Replies

What does this mean for “Stealth Bomber” —> B2 —> BB —> Bill Barr?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only remaining question mark I have is that Barr is to be impartial and the public has to know that. He couldn’t investigate with the FBI or DOJ because it was too corrupt, anything they touched would turn to lead. So the fact that Barr said he hadn’t seen any evidence seemed like “I’m keeping FBI and other sleeper operative hands off the evidence for you.”

So he couldn’t have any evidence and wouldn’t say that he did because he’s impartial (Police). He still hasn’t seen any evidence which gives me pause - why hasn’t he seen it? He can’t be part of the crowd looking because he would be accused of tainting/fixing evidence, so he’s still on the outside saying I don’t see it.

But his comments, if he made them, would seem to undermine. He never called for the Supreme Court to play it’s role. I didn’t see him make neutral statements explaining Pence could have rejected slate because that’s how the Constitution works. While he can’t play a role, he seems to be standing back too far, even from being neutral, because a neutral party could still point to cases with evidence being dismissed by courts all over the nation.

What’s odd is I used to be attacked, anyone would be, if I posted Barr posts - just furious ridicule with his main ‘character flaw’ being bagpipe playing. I thought they had to denigrate him because he has seen the Mueller Report and he has forced out Mueller and RR based on what he’s seen.

And then as Barr exited it fell relatively quiet, and the NYT actually said something positive about him! WUT!?

So either the MSM/black hats were relieved he was going, and were patting him on the head to encourage ‘good behavior ‘ (get outta here) or he caved in some way.

Now ‘know-it-alls’ on FR are back now saying they always knew he was bad (even when he was serving POTUS well, railing against China and change to weaken election laws?) and this latest news article supposedly quotes him from ‘Spring’ in the same article they mischaracterize the POTUS’s comments.

Barr could correct this, and say something now (e.g., “If what POTUS is saying is true, then we must correct the record to protect the Constitution and Freedom around the world”. But....silence.

I didn’t see him make neutral statements explaining Pence could have rejected slate because that’s how the Constitution works

Nowhere in the Constitution is the President of the Senate allowed to reject a state's certificate. His role is defined in the 12th amendment and it is almost ceremonial.

The counting of electoral votes is codified in "3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

It is here, where the VP reads the count by state and asks if there are any objections.
The house\senate makes objections and it's here that electoral votes - certificates - may be rejected.
The VP role is still mostly ceremonial..but it does allow the VP to accept papers purporting to be certificates.

"Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States," ...

It is my understanding that VP Pence had the process changed to not accept anything but certified certificates.

Here is his clarifying letter to Congress...which really doesn't seem to clarify anything other than he won't be accepting "papers purporting to be certificates" - even though he doesn't come right out and say it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-pences-full-letter-saying-he-cant-claim-unilateral-authority-to-reject-electoral-votes