· Premium Member
If we all know that the lies are lies, are they still lies?
You point to one, that at best might be called perfunctory.I do know of DOJ investigations into election fraud. Just because you could not be bothered to look for them does not mean they don't exist.
While the nation turns its attention to the first anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, an important scheme having to do with the Jan. 5, 2021 Georgia Senate runoff may easily be lost in the mix.www.justsecurity.org
"In the morning, Barr asks U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Byung J. Pak to make Giuliani’s allegations about suitcases of ballots at State Farm Arena a “top priority.” Barr has an upcoming meeting with the White House and thinks the videotape might come up (Pak testimony, p. 13, 37). In his Senate testimony, Pak states, “this is during the election time where there’s an election cycle, and in particular in Georgia at the time, there was a U.S. Senate runoff election scheduled for January 5th.” Pak testified that he was “very sensitive to the fact that we can’t do anything overt that may be viewed one way or the other by the voters” ahead of the Georgia runoff election (Pak testimony, p. 15). In his testimony, Pak adds, once again, “we were very sensitive to that.”
" December 6 or 7, 2020: Pak completes personally reviewing the State Farm Arena video and the Georgia Secretary of State’s investigational interviews, and determines that the allegations are not credible (Pak testimony, p. 21-22)."
According to internal email correspondence, Barr tells Donoghue that the FBI should conduct interviews about the State Farm Arena allegations so that they “are not relying entirely on the work/assessments of non-federal law enforcement authorities” (in the words of Donoghue).
- Evening of December 6, 2020: Barr directs Deputy Attorney General to launch FBI investigations in Georgia
Note-2: In his Senate testimony, Donoghue initially defended the Department’s actions during the election period saying: “the appearance was always a concern, and it was something that we took into consideration. But, for instance, with regard to this, right, we didn’t do anything overtly. It’s not as if we issued grand jury subpoenas or began interviewing witnesses or anything like that” (Donoghue testimony, p. 22). However, Donoghue later admitted that following Barr’s order to interview witnesses for the State Farm Arena allegations, “ultimately, the witnesses who were there were interviewed. I can’t remember if FBI did the 15 interviews alone or they did them in conjunction with State authorities” (Donoghue testimony, p. 71; see also “We had interviews done of all the witnesses,” p. 72).
- December 7, 2020: According to internal email correspondence, PIN concludes that the State Farm Arena allegations are not in the scope of Barr’s Nov. 9 memorandum and that PIN does not concur in any overt investigative activity before certification of the Georgia elections. In his non-concurrence, PIN Chief Corey Amundson recognizes that Barr has “ultimate decision-making authority on this issue.”
- December 7, 2020: Donoghue tells FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich that, despite PIN’s non-concurrence, Barr “specifically directed that the FBI conduct some interviews” regarding the State Farm Arena allegations.
I turned to AI to help you.Yet you have not proven that there were no real investigations. Go fo it. Provide some proof.
I already provided proof that there was at the very least one investigation. Barr himself stated that they looked into other claims of election fraud. You have no proof that there were no investigations. In other words you yourself won't admit that there were investigations even though you have been provided proof. You could try to prove those investigations did not happen. I doubt you will.I turned to AI to help you.
Proving a negative can be difficult because it involves showing that something does not exist or is not true. One way to try to prove a negative is to search for evidence that contradicts the claim. If no such evidence can be found, it can be argued that it is unlikely that the claim is true. Additionally, one can also use logical reasoning to show that the claim is self-contradictory or otherwise impossible. However, it is important to note that it is impossible to prove a negative with 100% certainty.
I am not saying what you mentioned did not happen. I am saying they were perfunctory at best.I already provided proof that there was at the very least one investigation. Barr himself stated that they looked into other claims of election fraud. You have no proof that there were no investigations. In other words you yourself won't admit that there were investigations even though you have been provided proof. You could try to prove those investigations did not happen. I doubt you will.
Just more BIG lies from the right, even when those lies have been proven false.
I am not satisfied the DOJ investigation were thorough, or timely.Your trust is immaterial. You are spreading lies just like Trump does. You were provided proof that your OP was wrong from the get-go.
The original post is proven wrong. Your lack of trust does not change that.I am not satisfied the DOJ investigation were thorough, or timely.
I think the DOJ did everything it could to perpetuate, and project a false sense of security related to our election process.
I think many jurisdiction have perfected election manipulation and Covid gave them opportunities to enhance them
My trust is not immaterial when it is share by a very large number of others in our country.
Yea but correct me if I'm wrong here, you're doing that because you're claiming that Bill Barr lied. Tell me what your problem is with a US Attorney doing a preliminary inquiry and then deciding that there wasn't enough evidence to push forward with an investigation, because it doesn't really mean much to me.I am not trying to misrepresent anything.
I am simply asking you, or anyone else, if you can point me to where the DOJ did investigate election fraud.
There is corruption on both sides. Yes, there are democrats that do things wrong as well. Never denied that. Plenty of Republicans here go quiet or keep repeating the lies Trump and his cronies spout.Not that I don't think the Democrats cheated, by the way, @HDRider, I think they used the media and the abc soup to lie their way into power.
So that brings me to the next question for you, @painterswife... I see Democrats in forums across the internet go quiet in threads where the news comes in that your side was lying about Covid, about vaccines, about Russian assets, about Russiagate, about classified documents, about "fiery but mostly peaceful", about race relations, about Ukrainegate, about Ukraine.....
The least you could do, given how small this forum is, would be to acknowledge that the Democrats are shady campaigners, election deniers, and criminals. And then sure, I'll talk about Donald Trump with you. Until then, would mind leaving this one to us?
Their behavior doesn't excuse yours. Politicians in this country need to learn that lesson soon if they want this country to be around much longer... Funny how you seem so desperate to make Republicans sweep up their mess, but your side won't do it. It's just more partisan garbage. Admit it.There is corruption on both sides. Yes, there are democrats that do things wrong as well. Never denied that. Plenty of Republicans here go quiet or keep repeating the lies Trump and his cronies spout.
Did I ever say that Bush and Cheney were war criminals? I think you are assuming facts not in evidence to grasp at making a point.@painterswife Oh and... If it was dangerous for Bush and Cheney to weaponize the CIA in order to spread the WMD lies, then you need to be consistent in that logic. If Bush and Cheney are war criminals, what does that make Clinton and the Democrats? If Donald Trump was colluding with Russia, what does that mean for Fusion GPS and the Clinton Campaign?
Show me your nonpartisan support for the gallows and I'll show you mine. Oh wait, I've been showing mine the whole time. You're up.