A few things we’d like to add in order to cement William Barr’s disgraceful legacy as Attorney General:

– Among the things Mr. Barr assured the American people was that he would take a sober and aggressive look at the Hillary Clinton email ‘episode’. At this time of AG Barr’s departure from the Justice Dept. for the second time, we’ve heard not a word from either he nor the vaunted John Durham about the Clinton ‘situation’.

As we have noted, maybe we’re a bit too hard on Mr. Barr…perhaps he should be pitied, more than censured. Could be, as we’ve noted, Mr. Barr, at only 70, may have ‘lost a step or two.’ In other words, in his second turn in the DOJ “wheelhouse’, maybe Bill just wasn’t up to the task.

After all, who did Bill get his information regarding Hillary’s email ‘troubles’, and the widely held belief that the 2020 election doesn’t smell right?

Did Bill go to his FBI Director, that would be Christopher Wray, for all his information on those two topics? Was Mr. Wray the one who assured Bill that, regarding both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the review of 2020 election fraud suspicions that ‘there was nothing to see there’?

And, would that be the same “Christopher Wray” who unarguably ‘stonewalled’ Congress on information it sought concerning the Russia hoax and “drug the feet of his agency” relative to the Obama administration’s role in “spying” on the Trump campaign and Administration?

Maybe the ‘former Bill Barr’ would have been more perceptive in assessing the information his subordinate, Wray, was feeding him on those matters. Or, maybe not.

But one thing seems clear to this layman: If the destruction of 30,000 emails which were under active investigation, if not subpoena, is not the very definition of “obstruction” and “destroying evidence in a possible criminal matter”, then, what is?!

It would seem no small matter that there were serious legal issues when a government official admittedly violates ‘policy’, or law, regarding the government’s ownership of all correspondence related to the official performance of the office. (If the official correspondence associated with the job duties and performance of the U.S. Secretary of State can be maintained as ‘personal’, and destroyed at the whim of that officeholder, then why do we even have a National Archives? Just askin’)

Maybe we’ll wrap up our critique of Bill Barr’s second tenure as Attorney General with his own words to the WSJ’s Kimberly Strassel in a recent interview…on why he took the job, ” The Dept. of Justice was being used as a political weapon by a “willful and small group of people…in an attempt to topple an administration.”

Finally, Barr made one curious comment that more or less, says it all: he understands, he says, “It’s painful that the system is used against Republicans and there is an AG not willing to do the same thing against Democrats”.

NO BILL, WHAT “REPUBLICANS” (Americans) WERE ASKING IS THAT YOU DO YOUR DAMN JOB, AND ASSURE THAT ‘ONE STANDARD OF JUSTICE’ (his words) IS APPLIED!        dlh

0

0

Spend’n taxpayer money illegally

First comes Moritz, Then comes Walton

Then taxpayers suffer in a miscarriage

Never mind our silliness but do read this Iowa Standard Article reporting on what appears to be misfeasance malfeasance or something that stinks on the part of two of our elected county officials (surprise they are Democrats long entrenched in office) . Thanks to TN for keeping us informed.

Scott County auditor has defrauded taxpayers, attorney failing to apply the law

0

0

William Barr is Either the Dirtiest Attorney General in History…or the Dumbest

Just another swamp creature

We go with the former. There is no doubt in our minds that this is a guy who talks a good game and is very effective in telling some people exactly what they want to hear, but at the same time conveying to other people that he intends to do the opposite.

He was the great hope of those of us who thought he was honest, genuine, and truly a person who believed in the law, the US Constitution, and the obligations he assumed when he accepted office as the US Attorney General for the second time.

But there were other people who knew exactly what he was and were confident that he would deliver our nation into their unprincipled hands…and they know who they are.

Although at first, we thought that Mr. Barr had come possibly from a ‘different era’…a time in American history where the two major political parties , while they might differ on the’ how’, were nevertheless thought to be committed to the same values and principles on which America was founded, and to the ‘rule of law’.

We allowed that maybe Barr still thought that most in Washington really were committed to the American “ideal” of freedom and a democratic republic…and there should not exist a “Deep State” which would attempt to overthrow a legitimately elected president.

Obviously we were naive to see William Barr in that light.

He accepted President Trump’s call to be AG. Mr. Trump thought he was the competent, incorruptible, honest person Washington claimed he was and the nation thought he was.

