"When asked how it impacted her, she responded, 'It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr. So I accepted what he was saying.' The opening statement by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) presented this as Ivanka Trump effectively saying she agreed with Barr, though Trump’s words in the excerpt — that Barr’s opinion 'affected' her view and that she 'accepted what he was saying' — were not quite so direct. She certainly indicated that she found Barr’s perspective compelling. Donald Trump said in response that his daughter was just 'trying to be respectful to Bill Barr' and didn’t study the election results herself.... The clips the committee played Thursday night seemed geared toward suggesting that even Trump’s own child... knew better. But so far, the evidence is piecemeal, with Barr’s testimony being the most compelling, and the committee will have to build upon it."
From "How damning was the Ivanka Trump and Mark Meadows testimony? The clips of them being informed that Trump’s claims were bogus are worth parsing — as are others featured by the Jan. 6 committee" by Aaron Blake (WaPo).
They should be scrupulous in how they use evidence or they ruin their own credibility. This seems like a blatant example of stretching — of making the evidence fit the conclusion you want to draw.
পোস্টগুলি
৭৫টি মন্তব্য:
The left want to make it illegal to say or THINK they cheat and lie.
As damning as the fake commission to get TRUMP erasing the deaths of Ashli Babbitt, and Roseanne Boylands deaths from a witness's testimony....Why do they have to lie if they have such compelling evidence?? This whole thing makes me sick. I am ashamed of our Government. They are useless. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/breaking-exclusive-jan-6-committee-liars-edited-footage-ashli-babbitt-rosanne-boylands-death-key-witness-testimony-footage/
A hollywood produced show trial.
They corrupt cheater left have been laying the groundwork for making it illegal to question them. Let alone mock or ridicule them. Mindcrime!
Having seen first hand evidence in my state of clear cut fraud, I do not see how William Barr could dismiss any and all fraud claims. If you do not look at the evidence, you'll not find any. Barr is a swamp creature.
This seems like a blatant example of stretching — of making the evidence fit the conclusion you want to draw.
Like lying Liz reading the Trump tweet except for the last line which said go home in peace. Every fact will be tortured, twisted or ignored depending on which is needed to have the effect the crooked committee wants.
"They should be scrupulous in how they use evidence or they ruin their own credibility."
I'm sorry, but how in your mind did these people obtain this mythical "credibility" which you confer on them?
They have no credibility, as you claim, without evidence.
It's a chicken-n-egg paradox. TicTok and congressional hearings.
They should be scrupulous in how they use evidence or they ruin their own credibility.
Most of those that give the Kangaroo court any credence convicted the bad orange man a long time ago.
Serious (rhetorical) Question
WHEN, was the last time, the democrats weren't lying sacks of sh*t?
They have no credibility left to ruin. What is their endgame?
"[N]o evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the outcome of the election" is a carefully worded statement. It is hardly a finding of no fraud or even of not enough fraud to change the outcome.
[Ivanka Trump] recalled when [Attorney General] Barr had said publicly on Dec. 1 that there was no evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the outcome of the election.
Even the framing is deceptive...
Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud
By MICHAEL BALSAMO
December 1, 2020
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
"ruin their own credibility?" HAHAHAHA
So the J6 committee can show that Trump believed the election was stolen despite what he was told. How many months did it take them to figure that out?
Yup. And Barr alsoo said no funny business with Epstein's demise.
You don't find what you don't look for.
On Ivanka, sure her dodge (as always, same with Jared) is well I just wasn't paying attention, but she was paying enough attention to hear what Burr was saying and to accept it. As she said.
But aside from (or inclusive of) that, what's your cruelly neutral assessment of how they used all of the evidence last night? Not just this one bit.
(Even if in your Chris Wallace post you made clear that you did not enter this cruelly neutral.)
Keep fighting for top funny man Trump, AA.
But so far, the evidence is piecemeal, with Barr’s testimony being the most compelling, and the committee will have to build upon it."
Riddle me this. Building on it will aide in the crafting of legislation exactly how?
