House committee holds hearing on the January 6 storming of the US Capitol. PROOF of FALSE REALITY for round one NEWS MEDIA & GOVERNMENT.

I remember when TO2 had found evidence of something similar when they were supposedly holding those emergency hearings about the voter fraud that was forensically revealed by certain State auditors directly after the 2020 Presidential election. There were some anomalies with the publishing dates / Metadata that was embedded within the description of the YouTube video. The times tamps kept changing each time Tim went back to look at the video.

Of course all this January 6th mania is part of our fake reality Clownworld sideshow, designed to keep the sheep distracted, divided and demoralized. They know exactly what they are doing and the fact that most people fall for this garbage is absolutely inexcusable. One must realize that it’s not just the 2020 Presidential election that was a sham. Our whole reality is a scam in itself. Every shred of the mainstream media’s

I really like this Donna Scott Twitter account. I think I used to be subscribed to her but Twatts unsubscribed me from her feed.

https://adrenogate.net/wp/2020/11/27/timestamp-on-pa-voter-fraud-hearing-changed-multiple-times-as-view-count-increased-wtf-is-happening/

Source

Poll: GOP Holds Same Generic Ballot Lead as Week Before Roe Overturned

A Raaumessen Reports poll reveals that a generic Republican candidate holds the same 5-point lead over a generic Democrat candidate as the week before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The poll, published Friday, shows that 47 percent of respondents would cast a ballot for a Republican candidate if the midterm elections were held when they were surveyed. Conversely, 42 percent of those surveyed would back a Democrat.

The five-point differential is the same as a generic Congressional ballot poll released by Rasmussen Reports, the week before Roe was overturned, where 46 percent said they would support a Republican Congressional candidate, while a generic Democrat candidate drew 41 percent of the vote.

Granted, the lead for a generic Republican did expand to 48-40 in the Rasmussen Reports generic poll released on June 24. The same day, the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case came down, overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion an issue for state legislatures to decide, which very well could explain the minor dip from an eight-point lead to a five-point lead week over week.

In the latest poll, Rasmussen Reports noted that Republicans are ahead primarily due to a 15-point lead among the independent demographic, as 44 percent of respondents without a party affiliation said they would vote for a Republican candidate. In comparison, 29 percent of independents said they would cast a ballot for a generic Democrat.

When referenced with last week’s findings, the poll shows no change in point differential among independent voters as 45 percent of the demographic would back a generic Republican, while 30 percent of voters would elect a generic Democrat. On June 18, Republicans held a 14-point advantage among independents, so the lead among independents has expanded and held on the heels of the Dobbs decision.

The current poll also shows that 62 percent of black Americans would vote Democrat while 23 percent would support a Republican. In terms of other minorities, 42 percent stated they would vote for a GOP candidate, which is a point higher than the 41 percent who would back a Democrat.

The survey was conducted from June 26-30 and sampled 2,500 likely voters in the United States and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus two percent.

Source

EXCLUSIVE: Ginni Thomas Demands Context From J6 Panel Before She’ll Cooperate With The Hostile Probe

EXCLUSIVE: Ginni Thomas Demands Context From J6 Panel Before She’ll Cooperate With The Hostile Probe

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a prominent conservative activist who is also married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is demanding that the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 elaborate on its basis for soliciting testimony over privately petitioning her own government.

Hours after the Jan. 6 Committee wrapped up its sixth hearing on Tuesday, Ginni’s attorney, Mark Paoletta, sent a letter to the panel’s leadership requesting specifics on why the probe with an open animosity for the Thomas family seeks to publicly drag his client before lawmakers.

“Mrs. Thomas is eager to clear her name and is willing to appear before the Committee to do so,” Paoletta wrote to Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo. “However, based on my understanding of the communications that spurred the Committee’s request, I do not understand the need to speak with Mrs. Thomas.”

In March, Ginni became the center of a fabricated controversy related to the Jan. 6 Committee’s investigation when the panel leaked a series of private text messages with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The messages, 29 in all, revealed a conservative activist pleading with a government official to continue investigating allegations of election fraud in the pandemic-era contest, which included record-level turnout in the form of mail-in voting that was ripe for misconduct.

Committee members escalated their efforts to compel Ginni’s testimony earlier this month after more private communications were revealed with individuals involved in former President Donald Trump’s efforts to halt certification of the 2020 election. Thompson told Axios his colleagues on the panel “think it’s time that we, at some point, invite her [Thomas] to come talk to the committee.”

