important.

    • #20
  21. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):
    I agree that Trump had the election stolen from him. But there were plenty of things Trump could have done before the election as I understand it from someone who was part of his election legal team. There were plenty of things Trump could have done after the election and didn’t.

    THIS. For one, Bill Barr in his interview with Peter said (and I remember hearing this myself) that Trump was advised to have lawyers go all over the country to monitor the polls before the election. He declined.

    I call BS on this one.  General Barr said this, and also said that there wasn’t any evidence of cheating…so why would you send out poll watchers to prevent cheating that didn’t happen.  It also ignores the effort that is required to get poll watchers to the various locations that are required.  Further, it ignores that poll watchers were present in many locations, and, as in Philadelphia, were barred from doing their jobs.  If Barr was truly concerned about potential cheating, then why didn’t he do more to prevent it?  He would say, its the campaign’s job, and he is partially correct.  Yes, the campaign could have done more, and we have seen since then, at the state level at least, significantly more poll watchers, but it ignores that the Justice Department’s job is to ensure that the elections are run correctly because not doing so is a violation of every other voter’s civil rights.  I like a great deal that General Barr accomplished as AG, but his handling of the election and its aftermath wasn’t his finest.

    • #21
  22. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    That’s not what he said. He was saying there could be fraud, and Trump should take steps at least to make it more difficult. He chose not to. Let’s put responsibilities where they belong.

    Once again, General Barr runs the Justice Department.  He was a trusted subordinate with a great deal of responsibility and, supposedly, initiative.  Unless he went to Trump with his plans to secure the elections and Trump said no…then he is as, or more, responsible.  

    • #22
  23. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    genferei (View Comment):
    Hmm. What sort of system is it that puts the onus for avoiding crime on the potential victim?

    If I’m forced to go into a dangerous neighborhood, I might take the warning to be armed seriously.

    • #23
  24. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Trump’s constant table pounding about the election strikes me as perfectly characteristic of Trump.  The man simply cannot believe that he lost and his ego requires that he relitigate the issue over and over.  Perhaps he was robbed, but repeating the same mantra continuously is not going to wear well when the country is so in need of solutions to present issues.

    • #24
  25. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    This is where I give the greatest credit to the founders. I don’t know exactly how they gained the foresight to recognize that officials selected to serve at the federal level on behalf of all of the people within each state should not be elected by statewide popular vote but they set it up so that the elected representatives of people in the state legislatures had this responsibility.

    We messed up with the Senate with the 17th Amendmet.

    I’m not sure what happened with the Presidential Electoral College electors but I think all state legislatures may have deferred this to statewide popular vote as well.

    This allows densely populated urban areas an opening to cheat and we know Democrats control that part of the election process. 

    • #25
  26. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Dbroussa (View Comment):
    Once again, General Barr runs the Justice Department.  He was a trusted subordinate with a great deal of responsibility and, supposedly, initiative.  Unless he went to Trump with his plans to secure the elections and Trump said no…then he is as, or more, responsible.  

    Barr couldn’t send out attorneys. It was Trump’s political decision. And I don’t understand the rationale of what a couple of you have said:

    General Barr said this, and also said that there wasn’t any evidence of cheating…so why would you send out poll watchers to prevent cheating that didn’t happen. 

    First, as I said earlier, he suspected that there could be efforts to cheat. And I believe he was one of the people to advise Trump to make the political decision to send out lawyers–it wasn’t up to the DOJ to send out poll watchers. I don’t believe that he said there was no cheating. He believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to say that the amount of cheating would have made a difference in the election. He was probably wrong. Maybe even likely wrong. But I suggest you all listen to Peter’s interview of him on this site, and try to put aside your hatred and condemnation of Barr for a moment. BTW, I’m not going to make these points again. If you refuse to read them carefully, it’s on you. If you don’t agree with them, it’s also on you. ;-)

    • #26
  27. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    I’ve heard this often, but I’ve never had a good explanation (or any reasonable explanation) of what Trump could have done and didn’t do both before and after the election.  What are these things.?

    Do you subscribe to VivaBarnes on Locals? I highly recommend it for all kinds of reasons. He has gone through these. From memory: before the election, appeal rulings made to allow the Democrat shenanigans, i.e., just follow Marc Elias around. The Trump campaign demurred. After the election, look at anomalies in precincts and move in with investigators. There were people talking. Which is how 2000 Mules came about. Trump turned it all over to the RNC. The RNC raised over $300 million to do this, but no money was spent. Barr said he was going to look at it, but nothing was done.

     

    • #27
  28. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    genferei (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    So Barr thought there was going to be fraud, but after the clearly fraudulent election, Barr just brushed it off?

    This doesn’t add up.

    That’s not what he said. He was saying there could be fraud, and Trump should take steps at least to make it more difficult. He chose not to. Let’s put responsibilities where they belong.

    Hmm. What sort of system is it that puts the onus for avoiding crime on the potential victim?

    Politics.   

    • #28
  29. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Dbroussa (View Comment):
    Once again, General Barr runs the Justice Department. He was a trusted subordinate with a great deal of responsibility and, supposedly, initiative. Unless he went to Trump with his plans to secure the elections and Trump said no…then he is as, or more, responsible.

    Barr couldn’t send out attorneys. It was Trump’s political decision. And I don’t understand the rationale of what a couple of you have said:

    General Barr said this, and also said that there wasn’t any evidence of cheating…so why would you send out poll watchers to prevent cheating that didn’t happen.

    First, as I said earlier, he suspected that there could be efforts to cheat. And I believe he was one of the people to advise Trump to make the political decision to send out lawyers–it wasn’t up to the DOJ to send out poll watchers. I don’t believe that he said there was no cheating. He believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to say that the amount of cheating would have made a difference in the election. He was probably wrong. Maybe even likely wrong. But I suggest you all listen to Peter’s interview of him on this site, and try to put aside your hatred and condemnation of Barr for a moment. BTW, I’m not going to make these points again. If you refuse to read them carefully, it’s on you. If you don’t agree with them, it’s also on you. ;-)

    It looks as if Barr would have needed to be looking at some sort of civil rights voting violations since it is not clear that there is general federal authority related to the voting process. 

    • #29
  30. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Trump’s constant table pounding about the election strikes me as perfectly characteristic of Trump. The man simply cannot believe that he lost and his ego requires that he relitigate the issue over and over. Perhaps he was robbed, but repeating the same mantra continuously is not going to wear well when the country is so in need of solutions to present issues.

    As if any solutions to issues will be forthcoming while the Marxist Democrats can simply steal the country.  

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.