Isn't this hearsay? If this is a trial on whether the possibility the election is fraudulent, shouldn't we be going through the evidence that exists even if it isn't to scale? I thought part of this hearing is to look into election integrity, so wouldn't any evidence of fraud be something we would want to investigate and, if necessary, rectify?
BTW, there was no evidence of Trump collusion into Russia, but that was investigated for 3 years, and Bennie Thompson still believes it happened and said on the House Floor that the 2016 election was illegitimate.
I love how we continue to misuse the word "evidence." "Evidence" is not the same as "proof" and "evidence" can range from very strong to very weak. As accusation is "evidence." Whether that accusation is compelling is a very different story.
There is plenty of evidence that there was vote fraud, and some of it has been proven. Furthermore, there is plenty of proof that multiple states illegally changed their voting procedures that would make fraud much easier. In fact, a bipartisan commission years ago stated that some of the illegally made rules were so easy to corrupt that they were sign of unfree elections. We have plenty of stories of weird things happening that have never been properly explained, like the phantom flooding in Atlanta that conveniently had the Republican observers removed. We also have plenty of evidence that many voting precincts seem to have no way to detect fraud at all, which results in the absurd argument that since we are intentionally not taking steps to avoid vote fraud then there is no vote fraud since we have no evidence. We also have said voting precincts resisting any attempt to actually audit them, because we should trust them.
Barr is a fool.
Our experts are fools and charlatans.
Are they going to accuse Ivanka Trump of conspiring to start the riot? If not, what do I care what she thought after hearing Bill Barr's opinion?
Democratic Congress members are not scrupulous with facts. The second impeachment of Trump said that law enforcement people were killed, while none actually were.
"They should be scrupulous in how they use evidence or they ruin their own credibility. This seems like a blatant example of stretching"
They should be scrupulous! They might ruin their own credibility! This seems like stretching!
OMFG. Sorry, Althouse. Too late for that nice-woman spiel. There's a war going on, and the bad actors don't give a damn about your tender sensibilities or scrupulosity or their own credibility or stretching.
Now, if you tell them that this infuriates you, that you despise and reject them utterly, and that you will never vote for any Dem or any RINO again, that would be something. Until then, they'll keep at it. They'll take the occasional scolding from the sideline.
Really? GTFOOH!
This tribunal has and has never had any credibility. It is a Pelosi inquest. It won’t matter to the democrat propaganda outlets because they are preaching to the choir.
It is a disgusting action that they are doing for pure political advantage that they could care less the damage done to the country.
". . .Trump's claims were bogus . . . " is quite a bit different from " . . .there was no evidence. . . ."
But, hey, it's the high school paper. It's not like they expect real journalism when there's drama to behold.
They seem to be hinging everything on the public's inability to think, or willingness to stop and think. This will play well with higher credentialed class. They are smart, but rarely stop and think.
AG Barr's statement "no evidence of fraud on a scale" is what you'd expect from the highest law enforcement officer. But the statement is without context as to how many or how thorough investigations there were to find such evidence in the short time scale. We know elements of the FBI were in active measures to thwart Trump and therefore would not be sending a bevy of agents or putting them under time pressure. And we know those elements in senior positions were subverting the political appointees, i.e. Barr, from seeing clearly into the agency's efforts.
Ivanka believed what was likely a true statement. But apparently she, and now the committee, are not trying to put things into context. It would be different if Barr had said, there is no apparent reasonable suspicion of fraud on a scale that would change the outcome of the election.
What is curious in all this, is how many, both Republican and Democrat, are loath to even do a post-election review with the goal of lessening the appearance in future votes.
The opening statement by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) presented this as Ivanka Trump effectively saying she agreed with Barr...seemed geared toward suggesting that even Trump’s own child... knew better.
So what?
But so far, the evidence is piecemeal, with Barr’s testimony being the most compelling
Again, SO WHAT?
Neither of these is EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING except their opinions, which IS NOT EVIDENCE. It is certainly not evidence of a conspiracy to commit sedition/insurrection. Both have as much evidentiary weight as the commentators in the MSM.
To use Liz Cheney's own word, it is nothing more than bullshit.
