So, um, when will we get an interview with someone who isn't a lackey for the establishment?
I like Bill Barr well enough. I figure there was nothing he could do within the law about the election. But when he says Trump wasn't "disciplined" enough, he's not really saying what you and I would think: meaning Trump needed to put his phone do…
So, um, when will we get an interview with someone who isn't a lackey for the establishment?
I like Bill Barr well enough. I figure there was nothing he could do within the law about the election. But when he says Trump wasn't "disciplined" enough, he's not really saying what you and I would think: meaning Trump needed to put his phone down and text a whole lot less, maybe read a few history books and law articles. What Bill Barr means is Trump didn't "play the game." And it is all a game.
And Chris Wray is a vermin of the swamp. Trump's biggest fault was picking people from within the swamp to head the swamp, and as much as I want to give Bill Barr the benefit of the doubt, he is no less a swamp creature than anyone else, just perhaps not as scaley.
Trump's greatest virtue - his willingness to be a bare-knuckle fighter when no one else was willing - has gained him tremendous loyalty. But it's also his greatest failing. As Barr notes, he had his day in court. Perhaps if he had made better use of it, things would have been different. Perhaps if he had "played the game," we wouldn't be having this debate. The "game" is not playing to the emotions of your constituency. It's proving your case.
Proving election fraud on a major scale doesn't happen through anecdotal evidence, a few here and a few there. After a few hundred such, can we assume - or at least, strongly suspect - there's a "there there"? Sure, but that's not evidence.
Indeed the window is short, which is why Barr notes correctly it's a bad idea to waste it. Not wasting it requires discipline. Which was lacking.
Has the country been damaged? Certainly. And it's fairly evident that if Biden had confidence in his 80 million votes there is much he could have done to stamp out fraud and restore public confidence in the integrity of the election. But bear in mind it's his team that wants to abolish the electoral college. Those who wish to change the rules rarely waste energy enforcing them.
Republicans would be wise to take Barr's observation to heart, be disciplined, and make good use of the short window between the midterms and 2024.
ICBW, but I believe, just from what You've written, that You're one-a the people with tremendous loyalty to Trump. Me? No problem with that. It just indicates how to read what You right. Very glad to see You recognize some-a his failings. Actually agree with most-a what You "said."
When you said you agreed with about half (or most?), you had me curious because I thought you’d tell me which half, one way or another. That would enrich the debate.
Instead, you want to guess at my motivations. I can’t think of anything less interesting.
Anybody who looked at Trump realistically would see that Barr saw the situation through and through. Unless You think he would recommend Trump read a book. I don't think Barr is *that* silly. But, yeah, Barr meant what people would *think* he meant, because he's talking the truth of the situation that anybody can see.
Two things can be true at once: (1) Trump is a buffoon who is easy to persecute and not very professional nor "presidential," and (2) Barr only cares about those facts in so far as they affect the mass's buy-in of the status quo power structure and, perhaps, his party's chances at returning to power.
Okay, if You wanna be technical about it, there's *always* two things that aren't aligned which can be true at once.
That's a meme that's overdone, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with most, but I'm not at all sure that Barr only cares about the status quo. And can You see any good reason why he *shouldn't* care about his party's chances at returning to power.
I'm guessing You're not as concerned about that as he is, if You're thinking on supporting the buffon who is not only *not* presidential, but unfit for the office.
That meme is far from overdone. It's something people have forgotten. We're constantly trapped in a prism of two ideas, as Greg Gutfeld puts it so well.
And speaking of prisms of two ideas, there's a difference between supporting and voting for. If the Democrats give me no choice (meaning they run another "anointed" candidate like Hillary or Biden) and Republicans choose Trump, I'll vote for Trump again. But that's what people miss. We haven't had a "presidential" president in a long time. From Clinton onward (Clinton being the first president I can remember well), they were all unfit for office, more in it for the glory or the prestige or the money than for the public service. They all have the same narcissism as Trump. The only difference is Trump is more open about it (vastly more open). And Trump is by far the least immoral/amoral among them, though that is frightening to say given what he did for a living.