Ginni said shortly after she looked “forward to talking to them.”

“I can’t wait to clear up misconceptions,” she told the Daily Caller.

Further examination of the committee’s request, however, has given Ginni pause.

The panel’s request focuses on Ginni’s communications with attorney and law professor John Eastman, who produced legal theories to justify delays in certification of the electoral college. The extent of the pair’s contact, however, as outlined by Paoletta, stretches to generic emails forwarded by Ginni on a large distribution list and an invitation to speak to a group of conservative activists, a type of event Ginni organizes regularly.

“Not a single document shows any coordination between Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Eastman,” Paoletta wrote.

Paoletta also outlined skepticism that the committee was operating in good faith in its desire to bring Ginni before lawmakers, considering her husband is among the most targeted members of the Supreme Court.

In 2014, Thompson stood by his comments calling Justice Thomas “Uncle Tom” in a speech with the New Nation of Islam, which believes “intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited.”

Thomas “doesn’t like black people, [and] he doesn’t like being black,” the congressman said.

“These statements by the Committee’s chairman certainly raise alarm bells when the committee says that it wants to speak with Mrs. Thomas,” Paoletta wrote.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

Not Possible: Donald Trump Mocks Allegation He Tried to Grab Steering Wheel of the Presidential Limo on January 6

Not Possible: Donald Trump Mocks Allegation He Tried to Grab Steering Wheel of the Presidential Limo on January 6

Former President Donald Trump ridiculed testimony from a former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, about his actions on January 6th.

Hutchinson claimed that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential limousine, known as “The Beast,” after his January 6 speech to supporters, and steer the vehicle toward the Capitol Building.

She testified that she heard details about the story at the White House from Tony Ornato, the Assistant Director of the United States Secret Service Office of Training at the time, while serving the president.

In response, Trump referred to Hutchinson’s testimony as a “fake story” on social media.

“Wouldn’t even have been possible to do such a ridiculous thing,” he wrote.

Hutchinson, an aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, testified about Trump’s actions to the special Congressional committee investigating the Capitol Hill riots on January 6.

Trump promised, during his speech on January 6, to march to Capitol Hill with his supporters to protest Congress certifying the 2020 election results.

But when the president was told by his security detail they would not take him to the Capitol, he was upset.

Hutchinson testified that Trump told his security detail, “The president said something to the effect of, ‘I’m the f-ing president, take me up to the Capitol now,’” she said, and then lunged at the steering wheel, citing the story that Ornato told her.

She also said that Trump “used his free hand” to lunge at his security detail.

“When Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicle,” Hutchinson said.
Hutchinson’s testimony offered new alleged details about the president’s actions on that day as the Democrat-led committee continues to try to paint Trump as an unhinged maniac who posed a serious threat to American democracy.

She was not physically present for the events she described but based her testimony on hearsay she got from a member of the Secret Service.

Source

Exclusive: Former White House Staffer Confirms Jan. 6 Committee Lied About DOJ Attorney

Exclusive: Former White House Staffer Confirms Jan. 6 Committee Lied About DOJ Attorney

Over the weekend, former Department of Justice lawyer Ken Klukowski called on the Jan. 6 Committee to release the full transcript of his deposition testimony to correct the lies they told about him to the American public. Now The Federalist has exclusively obtained a statement from a former White House staffer confirming Klukowski’s claims.

Last Thursday, the Jan. 6, 2021 show trial continued, with the Democrat-stacked committee presenting testimony concerning a draft letter Jeff Clark, a former assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice, proposed sending to the Georgia legislature.

That draft letter, dated December 28, 2020, stated the Department of Justice was investigating the 2020 election and recommended the Georgia legislature convene a special session to “evaluate the irregularities in the 2020 election including violations of Georgia election law,” and “determine whether those violations show which candidate for President won the most legal votes in the November 3 election.” The draft letter then suggested the General Assembly could appoint an alternative set of electors based on its findings.

The draft letter’s signature line included spaces for Clark, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue. But when Clark pitched the idea of sending the letter to Georgia officials, Rosen and Donoghue rejected the idea out of hand, because it was “not the department’s role to suggest or dictate to state legislatures how they should select their electors,” and “for the department to insert itself into the political process this way,” Donoghue told the committee, “may very well have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis.”

Donoghue was blunter with Clark in person, with Donoghue testifying he told Clark, “What you are doing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election.”

While last Thursday’s hearing by the Jan. 6 Committee centered on Clark and his efforts to have the letter sent to the Georgia legislature, the committee connected another DOJ attorney to Clark’s efforts, Klukowski—and did so by blatantly lying to the American public.

The Jan. 6 Committee Is Lying

Klukowski called out the Jan. 6 Committee’s fraud over the weekend in a public statement that began: “The January 6 Committee falsely accused me on Thursday of being a go-between in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. That accusation is false both in its broad outlines and its details. Since the Committee first contacted me, I have cooperated without hesitation, provided it with hundreds of documents, and sat for many hours of recorded depositions. The information produced from those efforts fully contradicts the Committee’s statements regarding my actions, yet the Committee has chosen to keep such information to itself rather than share it with the public.”

The former DOJ lawyer then detailed in his public statement four false accusations levied against him by the Jan.6 Committee. First, Klukowski exposed Rep. Liz Cheney’s false portrayal of him as being sent by John Eastman to work under Clark. While Cheney fraudulently told the country that Klukowski “was specifically assigned to work under Jeff Clark,” Klukowski provided the committee documents establishing that his transfer to “the Civil Division of the DOJ was in the works since July 2020, long before Jeff Clark was the acting head of that Division.”

In an interview with The Federalist over the weekend, Klukowski stressed that during questioning by the Jan. 6 Committee—which exceeded more than 12 total hours—he made clear that he had been working on the transfer since mid-summer, hoping to move to the DOJ civil division to obtain more litigation experience, and that the transfer had been preliminarily approved in September 2020. Klukowski added that he also provided the committee detailed information that would allow them to confirm his testimony.

“I told the committee that I spoke with Camellia Delaplane, then a DOJ liaison to the White House who handled personnel placement, and provided the House Committee the date, September 10, 2020,” Klukowski told The Federalist. “I also suggested the committee review our email exchanges confirming my testimony, since they clearly had access to that information.”

Evidence Backs Up Klukowski’s Statements

Klukowski added that even before he met with Delaplane he sat down in July with the White House staffer responsible for coordinating senior DOJ appointments, Andrew Kloster. Klukowski told The Federalist that he shared with Kloster his desire to move to the DOJ civil division.

When reached by telephone yesterday, Kloster confirmed these details, adding even more texture to Klukowski’s recollection of the meeting.

“As a part of my oversight over the senior legal hires, I reached out to Ken, because I knew he had been one of our best at the Office of Management and Budget. Ken told me that he wanted to pivot to conservative public interest litigation, so rather than heading to be an agency deputy general counsel or general counsel in a Trump term two, I pushed to move him to DOJ’s Civil Division,” Kloster told The Federalist. Kloster added, “that meant a lot of back end process that took time, including speaking with Klukowski’s boss, with other White House officials, and with the Department of Justice.”

“Ken’s transfer had nothing to do with the election,” Kloster confirmed, telling The Federalist his discussions with Klukowski occurred months earlier.

Kloster then took aim at the House committee: “The January 6th investigation is all about attacking mid-level and senior staff like Ken, to ensure that we don’t have a farm team in 2024, no matter who the president is. This isn’t about truth, but about making it impossible for conservatives to successfully enter and leave government.”

Public Record Confirms Klukowski’s Account

Not only did Kloser confirm Klukowski’s account, as did the various documents accessible to the Jan. 6 Committee concerning the timing and purpose of the transfer, the public record confirms Klukowski sought litigation experience in the civil division. Specifically, in the brief 36 days that Klukowski served in the civil division—a fact Cheney presented as suspicious—Klukowski argued and won two federal appeals (completely unrelated to election issues) in the Ninth Circuit, including a complex and important case involving abstention.

Klukowski also denounced the committee for falsely suggesting he was working with Eastman to convince Vice President Mike Pence that Pence had the power to reject electors from various states based on “ongoing disputes” over the election. The committee spun that narrative by highlighting “an email recommending that Mr. Klukowski and Dr. Eastman brief Vice President Pence and his staff,” apparently on that theory.

However, as Klukowski detailed in his public statement, he “never briefed or advised Vice President Pence, or his staff, regarding any matter, including the 2020 election or the January 6 joint session of Congress,” and any “outside suggestion that [he] do so was not made with my involvement.” Klukowski went further, though, noting that “had anyone, including the Vice President, asked, I would have expressed my view that I disagreed with John Eastman’s theory on the powers of the Vice President at the January 6 joint session of Congress.”