Listen to RACHEL MADDOW agreeing with Trump that the rally was far away from the breach, and there was no way the breachers were at the rally.... When you lose Maddow...you may as well go home. It is over. https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1535082158909538304?
Only the convinced already are watching this. It's political porn intended to camouflage the actual state of the country.
It's perfectly reasonable to have an opinion which differs from other opinions.
Doesn't make one a conspirator or a liar. It just means people disagree.
This is just common sense, and believing otherwise is precisely what we call Trump Derangement.
The bigger and more relevant question is where is the evidence of a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox where the strawberries were????
Diverse incidents of irregularity, fraud, and progressive disinformation to steer the vote.
Its kind of cute how people think they care about credibility, or even have any left.
why is what Bill Barr says testimony and not hearsay ?
Like lying Liz reading the Trump tweet except for the last line which said go home in peace.
Yes, thank you for your support, and go home in peace. The riot ("disorder") was forced when the Capital Hill "hero", with superior training, arms, and position, elected to abort the unarmed woman in a prone position, the police summarily pulled the rug from underfoot and attacked the people assembled, a progressive path engendered by Pelosi denying jurisdiction and offer of support (crowd management) from the President, and a plausible... nay, probable Whitmer-event.
Althouse, we are NOT supposed to parse the presentation, we are supposed to jump up and down during it, demanding Trump's head on a pike. Didn't you get the memo?
Ironically, disinformation brayed over multi-trimesters by journolistic outlets including: NYT, WaPo, etc.
As Sir Humphrey might put it: "He accepted the fact that there were no legal grounds for suppression."
In fairness to Trump's daughter, though, I don't have reason to doubt thst she not only accepted Barr's view but probably thought it was right on the merits. And Trump, in contrast, probably thought Barr was wrong on the facts, and that there were in fact legal grounds to oppose certification. Among other things, it seems clear that he was hearing very different factual representations from people a lot closer to the underlying events/facts than Barr. And given that he had not-unreasonable concerns that the unethical anti-Trump faction within DOJ had not been cleaned out, he probably assigned more credibility to outside factual representations than a DOJ claim that they had investigated and really had found nothing. If the facts are different, the legal conclusions will be different too (leaving aside whether the legal counsel he was getting was good or not), so it's plausible to me that he believed in good faith in the somewhat batty legal strategy he wanted Congress to pursue -- denying certification to electors, etc.
Ultimately, Trump's personnel foibles aside, I see this as an example of the long term consequences of the civil service losing its credibility, whether as a result of partisanship (e.g., the trumped up Russia investigation) or sheer incompetence (e.g. the CDC). When elected officials don't trust the information they're getting from their supposed subordinates, they'll turn to other sources of information, not necessarily more trustworthy. That might have worked for Lord Salisbury, who was famously skeptical of experts ("No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts."), but our modern elected officials are not his equal, and our hypertrophied administrative state larger by far than that of the late Victorian British Empire of his day.
LOL! These clowns had no credibility to lose, Althouse.
Ask yourself: who has seriously looked into the extensive evidence available and provided some honest accurate analysis? Who has even looked at it? Have you? Has the media? Has our legal system? No. Many, including those whose job it is, refuse to look. They don't want to find out that they let this happen, and they certainly don't want you to find out they did.
Why is the investigation of this not worth doing? Why is it always resisted so strongly with legal maneuvers, disappearing computer files, and flat out refusals to cooperate? You would think it would be an important question to know for sure one way or the other, unless you assume the truth is something to fear.
I'm a Trump supporter, and especially a MAGA supporter, but if the evidence which is available was showing fraud in the opposite direction against Trump, I would still want to know the truth, and I would be willing to have the election reversed if it was shown conclusively to have turned the election. As much as I hate having Biden over Trump, I would still want that if that was truely what the people chose. If Biden really won, then I want to know that for sure, so I can support the people's choice without reservation. That should be the default American position, rather than "I was told it was fair by people who were scared to look".
how can Barr claim the fraud (which he therefore implicitly agrees DID HAPPEN) is not on a "scale to effect the outcome of the election" when at the point in time he made the claim ALL of the fraud was still under half as*ed investigation ... and then of course all of the "investigations" got quashed when Biden came in ... perhaps he should have said we are investigating fraud ... full stop ... and when asked if its enough to swing the election he should have said "I don't know" ... because it was true that he simply didn't know ...
