Anonymous Guest Attorney Contributor
Summary
On November 9, 2020 (6 days after the last governmental election), previous Attorney General William Barr directed a few of his essential subordinates to examine election abnormalities, releasing them as much as do so by overthrowing a previous internal Department of Justice (” DOJ”) policy that generally pressed out such examinations up until just after the appropriate election had actually ended, been licensed, and all election contests in court had actually completed. See Attorney General, Memorandum for United States Attorneys, The Assistant Attorneys General for the Criminal Division, Civil Rights Division, National Security Division, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Nov. 9, 2020)
The November 9 Memo fired up a media firestorm. See, e.g., Matt Zapotofsky & & Devlin Barrett, Barr Clears Justice Dept. to Investigate Alleged Voting Irregularities as Trump Makes Unfounded Fraud Claims, Washington Post (Nov. 9, 2020); Kevin Johnson & & Kristine Phillips, Attorney General William Barr’s Election Fraud Memo Brings New Storm to Justice Department, USA Today (Nov. 10, 2020) Indeed, a senior profession supervisor at DOJ resigned in demonstration of the November 9 Memo. See Bill Chappell, Head Of DOJ’s Election Crimes Unit Steps Down After Barr OKs Election Inquiries, NPR (Nov. 10, 2020)(” Richard Pilger resigned as head of the Justice Department’s election criminal activities branch Monday night, opposing Attorney General William Barr’s memo licensing federal district attorneys to pursue accusations of voting abnormalities.”). Pilger had actually modified the 2017 edition of DOJ’s technique to federal election criminal offenses. See Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses (8th ed. Dec. 2017)
Then, on December 1, 2020, news emerged of an unique interview AG Barr had actually offered to a single picked press reporter at the Associated Press. “The scoop, which was released on Dec. 1, 2020, priced estimate Barr as stating that the U.S. Justice Department had actually discovered no proof of prevalent citizen scams that might alter the result of the 2020 election.” David Bauder, The Story Behind the AP Report That Caused Trump to Throw Lunch, AP (June 28, 2022).
See November 9 Memo at 2 (” You are the most senior leaders in the United States Department of Justice and I trust you to work out excellent care and judgment in dealing with claims of ballot and vote inventory abnormalities.”).
This would trigger one to presume that Barr and his appropriate subordinates had actually completely examined the 2020 election pursuant to the November 9 Memo, discovered absolutely nothing after less than one month had actually expired, which in some way Barr concerned the conclusion it was appropriate for him to reveal the outcomes of his November 9 Memo procedure on December 1, 2020 not at a basic interview where he would have gone through questioning from press reporters of all stripes however just through a single mouthpiece-like AP press reporter.
Significant brand-new info emerging start in 2021, nevertheless, casts major doubt on any such facile conclusion. In specific, the United States Attorney in Philadelphia (the Eastern District of Pennsylvania), William McSwain, suggests he was informed by Barr to continue in a style that opposes the November 9 Memo. And likewise, the White House intermediary to the Justice Department, Heidi Stirrup, has actually affirmed that Barr easily informed her that he was assisting the Justice Department utilizing a policy really various than the one put on paper in the November 9 Memo.
Finally, previous U.S. Attorney Byung Pak of the Northern District of Georgia has a more complex story to inform however it comes down to the truth that he carried out a single, really narrow examination into part of one election abnormality at the State Farm Arena in Fulton County, Georgia however otherwise did not bestir himself (nor was he purchased) to take a look at other abnormalities such as issues with signature matching on mail-in tallies or the incorrect basis propagated to survey watchers at the State Farm Arena enabling a Democrat Party-dominated Fulton County set of election employees to count tallies on November 3-4, 2020 without observation by the opposing political celebration.
The divergence in between the November 9 Memo’s printed words and what was in fact going on behind the scenes at the Justice Department in 2020 into early 2021 raises major concerns that Barr and his appropriate subordinates should be contacted us to respond to by Congress. In amount, why did the official November 9 instruction inform DOJ authorities to do something various than Barr in fact permitted them to do in practice? Should not Barr and his appropriate servants come tidy on that and should not the present DOJ, which manages the files, launch the proof detailing all 2020 efforts to examine the last governmental election? The American individuals should have to understand what was in fact examined, more significantly what was not examined, and what the outcomes were.
The November 9 Memo
As kept in mind, previous AG Barr released an election examination memorandum on November 9,2020 The November 9 Memo started by worrying that “it is essential that the American individuals can rely on that our elections were performed in such a method that the results properly show the will of the citizens.” November 9 Memo at 1. The Memo then attended to how the Justice Department’s function and election federalism user interface: “Although the States have the main duty to carry out and monitor elections under our Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress, the United States Department of Justice has a commitment to make sure that federal elections are performed in such a method that the American individuals can have complete self-confidence in their electoral procedure and their federal government.” Id. It is tough to disagree with either of these platitude-like declarations.
From that facility, the November 9 Memo specified that the Justice Manual(an assistance file up on the web here) and policies of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section’s Election Crimes Branch (ECB) had actually developed a policy such that “obvious investigative actions normally ought to not be taken up until the election in concern has actually been concluded, its outcomes accredited, and all states and election contests concluded.” Id. On paper, the previous Attorney General declined that technique specifying:
Such a passive and postponed enforcement technique can lead to circumstances in which election misbehavior can not reasonably be remedied. This ECB practice has actually never ever been a tough and quick guideline, and case-specific decisions and judgments need to be made. While a lot of accusations of supposed election misbehavior are of such a scale that they would not affect the result of an election and, therefore, examination can properly be postponed, that is not constantly the case. Any issues that obvious actions taken by the Department might unintentionally affect an election are significantly lessened, if they exist at all, when ballot has actually concluded, even if election accreditation has actually not yet been finished.
Id.
This all sounds excellent and it was clearly a crucial action (even if it was done simply on a parchment basis) to reverse a wrongheaded DOJ Criminal Division policy created to agreeably cultivate impotence in the face of election scams.
The November 9 Memo then licensed action: “I license you to pursue significant claims of ballot and vote inventory abnormalities prior to the accreditation of elections in your jurisdictions in specific cases, as I have actually currently performed in particular circumstances. Such questions and evaluations might be carried out if there are clear and apparently-credible accusations of abnormalities that, if real, might possibly affect the result of a federal election in a specific State.” Id. at 1-2. Far, so excellent.
Note also that the November 9 Memo shows that it does not wish to hinder examinations U.S. Attorneys in their particular districts believe proper: “While U.S. Attorneys keep their fundamental authority to carry out questions and examinations as they consider suitable, it will likely be sensible to start any election-related matters as an initial query, so regarding evaluate whether readily available proof warrants even more investigative actions.” Id. at 2.
The Memo concluded with the sensible admonition:” [S] pecious, speculative, fanciful or improbable claims need to not be a basis for starting federal queries.” Id.
The First Crack in the Official Story
On June 9, 2021, the previous U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia (the Eastern District of Pennsylvania), William M. McSwain, composed to previous President Trump to poke holes in Barr’s main story that he had actually done his finest and rode herd on other DOJ authorities to do the exact same to examine the 2020 governmental election abnormalities. See Letter from William M. McSwain to President Trump (June 9, 2020)(McSwain June 9, 2021 Letter).
McSwain started the June 9 Letter by advising President Trump of his achievements in the election scams location: “In the spring of 2020, I prosecuted and won an election scams case versus a Judge of Elections in South Philadelphia who was packing the tally box. I likewise charged the political expert (a previous Democratic Congressman) who was paying kickbacks to the Judge to pack the tally box.” Id. at 1. A Justice Department news release memorializes McSwain’s efforts. See U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain Announces Election Fraud Charges Against Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia Political Operative (July 23, 2020)(July 23, 2020 EDPA Press Release).
McSwain then turned to the topic of the 2020 election:
President Trump, you were ideal to be disturbed about the method the Democrats ran the 2020 election in Pennsylvania– it was a partisan disgrace. The Governor, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and the partisan State Supreme Court comprised their own guidelines and did not follow the law. Even even worse, the State Attorney General, Josh Shapiro– the really individual accountable for the enforcement of state election law– stated days before Election Day that you might not win the election. It would be tough to picture a more careless declaration by a police officer, specifically throughout a fiercely objected to election. Due to such declarations, it is barely unexpected that numerous Pennsylvanians do not have faith in our state’s election outcomes.
McSwain June 9, 2021 Letter at 1.
The issue of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania “comprising its own guidelines,” contrary to those developed prior to and for the election by the Pennsylvania Legislature was a genuine nest of abnormality. The Justice Department plainly might have examined those guideline modifications, civilly or criminally, and at the minimum submitted amicus briefs or declarations of interest in election contests in federal and/or state courts in Pennsylvania suggesting that such guideline modifications were unconstitutional, suspicious, and one-sided in their effect. The Justice Department never ever did so. Nor did the Justice Department, it would appear, ever deign to examine the considerable election-rigging results of the Zuckerbucks Program, which was assaulted in numerous problems coming out of think-tank world (submitted on September 22, 2022) to the IRS. See Individual Complaint & & Entities Complaint See normally Mollie Hemingway, Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections (2021).
Former U.S. Attorney McSwain then got more granular in recording his grievances about Barr to previous President Trump:
On Election Day and later on, our Office got different accusations of citizen scams and election abnormalities. As part of my duties as U.S. Attorney, I wished to be transparent with the general public and, obviously, examine completely any accusations. Attorney General Barr, nevertheless, advised me not to make any public declarations or put out any press launches relating to possible election abnormalities. I was likewise provided an instruction to pass along severe claims to the State Attorney General for examination– the exact same State Attorney General [and present Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania] who had actually currently stated that you might not win.
Id.(focus included).
In other words, McSwain wished to examine various claims of scams and other abnormalities. Barr rejected him the capability to do so. This breaks the November 9 Memo itself, where Barr stated that “U.S. Attorneys preserve their intrinsic authority to perform questions and examinations as they consider suitable …” November 9 Memo at 2 (focus included). McSwain was not allowed to continue as he considered suitable, however just as Barr considered suitable.