During his weekend interview with The Federalist, Klukowski countered the Eastman theory, stating that “the opinion of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas in Bush v. Gore explains what the Constitution has to say about how electors are appointed in presidential elections. Consistent with that opinion, my view has always been that December 14, 2020, was the deadline for appointing all such electors.”

In the statement Klukowski issued in response to the committee’s Thursday hearing, he stressed that he had told the committee those views in his “sworn testimony,” and had provided the committee “documents reflecting my expression of such views.”

A Mountain of Lies

Klukowski also took issue with the committee’s portrayal of him as an author of the letter, when in fact his role as Clark’s “subordinate was to commit his dictations and outline to writing and fill in legal citations at the direction of my then-boss over the course of a single day.” Klukowski said he had no knowledge that any of the statements included in the letter were false, nor that Rosen and Donoghue did not intend to sign the letter.

Nor was there anything in the content of the letter that suggested it represented part of a plan to execute Eastman’s theory to reject the electors. Again, Klukowski stressed that he “provided all of this information to the committee during [his] depositions.”

“I was concerned the committee might make cynical assumptions during its investigation of January 6,” Klukowski told The Federalist, “but, I was stunned that the committee would make claims about me for which it had a mountain of evidence establishing, for certain, those statements were false.”

Klukowski added that his deposition testimony—which easily ran in the hundreds of pages—would fully expose the committee’s presentation as fraudulent. Klukowski, however, told The Federalist that he does not have a copy of the transcript, which is why he called on the Jan. 6 Committee to release it to the public.

The Federalist contacted Cheney’s office to inquire whether the committee would release the full transcript of Klukowski’s deposition testimony, as requested, or if not, why not. The Federalist also asked whether she disputed any aspect of Klukowski’s statement, which when compared to the Jan. 6 Committee’s Thursday proceedings leaves but one conclusion: The committee fraudulently portrayed an innocent DOJ attorney as complicit in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, and did so with malice.

Cheney’s spokesman did not respond to The Federalist’s questions. House Republicans, however, should not let the atrocious slurs spun by Cheney and the committee go unanswered, especially since the immunity provided by the Speech and Debate Clause prevents Klukowski from obtaining any sort of recompense from those who slandered him.

Republican leaders in the House should demand that the Jan. 6 Committee immediately release the full deposition transcripts for all witnesses—because if they fabricated Klukowski’s role in the alleged conspiracy, they likely lied about what other witnesses said as well.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

J6 Committee Ignores Witness’s Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election

J6 Committee Ignores Witness’s Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election

Ben Ginsberg, a January 6th committee witness, works under one of the organizations whose “Zuck Bucks” funding may have compromised the 2020 election — a fact committee representatives did not disclose during the televised hearing on June 13.

Ginsberg is the co-chair of the Election Official Legal Defense Network (EOLDN), which “connects licensed, qualified, pro bono attorneys with election administrators who need advice or assistance.” EOLDN is a project of the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). As The Federalist previously reported, CEIR’s grants to states for “nonpartisan voter education” ahead of the 2020 election may have given Democrats an advantage in key states.

Through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Priscilla Chan and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg donated $69.5 million to CEIR as well as $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

Mollie Hemingway, Editor in Chief of The Federalist, writes in her book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections” that CEIR and CTCL did not merely attempt to influence the election from the outside but to infiltrate them from within.

“What made 2020 different was that for the first time ever, the groups that supported Democrats were allowed, on a widespread basis, to cross that bright red line that separates government officials who administer an election from political operatives,” Hemingway writes. “Unelected liberal activists were allowed to embed in government offices and actually take over election administration duties in crucial battleground states.”

While CEIR claims to be nonpartisan, The Star News Network reported that in 2020 the group gave a $12 million grant to the Michigan Center for Election Law and Administration, which used $11.8 million of this grant to pay two Democratic political consulting firms.

Earlier this year, the State of Wisconsin Office of the Special Counsel published an investigative report stating that for Wisconsin election officials accepting EOLDN’s services might be a violation of state law.

“Since EOLDN’s free legal services will have foremost in mind protecting the interests of CTCL, CEIR, Zuckerberg, and Chan, it will influence the election officials’ official actions and judgment,” the report said, continuing: “CTCL, Zuckerberg, and Chan financed the illegal drop boxes and election bribery, so EOLDN’s free legal services to the election officials could be reasonably seen as a ‘reward’ for their participation in unlawful actions related to the election.”

Neither Ginsburg, Rep. Bennie Thompson, who introduced him, nor Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who questioned him, mentioned his work under CEIR as the co-chair of EOLDN. None of them brought up CEIR or CTCL at all. The discussion of fraud focused narrowly on legal challenges from the Trump campaign and post-election reviews in battleground states, both of which Ginsberg said lacked credible evidence.


Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Source

J6 Committee Ignores Witness’s Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election

J6 Committee Ignores Witness’s Ties To Zuckerberg-Funded Group That Manipulated 2020 Election

Ben Ginsberg, a January 6th committee witness, works under one of the organizations whose “Zuck Bucks” funding may have compromised the 2020 election — a fact committee representatives did not disclose during the televised hearing on June 13.

Ginsberg is the co-chair of the Election Official Legal Defense Network (EOLDN), which “connects licensed, qualified, pro bono attorneys with election administrators who need advice or assistance.” EOLDN is a project of the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). As The Federalist previously reported, CEIR’s grants to states for “nonpartisan voter education” ahead of the 2020 election may have given Democrats an advantage in key states.

Through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Priscilla Chan and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg donated $69.5 million to CEIR as well as $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

Mollie Hemingway, Editor in Chief of The Federalist, writes in her book “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections” that CEIR and CTCL did not merely attempt to influence the election from the outside but to infiltrate them from within.

“What made 2020 different was that for the first time ever, the groups that supported Democrats were allowed, on a widespread basis, to cross that bright red line that separates government officials who administer an election from political operatives,” Hemingway writes. “Unelected liberal activists were allowed to embed in government offices and actually take over election administration duties in crucial battleground states.”

While CEIR claims to be nonpartisan, The Star News Network reported that in 2020 the group gave a $12 million grant to the Michigan Center for Election Law and Administration, which used $11.8 million of this grant to pay two Democratic political consulting firms.

Earlier this year, the State of Wisconsin Office of the Special Counsel published an investigative report stating that for Wisconsin election officials accepting EOLDN’s services might be a violation of state law.

“Since EOLDN’s free legal services will have foremost in mind protecting the interests of CTCL, CEIR, Zuckerberg, and Chan, it will influence the election officials’ official actions and judgment,” the report said, continuing: “CTCL, Zuckerberg, and Chan financed the illegal drop boxes and election bribery, so EOLDN’s free legal services to the election officials could be reasonably seen as a ‘reward’ for their participation in unlawful actions related to the election.”

Neither Ginsburg, Rep. Bennie Thompson, who introduced him, nor Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who questioned him, mentioned his work under CEIR as the co-chair of EOLDN. None of them brought up CEIR or CTCL at all. The discussion of fraud focused narrowly on legal challenges from the Trump campaign and post-election reviews in battleground states, both of which Ginsberg said lacked credible evidence.


Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Source

Why Both Republicans And Democrats Are Wrong About Bill Barr

Why Both Republicans And Democrats Are Wrong About Bill Barr

Last week, the Jan. 6“Committee” featured video clips from former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr during its hearing on the violence that erupted at the capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. For the few Americans following the show trial, Barr’s testimony seemed a denial by former President Donald Trump’s top law enforcement officer of any legitimate basis to challenge the outcome of the November 2020 election.

To Democrats, this proved Trump sought to steal the White House from Biden via a coup. To Republicans, Barr revealed himself as a traitor uninterested in investigating voter fraud. Neither view is correct.

In his deposition, Barr testified about his disagreements with the then-president about claims of election fraud. Barr resigned as attorney general on December 14, 2020, in the aftermath of the November general election as Trump continued to dispute the outcome. The day he resigned, Barr explained, when he walked in to speak with the president,

[Trump] went off on a monologue saying that there was now definitive evidence involving fraud through the Dominion machines and a report had been prepared by a very reputable cybersecurity firm, which he identified as Allied Security Operations Group. And he held up the report and he had — and then he asked that a copy of it be made for me. And while a copy was being made, he said, you know, ‘This is absolute proof that the Dominion machines were rigged.’

Barr testified to the committee that he had told the president “they’ve wasted a whole month on these claims — on the Dominion voting machines and they were idiotic claims.” There was “absolutely zero basis for the allegations,” Barr explained, yet people believed there was “this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense.”

Then-President Trump also raised what he called “the big vote dump” in Detroit, Barr explained, where “people saw boxes coming into the counting station at all hours of the morning and so forth.” Barr told the committee that he had explained to Trump that there were approximately 630 precincts in Detroit, “and unlike elsewhere in the state, they centralize the counting process. So they’re not counted in each precinct, they’re moved to counting stations. And so a normal process would involve boxes coming in at all different hours.” Barr said point blank, “There’s no indication of fraud in Detroit.”

The committee also heard testimony that Barr had directed B.J. Pak, the then-U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, to investigate a security tape from the State Farm Arena in Atlanta that Trump believed showed a suitcase of illegal ballots secreted beneath a table being pulled out after election workers had been sent home for the night. Pak explained they investigated the claims and that the longer segment on the video established the alleged black suitcase was actually an official lockbox where ballots were kept safe.

The bottom line, according to Barr’s testimony, was that he “had not seen any widespread election fraud that would question the outcome of the election,” and that “the stuff” Trump’s people “were shoveling out to the public were bullsh-t. . . the claims of fraud were bullsh-t.”

Detroit and Atlanta Weren’t the Only Concerns

Claims of election fraud, however, represented but a portion of Trump’s challenges to the November 2020 results. Also, that the above claims were “bullsh-t” says nothing about whether there were systemic violations of election law and illegal voting. Nor were those questions ones for the attorney general or the U.S. attorneys investigating allegations of fraud.

Barr made this point in his testimony when he explained that he had told Trump “the department doesn’t take sides in elections, and the department is not an extension of — of [Trump’s] legal team. And our role is to investigate fraud.” Barr’s testimony also made clear that the U.S. Department of Justice investigated claims of fraud, such as the supposed “suitcase” of ballots in Atlanta.

But what Barr didn’t investigate—and indeed shouldn’t have investigated—were the many violations of state election law highlighted by Trump’s legal team in their lawsuits challenging the election results. For instance, in Georgia, the state election code requires residents to “vote in the county in which they reside, unless they changed their residence within 30 days of the election” and “outside of the 30-day grace period, if people vote in a county in which they no longer reside, ‘their vote in that county would be illegal.’”

Trump’s legal team obtained solid evidence that as many as 30,000 Georgia residents voted illegally in their prior county in 2020. Trump never had his day in court on this challenge, though, which theoretically could have resulted in Georgia’s election results tossed.

That’s not the business of the attorney general, however, so those Republicans seeing Barr as derelict misunderstand his role. Likewise, those Democrats championing Barr’s words, believing it establishes a coup attempt by Trump, ignore that his testimony focused solely on election fraud.

Dust-Up About Alleged Vote Trafficking

The former attorney general’s testimony concerning vote harvesting perfectly illustrates the misplaced role both the right and the left sought to ascribe to Barr. During last week’s Jan. 6 Committee hearing, Barr testified it was his “opinion then” and his “opinion now” “that the election was not stolen by fraud.” He added that he hadn’t seen anything since the election that changed his “mind on that, including the ‘2,000 Mules’movie.”

The “2,000 Mules” movie, produced by Dinesh D’Souza, “includes information about an investigation by election integrity group True The Vote and features its founder Catherine Engelbrecht and its election intelligence analyst Gregg Phillips.” D’Souza’s film explains True The Vote’s use of “GPS surveillance geolocation data emitted by cellphones to help identify phones in key battleground states that made numerous trips to multiple election drop boxes and, in Georgia, to non-profits which the film does not identify.” The movie also includes videos “of persons placing multiple ballots into drop boxes—which is illegal in some states, including Georgia, unless those ballots are for family members.”

Barr told the committee that both he and the Georgia Bureau of Investigations were unimpressed with the use of cellphone geolocation data because, “if you take 2 million cell phones and — and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition you’re going to find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes.”

The former attorney general added, though, that he held “his fire” on “the photographic evidence…because I thought, well, h-ll, if they have a lot of photographs of the same person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes, you know, that’s hard to explain.” There “was a little bit of” photographic evidence from “2,000 Mules,” Barr said, but he found “it was lacking,” and that it “didn’t establish widespread illegal harvesting.”

In response to Barr’s deposition testimony, the “2,000 Mules” producer took to Twitter, challenging the former attorney general to a public debate. “What do you say, Barr?” D’Souza tweeted. “Do you dare back up your belly laughs with arguments that can withstand rebuttal and cross-examination?” D’Souza added in comments to The Epoch Times, “The hearings are one-sided propaganda, not an attempt to get to the truth.” The producer then invited people to view the evidence in “2,000 Mules” and judge for themselves.

Vote Trafficking Isn’t the AG’s Purview

Some Republicans saw Barr’s dig at D’Souza’s movie as proof the former attorney general was “totally disinterested” in election fraud, while Democrats framed Barr’s comments as establishing Trump’s attempt at a coup. Ignored by both sides, however, was what Barr said next:

The other thing is people don’t understand is that it’s not clear that even if you can show harvesting that that changes the — or the results of the election. The courts are not going to throw out votes and then figure out what votes were harvested and throw them out. You’d still — the burden on the challenging party to show that illegal votes were cast, votes were the result of undue influence or bribes or there was really, you know, the person was non compos mentis. But absent that evidence, I just didn’t see courts throwing out votes anyway.

With these few sentences Barr capsulized the disconnect between what many Trump voters believed the attorney general and federal prosecutors’ roles to be following the November 2020 election, and the reality that the Department of Justice’s focus rests on provable federal crimes. Barr tasked federal prosecutors with investigating allegations of widespread fraud, such as the manipulation of the Dominion voting machines and the supposed secreted suitcases of hidden ballots. U.S. attorney offices found the charges unfounded. And while ballot harvesting may be illegal under some states’ election codes, for the Department of Justice to get involved, more than that would be needed.

But even then, as Barr noted, that doesn’t undo the election, or rendered Georgia, Michigan, or Pennsylvania’s results void. Rather, courts hear and decide election challenges, and such challenges extend far beyond issues of election fraud. Therein is the reason Democrats’ parading of Barr’s testimony is also misplaced.

While Barr could testify concerning the cases of voter fraud the Department of Justice investigated, in the aftermath of the November 2020 election the former attorney general did not scrutinize, nor should he have, violations of state election law or potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause caused by the states’ disparate standards applied during the election.

Evidence of Widespread Illegal Votes

And Trump’s legal team had solid evidence of systemic violations of the election code and the widespread counting of illegal votes, as well as potential Equal Protection violations. Further, in the case of Georgia, there were enough illegal votes cast to likely render the state’s election results void.

Attorney General Barr, however, lacked both the authority (and the tools) to render judgment on matters of state election law. His deposition testimony to the committee also suggests that matters of election law remain outside his wheelhouse, as a court need not identify the ballots illegally harvested or cast to rule the election results invalid, as Barr seemed to suggest. Rather, under Georgia election law, if the “evidence established that there are more illegal or irregular votes than the margin of victory, the remedy is a new election.”

In other words, for Georgia’s results to be undone, Trump only needed to establish there were 11,780 illegal votes; he did not need to identify the illegally cast ballots and establish they represented votes for Biden in sufficient numbers to render him the winner.

That’s why, in his widely misrepresented telephone call with the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffenperger, Trump said, “All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes.” Trump’s legal team had found the votes, but the Georgia courts refused to timely consider Trump’s challenges.

Why Unconstitutional Voting Was Allowed

Likewise, many of the issues Trump’s legal team raised after the general election and before the results were certified, remained unanswered until a year or more later, when state courts declared the procedures used in November 2020 illegal or unconstitutional.

Nothing Barr did or could have done could have altered the reality that there is insufficient time between the November election and the certification of the vote for states to do much more than a recount and audit, and the Department of Justice to conduct a high-level investigation of what would need to be widespread and obvious fraud to be caught in time to change the outcome of an election.

Yet evidence accumulated since Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election makes clear that in every swing state, systemic violations of the election code occurred. While moving to the widespread use of mail-in voting in the name of Covid-19 exacerbated the problems, post-election scrutiny of the last general election reveals that every defect in our electoral system identified in 2005 by the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, co-chaired by Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Jim Baker, remains a problem today.

At the time, Carter and Baker warned in the commission’s 100-plus page report that “elections are the heart of democracy” and “if elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk.” The commission added as a corollary to that first principle that “confidence in elections matters equally, and in fact “is central to our nation’s democracy.”

So, when the Jan. 6 Committee show trial finally ends, Americans need to remember election integrity is not about Trump or Barr, nor Democrats or Republicans: It is about our country and her future. That future depends on a serious revamping of the American electoral system—and soon.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)