When they finish this charade, they won't have much time left to convince the country there was no hanky-panky going on in the 2020 election. I'm not saying the election was "stolen" but I will say there are way too many unexplained anomalies involved that someone needs to explain to voters so they can trust the next elections. I remain unconvinced that Joe Biden received 81 million legitimate votes. When you figure out what he pulled off, despite being a terrible candidate, you scratch your head. No wonder Democrats want to codify the tactics that used in 2020.
Still waiting for someone to explain why six swing states suddenly stopped updating their vote totals and called an end to ballot counting that night - at the same time - only to have Biden in the lead when they updated those totals three-four hours later.
Until someone can explain this, I will continue to proudly be an election truther or whatever other bullshit name the left is using this week.
There were, iirc, hundreds of depositions, the signing of which could lead to perjury charges if deliberately false. Correct? Do those count as evidence?
This is Barr, guys. The FBI devoured mountains of evidence from Epstein's island paradise, and from his NYC residence. It disappeared. "Lost". If Barr were interested, at the very least we'd know who built the bonfire in his backyard to get rid of the stuff.
The coordinated--serendipitously simultaneous--cessation and then restarting of vote counting in important states should at least generate some official inquiry instead of merely some rogue state or county folks who are under threat from their state AG.
"They should be scrupulous in how they use evidence or they ruin their own credibility."
Oh, Ann. Sweetheart. They lost their credibility years ago. The Democrats are the party of grifters. They've been that way for decades.
Accepting what a lawyer says may not mean believing that he has the facts right. It may mean that the lawyer understands the law and what can be done in practice.
Many people figured that there had been cheating, but thought that there hadn't been enough to affect the outcome of the election, or they assumed it was too late to do anything about it.
I don't know that Barr "studied" the issue per se either. I don't trust any particular politician to decide on truth. I saw plenty of monkey business around the election, including the push for policies that allowed ballot harvesting and fraud to be easier. There is a provision for disputing elections in the senate. The dems object to certifying state results every election. Trump had reason to believe in fraud. As of today fraud has been neither proven nor disproven because there is so much reluctance by officials to investigate or audit. That dems so strenuously object to any measure that would make fraud harder is all one needs to know. This is really Impeachment 3.0. They want to make sure trump can never run again. To drum up the vote it is useless. No one cares.
Meanwhile, a nutcase Biden supporter tells police he came to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh, to "give his life meaning". And abortion rights groups direct not so thinly veiled public threats at the justice's wife & daughters. The Ds are guilty of doing everything they accuse Rs of doing, and then some.
The would be assassin's comment about giving his life meaning speaks directly to the nihilism that's prevalent on the left - and that the left wants to impose on the broader culture. Are there moderate Ds? Because their lunatic fringe controls their party's agenda.
They sure do have a lot of people to prosecute. After the election hundreds testified under oath about election night shenanigans. Hundreds. All liars.
You must comply.
Why lead with Ivanka? Is Cheney trying to tell us that Liz is good daddy Dick's good daughter? Or maybe that Trump must be worse than Cheney if his own daughter doesn't back him up on everything?
Ivanka is being bad. Daddy needs to spank her over his knee.
Barr talked a good game but did NOTHING when he had the power.
He is swamp creature exhibit 1-B after Comey's 1-A.
Balfegor hits a very important point. It may well be that Trump's biggest contribution is exposing - for want of a better term - the Deep State. The Deep State being defined as an ideological monoculture that's embedded in the bureaucracy and which actually determines the direction of the country irrespective of elections.
The reaction of the Deep State to this interloper -Trump - was similar to the reaction of white blood cells in the body that fight infections. They did not view Trump as President elected by the people, but an interloper that needed to be destroyed. To carry the analogy one step further, white blood cells can run rampant and attack red blood cells. The result it Leukemia, a cancer. That is what the country's suffering from now. It remains to be seen if it survives.