Barr told Congress during his confirmation hearing that he suspected there were people within the Justice Dept. and maybe even the previous administration who had violated their oath and acted inappropriately and possibly illegally. And, he vowed to properly investigate and see that justice was done and, if appropriate, see that those guilty of official wrongdoing were punished.

He said he would thoroughly investigate the so-called “Russia Hoax” and the alleged Hillary email scandal.

After a year of investigation by the highly touted John Durham he appointed, Mr. Barr announced that a full report on the errors and wrongdoing (if any) by the Special Counsel Mueller’s months long probe which resulted in a major disruption of the Trump presidency would be presented… by the ‘end of summer’, well ahead of the November presidential election.

The “end of summer” came and went, then AG Barr announced that he would observe the ‘policy’ that prohibited him from taking any action which might disrupt the forthcoming election.

So there would be no report.

Further, the “Hillary emaii” investigation Barr had mentioned in the aftermath of his confirmation was never mentioned again. Barr did disclose, however, only some in the FBI would face any sanctions whatever if wrongdoing was disclosed in a report. Certainly the previous president and his Vice President, then a presidential candidate, would not be in any legal jeopardy, Barr assured us..

Barr also made a grand flourish with an announcement that Durham had been upgraded to Special Counsel so that he could continue his “investigation” into the “Russia” matter after the change in administrations.

Barr also revealed that, despite over 100 affidavits from people involved in the election oversight, from all over the nation, attesting that there was fraud, and considerable photographic evidence to that effect, Mr. Barr found that there was “no indication of any widespread election fraud” he could see!

And now, this “incorruptible paragon of Justice”, the impeccable, honest, forthright, and courageous ‘man of the law’, has also , as he heads ‘out the door’, announced that he has every confidence that a ‘President Biden’ will see that a full, fair, proper investigation of his son’s potentially criminal “business dealings” with foreign countries, in which the “president” himself has been allegedly implicated, will be done.

Mr. Barr…Good Riddance…but far too late for America. Whether you are the dishonest, corrupt person we think you are, or one of the dumbest men to ever serve in an official capacity, the damage you have done to this nation may never be undone!              dlh

The Hill  Barr: No need for special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, election fraud 

Attorney General William Barr on Monday said he saw no reason to tap a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden’s finances or claims of election fraud.

Barr, speaking at a Justice Department press conference about new charges in the Lockerbie bombing case, did not comment extensively on the Hunter Biden investigation but said it was being handled “appropriately.”

“I think to the extent that there’s an investigation I think that it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently within the department,” Barr, who is leaving office this week, told reporters. “To this point, I have not seen a reason to appoint a special counsel and I have no plan to do so before I leave.”The comments could lead to more friction between Barr and President Trump, who has reportedly discussed pushing for a special counsel to be appointed to take over the investigation into President-elect Joe Biden’s son.The investigation is currently being run out of the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware and said to relate to Hunter Biden’s foreign work. Hunter Biden acknowledged the existence of the investigation earlier this month, saying it is focused on his tax affairs.

In another rebuke to Trump, Barr also said he saw no need to tap a special counsel to investigate claims of fraud in the presidential election. Trump is said to have discussed the possibility of naming Sidney Powell, a proponent of election-related conspiracy theories, as a special counsel to investigate claims of fraud.
Barr also said there was “no basis” for a federal seizure of voting machines, an idea that has been floated by Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, according to The New York Times.”If I thought a special counsel at this stage was the right tool and was appropriate I would name one, but I haven’t and I’m not going to,” Barr told reporters.The news conference is likely Barr’s last before he steps down from his position at the Justice Department. Barr is slated to leave his post on Wednesday, roughly a month before President-elect Biden will take office.

Trump announced last week that Barr would depart his position early. While Trump maintained that the two had a “very good” relationship, the president had grown angry with Barr after he contradicted Trump’s claims about election fraud.Barr told The Associated Press in an interview earlier this month that the Justice Department had not found evidence of widespread fraud that would change the outcome of the election.

“I stand by that statement,” Barr told reporters on Monday, referring to the comments he made in the interview.

0

0

• Hard data list comparisons show extensive fraud
• Forensic exam of electronic evidence denied
• Lawyer’s opening statement embedded herein

From a related Epoch Times Report:

“YouTube has decided that my opening statement in the U.S. [Senate], given under oath and based upon hard evidence, is too dangerous for you to see; they removed it. To this day, ‘our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.’ Why is Google so afraid of the truth? #BigBrother,” lawyer Jesse Binnall wrote on Twitter.

Another video of his testimony at the hearing, uploaded on Dec. 17 by a separate account, appeared to still be up.

We obtained this from the alternative placement on YouTube mentioned above, so they either have not caught up to it or have relented to some extent. In case they root it out, view/link here for posterity.

0

0

Story hit late this past week:

Government Agency Chimes in on Employers Requiring COVID Vaccines 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Wednesday issued guidelines saying employers can require their employees to obtain the Wuhan coronavirus vaccine. The federal agency said this requirement does not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, commonly referred to as the ADA.

The EEOC did so using convoluted reasoning and non sequiturs. Further, ADA is not the only matter in play, certainly as regards state action (public employees) and here we suggest aspects to the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th,and 14th Amendments are applicable and should be protective of the right not to be forced into vaccination given what we know about the communicably of COVID 19 and alternatives to doing so, the effectiveness and dependability of any such vaccine, the actual dangers of the disease, and the implications of such mandates in such circumstances as a precedent .

People should not be generally required to be injected with anything in order to make a living based on flimsy science. And, since the goal of herd immunity could be achieved by as little as 20% getting the Wuhan flu* or, supposedly if the vaccine is effective, in combination with that, so not all that many people need to be vaccinated to arrive at herd immunity anyway or certainly reluctance should be allowed for. The EEOC ruling needs to be changed/rescinded, countermanded by law, by superior directive or court ruling, what ever it takes.

By the way, as regards those vaccines that involve cell lines from aborted babies, personally I have a problem with eating, ingesting or injecting someone’s child, parts or progeny or illicit gains at someone else’s expense in order to save myself or anyone else, especially when there is no irrefutable purpose or actual general need and then as regards a disease that is not a significant threat to the general population in that it has a 98% + survival rate. If the COVID -19 vaccines involve cell lines from aborted babies, or if they actually alter DNA (reports vary) the interpretation of law the EEOC has promulgated  can result in terrible discrimination based on religion for purposes that are scientifically indefensible.

As regards any vaccines that are not ethically compromised in that regard, any requirement should  be very narrowly applied with exceptions allowed.  There was no general requirement for “vaccines” for more deadly flu strains and should not be for this one.

Further I object to mandatory ingestion of substances manufactured or distributed by entities I have no recourse to (or about) for damages  should they harm me. The government has “immunized” the manufacturers from law suits and the FDA will not be liable either.

R Mall

* article in Reason magazine references a number of studies about the percentage required for herd immunity for COVID-19, one as low as 20%, and combine that with studies that show casual asymptomatic spread is low for COVID-19 even with cohabitating members of the same household .

0

0

• A PLACE FOR JOE…the White House (?)
• (It’s expensive, but Dominion can get getchya in….)

What! Me Worry? Joey and his caregiver appear on Stephen Colbert (pronounced COAL-BARE).

Now, it could be a rumor, but an expert lip reader noted that, as the ‘interview was ending,  Thursday night’s show, “Dr. Jill” whispered to ‘Joey’: “Now remember, he’s not Johnny Carson”.   And Joe did remember . . .                                                                dlh

The grandiose Dr Jill, her of ED repute, the must have degree for teachers teaching teachers, not the malady afflicting Joe (thank God for Joe’s malady). Her’s was from the Delaware mill for such, her dissertation as insightful a contribution to human knowledge as a two page article in Vanity Fair. And with Joe having a Jurist DOCTORATE as in JD, as in along with every other law school graduate, well we should probably start calling all those lawyers around town “Doctor”.  Which reminds us of this ditty:

0

0

Dear Democrats: if you are so sure everything in the elction was fine, no fraud sufficient to alter the true outcome  – then let the 74 mill rest of country be assured and let the evidence be presented, have the magnanimity of joining in the suits and call for open hearings with force of law — in the interest of free and fair elections and allowing the country to rest assured that they exist.

The Epoch Times published an interview with Jenna Ellis today, member of the official Trump legal team.  The article accompanying the interview is set forth below but the 16 minute interview is very instructive and highly recommended –  we hope to embed it hear later today or go to the link.

One take away – we wish Iowa had recall of elected officials

Jenna Ellis to the American People: ‘Take Heart, This Is Not Over Yet’ 

Trump legal adviser Jenna Ellis on Wednesday urged the American people concerned with election integrity to have hope in the ongoing efforts aimed at exposing voter irregularities and alleged fraud.

“I would just say to the American people: Take heart. This is not over yet. And we absolutely have every intention of continuing to fight for election integrity,” Ellis told The Epoch Times’ American Thought Leaders.

Trump’s legal team, which is led by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, is fighting against the clock to ensure that the sanctity of the ballot box is preserved. The team and its allies have been building a case to ensure that all concerns about voting irregularities and alleged unconstitutional actions passed by state and election officials in the 2020 election are investigated to secure confidence in the election outcome for all.

Although Dec. 14, the day that presidential electors case their votes for president, has come and gone, Ellis argues that President Donald Trump still has time to challenge the election results and that state legislatures still have time to decide which set of votes from dueling slates of delegates to send to Congress on Jan. 6, the day when the electoral college votes are counted.

This comes after Republican electors in seven states cast alternate votes for President Donald Trump, setting up a new challenge for Congress when they count the votes next month. Critics argue that those votes are merely symbolic and have no force of the law. However, alternate votes have been accepted by Congress before.

In 1960, Democrats successfully cast an alternative set of votes for John F. Kennedy in Hawaii after the state’s governor certified the electors for Richard Nixon amid a recount. Congress ultimately counted the votes from Kennedy electors, who were signed off by the governor as well, even though he wasn’t declared the winner in the election until 11 days after Nixon’s electors were certified.

Republicans in the seven states said their rationale for sending dueling electors to Congress was to preserve Trump’s legal claim in the election as his team pursues legal challenges over the counting of “illegal votes.” The offices of the Nevada and Pennsylvania secretary of state told The Epoch Times that they have only received the certificates of the vote from Democratic electors and not Republicans.
Ellis is urging state legislatures in the contested states to hold an electoral session to consider evidence of potential election fraud and pass a resolution to send to the Republican slate of electors.

“If one state is willing to do this, I think others will follow,” she said.
She also believes it is the responsibility of every American to protect free and fair elections, noting that there is a group of Americans who would like to get to the bottom of all the allegations.

“It’s incumbent, though, upon every American—regardless of who you voted for, whether or not you like the outcome of this election—to stop any cheating, to stop any lawlessness, to stop anything that runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution to make sure to protect free and fair elections,” she said. “I think there is a movement among the American people who really want to get to the bottom of these questions.”

She added that every state legislature should also be looking at their own laws and their own administration to ensure the integrity of votes.

Ellis said Americans have the ultimate say in holding their leaders accountable for their actions, and there are a series of actions that can be taken to ensure that politicians are held responsible.

“We can do that through not only contacting them and through putting pressure on them to continuing this fight, not only in the media, but also to make sure that our elected officials know that that’s what we expect of them—to take election integrity seriously,” she said.

She said that Americans in some of the contested states could also consider initiating recall petitions—a procedure that allows citizens to recall and replace public officials before their term ends. The petition requires a specific number of signatures over a specified period of time. If a valid number of signatures are collected, then a recall election can be held. Different states have different rules for this procedure.
“And so now, when we’re looking at the state legislatures, if that branch fails, then it’s up to ‘We the People’ to make sure that we go through the constitutional processes, that we can then change those who are in authority because no person in the United States is entitled to government authority,” she said.

0

0

Mitch McConnell’s  words: “As of this morning, our country officially has a president-elect and a vice president-elect. Today I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden,” McConnell said.

“Officially” by who or what indisputable standard Senator?  Or is that word “officially’ a hedge?  It is unnecessary to hedge or to think about acknowledging anything until January 6th when Congress meets to accept or not accept the electoral tally.  Your congratulating of Biden is  disloyal now unless Trump concedes — and we hope he does not until certainty exists.

It should be noted that Al Gore only conceded to Bush after the Supreme Court decision which actually finalized the results.  That has not happened as  petitions and cases are being brought forward by Trump (and others).  See here and here.

And as regards Lindsey Graham who has also declared Biden the victor, who comes out with this: Lindsey Graham: ‘Social Media Companies And Mail-In Voting Will Destroy Conservatism If We Don’t Push Back’

Really Lindsey —  how is that — because of cheating possibilities  perhaps or undue influence , coverups, propaganda, lying — well that just happened.  Why are you conceding an election with strong evidence of widespread cheating by those methods just weeks ago?

Related reading:  Mark Levin slams McConnell for congratulating Biden today as ‘president-elect’

0

0