I care about what things *are*. Barr is all over the right about being outraged about the raid on Mar-a-Lago, but the right has a right to be outraged. Bill Barr says we need to vote people in to change things, but forgets the precedent of 2020 where we're all supposed to forget the shenanigans, from the censorship to the last minute rule changes to, yes, fraud however much there was. How do you "vote people in" in a rigged system? Barr's a smart man, a very smart man, so why is he not asking the most simple of questions.
I have news for Bill Barr. The Republican party is now the inconvenient party. It's not that it's more noble. It just didn't win the game of musical chairs. The Democrat party is useful at the moment because of its divisive dedication to idpol and will continue to be because the "deplorables" are flocking to the Republican party, and by "deplorables," I mean the mass of working and middle class that see the wild transfer of wealth upward in the guise of "public health" or "social justice" or "climate change," that are tired of the rules for thee but not for me approach we've seen over the last three years at least. If Bill Barr wants to save his party, he'll open his eyes. It's slated as the villain in this Hollywood piece, not because it did anything wrong or right, but because that has to be the story to keep the elite and the permanent state in power.
I can see You're very passionate about this. But I think it colors Your perception about what Trump is. I find a lotta very complimentary things about Trump. I don't see anything the *isn't* complementary.
So I can't accept, at face value, how You imply that You may vote for Trump but You're not necessarily a supporter.
There are some things You "say" that I agree with. But the overall tone? Not so much.
I think it's You who should open Your eyes. Bill Barr isn't interested in keeping the elite and the permanent state in power. And he sees a lot clearer where the pitfalls are and what needs to be done.
If we knew Bill Barr a little better, I don't think he'd disagree with You on very much. Just the crap about the election being stolen and the aftermath of all that which Trump did. I think he has his eyes wide open and sees things pretty clear, since he was there at the time.
The only thing I'd disagree with Barr about is that I *probably* could never get myself to vote for him. I want the Rs to do well, but I'm not as attached to the party as he is. Other than that, I can't find much to disagree with him about.
And I have a little trouble understanding how someone can't understand the difference between a voter and supporter. The only people I've come across who don't seem to be able to see that difference are the ones with TDS. There's always a difference between a voter and a supporter.
Trump did some good things. Like I've said. The bad outweighed the good. His antics since he lost the election indicate he was unfit for the office. That's why I don't agree with people who would vote for him in '24.
Yeah, I get there's a difference between a voter and a supporter. So, no it's not TDS. Nice try.
Like I said, I'm just not gonna take it at face value that You're not a supporter. For the reasons I gave. Clear?
Like I said, there's TGIF to enjoy. Why belabor the point?
So he was supposed to take what was probably the most corrupted election in decades in stride? For what reason? So that the people, including the FBI, who rigged the election can rig the next one? I know Trump had only his own interests at heart, but that doesn't mean he was anywhere close to wrong in his rage. It just means it was a self-centered rage but the reasons for it should apply to any thoughtful person who would rather this country not turn into a banana republic.
And the rest of us, who see this as setting a precedent for future elections, are supposed to take that in stride? This was *not* business as usual.
I'm not sure you understand the severity of the situation. If people don't trust elections, you have a huge problem, Trump aside. And you can't expect people to just "trust" elections, not with everything they've seen. Trust is something earned, not owed. Not that I had much faith in the electoral system to begin with. Our two party system is a joke. You get who they push on you, and there is little actual difference between the parties. But you had that tenuous faith that things could change if people just organized enough and voted. They've stolen that from a huge portion of the population. If you can't see the danger that lies down that path because it happened to the "unpresidential" man it happened to, I didn't really accuse you personally of having TDS, but that's closer to the truth than you care to admit. And, yes, you seemed to confuse a voter and a supporter trying to shame anyone who might *vote* for Trump by disparaging them as a *supporter" of a man "unfit" to be president, as if any of them are really "fit" to be president.
Sorry, but my day is winding down. I've been at the keyboard for 12 hours, less a couple short breaks.
Obviously, we disagree on whether the election was rigged. Given Trump's track record of saying elections are rigged, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could spit.
But that gets to another issue. Our whole *society* has gone from a trust society to a non-trust society. Just saw it phrased that way today. Is there any doubt. And I don't think anyone should underestimate Trump's hand in making it a lot more un-trusting. He admitted on record that he lied like a rug. Were there 30K lies like WaPo said? No? Were there uncounted numbers? Yup.
But he didn't start this. Anybody can point fingers that the other side started it. There isn't even a *point* to that discussion, but most people would want one and have that settled before any *other* discussion, right?
Yeah, I'd agree that the two parties we have are not the best. But here's where I disagree. I think it's the *extremes* both parties are willing to go to. Sure, the Ds. But also (sorry) You guys who wanna insist Trump won. There was no evidence prior to Jan. 6 that the election was stolen. Like Barr said.
I've said before, something *could* turn up, but I doubt it would've changed the election. But let's do a thought experiment: Let's both of us agree there were actually ILLEGAL actions that were big enough to change the election. (Notice the emphasis on ILlegal. If the Ds harvested ballots LEGALLY, that's a different story. A long story, no time today.)
Here's the thing that almost nobody cares to remember, although I've pointed it out plenty before:
Once the electors were CERTIFIED as valid, in mid-December, THE ELECTION WAS OVER.
Nobody want to recognize this, or if they do they don't wanna admit it. But that is one totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL thing. There was nothing that could be done after that, that wouldn't take military intervention.
Yet Trump would NOT let it go. That, sorry to say, makes him unfit for the office. The exact opposite of how Nixon handled it when HE KNEW the election was stolen. I gather pretty much everybody knew it, who were in the know.
As bad as Tricky Dick Nixon was, he had at least that much wisdom in him. Trump?
Now, as to any other guys being "fit" for office. I tend to agree there. But that's the nature of the system. Anyone who's power-hungry enough to wanna be President and Leader of the Free World, by definition, isn't gonna be fit for the office, right?
Mebbe I've confused things more than explained them. If so, sorry.
If You wanna take just one thing where I disagree with You it's this: Change is gonna happen. Nobody can stop things from changing. That's a fact. But You raise a good point if the system is *so* entrenched that the future is already *fixed*, and it's gonna be chaos at the end. And there's nothing that can be done about it.
Don't believe that, is my advice. Until the fat lady sings. I hope You can see that much, regardless of what all else above I wrote.
I don’t see him as an “establishment” (traditional power structure) figure as much as a Constitutionalist. Case in point 1: he says clearly it was up to states to pursue claims of voter fraud. That is, by law, correct. And that has happened, in Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona. Case in point 2: he correctly calls out both sides for their extra-Constitutional excesses: the impeachments, the riot at the Capitol.
Barr has great respect for the office of President, and while supporting Trump’s policies, deplored Trump’s irrationality in the role. I pretty much agree with that, and also agree Trump’s actions now risk a pivot to more rational governance as he pursues his detractors for electoral vengeance. Gotta move on, gotta figure out how not to get even, but to win.
So you really only have two choices with Bill Barr: establishment lackey or so naive it's painful. I suppose there's a third: myopic. None of those choices are good. I read the article article quickly but then I went searching for terms making sure I didn't miss something, and I didn't. I can explain why I call him a lackey with the following: You *cannot* talk about the last election w/o addressing the abuse of emergency powers to change election procedures, the censorship of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop, the abuse of the security services, and "Zuckerbucks." Bill Barr is pretending that the only thing of note in that whole election was that Donald Trump refused to concede. It wasn't. That was an election that would make banana republics go "Damn, wish I'd thought of that." And Bill Barr is only worried about what happened because it made "Republicans look bad."
As I said, I like Bill Barr just fine, but he's so deep in the DC swamp that he has no idea why people were enraged and none of that bothered him. It seems like he thought it was just "business as usual," and maybe it was, just a little too in-your-face. Trump might have lost the ballot count (might, I'm having more trouble with the idea that there was no measurable fraud the more Democrats push to make the "pandemic" election rules, which were little more than a free-for-all, permanent), but that does not in any way mean the election was anything remotely resembling democratic and wasn't "rigged."