Barr had said publicly on Dec. 1 that there was no evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the outcome of the election.
So, In Detroit, Philly, and Fulton County I KNOW that Trump campaign poll watchers were blocked from doing their poll watching, because I saw the evidence with my own eyes.
Flip those Sates, and Trump wins.
Blocking the Presidential campaign's poll watchers from looking over the shoulders of, and otherwise monitoring all the actions of, poll workers is prima fascia proof of vote fraud.
because the only time poll workers do that is when they're cheating.
So Bill Barr's statement was asininely stupid, and if it convinced you of anything, you're a sucker
Barr merely said he had seen or was not aware of any evidence that would change the election. He said nothing about how hard or where he had looked apart from the voting machine issue. A month or two before he did a tv interview in which he stated that mail-in ballots were inherently less immune to fraud than in person voting because the ballots are not secure. In particular, though he did not mention it, issues of changes in the procedures and standards of signature verification, with substantially lower rates of rejection than in the past in several key states, raises suspicion. According to election attorney Robert Barnes, the possibility of significant fraud in this area has never been systematically investigated either in court or out of court.
Also, on a side note, I distinctly remember reading an ad for election workers to help with the vote counting in some of the inner city precincts in Philadelphia. The advertised hourly pay struck me as extravagantly high, well over fifty dollars an hour, and the age qualification was sixteen years old. There was no mention of a literacy requirement.
Oh God, here we go again. Barr never did an investigation. He never looked at the numbers. He was advising Trump to do nothing right after the election! And the word "Fraud" is always used. Voter FRAUD is different from VALID VOTES. Legally Fraud means proving INTENT.
If I don't live in Calf and vote in their election, that's not FRAUD. But my vote is Invalid. If I'm not registered to vote, or I vote AFTER election day, or don't sign the ballote, the vote is invalid. Is it fraud? Maybe, maybe not.
Saying there's "no evidence of vote fraud" - just means you haven't looked. Or that there's no evidence of a well-organized conspiracy to cast fake votes or change totals.
BTW, I don't like Ivanka or her Son-in-law. Its too bad Trump didn't tell us that when we were voting for him, we were voting for them to be Co-Presidents. If he had, I doubt he'd won in 2016.
Meanwhile, where is the Congressional investigation into just how Britney Spears' -ex almost crashed her wedding? And Trump's obvious involvement.
So believing something that may not be true is a crime?
I don't understand at all the relevance of the Barr statement to the events on 1/6.
This Democrat propaganda production could have been so much better if only Leni Riefenstahl were around to direct it.
"If this is a trial on whether the possibility the election is fraudulent, shouldn't we be going through the evidence"
Even if the election was "fraudulent," the rioting at the capitol was not the proper remedy.
Though I still think the most egregious participants were independent LARPers and cosplayers.
Trump at most encouraged them negligently because he has no respect for our institutions.
Ivanka certainly did not disagree with Billy Barr - so splitting hairs is not necessary. But Daddy couldn't wait to push Ivanka under the bus, bloodying her nose and his own as well - but her new make-up look hid the red.
Althouse implied she wouldn't be influenced by politicians and then she could only listen to nine minutes of the podcast. And yet, the first witness was a composed young lady who was beaten by Trump's militaristic thugs. And of course, the hearing was dominated by Liz Cheney who represents one of the very few principled Republicans remaining, so why the unfair snark today?
It's rather meaningless what Ivanka Trump believes about the matter, much less her convo with Bill Barr. Its not evidence of anything.
BTW using family members as "witnesses" is what show trials do.
Lie down with dogs, get up with rhetorical fleas. Liz Cheney was exhibiting some of Adam "Schifty" Schiff's worst abuse of the truth. But not to worry--the voters of Wyoming will send Liz to the showers this fall and she can--figuratively speaking--be treated with flea powder after the shower.
Good Lord. Hearsay upon hearsay regarding opinion supported by reputation.
Not a fact in even remote proximity.
Trump's personnel foibles aside, I see this as an example of the long term consequences of the civil service losing its credibility
We can bet that the next Republican president will not miss the lessons learned by a naïve Trump.
The administration must be loyal to the president; that's the premise of the civil service bargain.
Nowhere is this more important than with the DOJ. Trump needed to clean out at least the top three layers on day one.
Administration was not Trump's strength.
Yancey Ward: "LOL! These clowns had no credibility to lose, Althouse."
That's the key feature, not bug, for Althouse resident BlueAnon dolt gadfly.
Even funnier is gadfly's hilarious efforts to paint Pelosi's lap poodle Lizzie as some sort of "principled conservative"!
If Cheney is a principled conservative, then so is Schiffty Schiff and Eric Swalwell.
Ivanka says she believed Barr's conclusion that there was insufficient fraud to overturn the election results. But so what? That doesn't mean that Barr was correct or that Donald Trump believed Barr and Ivanka were correct.
I don't think the results were fraudulent, but I think it's likely that Trump persuaded himself that they were. A man with a huge ego believes what he wants to believe? That happens.
The Democrats have to shift from preaching to the choir -- even the choir is bored -- to selecting a credible (not demented), centrist candidate for the next presidential election. I don't know who that could be.
Liz Cheney who represents one of the very few principled Republicans remaining, so why the unfair snark today?
She is hoping enough Democrats vote in the GOP primary in Wyoming to save her. Not what I would call "principled" but I know you use a different standard. I'll bet you even approve of Doxxing ACB's kid's school.
"Until someone can explain this, I will continue to proudly be an election truther or whatever other bullshit name the left is using this week."
"[N]o evidence of fraud on a scale that would change the outcome of the election" is a carefully worded statement. It is hardly a finding of no fraud or even of not enough fraud to change the outcome."
"I love how we continue to misuse the word "evidence." "Evidence" is not the same as "proof" and "evidence" can range from very strong to very weak. As accusation is "evidence." Whether that accusation is compelling is a very different story."
"Ask yourself: who has seriously looked into the extensive evidence available and provided some honest accurate analysis?"
"Until someone can explain this, I will continue to proudly be an election truther or whatever other bullshit name the left is using this week."
"So Bill Barr's statement was asininely stupid, and if it convinced you of anything, you're a sucker"
Just wanted to put a few of these more concise snippets together. Just another of endless examples that there is no piece of evidence on this earth or off it that could ever convince a significant trump supporters he didn't win the election. It's not a hypothesis for them, it's an article of faith.
Sure, Daniel. But what Ivanka Trump said she thought about what Bill Barr said he believed is solid "evidence" that Trump plotted an "insurrection". Got it.
Daniel12 said...
Just wanted to put a few of these more concise snippets together. Just another of endless examples that there is no piece of evidence on this earth or off it that could ever convince a significant trump supporters he didn't win the election.
I observed Democrat vote counters act in ways that made it impossible for Trump campaign poll watchers to catch any fraud.
As it's strongly in vote counters interest to NOT look like they're committing vote fraud, the only reason for them to do this is because they are engaging in vote fraud.
So, you are correct. Having watched Democrat vote counters in GA, MI,a nd PA act as if they were committing vote fraud, I believe their actions, and there's nothing you can do to undo that belief.
Because the whole point of "poll watchers" is that they prevent fraud that can't otherwise be detected.
Your statement, therefore, is roughly equal to A saying "I just watched you shoot and kill him", and then B saying: "there is no piece of evidence on this earth or off it that could ever convince you that I didn't shoot him"
Well no, there isn't. Having observed you commit the crime, I'm going to continue to believe my own lying eyes.
It's not a hypothesis for them, it's an article of faith.
No, it is your belief that it was an honest election that's a pure matter of faith
Instead of putting snippets together, Daniel, why don't you answer my fucking question.
Still waiting for someone to explain why six swing states suddenly stopped updating their vote totals and called an end to ballot counting that night - at the same time - only to have Biden in the lead when they updated those totals three-four hours later.
There it is. All by itself.
Explain it.
Jim at said...
Still waiting for someone to explain why six swing states suddenly stopped updating their vote totals and called an end to ballot counting that night - at the same time -
--
The power of Gadfly to overflow toilet across multiple states.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন