Connect with us

Politics

Attorney General Barr Says There Is No Evidence of Widespread Election Fraud

Published

on

  • Attorney General Barr said for the first time that he and the Department of Justice had not seen widespread election fraud at a scale that could have changed the outcome of the election.
  • The remarks make Barr the highest-ranking member of the Trump administration to directly contradict the president’s repeated and unproven insistence that there was nationwide voter fraud in the election.
  • Trump’s legal team responded in a statement disputing Barr’s findings and asserting, without proof, that they had “ample” evidence of fraud. Meanwhile, Trump continued to push the false and unverified claims on Twitter.

Barr Disputes Trump’s Claims

In an interview with the Associated Press Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr said that he has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” contradicting the claims that President Donald Trump and his supporters have been spreading without evidence for nearly a month now.

“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. … And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.” 

Barr also directly disputed some of the unproven and actively debunked assertions spread by Trump and his allies, including a particularly insidious conspiracy theory that Trump’s recently-disavowed attorney, Sidney Powell, has been promoting regarding voting machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems.

Powell has repeatedly claimed that the Dominion machines flipped votes from Trump to former Vice President Joe Biden as part of a global communist scheme using software developed by former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, who has been dead for over six years.

In addition to failing to provide any semblance of proof for her assertions, there are also a number of issues that entirely undermine this story.

Almost all of the claims about Dominion machines flipping votes and having ties to foreign actors or left-wing groups have been entirely debunked. Additionally, in order for this far-reaching conspiracy to have any legs, Republican governors who have been major supporters and allies of Trump — such as Brian Kemp in Georgia and Doug Ducey in Arizona — would have had to play a key role in helping ensure their states went to Biden.

Even then, the majority of key swing state counties that used Dominion machines actually voted for Trump. Now, the top law enforcement official in the country has also added his voice to refute these falsehoods.

In his interview, the Attorney General explicitly told the AP that both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security have investigated the claim.

“And so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that,” he said.

Barr’s remarks represent a near-complete reversal from his pre-election stance. In addition to echoing many of the false claims touted by Trump about how mail-in ballots were not secure and vulnerable to fraud, he was also accused of using the DOJ to implement policies to undermine public confidence in election systems.

Barr is now the highest-ranking administration official to break ranks with Trump and dispute his claims about widespread fraud. The last high-ranking official to contradict Trump on the subject here was Christopher Krebs, the former Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, who Trump promptly fired.

While experts say Barr likely will not lose his job, the fact that the country’s top election security official and its top law enforcement official — both of whom were appointed by Trump — have now undermined the president’s claims is highly significant.

Response 

However, following Barr’s interview, Trump and his team still continued to push the same narrative that widespread voter fraud had occurred. 

In a statement to the media, Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and legal adviser Jenna Ellis claimed, without evidence, that they had “ample” proof that there was nationwide fraud significant enough to sway the election.

“With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud,” they wrote.

While Trump himself did not directly address Barr’s comments, he continued to post tweets claiming that there had been nationwide fraud and that the election was rigged.

However, with Barr’s new stance, other people, including key Republican officials, have begun to express their feelings that Trump and his cronies have gone too far.

In a now-viral video, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican and one of the top election officials in Georgia, delivered an emotionally charged statement at a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.

There, he noted several instances of Trump’s supporters directly inciting violence because of the misinformation Trump himself was spreading, like the fact that Trump lawyer Joe diGenova said earlier this week that Krebs “should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.”

Sterling also pointed to the fact that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has also recently had caravans of Trump supporters in front of his house, some of which have gone on their property. On top of that, his wife has received sexually explicit threats on her personal phone.

Sterling said that for him, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the fact that a 20-something contractor who worked for Dominion in Georgia was facing death threats after a video thread that circulated that claimed to show him altering votes during the recount.

The video led to his identity being released, people calling for him to be “hung for treason” in a Twitter thread, and his family being harassed by Trump supporters.

“It has to stop. Mr. President, you have not condemned these actions or this language,” Sterling said. “This is elections, this is the backbone of democracy, and all of you who have not said a damn word are complicit in this. It’s too much.” 

“Mr. President. It looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We’re investigating. There’s always a possibility, I get it, and you have the rights to go through the courts,” he continued. “What you don’t have the ability to do — and you need to step up and say this — is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone’s going to get hurt. Someone’s going to get shot. Someone’s going to get killed.” 

“Be the bigger man here and stop. Step in, tell your supporters: Don’t be violent, don’t intimidate. All that’s wrong. It’s unAmerican.”

However, it seems as though Trump will not be heeding that call any time soon. Shortly after Sterling’s remarks started to gain traction on Twitter, Trump did the exact opposite, retweeting the video and using it to continue to spread disinformation.

“Rigged Election. Show signatures and envelopes,” he wrote. “Expose the massive voter fraud in Georgia. What is Secretary of State and @BrianKempGA afraid of. They know what we’ll find!!!”

There has been no evidence of voter fraud in Georgia, and it is illegal in the state for the signatures on envelopes to be displayed once the ballots have been opened and counted.

See what others are saying: (The Associated Press) (NPR) (The New York Times)

Politics

Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low

Published

on

The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.


High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.

The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.

The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.

The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.

Cases Involving Race

Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.

The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.

Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black. 

States’ Power Over Elections 

Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.

The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.

“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.

In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.

LGBTQ+ Rights

Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.

That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.

As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.

Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”

Record-Low Approval Rating

The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.

A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.

Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.

“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill

“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event

Published

on

The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.


“Where’s Jackie?” 

Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.

The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.

The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.” 

The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.

“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.

“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”

The Age Maximum Question

Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.

Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.

While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.

These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.

There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.

Source: Business Insider

What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.

As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.

Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.

However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

Politics

Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds

Published

on

In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.


A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse

More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.

Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.

All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.

“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”

“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.

“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”

Abuses Go Unreported

Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.

Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.

Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.

In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.

In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.

The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”

See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Deseret) (Standard Examiner)

Continue Reading