Press "Enter" to skip to content

Baffling Barr Backs Down Again – Insufficient Voter Fraud Evidence to Affect Election Result

The debate is ongoing as this opens and truthfully, I haven’t read the full article we’re addressing here; deciding instead to build this plane as we fly it. Moreover, the Moonshine thread is wound-up again because smoke is billowing out of the Barr dumpster fire into which we routinely choose to dive.

The dialogue normally begins to devolve as three of us claim, “Shit, here we go again…” and then tune out until the other two wear-out. It usually ends no further from when it began. So, the other two then sink into a ‘Battle Royale’ of secret Billy Barr white hat (him) v. status indeterminable, Billy Barr of some other color of hat, which tends to change akin to a chameleon (me.) And it’s nuts today. I didn’t even get through this paragraph before another Lin Wood statement (speaking on that below) shifted the landscape under our feet and before we were even able to settle-in from the other shift from just a few hours earlier.

What’s being referencing is the shocking headline from an AP story that broke today – Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud.

I’ll spare you the details of refuting that headline by nodding in the direction of a mountain of patently obvious, demonstrable and irrefutable evidence – both objective and testimonial – that is on-hand by means of the public hearings now ongoing in the battleground states where the Dominion/Smartmatic/ballot-stuffing voter fraud occurred and in other ways both known and unknown.

If you’re familiar with the work here, you’ll know that we’ve examined quite a bit in Barr’s background and there is much to be found. Here’s a representation of that and it reflects a less than favorable position.

Sparing you those details, know that each one of those articles works unfavorably towards Barr being aligned with the President. Up to this point, the door for Barr to move from his platform of inexcusable inaction had been left ajar up through a short post-inauguration span on the presumption of a second Trump term. Woods’ post above caused that door to close on the Moonshine thread and you know the rest of the story.

Then, however, Wood came back with this and it may have cost me a 6-pack.

So, what happened? Did Wood get a call from Trump ergo the second post that wasn’t but was a retraction? Have Wood and Trump privately discussed Barr and his inaction and Barr’s statement caused Wood’s statement in reflexive form because it aligned with their previous discussions of Barr? Is the secret Billy Barr white hat fella the real McCoy? Did Wood tip is hand wittingly or unwittingly? Has Barr been assuming a lying in wait posture? Is Barr dragging it to inauguration day? Is Barr serving the interests of Kirkland & Ellis and Dominion/Smartmatic? Remember how he entered the DOJ for round two after exiting the firm and with a reported net worth of $40 million? Remember how Kirkland & Ellis advised on the Staple Street acquisition of Dominion/Smartmatic? What’s to make of the Lin Wood double-take?

Much of that I don’t know. Much of it is answered in the articles linked in the above post. Most or all of it I presume we’ll know sooner than later and certainly before inauguration day (20 Jan 21) and perhaps even before the electoral college vote (14 Dec 20.)

We’re building this plane as we fly it and we’re not even to the AP article yet, but now Barr appears to be claiming he was misquoted, or so I just learned from one of our guys. Does that explain the Wood double-take? What a mess.

From the article, we’ll set aside most of the AP’s work and focus only on Barr’s statements. Here’s the first, “Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.””

So is Barr literally saying “we have not seen fraud,” which doesn’t preclude it from existing or even being in hand but rather they just haven’t “seen” or examined it yet? Or perhaps they’re aware of the evidence but haven’t assumed possession of it yet so it is unseen or unexaminied? Is that deliberate and for cause? Was it a misquote?

Or did Barr say – figuratively – “we have not seen fraud,” meaning that they have investigated and examined it and their findings demonstrate none rising to the level of the assertions and which could affect the election result?

Same words – two different interpretations. Is this how Barr was misquoted? Is this why Wood retracted? Did this cost me a 6-pack?

Barr also stated, as sourced from the AP, ““There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all,” he said, but first there must be a basis to believe there is a crime to investigate. “Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. … And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.””

This is particularly troublesome for the reason that there is more than ample evidence to meet the threshold for opening an investigation and, in fact, to the extent that it involves foreign adversaries. Moreover, as viewed through a certain and appropriate lens, the evidence actually places us on a war footing with China and perhaps even Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Germany, Spain and others. Each and to some degree deliberately participated in the theft of a US presidential election. Yet here, Barr is saying there’s not enough ample evidence to even open a criminal investigation. And because the criminal justice system is too often used like duct tape?

