Bill Barr Did Virtually Nothing to investigate Election Fraud

[eyecu2]

Bill Barr is a douchebag.

He only ever presented his opinions vs reviews of facts.

I remember one time he was able to read an entire 450 page report with footnotes etc within 2d days and come up with an opinion. Further was rebuked by judges and the author himself as not keeping to the context of the report or it's contents.

Point being Barr has likely protected DEMOCRACY over reality of laws or his mandate. He's an idealist in the GOP and he doesn't like Trump.

But he does love the GOP so he'll go to his grave never being a man of justice. Just a man of party. - plus he's bitten his lip so much he has a fat skin cancer on it from protecting all the assholes he's obfuscated for to date!

[tommy156]

trump has nobody to blame but himself. He appointed Barr. trump called Barr his "first choice from Day One" and that he was "one of the most respected jurists in the country".

If Barr did "virtually nothing" to investigate election fraud, that's ultimately trump's fault.

You can't brag about your prowess to hire "only the best people" then be a crybaby about it when the people you hire turn out to be incompetent. So, we can safely add "Appointing Bill Barr" to the long list of trump's failures.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...eneral-1049560

[DNinja69]

Originally Posted by berryberry

1. My name is not Skipper

2. I already provided evidence in the OP where one of Bill Barr's top assistants states that Bill Barr did virtually NOTHING to investigate voter fraud

3. So when someone claims "They have had exhaustive investigations for Voter fraud." they should be able to show them. And yet they can't because again Bill Barr did virtually NOTHING to investigate voter fraud

Is skipper somehow offensive? If you want to captain this ship (per my use of the word) then I think you need to provide some evidence. Your OP was literally someone expressing ignorance, not knowledge. And to be fair it was a form of IF/THEN fallacy attempting to draw a conclusion of something NOT being done simply because someone in the DOJ expressed not having seen it.

I provided a link that directly refutes your claim and is easy to fact check. You can choose to ignore it or continue to make claims that have been shown to be untrue.