Additionally, by advising McSwain to turn over proof of “vote scams and election abnormalities” to the Democrat Pennsylvania AG, Barr likewise breached his own November 9 Memo asserting that there was a federal investigative function in guaranteeing election stability regarding a nationwide election, like that for the presidency. Worse, McSwain notified Barr that the Pennsylvania AG had actually currently preannounced that Trump would lose. Therefore, Barr needs to have, or a minimum of ought to have, comprehended that he was consigning the proof McSwain had actually currently discovered (or that existed to him) to the circular file, where absolutely nothing would be finished with it by the prejudiced Democrat, Josh Shapiro.
Barr contested McSwain’s account, arguing that there was absolutely nothing particular he wished to examine and he was simply attempting to get Trump’s recommendation for his run for Pennsylvania Governor. Devlin Barrett, et al., William Barr Clashes with Former Trump Appointee from Pennsylvania Over Handling of Election-Fraud Claims, Washington Post (July 13, 2021); see likewise Chris Brennan, Bill Barr Says Bill McSwain Wanted to Just ‘Flap His Gums,’ Not Investigate 2020 Election Fraud, Phila. Inquirer (July 13, 2021) Even beyond the reality that this runs completely contrary to McSwain’s tested performance history in searching down and effectively prosecuting election scams in Philadelphia (among the historic hotbeds for such unlawful activity in the nation), this neglects that McSwain believed there were premises to challenge Pennsylvania’s modifications to election guidelines without legal approval. And in a later interview, McSwain highlighted that “what I didn’t like was that I wasn’t complimentary to follow the proof any place it leads,” a flexibility that the November 9 Memo in fact supposed to grant (or to leave undisturbed). Chris Brennan, et al., Bill McSwain Tried to Walk a Political Tightrope on Trump’s Election Lies. Costs Barr Cut It, Phila. Inquirer (July 13, 2021)(Brennan Article).
Congress must ask why there seem numerous contradictions in between the November 9 Memo and Barr’s directions to McSwain and in between Barr and McSwain’s varying accounts of their altercation.
The Second Crack in the Official Story
The 2nd window into how the November 9 Memo was being operationalized happened one year after the McSwain discoveries. On March 4, 2022, legal representative Kurt Olsen took legal action against Speaker of your home Nancy Pelosi, your home Select Committee on January 6, and the members of that Select Committee, for a declaratory judgment that those offenders were acting unconstitutionally in requiring his statement. The majority of saliently, on July 12, 2022, Olsen submitted the statement of Heidi Stirrup to strengthen a reply short supporting his require an initial injunction. See usually Olsen v. Pelosi, No. 1: 22- cv-00807- CJN (D.D.C.).
Stirrup’s statement is offered on Pacer (the federal court docketing system). She shows that in late October 2020, she ended up being the White House intermediary to the Justice Department in preparation for an awaited 2nd term for President Trump. See Stirrup Declaration at ¶ 6. Because function, she “did not hesitate to reveal to [her] fellow political appointees about [her] issue about the extremely irregular and possibly deceptive activity in the (****************************************************************) General Election.”( ****) Id.( *****) at ¶ 8. Stirrup then explained realities interacted to her about how the November 9 Memo became:( ***)( ***************************)( ****************************) I likewise affirmed about a discussion I had with Mr. Levi [Chief of Staff to AG Barr] on Monday, November 9,( ****************************************************************), about what he or anybody else at the Department of Justice was doing to examine the prospective election scams.( *****************************)( ****************************) As I described to Mr. Wood who was questioning me, Mr. Levi informed me he worked all weekend on a memo, that he was plainly upset and incredibly upset about the quantity of time he needed to dedicate over the weekend to concerns worrying the election, and he grumbled that he had actually missed out on spending quality time with household.( *****************************)( ****************************) Mr. Levi, informed me that the memo he composed was meant to offer U.S. Attorneys with the authority and treatments they might depend on to examine claims of election scams if such claims were given them.( *****************************)( ******************************)( *)( ************************************************************************************************************************************). I asked Mr. Levi what investigative activity had actually happened. He declared at one point that” they checked out every accusation that was advanced and discovered no proof of scams.” He kept referring me to his weekend memo. Once again, this was simply days after the election when accounts of extremely irregular activity were still coming out.( ***)( *) (****) Id. (*****) at ¶ ¶ 9-( ************************************************************************************************************************************).( ***)( *)There are apparent issues with how Mr. Levi, who was working as Barr’s Chief of Staff, reacted to Ms. Stirrup’s questions. The November 9 Memo was plainly not– a minimum of on its face– the conclusion of a procedure of examining the( ****************************************************************) election however rather( *******)( ****) the initiation of such a procedure( *****)( **********)( or a minimum of it supposed to be). This results in the apparent concern of how Levi might inform Stirrup,( *******)( ****) on November 9,( ****************************************************************)( *****)( **********), that” they checked out every claims that was advanced and discovered no proof of scams. “That would have been difficult– or needed a time maker.( ***)( *) Unsurprisingly then, Stirrup started to ask more permeating concerns: ” While I marvelled and relieved to learn that the Department of Justice was at least doing something, I was worried since I had actually not seen any investigative activity by the leading police in the country. I would like to know particularly what was being done.”( ****) Id. (*****) at ¶( ***********************************************************************************************************************************). As an outcome, Levi consented to let Stirrup have a conference with Barr.( ****) See id. (*****) at ¶( **********************************************************************************************************************************)( “I wished to speak with the Attorney General himself.”).( ***)( *) This follow-up conference was likewise hung on November 9, (**************************************************************). Stirrup explains what occurred throughout and in relation to the conference as follows:( ***)( *******************************)( ****************************) Again, I affirmed that I would like to know whether there was any activity aside from the development of Mr. Levi’s weekend memo. I was constantly hearing accounts about all sort of worrying things which were stated to happen in the November( ****************************************************************) Election and wished to know precisely what the Department was doing to examine them. (*****************************)( ****************************) I affirmed that I asked Attorney General Barr what was being done about the extremely irregular election activities. When I particularly asked if the Department had actually done anything, Mr. Barr informed me” no.” He then informed me,” There is no federal function in elections; they are run by the states. If scams is given a U.S. Attorney, they have the authority to examine.” He ensured me that no matter just how much supposed scams was advanced, no examination would take less than 2 years and the election would not be reversed.( *****************************)( ****************************) I informed him that I was not thinking about reversing an election however rather was more worried about what was being done to examine the scams claims. It was clear to me then, throughout my deposition [before the January 6 Select Committee], and now that absolutely nothing was done.( *****************************)( ****************************) The Committee likewise tried to spring on me with no caution, a press reporter’s account in a book of what took place at the conference which was obviously dripped by among Attorney General Barr’s secretaries or personnel. This press reporter, Jonathan Karl, never ever even talked to me and the characterizations in his book were just not real. (*****************************) (******************************)( *)( ****) Id.( *****) at ¶ ¶( ********************************************************************************************************************************)-( *****************************************************************************************************************************).( ***)( *) Stirrup’s account includes a number of amazing functions:( ***)( *) (****) First (*****), her declaration that the result of the conference concerning( ****************************************************************) election examinations was”( *******) [( ****) i( *****)]( ****) t was clear to me then, throughout my deposition, and now that absolutely nothing was done.( *****)( **********)”( ****) Id.( *****) at ¶( ******************************************************************************************************************************).( ***)( *) (****) Second (*****), Barr’s reported declarations oppose those of his Chief of Staff, Mr. Levi. Mr. Levi showed to Stirrup that” they checked out every accusation that was advanced and discovered no proof of scams.” (****) Id.( *****) at ¶( ************************************************************************************************************************************). Barr informed Stirrup( in Levi’s existence, according to Stirrup )that absolutely nothing was being done in that vein: “When I particularly asked if the Department had actually done anything, Mr. Barr informed me ‘no. ‘He then informed me, ‘There is no federal function in elections; they are run by the states.’ “( ****)Id.( *****) at (*******************************************************************************************************************************).( ***)( *)( ****)Third( *****), Barr did suggest to Stirrup that” [i] f scams is given a U.S. Attorney, they have the authority to examine.”( ****) Id.( *****) But we understand from McSwain that McSwain was one such U.S. Attorney and he was particularly rejected the authority to examine– or as he put it:” I wasn’t complimentary to follow the proof any place it leads. “( **************************) Brennan Article (*************).( ***)( *)( ****)Fourth( *****), more regularly with her conclusion that no examination of significance was occurring, Barr informed Stirrup that it was useless to participate in examinations due to the fact that” no matter just how much supposed scams was advanced, no examination would take less than 2 years and the election would not be reversed. “If this sworn statement given up the (****) Olsen v. Pelosi (*****) lawsuits is proper, presuming Barr had actually not chosen for some unstated factor (s) to prevent carrying out any examinations, he had at least chose carrying out lots of, if not all examinations was a helpless business and hence that doing so was not a high top priority. This is rather contrary to Barr’s representations to journalism and somewhere else that he managed a Department energetically participated in considerable( ****************************************************************) election examinations.( ****) See, e.g.,( *****) Carol Leonnig & Philip Rucker, I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year( ************************************************************************************)( Barr stated” the Justice Department was taking a look at'( *******)( ****) any particular reputable claims (*****) (**********) that would have a significant effect’ on the outcomes.”), (***********************************************************************************)(” Barr informed Trump he wanted to have his representatives and attorneys( *******) (****) get on every accusation of major scams (*****)( **********), however up until now he didn’t see any claims that would move the needle on the last require any state.”)( focus included). Stirrup’s testament is that absolutely nothing was being got on and McSwain’s statement is that he was informed to” leap off” examining and leave it to the Pennsylvania AG Shapiro, who was a Democrat who had actually currently concluded Trump would lose the election making any investigative recommendation to him meaningless.