Hey Bill. Look into Charles Lieber, Harvard University and Chinese nationals who were Harvard students associated with Lieber. Look at Lieber’s smuggling of coronavirus strains to China with those students. Look into 3 incidents at two airports. Look into how coronavirus was leveraged to obliterate a nation in many regards and deliver a stolen election. Ask Charles about his secret salary from China’s Thousand Talents program that he didn’t report to the IRS. Look at your own FBI’s tactical intelligence report and find the attached ancillary intelligence report marked FISA (that should sound familiar) and then understand those details. Look at Fauci’s funding of the Wuhan Lab and his background. Look at how your own FBI knew of the outbreak in October of 2019 according to that tactical intelligence report, but it didn’t inform Trump’s DOD of it. Look at how Pelosi calibrated impeachment in lockstep with COVID-19 to deflect away from it and usher it in. Look at how the Gang of 8, SSCI, HPSCI, all of their members and their ex-officio members (Pelosi and Schumer) would have been privy to all of this intelligence. Then look at that mountain of voter fraud evidence referenced to start. Start there, Bill, and then rethink the whole damn thing, respectfully, sir.

Digressing and back to notables from the AP article is this, which likely pertains to both our discussion here and in terms of what we may see (or not?) from Barr and the DOJ moving forward, “Barr went to the White House Tuesday for a previously scheduled meeting that lasted about three hours.”

Three hours is a long time. Were they discussing how to transition to Jeffrey Rosen, the Deputy Director of the DOJ or were they discussing a possible lie in wait posture that an inexcusably inactive Barr may have taken for the past few years, but how that’s about to come to an abrupt halt?

Here is an extract from the AP article deserving of our attention.

More to Trump’s liking, Barr revealed in the AP interview that in October he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel, giving the prosecutor the authority to continue to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe after Biden takes over and making it difficult to fire him. Biden hasn’t said what he might do with the investigation, and his transition team didn’t comment Tuesday.

I would urge caution here and for these admittedly pessimistic but factually grounded reasons. For one, investigations are opened for one of two purposes: a) to reveal crimes and prosecute crimes -or- b) to conceal crimes and then seal away evidence of those crimes.

For another and with the ultimate authority residing in Barr (Durham), he/they will have the latitude to serve the Republic and undo a long timeline of treason and criminality resulting in a second Trump term -or- adhering to institutional preservation and complying with the Deep State by sealing away the evidence of wrongdoing against Trump.

How confident in the special prosecutor process are you? What’s the track record like? You a Bob Mueller fan? He was a special prosecutor. Special prosecutor is a body with a figurehead and in the case of Mueller, it was Andrew Weissman who running both the team and, by de facto status, the DOJ during all of the Mueller probe. Muller sat and absorbed oxygen before embarrassing himself on a national stage and Jeff Sessions had recused himself.

What would you get with a Durham probe? To whom would Durham report in a Biden administration? Who will be Biden’s AG? Is there enough time to preclude Durham having to report to a Biden administration? Will they drag it out over years to be eventually fruitless, like with everything else?

Just as easily as Andrew Weissmann whipped up a fake impeachment case in one direction, Barr/Durham could whip up a fake result in the other. How? Same old junk – with an intentionally impotent investigation coupled to a deliberately late result. It would, however, be one that would vacuum up all the evidence to seal it away for a long time.

They’ll control what goes into their report. There’s still 50 days until inauguration day and Durham got an October head start, but the wheels of justice grind excruciatingly slowly. Is that enough time? Does time even matter, now? Inauguration day matters.

Was the Durham investigation a head fake? Was the real Durham investigation originated in October 2020 with the special counsel designation? Will those results be coming down to bear and soon?

Perhaps the sage move in all of this is to give it some time to work itself out and whereby we can gain clarity from Wood, Barr, Trump and the DOJ.

Let’s revisit this in the morning, see if it looks different and go from there.



  1. Taffy53 December 1, 2020

    And since we’re asking questions, are Durham’s 100,000+ indictments all just a big joke or do they somehow tie in to his assignment as special prosecutor? And will any of this ever really make a constructive difference, or is it all just kabuki theater?

  2. indy0704 December 2, 2020

    I guess the special counsel appointment takes declassification off the table for Trump.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply