No evidence of fraud that would change election outcome, Attorney General William Barr says
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday the Justice Department has not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
His comments come despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the election was stolen, and his refusal to concede his loss to President-Elect Joe Biden.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Barr said U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but they’ve uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
Barr has been summoned to the White House at this hour where his nuts will be cut off with a rusty steak knife.
'bout time.
It'll be 4 hours of exploratory surgery just to find them.
that statement shows you have more el Grande "huevos' compared to can't lower the Barr any further
Sounds like a self preservation manipulation, cause Barr has not exactly tried to show he was not biased, hell, Trump was more discreet buyin Stormys' ass
And you told us he was a Trump toadie!
Do you think most people see the obvious the way we do?
A real toadie would manufacture his own evidence. Barr should be shot at dawn.
Obvious that there was no 'widespread election fraud'?
Trump spent a shit load of money for one recount and they did find 64 uncounted votes....FOR BIDEN.
I hope Georgia got the money in advance... If not, they are shit out of luck to the tune of $3,000,000.00.
You won't find the fraud by looking at the votes for Biden. You'll find it looking at the votes for Trump.
No, WE THE PEOPLE spent a shitload of money for that recount, and I thought it was around 123 uncounted votes FOR BIDEN!
Well this can't be true because we have it on good authority (politicians, news media, NT members) that AG Barr is the corrupt puppet/slave/tool of Dictator Trump. How could he possibly make an official finding that would thwart his master's relentless and illegal claims to power?
He doesnt want to be a pariah to the mainstream world after Jan 20 ?
If he was half as bad as the left and media have made him out to be or truly Trump's puppet; then he never would have made this announcement.
Of course the left and media will never admit they were wrong or forgive him anyways- so it makes no difference.
Because he hasn't been treated like a pariah all this time already?
I think it's more likely that he just made the best call he could - like he usually does - and now people who have been treating him like a pariah all along don't want to consider that they may have been wrong about him. We see the same thing when some allegedly conservative Supreme Court justice rules the liberal way.
It must be a fluke. He has some ulterior motive. And so on . . .
More likely Barr realized the election conspiracy nonsense was a bridge too far, even for him.
He is walking the straight and narrow now believing he won't be busted in January. What an idiot.
Obama would laughs his ass off reading that!
He only made the announcement because Trump kept claiming that a crime took place.
Nothing to admit, Barr is a corrupt low life scum, who acted more as Trump's personal attorney than US Attorney General.
The only ulterior motive I can think of is a run for the Presidency in 2024. AG's don't generally make visits to meet with Israeli Prime Ministers if they don't want to be seen as a player on the international stage.
But other than that I see none.
You think Bill Barr is going to run for president? That is a novel take.
I think Bill Barr gets involved in things because he is a conservative ideologue and he wants to effect events in a way the furthers his beliefs.
Barr is probably trying to do a little post election clean up. He can't seem too much of nut job or he won't get those offers to join corporate Boards and paid speaking engagements.
Believe anything you will. We don't have to explain the mind of Barr to a conservative supporter of Trump. Barr is, was, and forever be considered full of piss by me. Even in this, he is full of piss. I won't take it back. Barr piss off! Oh, and that crap he pulled with turning Durham's role in to special counsel goes to the point that Barr is a 'pig.'
Tacos! There is nothing for Barr to BS his way through. No spin he can apply that would be incredulous. All the courts are asking for evidence and not a thing other than. Barr is full of piss. I tell you.
Furthermore, anybody who chooses to believe a majority of the mind-numbing BS Donald Trump has been making up for four years despite the truth sprouting up all around. . .him. . . is a Barr full of piss!
To be clear, all the above is about Barr and Donald and no one on NT!
Wrong the hell again. For the untold time- I can't stand Trump; didn't vote for him or the beast Hillary the first time around. Wasn't voting for him this time around either; I was voting against Democrats at every damn level. First time I have voted straight Republican ticket ever. And given the way the Democrats are acting now; it won't be the last.
Big surprise coming from a rampant TDS sufferer. See how that works? As for Durham, as Democrats like to point out- if nothing was done wrong what is the problem with an investigation; unless there is something to hide?
He just appointed John Durham Special Counsel under the same regulation that covered Robert Mueller, so Biden can't get rid of the Durham Investigation.
As William Barr begins to clean out his desk, honest decent Americans now know what a legitimate AG looks like - William Barr!
Let me put it this way. Trash-talk ain't making the case any better. As for who you voted for or didn't vote for at the end of the day that is your 'poetry' to interpret.
Who is paying for all these investigations? I thought conservatives were all about saving Benjamins? But what do I know-apparently 'merica has money to waste stupidly, while pretending to be broke to minorities and poor whites!
Are minorities and poor whites entitled to something?
Other than an opportunity to advance and improve themselves, like everyone else?
Yeah, poor whites and minorities are entitled to better expenditures of this nation's taxes and wealth. After all, they are Poor and Minorities who help (present tense) build this damn country their life-longs just like their counterparts, the rich, famous, and lucky. (And then some.)
Why? What claim do they have that anyone else doesn't also have? Don't others also build America--or, as you seem to prefer--'merica?
make a legitimate case instead of merely repeating platitudes.
Actually, he didn't Vic.
28 CFR Part 600-3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel states:
In Barr's appointment letter he states that Durham is the US Attorney for the District of Connecticut. As of TODAY, Durham STILL holds that position. I'm pretty fucking sure that office is INSIDE of the US Government.
Barr can't manage to follow the LAW, you must be so proud.
tRump's consigliere is getting the boot!
The whole corrupt tRump criminal enterprise 'administration' is out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOCK 'EM UP! The whole bunch! Nothing but a bunch of gangsters, thugs, criminals, grifters, thieves, mobsters, scum!
Wait! So you dare to 'stand' here and defend waste and abuse of government funds?
I believe that is the theme song of US Postal workers!
That isn't making your case.
Try it again, and this time please present a legitimate argument why minorities and poor are entitled to something the rest of us are not.
If you please, just answer what you are asked instead of endless deflections and asking of impertinent and irrelevant questions, or simply admit you have no legitimate case as evidenced by your lack of argument for.
And who sez poor whites and minorities are more entitled? We're all entitled to good expenditure of tax funds. Waste and abuse of government funds is BS no matter the 'do-ers.' The question is this: Is this a good expenditure of tax dollars? Ball's in your court.
Also if you intend to blow smoke and time going forward--ignore this comment in its entirety.
You may wish to look at the post you respond to.
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Maybe you thought you had a point, but please share it with 'merica and relate how your post connects to mine.
Thanks.
BTW, that isn't even the beginning of a convincing argument why you think minorities and poor are entitled to things others are not.
Big waste of time. Good bye.
Indeed, a complete and utter, waste of time.
YEAH, I simply refuse to be gaslit by gaslighters from alternative realities and commentaries! (Smile.)
"Don't gaslight me, bro!" (Chuckles.)
I agree, in my experience, it IS a complete waste of time to ask anything of you.
Carry onward!
You get a vote up! Carry onward!
My, my, how very original of you.
Taking a page from Biden now?
LOL!
Yes he can, it's just a little more leg work and obviously Durham has nothing as he was supposed to report his findings 5 months ago and.....nada.
Don't forget, trump said as POTUS he can do whatever he wants to do and the right wing completely supported him in doing exactly that. That applies to Biden as well, yes?
Let's see him try it! If Joe Biden fired Durham or tried to scuttle the investigation, the Biden administration will have done what Trump never actually did. All of those columns and speeches contorting the language of the obstruction statute would come back to haunt the Democrats.
he was supposed to report his findings 5 months ago
Maybe in liberal limbo land.
Actually it's a stroke of genius by William Barr. Democrats are now in the same position they put Republicans in with the Mueller investigation. We should ask them all if they want to shut down the Durham investigation and if so why?
It also pretty much ends the possibility of Biden nominating progressive hero Sally Yates for AG. Yates would be placed in an even more precarious position than Jeff Sessions who recused himself for simply being on the Trump campaign team. Yates has a clear and obvious conflict. Yates was directly involved in the Russian investigation and signed off on the controversial surveillance of Trump associate Carter Page. She recently claimed that she would never have signed the application if she knew what she knows today.
Supposedly she was Biden's front runner for the job.
Wait! So you dare to 'stand' here and defend waste and abuse of government funds?
You mean like you defended the waste and abuse of the Mueller investigation and the faux impeachment hearings
Actually Vic, as I said in my prior post, which you conveniently ignored, Durham is STILL the US District Attorney for Connecticut and serves at the pleasure of the POTUS.
Secondly, even if Durham were a legal Special Prosecutor, which he is NOT, he would report to the US AG and rely on the DOJ for personnel and funding. Any actions Durham takes need to be signed off on by the AG and parameters of his investigation are controlled by the AG.
So this pretense that Barr just made Durham independent is bullshit.
Right Vic, so fucking genius that he failed to follow the statute.
So, being a genius, Barr must have PLANNED to bullshit Trump and purposely make an illegal appointment that he KNEW would be easily be revoked by Biden's AG.
Rosenstein is a REPUBLICAN. The Democrats had NOTHING to do with appointing Mueller.
Answer: Because Durham's appointment is illegal.
Next?
How? Be specific.
So did Rosenstein, TWICE.
You are aware that Mueller was appointed by a republican, right? Democrats had nothing to do with it. Nice try.
Again, you can spin all you want but Durham was supposed to deliver his findings months ago and not shockingly, he turned up nothing. Why? Because there was nothing to find. The investigation was started by the book. Lets face it, you lost, there is nothing there and there never was. It was all made up bullshit and Durham was just the useful idiot.
Like I said, according to trump, presidents can do whatever the fuck they want, if Biden wants to get rid of the lame duck waste of money Durham investigation, he can easily do so. All he has to do is appoint a partisan AG and have him fire Durham. Hey, didn't bother the right wing when trump appointed Barr....right?
The Mueller investigation actually put 40 million in the coffers through fines and confiscated materials. So not a waste of money, sorry.
Are you ever right?
You better tell them that it's illegal!
Show us where?
Give us a link or end the Bull Shit
Yes, all the time.
How about you cite what you think I got wrong Vic. Be specific.
I told YOU and you haven't even tried to refute it.
BTW, I see that you didn't answer my question.
Greg, growth and development is called for here. The question is this: Do YOU intend to defend waste and abuse of government funds? Yes or no.
Answer that and then ask your question again. This way we can move forward. If you don't I will dismiss the whole thing as not worth continuing.
That doesn't sound like any kind of deadline to me.
I'm afraid it's just like your side told us about the almost 3 year Mueller investigation - it's normal!
We weren't talking about a 'deadline'.
My 'side' didn't have a fucking thing to do with the length of Mueller investigation. The ENTIRE thing took place under Trump. Just STOP.
Oh and BTFW, the Mueller investigation was 2 years, NOT 3.
How many years and how many different investigations into Hillary and Benghazi? And what was found? NOTHING.
Then What is this shit about Durham having to have a report done? Please be specific.
My 'side'
Um-hum
The ENTIRE thing took place under Trump.
And it looks like this one will go into Biden's tenure.
The Mueller investigation went until the democrats took the House and they felt they could hand off a fucking faux report. They had nothing and they knew the President wasn't a Russian agent right from the beginning.
ENOUGH! All this money being spend on infinity 'tag' while citizen masses continue to go broke, are starving, and dying of fixable diseases. This was the republican "big show" to illustrate to the nation and the outside nations just how much better off we our nation could be under conservative political control. Instead, what is on display is negativism, combatism, and whataboutism.
None of which will make anybody consider republicans and conservative parties preferable.
Vic, you have the dude as your avatar. YOU have been claiming ad nauseam that Durham was going to release a 'report'.
Frost said that Durham was expected to report his finding and I said that as a Special Counsel he would report TO the AG.
NO ONE has said anything about Durham 'having to have a report done.
Is THAT specific enough for you?
Oh goody, another conservative who thinks that block quoting truncated comments and replying to just that part makes a cogent point.
Juvenile.
Durham's appointment is illegal Vic. Any 'legitimate AG' will call him to the carpet and shut his shit down.
That's a lot of bullshit words for 'yes you are right, it was only 2 years'.
s appointment is illegal Vic
That's 100% false. but, please by all means, try and prove that assertion.
e AG' will call him to the carpet and shut his shit down.
Sure. . It will be hilarious watching the same people who went into hysterics about the mere possibility of Mueller being fired (It's obstruction of justice!) will defend Biden firing a special counsel.
y had nothing and they knew the President wasn't a Russian agent right from the beginning.
Yep,
I already have Sean, READ the thread.
Again, READ the thread. Mueller and Durham are NOT equivalents.
If Durham had anything on anyone he would have laid some cards down in October before the election to help the president.
Oh.. You assume Durham is as politicized as Mueller and the Democrats.
Silly, unsupported conclusions are not proof. Cite the actual controlling authority that makes his appointment illegal.
. Mueller and Durham are NOT equivalents.
They are both legally appointed special prosecutors, pursuant to the same authority. The idea that a legal distinction exists between the two is present only in your mind.
Running a nation on vindictive schemes is not practical. People are dying of Covid-19, and some conservatives are trying to prove the most asinine fool named Donald Trump has some value to the whole of society. Donald Trump is a failed and replaced president. A coronavirus cleaned his damn clock! Time for some conservatives to get their damn heads back in the game of life and put stupid shit in the trashbin.
If Durham comes back with something substantial on the merits, then well done. If his results are controversial and fodder for Trump TV, then the hell he says! It would have been better for us all if he had not bothered to "serve" in the first place.
We're all getting older and dying out here. Broke, busted, and disgusted in many families and homes. We don't need fake ass investigations masquerading as warfare. If some conservatives want combat—volunteer to serve in real combat where more is on the line than just theatrics.
I cited the fucking statute Sean. WTF MORE do you want?
Again, FALSE.
It's not an 'idea' Sean, it's a FACT. Go READ the fucking statute, where the 'legal distinction exists' in black and white.
Or is it your claim that somehow Barr and Durham are special snowflakes who are immune to the the legal limitations of the Special Counsel statute? If so, please make your argument to support that.
TRUTH, would be Trump supporters
cited the fucking statute Sean. WTF MORE do you want?
No, you didn't. You cited a regulation. A regulation is not a statute. Moreover, if you'd actually looked at Barr's appointment of Durham and understood the authority under which it was made, you'd know that regulation you cited isn't even applicable.
Again, FALSE.
Again, since you don't even know the actual statutory authority under which Barr appointed Durham (the same as Mueller, by the way) it's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
READ the fucking statute, where the 'legal distinction exists' in black and white.
Why don't you learn what a fucking statute is and then learn which fucking actual statutes apply to the appointment of Durham, and Mueller.
Here's a hint, the REGULATION you cited didn't apply to the appointment of either Mueller or Durham. So, as I said, there's no actual legal distinction between the two appointments.
Oh I thought you and yours were averse to parsing. Guess not.
You are SO right, it isn't a statute, it's a regulation. A regulation under which ALL Special Counsel are appointed.
In my 3.1.18 comment sited a part of the REGULATION, 28 CRF 600.3. Barr has NO 'authority' to appoint a Special Counsel without 28 CRF 600 .1-10.
It may behoove you to note that in his appointment, Barr himself cites sections of 28 CRF 600 multiple times so your claim that it 'isn't even applicable' is utter bullshit.
So AGAIN Sean:
Since Durham is CURRENTLY the US District Attorney for Connecticut, which BTFW, Barr states clearly in his appointment, he does NOT qualify to be appointed as a Special Counsel and therefore his appointment is illegal.
There ARE no statutes that apply to the appointment of a Special Counsel Sean. As you so astutely pointed out, it's a fucking REGULATION, which I sited.
The REGULATION I sited sure as fuck DOES apply to BOTH appointments and is cited in BOTH appointments Sean.
Again, the legal distinction between the two appointments is that Mueller was OUTSIDE of the US government when he was appointed and Durham is NOT and therefore UNQUALIFIED.
Now, unless you've got something more than nuh uh, please stop boring me...
Cited.
Pickaune...
The purpose of his position being created in the first place was to press back on the democrats and the supposed "Deep State" by investigating "Obamagate" the Flynn stupidity and some other bullshit that the president and his wacko, positive feedback loop dreamt up, but Durham and the rest came up with a whole lot of nothing.
Exactly and unfortunately, it lost the DOJ ANOTHER highly qualified and competent DOJ employee. Durham's long time assistant resigned because of the bullshit.
Are you trying to spell picayune ?
Just say you were right, I was wrong and stop the childish deflection.
You are SO right, it isn't a statute, it's a regulation. A regulation under which ALL Special Counsel are appointed.
You obviously didn't pay attention to what I wrote. Look at the appointment for Bob Mueller for instance. It's lists the legal authority under which he operates. Your regulation is excluded.
Barr has NO 'authority' to appoint a Special Counsel without 28 CRF 600 .1-10.
Of course he does. You are making a very fundamental mistake in which you believe Mueller and Durham were appointed pursuant to Clinton era regulations instead of what actually happened. Both Mueller and Durham were appointed pursuant to the AG's statutory authority.
Again, until you actually look at and understand the specific statutes that are referenced in the appointments of Mueller and Durham, you really have no clue what you are talking about. I suspect you've fallen prey to some left wing manipulator trying to gin up outrage under a false pretext.
Unless, of course, you are now going full hypocrite and are going to claim that Mueller's appointment was illegal too, since it excludes regulations you claim must be included.
ere ARE no statutes that apply to the appointment of a Special Counsel Sean. As you so astutely pointed out, it's a fucking REGULATION, which I sited.
You really are just going to ignore the actual statutes cited by the DOJ when it authorized Mueller and Durham? Bold strategy, Cotton.
LATION I sited sure as fuck DOES apply to BOTH appointments and is cited in BOTH appointments Sean.
No, it's not. Numbers matter. Or do you think the number 3 comes between 4 and 10?
w, unless you've got something more than nuh uh, please stop boring me..
I'm sorry you find learning about how the government actually operates boring. Persist in ignorance on the topic if you don't want to be bored, I guess.
Nothing in my comment was a deflection Sean. In fact, I address your issues head on. Try it.
Why do you continue to make ridiculous statements that are so easily refuted Sean?
From Mueller's appointment letter:
That last line is repeated in the Durham appointment.
So perhaps you'd like to explain WHY you keep trying to gaslight.
Sean, you keep flapping your gums about a 'statutes' yet YOU are the one that doesn't understand the statute [ONE] cited in both appointments.
28 U.S.C.§§ 509, 510, and 515 are about the AG's supervisory functions, ability to delegate prosecutions and proceedings. There is NOTHING in any of those sections of 28 USC about a Special Counsel.
From Barr's notice to Congress:
From Barr's appointment of Durham:
It would be the height of hypocrisy to claim that Barr can mandate that Durham follow 28 CFR 600. 4-10 while pretending that as AG, he can ignore 28 CFR 600.1-3. Yet YOU do it anyway:
No thinking person can accept the posit that Barr can cherry pick the parts of a regulation he wants to follow and ignore the parts he wants to.
Learning about how the government actually operates isn't boring at all. It's your comments, which are ignorant of that knowledge, that are boring.
I'm not ignorant on the topic Sean.
No shit! You finally read the appointment letters like I told you to
That last line is repeated in the Durham appointment.
Of course it is!. That's my whole point!
Remember, I'm the one who said they were appointed pursuant to the same authority. Glad you caught up.
o perhaps you'd like to explain WHY you keep trying to gaslight.\
Which is exactly what you are now trying to do since you've been embarrassed with regards to the authorities cited by Barr. He cited the exact same authorities that were used to appoint Mueller, making the appointment just as legal Mueller's was. Guess who said that from the beginning? Not you.....
IF the Mueller precedent wasn't staring you in the face, you might have some excuse for your ignorant understanding of the AG's powers, but with Barr using the exact same language to delegate authority to Durham that was used for Mueller there's no reason to believe you aren't simply gaslighting the forum now.
of hypocrisy to claim that Barr can mandate that Durham follow 28 CFR 600. 4-10 while pretending that as AG, he can ignore 28 CFR 600.1-
You obviously don't understand why the word hypocrisy means. Mueller's appointment ignored those exact regulations. The height of hypocrisy would be to claim that Mueller's appointment that ignores those regulations is legal, but Durham's using the exact same legal authority, is illegal,
g person can accept the posit that Barr can cherry pick the parts of a regulation he wants to follow and ignore the parts he wants to.
OF course he can. Mueller was appointed the same way. Aren't you paying attention?
Do you know how this works? The AG could have appointed him under his statutory power and kept Durham, or Mueller at the time, outside the scope of all the 600.1 to 600.10. regulations. It's clear cut stuff, which is why no one claimed Mueller's appointment was illegal for excluding those regulations you now imagine are somehow mandatory.
Or can you point to where you called Mueller's appointment illegal for excluding those same regulations? That would at least exonerate you from being a hypocrite.
Not only did I read the appointment YESTERDAY, unlike you, I understood it.
The REGULATION is entitled:
There are SECTIONS, of 28 CFR 600, from 600.1 - 600.10, Those SECTIONS are not separate REGULATIONS, they work as a GROUP.
Your 'whole point' is that you are desperate to pretend that SECTIONS 4-10 are the 'regulation' that give Barr the authority to appoint a Special Counsel. They do NOT.
ONLY SECTIONS 1-3 give the AG that AUTHORITY and instruct the AG how to LEGALLY use it.
Yes.
But he DID NOT. Barr SPECIFICALLY sited multiple sections of 28 CFR 600 in both his letter to Congress AND in his appointment of Durham and gave him 'with the powers and authority of a Special Counsel under the regulations of the Department of Justice. See 28 C.F.R. 600.4-600.10.'
Note that 28 C.F.R. 600.4-600.10 ALSO include mandated RESPONSIBILITIES.
SECTIONS 600.1-600.3 include mandated RESPONSIBILITIES for the AG but of course, Barr wants to ignore those and you want to let him.
The rest of your post is blather.
Obviously not, because it took you until your last post to grasp the point that I've been making since the beginning, that the authorizations for Mueller and Durham reference the exact same statutes and they don't include the regulation you've been arguing applies.
NO, you still don't know what you are talking about. Please try and read the actual statutes that were cited in the appointments of Mueller and Durham. Back to square one. Statutes and regulations are different things. The appointment letters of Mueller and Durham cite the specific statutes that gives the AG the authority for the appointments. I will say this again as simply as I can, the regulations do not give Barr authority to appoint a special prosecutor, the Statutes do. And you continue to ignore them.
But he DID NOT.
This is truly hilarious. You literally just wrote that my 'whole point' is that you are desperate to pretend that SECTIONS 4-10 are the 'regulation' that give Barr the authority to appoint a Special Counsel:" (which is obviously false) and then one sentence later cite where I told you that the AG did not need to rely on sections 4-10. Do you even pay attention to your own arguments?
Your "gotcha" points are regurgitating what I told you three posts ago as if they somehow help you. After all this, you admit that his appointment isn't reliant on the regulation that you cited and they were excluded from the authorizations for Durham and Mueller.
SO now back to my original point. Where is your authority that the appointment is illegal? All you've done is cite a regulation that applied to neither Mueller nor Durham and wasted a number of posts coming to that realization. With the actual statutes cited by the DOJ and the precedent of Mueller right in front of you, it's silly at this point to keep claiming the appointment is illegal. I have no idea why you would continue with this charade. No court in the country is going to claim the appointment was illegal on the grounds you claim. Legally informed liberals know it, I know it and I hope you are coming to that understanding. Just because some liberal grifter on Dailykos said it's illegal doesn't make it so.
Communicating by emoji is probably your best option. Words can be hard.
Oh, BTFW, good one!
Why are you asking us? The "team" is breaking up? Ask a Trumphole 'plainer already!
Because I enjoy prompting conspiracy theorists to explain facts that punch holes in their narratives.
Who are you calling a conspiracy theorist?
Why, I can't imagine Morgan talking that way-can you? What movie is that quote from?
Your comment was directed at me, so I am right to inquire as to its meaning and intent!
Do you not know what it means or something?
I guess if Droopy Dog ever gets a reboot, Barr might have a job
A short interview can hardly be considered an 'official finding'. Especially when he equivocated by saying:
Then he ran right over to the WH and told Trump about the 'secret' Durham appointment.
Oh...boy....
the fattest rats don't jump from a sinking ship, they wait for the water to wash over the deck.
good point because they can float
Party Lincoln founded??????
Crack open a history book and learn the origins of the GOP.
At least then you might stop making the mistake over and over again about the GOP being the Party of Lincoln.
Maybe.....
I wonder why the GOP's first Presidential candidate wasn't Lincoln, since you claim he founded the Republican Party in 1854.
Kind of amazing that historians don't give Lincoln the credit for founding the party, but, hey, what would actual historians know compared to someone who did no research 150+ years later, right?
What does one have to do with the other? Fremont ran and lost in a three way race, a testament as to how a third party candidate ( Millard Fillmore of the Know Nothing Party ) affects a close race.
Better call Wikipedia, and tell them they are spreading fake history...
Lincoln, formerly a Whig member, began publicly debating Douglas over the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854, ran as a Republican seeking an appointment to the Senate in 1855, ran in 1856 as a Republican again, losing the same Senate seat.
By winning the Presidency in 1860 he cemented the party's national credibility.
Other articles suggest the Party officially became a national movement with the conventions in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in
1856.
One could surmise that if Lincoln had lost and the party faded away, only Horace Greeley and Henry Jarvis Raymond would be listed as founders of a local Michigan party.
Bill Barr is a RINO.
Fire him!
Get the butter because he is total toast in January.
LOCK HIM UP!
He will be out of a job come January.
The man had to do something drastic. He needs a job come January 20th. Next, he'll be saying that he's been joking for the last two years, and of course he didn't agree with Trump's stupid-ass conspiracy theory nonsense.
Well, he got another fifteen minutes of fame in the history books. It's good work if you can get it.
To his credit, he truly believes the 'merican President to be the Executive with immense powers to govern with impunity (no risk of punishment). That would make it all the more interesting to see what that one would consider proper if Donald was to push off with a boot in his fat 'hiney' for bringing him sad, depressing, no voter fraud news!
William Barr does not need a job.
'Too much and never enough'
The Lincoln Project strikes again.
bwah ha ha ha, what a moron ...
And for the love of humanity, we (all), republicans and conservatives who love right and truth too, must fight this unceasing "motor-mouth" from ever getting into public service again! Donald Trump is the pits!