The problem with the above and with the undermining of our institutions with what Barr calls partisanship but I think is closer to servitude to a very specific subset of interests (the establishment) that are really pretty apolitical is that a country, let alone a democracy, *cannot* survive without faith in elections and faith in our governing institutions. Trump did not shake people's faith in those. The Democrats, the Republicans, and the bureaucrats did in their quest to keep up this game where they give lip service to serving their constituencies but behind closed doors serve themselves and their donors. And Bill Barr is part of that system and has been for a long time. It doesn't mean I hate him. He's just part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
And the reason he defended Trump up to that last stretch is that Trump is not really a threat to the elite either. The people Trump attracted are, but Trump is not. Unless because of him people start to realize how crooked the system actually is and people start going to the source of the problem, which is to say to Capitol Hill. That is where Trump lost Barr. However corrupt the system is, Barr still can't think outside it.
I can hear your passion and I share your concerns about the integrity of elections. I just don’t interpret Barr’s words and actions the same way you do. On a scale of 1 to 100, I would still put Barr at about 80 for upholding the Constitution, and trying to do what was best for the country.
As a very deliberative attorney I think he speaks quite precisely when he wants to. And then there is his family connection to Epstein...and how many connections to Epstein's clients? Which is to say, I see good reasons to wonder how far from the swamp and its stench Barr truly is.
You didn't even try to take in what the Lady wrote, did You.
Deranged Trump Supporter, probably.
I dunno the Lady in the Lake *personally* but i *seriously* doubt she thinks there are no guilty people in prisons. But to You guys, that's just the kind of attack I would expect You to make.
Charming. You can't make any substantive replies to my substantive points.
That why You wrote Your other comment and this one.
You're only fooling Yourself with Your ad hominems. But just what I would expect from a delusional Trump-supporter. I don't think that's a coincidence.
So, um, when will we get an interview with someone who isn't a lackey for the establishment?
I like Bill Barr well enough. I figure there was nothing he could do within the law about the election. But when he says Trump wasn't "disciplined" enough, he's not really saying what you and I would think: meaning Trump needed to put his phone down and text a whole lot less, maybe read a few history books and law articles. What Bill Barr means is Trump didn't "play the game." And it is all a game.
And Chris Wray is a vermin of the swamp. Trump's biggest fault was picking people from within the swamp to head the swamp, and as much as I want to give Bill Barr the benefit of the doubt, he is no less a swamp creature than anyone else, just perhaps not as scaley.
Trump's greatest virtue - his willingness to be a bare-knuckle fighter when no one else was willing - has gained him tremendous loyalty. But it's also his greatest failing. As Barr notes, he had his day in court. Perhaps if he had made better use of it, things would have been different. Perhaps if he had "played the game," we wouldn't be having this debate. The "game" is not playing to the emotions of your constituency. It's proving your case.
Proving election fraud on a major scale doesn't happen through anecdotal evidence, a few here and a few there. After a few hundred such, can we assume - or at least, strongly suspect - there's a "there there"? Sure, but that's not evidence.
Indeed the window is short, which is why Barr notes correctly it's a bad idea to waste it. Not wasting it requires discipline. Which was lacking.
Has the country been damaged? Certainly. And it's fairly evident that if Biden had confidence in his 80 million votes there is much he could have done to stamp out fraud and restore public confidence in the integrity of the election. But bear in mind it's his team that wants to abolish the electoral college. Those who wish to change the rules rarely waste energy enforcing them.
Republicans would be wise to take Barr's observation to heart, be disciplined, and make good use of the short window between the midterms and 2024.
I can agree with about half of this.
ICBW, but I believe, just from what You've written, that You're one-a the people with tremendous loyalty to Trump. Me? No problem with that. It just indicates how to read what You right. Very glad to see You recognize some-a his failings. Actually agree with most-a what You "said."
When you said you agreed with about half (or most?), you had me curious because I thought you’d tell me which half, one way or another. That would enrich the debate.
Instead, you want to guess at my motivations. I can’t think of anything less interesting.
Gimme a break. I've likely posted a couple hundred comments or more. And You wanna *berate* me because mine wasn't in sufficient *detail* for You.
Your motivations come out pretty clear. And I might-a even decided to fulfill Your wish. You made that impossible. As You say, how uninteresting.
No. Sorry.