( ***)( *)( ****) Fifth( *****), keep in mind that what Stirrup relates (*******)( ****) really re-creates the (*****) status quo ante (****) regarding DOJ policy prior to the election( *****), (**********)( ****) i.e.,( *****) the pre-( *************************************************************************************************************************************) / 9 /( ****************************************************************************************************************************) ended policy of the Criminal Division( which is seemingly what triggered Pilger to resign) that election scams and abnormalities would just be examined( *******)( ****) after the election was long over( *****) (**********). Barr’s real actions re-created policy was the really policy–( *******)( ****) on paper( *****)( **********)– that Barr( or Levi, given that he appears to have actually been the author based on his admissions to Stirrup )had actually slammed as” a passive and postponed enforcement technique [ which] can lead to scenarios in which election misbehavior can not reasonably be corrected.” November 9 Memo at 1. This is strong proof that the November 9 Memo was done( *******) (****) simply for looks’ sake (*****)( **********), instead of to serve as a real stimulate to police action. (***)( *) (****) Sixth( *****), Barr incorrectly conflates carrying out election examinations with carrying out (*******)( ****) criminal examinations (*****)( **********). When once again, this disregards civil investigative tools and statutes. It is the type of myopia that makes it simple to comprehend why the Zuckerbucks Program (see above) was not inspected in fantastic information.( ***)( *) Barr then ended up ejecting Stirrup from the Robert F. Kennedy Building (frequently called” Main Justice “).( ********************************)( ****) See( *****) (****) Trump Aide Heidi Stirrup Banned from Justice After Trying to Get Case Info( *****), CNBC( Dec. 3, (****************************************************************))( *************). Jonathan Karl( the CNN press reporter and book author) asserted this much based upon his sources, however without talking to Stirrup for her side of the story( Stirrup Declaration at ¶( *****************************************************************************************************************************)):( ***) (*) A couple of days after the election, in her very first complete day in the workplace, she entered to satisfy a senior authorities on Attorney General Bill Barr’s group [most likely Levi] It didn’t work out.” You require to awaken to the reality this election is being taken!” she shrieked.” It requires to be stopped!” (( ****) The Atlantic (*****) was unable to reach Stirrup for remark.)( ***)( *) Barr’s group saw Stirrup as more than simply frustrating; they stressed she would sleuth into DOJ examinations. This would have been extremely dishonest– the White House is not expected to interfere in criminal cases. [( *********************************) [. 1]( *************)]( ***) (*) The next time Stirrup occurred to scold the senior authorities, he asked her if she wishes to provide her message straight to the attorney general of the United States, and with that he brought her in to see Barr. The majority of people discover Barr frightening, however not Heidi Stirrup.” The election is being taken,” she lectured him.” You require much better individuals doing these examinations.” And she informed him she had a list of individuals, most likely offered by [Johnny] McEntee [previous Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office], whom he required to employ.( ***)( *) Jonathan D. Karl,( ****) The Man Who Made January 6 Possible( *****), The Atlantic( Nov. 9,( ***************************************************************))( declaring that McEntee was that enabler). (***)( *) Again, taking an action back from the conflict, Congress requires to employ all of these witnesses and attempt to square the different accounts. Maybe Stirrup did lecture Barr about her views. The Jonathan Karl account in( ****)The Atlantic (*****) does not take on whether Barr confessed to Stirrup that he was not examining due to the fact that( 1) doing so was apparently a state function and since (2) it would take too long to finish a criminal examination, when just about (*********************************************************************************************) days stayed at that point before the January( ****************************************************************************************************************************),( ***************************************************************) inauguration.( ***)( ******)( *******)( ********) New FOIA Revelations– the Third Crack in the Story( *********)( **********)( ***********)( *) There is a Twitter user( @( *********************************************************************************************************************************) poundstogo), calling himself FoiaFan, who regularly submits Freedom of Information Act( FOIA) demands and posts the outcomes to Twitter Investment Watch Blog had the ability to record a series of tweets from FoiaFan starting in the Spring of (**************************************************************) and ending in September( **************************************************************). (***)( *) The Twitter thread shows that FoiaFan sent out a FOIA demand( No. EOUSA-( ***************************************************************)-( ************************************************************) )to the Justice Department requesting details from( ************************************************************************************************************************************) DOJ parts throughout 7 States, consisting of United States Attorney Districts, looking for files worrying what examinations and other actions were taken in action to the November 9 Memo, as supplemented by an early tweet maintained independently (the very first in this chain). The thread is recreated on the next page:( ***)( *)( **********************************)( ***)( *)( ***********************************)( ***)( *) The lack of responsive files to the FoiaFan FOIA demand is remarkable in numerous aspects:( ***)( *)( ****) First( *****), it is completely constant with Stirrup’s conclusion: “It was clear to me then, throughout my deposition, and now that absolutely nothing was done.” Stirrup Declaration at ¶( ******************************************************************************************************************************). (***)( *)( ****) Second( *****), it corresponds too with the McSwain June 9,( ***************************************************************) Letter, though previous U.S. Attorney McSwain unsurprisingly did not suggest that he had any exposure into examinations by Main Justice or by U.S. Attorney’s Offices aside from his own, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He was not capable of reaching the more comprehensive conclusion reached by Stirrup (who was stationed, prior to her ejection by Barr, at Main Justice )based on her discussions with Barr and Levi. (*********************************) [1] (*************)( ***)( *)( ****) Third( *****), it is affordable to presume that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania came as the last staying DOJ part that had not yet reacted to FoiaFan’s FOIA demand worrying the November 9 Memo exactly since DOJ understood that declaring that no responsive files existed regarding examinations in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would come under heavy analysis because of McSwain’s accusations. Ultimately, nevertheless, even that District reacted and it likewise did not produce through FOIA paperwork of any examinations that they ran regarding the( ****************************************************************) election utilizing the November 9,( ****************************************************************) Barr Memo. What occurred to the examination that McSwain must have created a minimum of some paper on? Response: It appears to have actually been memory holed. They believe you’re foolish.( ***) (******)( *******)( ********) Former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee( *********)(**********)( ***********)( *)Former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak was spoken with by the Senate Judiciary Committee on August (*************************************************************************************************************************************),(***************************************************************).(****) See (*****)(************************************) Interview of Byung J.” BJay”Pak(Aug. (*************************************************************************************************************************************),(***************************************************************))(*************) (“BJay Pak Interview” ). He affirmed that he had actually called the FBI and the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office to check out accusations by President Trump’s personal legal representative Rudy Giuliani.( ****)See(*****)(****)id.( *****)at(************************************************************************************************************************************)-(********************************************************************************************************************************). This included the concern of whether there were external”travel suitcase tallies”being presented into the counting procedure on the night of November 3,(***************************************************************). Pak affirmed that” a miscommunication”caused” survey watchers from each celebrations [(****) sic (*****)] were incorrectly sent out home.”(****)Id.(*****) at (********************************************************************************************************************************). Pak at no point showed this was the well-known declared”watermain break” at the Fulton County, Georgia convention center, the State Farm Arena. This watermain break would end up being fictitious– a truth that Pak at no time described as the cause for resumed counting to be performed in offense of the policy developed under state law permitting observers from both celebrations to see the counting procedure.( ****)See(*****) Georgia Code, §(***************************************************************************************************************************) -2 -(*********************************************************************************) (entitled”survey watchers,”and so on). Nor was he cross-examined on this subject.(***)( *)This raises various concerns about the sufficiency of the examination performed into Giuliani’s claims about the fictitious watermain break and its significance. Fulton County is Democrat-dominated. Hours-long durations of counting not observed by the opposing celebration, the Republican Party, is a major problem and yet there is no indicator from Pak that the concern was gone to ground by the FBI or as an outcome of his own actions. Rather, Pak focused throughout his Senate Judiciary Committee interview on the truth that the”travel suitcases”that were taken out from under tables after survey watchers left were”in reality … safe and secure tally box [es]”Pak Interview at(********************************************************************************************************************************):(*********************************************************************************************************************************)-(********************************************************************************************************************************). This reacts just to Giuliani claims or ramifications that deceitful tallies were brought from the beyond the ballot procedure through regular travel luggage after observers left. It does not attend to the issues connected with survey watchers no longer existing when counting,(*******)(****)even of tallies that were(********)not(*********)external to the procedure(*****) (**********)(****),(*****)resumed late the night of the election.(***)(*) Pak likewise affirmed that he and others were puzzled about how to translate Barr’s November(****************************************************************)Memo(mistakenly describing it as the November 6th memo).(****)See id.(*****)at(*****************************************************************************************************************************):9-(***********************************************************************************************************************************)(particularly:”there was a dispute in regards to the analysis of the November 6th [(****)sic (*****)] memo provided by AG Barr,”(****)id.(*****)at(*****************************************************************************************************************************):(**************************************************************************************************************************************)- (*************************************************************************************************************************************)). This caused a hold-up in when the FBI spoke with those associated with resuming counting at the State Farm Arena on the night of the election. See id. The postponed FBI examination declined Giuliani’s claims according to Pak however he provided no information to the Senate Judiciary Committee of why or whether the concern of the flat lack of survey watchers for a crucial multi-hour duration were ever put under the microscopic lense. See id. at 20:2 -8. (Pak likewise later on confessed he never ever connected to Giuliani or had any FBI detectives connect to him either. See id. at 38:2 -5.)
And incredibly, the 2 appropriate witnesses (which are thought to be January 6 Select Committee witnesses Ruby Freeman and her child, Shaye Moss, were talked to together by the FBI, which would not have actually enabled FBI unique representatives to possibly expose the complete level of any disparities in their testament. [1] See id. at 20:1 -2; see likewise id. at 39:3 (” It was the FBI’s choice to do it together.”). Pak was great with this technique, it would appear, despite the fact that he confessed that any examination posts ponement suggested that proof might be spoliated– to put it simply, might be intentionally damaged. See id. at 51:1 -2.).
Pak suggested that he communicated to Barr and to Richard Donoghue, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the time, the outcomes of the FBI examination. “And then the next thing I learnt is that, you understand, the chief law officer had actually provided– that he was going to resign.” Id. at 20: 21-23 Barr revealed his resignation (reliable December 23, 2020) on December 14, 2020, suggesting that the FBI interviews of appropriate election employees (once again, most likely Freeman and Moss) took place weeks after the November 3, 2020 election. The November 9 Memo would appear rather clear that there was permission to examine a matter like this and yet confusion about its analysis, according to Pak, is what caused that hold-up. [2] Congress ought to strongly explore the hold-up.
After Pak offered this statement about Georgia examinations, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer (present on behalf of the Biden DOJ) objected that additional examinations must not be gone over: “At this point, I’m worried that Mr. Pak might be surpassing the scope. I do not believe it’s suitable for him to speak about all of the examinations.” Id. at 21:7-10
Again, Congress might want to explore the complete variety of examinations that Pak was associated with or knowledgeable about, so that readily available information does not associate with the problem of “luggage tallies” alone, which itself overlooks the significance of the phony watermain break and the departure of Republican survey watchers. Pak explained in his statement that the FBI permission was just to take a look at the concern of travel suitcase tallies (directly specified, see listed below): “The permission I believe the FBI had actually gotten was just for the people that are illustrated in the video who was [ sic] at the State Farm area therefore I believe that my recollection is they spoke with 5 to 7 individuals, which were– I believe there were 5 individuals who were poll employees, and after that there was [ sic] 2 extra.” Id. at 23: 19-24 See likewise id. at 24:8-10(” I appear to remember that was the permission offered by the Election Crimes Branch or the Department itself therefore that was narrow in scope“) (focus included); id. at 58: 21-22(” Q. And the examination was finished, remedy? A. The restricted examination, yes.“) (focus included). The concept that there was an extensive examination in all battlefield States by Attorney General Barr in his representations to the press is opposed by BJay Pak’s testament. Just a “minimal examination” took place, thoroughly circumscribed in scope and one where, post hoc questioning by Senate Republican legal personnel of Pak was cut off by the Biden DOJ’s Weinsheimer.
Pause here to remember too that Barr informed the single AP press reporter he spoke with– on December 1, 2020– that there was no proof of election abnormalities adequate to impact the result of the election. [1] Yet, it would appear that Pak believed that the 2 witnesses were not even talked to till December 7 or 8, 2020, [2] because of postponed permission for the FBI to speak with the witnesses based upon some type of supposed confusion about the significance of the November 9 Memo.
Note also that Pak informed the Senate Judiciary Committee he had actually concluded there was no “extensive scams or anything like that going on in [his] district [that includes Fulton County,] in spite of the reality that he had actually formerly confessed that the FBI examination was “narrow in scope” and in spite of the truth that questioning put to him about other examinations was securely and consistently cut off by Weinsheimer. Id. at 25: 16-17 Congress requires to get details on all of the examinations. It should not enable itself to be stonewalled and offered just part of the photo.
More constant with Stirrup and McSwain that perky efforts to penetrate into 2020 election abnormalities were sorely doing not have or, even worse yet, agreeably obstructed, the following exchange at the Senate Judiciary Committee in between Pak and among his interlocutors there deserves studying:
- Okay. And after that could you explain how if in any method this policy modification manifested in your work as a U.S. Attorney? Were you approached by Main Justice at any indicate take a more forward-leaning method to election scams examinations?
- Apart from the [November 9] memo, no, they have not. You understand, we took a– internally at the U.S. Attorney’s Office that I was leading, I took the technique of being conservative …
Id. at 30:8-16 See likewise id. at 31:1 -2 (” I didn’t check out the memo as being an instruction to be forward-leaning in regards to examinations.”) (focus included).
At numerous other points, Weinsheimer challenged obstruct queries into whether the election examinations were done by Pak or other federal law-enforcement authorities dealing with him in Georgia: “Q. Okay. Can you state how lots of election-related reports relating to 2020 were sent out up that reporting chain? Mr. Weinsheimer [:] I would challenge that concern.” Id. at 41: 23-25 See likewise id. at 45: 22-25 through 46:1 -2 (Weinsheimer for DOJ challenging Pak supplying “some description of the examples of the kinds of citizen scams and election criminal offense accusations that you got connecting to the 2020 election.”); id. at 52-53(challenging Pak determining who the Northern District of Georgia’s criminal chief was); id. at 53-54(challenging Pak responding to the number of accusations of election issues rose to him in 2020); id. at 53: 23-24(” I believe Congress wants to understand th [at] response.”); id. at 60 (Weinsheimer declining to permit Pak to address concerns of whether he opened any other examinations of the 2020 election aside from the “restricted” examination of the “luggage tallies,” directly specified); id. at 84:2 -4 (” You’re entering into particular examinations that do not have anything to do with particular pressure placed on Mr. Pak therefore I would object.”). [1]
Pak plainly interpreted the November 9 Memo as revealing basically the exact same policy that had actually constantly remained in location. He did not, to put it simply, see it as the sort of occasion worth resigning over, as Pilger had actually done. See id. at 49: 14-16(” This forward-leaning posture, was it various before this memo was released? A. I believe it was quite comparable.”); id. at 50:9-10, 12-13(“ I saw it as it carefully tuned the existing policy … I didn’t believe it was a substantial shift in the present policy“) (focus included).
Combine this with the truth that Pak yielded that the DOJ Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, prior to November 9, 2020, had actually followed “a passive and postponed enforcement method.” Id. at 57: 11-16 Taken together, these concessions indicate the reality that the more recent November 9 Memo policy was basically the like the old policy, other than that it was a somewhat darker shade of pastel gray. Nevertheless or possibly due to what he believed was the governing policy (in its pre- and post-November 9 versions), Pak confessed that “ I do not believe it’s unreasonable for [President Trump] to question what we were doing.“). Id. at 67: 15-16(focus included).
Pak relied sometimes on his “District Election Officer,” Brent Gray. Gray has actually just ever contributed to a Democrat for workplace. See Open Secrets Donor Lookup Gray is likewise a veteran of Main Justice’s Civil Rights Division, which is not understood to use numerous conservative Republicans. See Pak Transcript at 26: 14-17(” As a matter of reality, the district election officer utilized to operate in the civil liberties department of the Department therefore he was an ideal fit, in my mind, and he’s managed numerous cases.”); id. at 51: 18-24(Pak concurring that Gray “was generally the consumption officer for [election-irregularity] accusations that came particularly to [Pak’s] workplace”).
Congress need to ask even more into examinations by previous U.S. Attorney Bobby Christine, who took control of as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia when Pak left. Pak demurred that he did not understand much about claims Christine had actually examined worrying whether Fulton County tallies were being carried by truck to be dealt with in Cobb County, Georgia. See id. at 61-64 If such quick tally damage had actually taken place, it would be a considerable election abnormality for federal law needs tallies to be maintained for 22 months. See 52 U.S.C. § 20701 (arrangement enforceable by $1,000 fine or jail time of as much as one year).
Pak was enabled by Weinsheimer to confess that he did not understand if there were any examination of the accusations in a suit submitted by the Trump project including legal representative Cleta Mitchell (and others) circa December 4,2020 See id. at65 Pak likewise confessed that regardless of governmental directions to his remarkable, Donoghue, to do so, he did not understand if anybody went to Fulton County to examine the problem of signature confirmation. See id. at 68:9-17 Signature confirmation was an essential concern in the Cleta Mitchell claim, particularly regarding mail-in tallies. This is another circumstance where President Trump orders were overlooked, yet Barr or his partners preserved they had actually done a complete examination. It is clear that they did no such thing. As Pak yielded, the essence of the November 9 Memo was– satisfy the brand-new memo, like the old memo.
All proof indicates the truth that the November 9 Memo was a kabuki dance.
CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, previous AG Barr’s November 9, 2020 Memo raises more concerns than it addresses. Congress ought to guarantee that a person or more House and/or Senate Committees hires the following people to affirm at length about them: (1) William Barr, (2) Jeffrey Rosen (previous Deputy Attorney General under Barr), Donoghue’s employer, (3) Richard Donoghue, (4) William McSwain, (5) Heidi Stirrup, (6) Byung Pak, (7) Brent Gray, (8) Bobby Christine, (9) Corey Amundson, and (10) every U.S. Attorney or Acting U.S. Attorney (and all of their district election officers) in all of the U.S. Attorney Districts in the States of (a) Arizona, (b) Georgia, (c) Michigan, (d) Nevada, (e) New Hampshire, (f) Pennsylvania, and (g) Wisconsin.
One overarching concern looms big and could function as a style to assist congressional oversight:
Was the November 9 Memo mainly simply an empty formalism– a kabuki dance– provided to pacify President Trump’s election grievances however not in fact examine the most questionable governmental election in American history?
The lack of FOIA reactions, plus the other proof briefly summed up above worrying previous AG Barr’s November 9, 2020 Memo, unfortunately recommends DOJ examinations of the 2020 governmental election varied someplace in between anemic and nonexistent. And the one examination that appears to have actually been done (worrying Fulton County, Georgia) was really thoroughly circumscribed so that it was “narrow in scope,” with the present DOJ avoiding any Senate questions to date into whether other examinations were done.
The stonewalling should end. The existing DOJ, which manages all of the appropriate 2020-21 files, ought to launch the proof detailing all 2020 efforts to examine the last governmental election. The American individuals should have to understand the entire story, not simply a thoroughly curated part of the story apparently developed to preserve a type of folklore about the import of the November 9 Barr Memo.
The post Top Insider Speaks Out: DOJ Investigations of the 2020 Presidential Election Under Former AG Barr Were a Lackluster Kabuki Dance appeared initially on The Gateway Pundit
This article may have been paraphrased or summarized for brevity. The original article may be accessed here: Read Source Article.