Anybody who looked at Trump realistically would see that Barr saw the situation through and through. Unless You think he would recommend Trump read a book. I don't think Barr is *that* silly. But, yeah, Barr meant what people would *think* he meant, because he's talking the truth of the situation that anybody can see.
Two things can be true at once: (1) Trump is a buffoon who is easy to persecute and not very professional nor "presidential," and (2) Barr only cares about those facts in so far as they affect the mass's buy-in of the status quo power structure and, perhaps, his party's chances at returning to power.
Okay, if You wanna be technical about it, there's *always* two things that aren't aligned which can be true at once.
That's a meme that's overdone, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with most, but I'm not at all sure that Barr only cares about the status quo. And can You see any good reason why he *shouldn't* care about his party's chances at returning to power.
I'm guessing You're not as concerned about that as he is, if You're thinking on supporting the buffon who is not only *not* presidential, but unfit for the office.
That meme is far from overdone. It's something people have forgotten. We're constantly trapped in a prism of two ideas, as Greg Gutfeld puts it so well.
And speaking of prisms of two ideas, there's a difference between supporting and voting for. If the Democrats give me no choice (meaning they run another "anointed" candidate like Hillary or Biden) and Republicans choose Trump, I'll vote for Trump again. But that's what people miss. We haven't had a "presidential" president in a long time. From Clinton onward (Clinton being the first president I can remember well), they were all unfit for office, more in it for the glory or the prestige or the money than for the public service. They all have the same narcissism as Trump. The only difference is Trump is more open about it (vastly more open). And Trump is by far the least immoral/amoral among them, though that is frightening to say given what he did for a living.
I care about what things *are*. Barr is all over the right about being outraged about the raid on Mar-a-Lago, but the right has a right to be outraged. Bill Barr says we need to vote people in to change things, but forgets the precedent of 2020 where we're all supposed to forget the shenanigans, from the censorship to the last minute rule changes to, yes, fraud however much there was. How do you "vote people in" in a rigged system? Barr's a smart man, a very smart man, so why is he not asking the most simple of questions.
I have news for Bill Barr. The Republican party is now the inconvenient party. It's not that it's more noble. It just didn't win the game of musical chairs. The Democrat party is useful at the moment because of its divisive dedication to idpol and will continue to be because the "deplorables" are flocking to the Republican party, and by "deplorables," I mean the mass of working and middle class that see the wild transfer of wealth upward in the guise of "public health" or "social justice" or "climate change," that are tired of the rules for thee but not for me approach we've seen over the last three years at least. If Bill Barr wants to save his party, he'll open his eyes. It's slated as the villain in this Hollywood piece, not because it did anything wrong or right, but because that has to be the story to keep the elite and the permanent state in power.
When I said "no matter," I just meant there's a real nice TGIF out there already.
I can see You're very passionate about this. But I think it colors Your perception about what Trump is. I find a lotta very complimentary things about Trump. I don't see anything the *isn't* complementary.
So I can't accept, at face value, how You imply that You may vote for Trump but You're not necessarily a supporter.
There are some things You "say" that I agree with. But the overall tone? Not so much.
I think it's You who should open Your eyes. Bill Barr isn't interested in keeping the elite and the permanent state in power. And he sees a lot clearer where the pitfalls are and what needs to be done.
If we knew Bill Barr a little better, I don't think he'd disagree with You on very much. Just the crap about the election being stolen and the aftermath of all that which Trump did. I think he has his eyes wide open and sees things pretty clear, since he was there at the time.
The only thing I'd disagree with Barr about is that I *probably* could never get myself to vote for him. I want the Rs to do well, but I'm not as attached to the party as he is. Other than that, I can't find much to disagree with him about.
No matter.
So what is Trump to you?
And I have a little trouble understanding how someone can't understand the difference between a voter and supporter. The only people I've come across who don't seem to be able to see that difference are the ones with TDS. There's always a difference between a voter and a supporter.
Trump did some good things. Like I've said. The bad outweighed the good. His antics since he lost the election indicate he was unfit for the office. That's why I don't agree with people who would vote for him in '24.
Yeah, I get there's a difference between a voter and a supporter. So, no it's not TDS. Nice try.
Like I said, I'm just not gonna take it at face value that You're not a supporter. For the reasons I gave. Clear?
Like I said, there's TGIF to enjoy. Why belabor the point?
So he was supposed to take what was probably the most corrupted election in decades in stride? For what reason? So that the people, including the FBI, who rigged the election can rig the next one? I know Trump had only his own interests at heart, but that doesn't mean he was anywhere close to wrong in his rage. It just means it was a self-centered rage but the reasons for it should apply to any thoughtful person who would rather this country not turn into a banana republic.
And the rest of us, who see this as setting a precedent for future elections, are supposed to take that in stride? This was *not* business as usual.
I'm not sure you understand the severity of the situation. If people don't trust elections, you have a huge problem, Trump aside. And you can't expect people to just "trust" elections, not with everything they've seen. Trust is something earned, not owed. Not that I had much faith in the electoral system to begin with. Our two party system is a joke. You get who they push on you, and there is little actual difference between the parties. But you had that tenuous faith that things could change if people just organized enough and voted. They've stolen that from a huge portion of the population. If you can't see the danger that lies down that path because it happened to the "unpresidential" man it happened to, I didn't really accuse you personally of having TDS, but that's closer to the truth than you care to admit. And, yes, you seemed to confuse a voter and a supporter trying to shame anyone who might *vote* for Trump by disparaging them as a *supporter" of a man "unfit" to be president, as if any of them are really "fit" to be president.
Sorry, but my day is winding down. I've been at the keyboard for 12 hours, less a couple short breaks.
Obviously, we disagree on whether the election was rigged. Given Trump's track record of saying elections are rigged, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could spit.
But that gets to another issue. Our whole *society* has gone from a trust society to a non-trust society. Just saw it phrased that way today. Is there any doubt. And I don't think anyone should underestimate Trump's hand in making it a lot more un-trusting. He admitted on record that he lied like a rug. Were there 30K lies like WaPo said? No? Were there uncounted numbers? Yup.
But he didn't start this. Anybody can point fingers that the other side started it. There isn't even a *point* to that discussion, but most people would want one and have that settled before any *other* discussion, right?
Yeah, I'd agree that the two parties we have are not the best. But here's where I disagree. I think it's the *extremes* both parties are willing to go to. Sure, the Ds. But also (sorry) You guys who wanna insist Trump won. There was no evidence prior to Jan. 6 that the election was stolen. Like Barr said.
I've said before, something *could* turn up, but I doubt it would've changed the election. But let's do a thought experiment: Let's both of us agree there were actually ILLEGAL actions that were big enough to change the election. (Notice the emphasis on ILlegal. If the Ds harvested ballots LEGALLY, that's a different story. A long story, no time today.)
Here's the thing that almost nobody cares to remember, although I've pointed it out plenty before:
Once the electors were CERTIFIED as valid, in mid-December, THE ELECTION WAS OVER.
Nobody want to recognize this, or if they do they don't wanna admit it. But that is one totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL thing. There was nothing that could be done after that, that wouldn't take military intervention.
Yet Trump would NOT let it go. That, sorry to say, makes him unfit for the office. The exact opposite of how Nixon handled it when HE KNEW the election was stolen. I gather pretty much everybody knew it, who were in the know.
As bad as Tricky Dick Nixon was, he had at least that much wisdom in him. Trump?
Now, as to any other guys being "fit" for office. I tend to agree there. But that's the nature of the system. Anyone who's power-hungry enough to wanna be President and Leader of the Free World, by definition, isn't gonna be fit for the office, right?
Mebbe I've confused things more than explained them. If so, sorry.
If You wanna take just one thing where I disagree with You it's this: Change is gonna happen. Nobody can stop things from changing. That's a fact. But You raise a good point if the system is *so* entrenched that the future is already *fixed*, and it's gonna be chaos at the end. And there's nothing that can be done about it.
Don't believe that, is my advice. Until the fat lady sings. I hope You can see that much, regardless of what all else above I wrote.
Are you sure you read the entire interview? I don’t see the “lackey for the establishment” here.
Well, I suppose I'll ask you a question in return: Who do you think I mean by the "establishment"?
I don’t see him as an “establishment” (traditional power structure) figure as much as a Constitutionalist. Case in point 1: he says clearly it was up to states to pursue claims of voter fraud. That is, by law, correct. And that has happened, in Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona. Case in point 2: he correctly calls out both sides for their extra-Constitutional excesses: the impeachments, the riot at the Capitol.
Barr has great respect for the office of President, and while supporting Trump’s policies, deplored Trump’s irrationality in the role. I pretty much agree with that, and also agree Trump’s actions now risk a pivot to more rational governance as he pursues his detractors for electoral vengeance. Gotta move on, gotta figure out how not to get even, but to win.
So you really only have two choices with Bill Barr: establishment lackey or so naive it's painful. I suppose there's a third: myopic. None of those choices are good. I read the article article quickly but then I went searching for terms making sure I didn't miss something, and I didn't. I can explain why I call him a lackey with the following: You *cannot* talk about the last election w/o addressing the abuse of emergency powers to change election procedures, the censorship of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop, the abuse of the security services, and "Zuckerbucks." Bill Barr is pretending that the only thing of note in that whole election was that Donald Trump refused to concede. It wasn't. That was an election that would make banana republics go "Damn, wish I'd thought of that." And Bill Barr is only worried about what happened because it made "Republicans look bad."
As I said, I like Bill Barr just fine, but he's so deep in the DC swamp that he has no idea why people were enraged and none of that bothered him. It seems like he thought it was just "business as usual," and maybe it was, just a little too in-your-face. Trump might have lost the ballot count (might, I'm having more trouble with the idea that there was no measurable fraud the more Democrats push to make the "pandemic" election rules, which were little more than a free-for-all, permanent), but that does not in any way mean the election was anything remotely resembling democratic and wasn't "rigged."
The problem with the above and with the undermining of our institutions with what Barr calls partisanship but I think is closer to servitude to a very specific subset of interests (the establishment) that are really pretty apolitical is that a country, let alone a democracy, *cannot* survive without faith in elections and faith in our governing institutions. Trump did not shake people's faith in those. The Democrats, the Republicans, and the bureaucrats did in their quest to keep up this game where they give lip service to serving their constituencies but behind closed doors serve themselves and their donors. And Bill Barr is part of that system and has been for a long time. It doesn't mean I hate him. He's just part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
And the reason he defended Trump up to that last stretch is that Trump is not really a threat to the elite either. The people Trump attracted are, but Trump is not. Unless because of him people start to realize how crooked the system actually is and people start going to the source of the problem, which is to say to Capitol Hill. That is where Trump lost Barr. However corrupt the system is, Barr still can't think outside it.
I can hear your passion and I share your concerns about the integrity of elections. I just don’t interpret Barr’s words and actions the same way you do. On a scale of 1 to 100, I would still put Barr at about 80 for upholding the Constitution, and trying to do what was best for the country.
I read the entire interview and thought he came off very well. Until this jumped off the page:
BW: Is it possible that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t die by suicide?
AG BARR: No.
Huh.
I think he HOPES it’s true that Epstein died by suicide.
As a very deliberative attorney I think he speaks quite precisely when he wants to. And then there is his family connection to Epstein...and how many connections to Epstein's clients? Which is to say, I see good reasons to wonder how far from the swamp and its stench Barr truly is.
You seem to know something I don’t.
You didn't even try to take in what the Lady wrote, did You.
Deranged Trump Supporter, probably.
I dunno the Lady in the Lake *personally* but i *seriously* doubt she thinks there are no guilty people in prisons. But to You guys, that's just the kind of attack I would expect You to make.
Sorry. I don't read the NYT or watch CNN. I just read the interview with Barr, and that answers all Your questions.
I'm afraid that it's You who isn't gonna see what You don't look for. Reread the interview. It's all in there.
I've replied to too many of Your illogical posts. Sorry.
Charming. You can't make any substantive replies to my substantive points.
That why You wrote Your other comment and this one.
You're only fooling Yourself with Your ad hominems. But just what I would expect from a delusional Trump-supporter. I don't think that's a coincidence.
Not really. Not sure where you’re coming from in the second part of your comment.