Editor's Note: Liberty Nation's Washington Political Columnist Tim Donner and Managing Editor Mark Angelides sit down to discuss what's happening in the Swamp. This is the transcript of Liberty Nation Radio heard coast-to-coast on the Radio America Network. A podcast version or a videocast of this program is also available by clicking the links.
Attorney General Bill Barr has authorized prosecutors in the Department of Justice (DOJ) to look into allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election. Unsurprisingly, media organizations appear to be launching a concerted effort to decry the investigation, making a case that no inquiry whatsoever should be taking place. Is this something the DOJ should be investigating, or is it a Don Quixote impossible dream to believe there was sufficient fraud in the casting and counting of ballots to overturn the current projections and give President Donald Trump a second term?
Tim Donner: Joining us to weigh in on these weighty questions and on a growing schism between progressives and traditional liberals in the House of Representatives is LibertyNation.com Managing Editor Mark Angelides.
Mark Angelides: Hi, Tim. Thanks for having me on.
Bill Barr
Tim: Always great to have you back. Now, in his memo, Attorney General Barr said, "Nothing here should be taken as any indication that the department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any election." But this type of investigation is a somewhat extraordinary thing for the nation's top law enforcement official to undertake. Do you think it's because of specific allegations that have come across Barr's desk or more the sum total of anecdotal stories forcing him to at least take a look into them for the sake of clarity if nothing else?
Mark: Well, it's not egregious for the nation's top cop to be looking into alleged crimes, especially as they do span the country. I suspect that he knows more than you and I know, that the media in general know, and if it seems to him that what is happening is, let's call it, systemic, as in it was a scheme that operated across multiple states, then he really does need to look into it deeply for no other reason than to give the public back their trust and faith in the voting system. Because without that, we'll see chaos at every election. We'll see a drop in voter numbers. We'll see turmoil, the likes of which the country has probably never seen. They need an answer and if not the nation's top cop to give it, then who else?
Tim: Which is a more apt description of the reaction among Democrats and their backers in the media: that they're trying to ignore this investigation and the widespread reports about fraud, or that they're fearful of what Barr might find and how it will hurt Democrats going forward to the 2022 midterm elections, even if the outcome we're seeing now is not overturned?
Mark: I'd suggest that Democrats don't want any investigations to go forward because it casts doubt on the legitimacy of a President Biden, if that comes to pass. But in terms of trying to control the narrative that there's no need for an investigation, this is perhaps more a long-term investment for the Democrats. What they should be doing is supporting the investigation, cooperating. And then if it's found out that they did nothing wrong and that the electoral system is intact, then it would turn out better for everybody.
What needs to happen really is that the few regular voting anomalies that always take place on both sides need to be ignored, and any widespread fraud or corruption need to be looked in to. For example, at the moment, we've got questions about the Dominion voting machines. We've got questions about MaidenGate. We've got questions about dead folks on voter rolls or votes being counted or tabulated incorrectly and, of course, votes not being canvassed properly or not being received properly. These are big things that, if not looked into now, if they go uncovered, then the public will think -- 2022, 2024, and beyond -- these things can happen again and again and again.
Tim: Why did the Justice Department investigator who specializes in election crimes suddenly resign when Barr called for an investigation of alleged election crimes?
Mark: I think that was Richard Pilger. He says that it was in line with the award of his office, like the highest award of his office is to do with integrity and professionalism, and to me that seems like a strange stance because he's a federal prosecutor. If you consider what prosecutors do, they to the best of their ability have prosecute crime, same as defenders to the best of their ability should defend those accused of crime. And if there is no crime, well, that's irrelevant. The chips should fall where they may. To resign saying that this is about integrity, to me that smacks more of bias and a lack of integrity.
Tim: The terms unfounded and baseless are being used by the media far and wide, along with my favorite term, without evidence, to discredit Trump's position that there's been widespread voter fraud. It's likely due to their own incuriosity or laziness, their refusal to actually examine what the Trump team is alleging in its legal pleadings. But what about all those sworn affidavits by witnesses? Is that not evidence?
Rudy Giuliani
Mark: It absolutely is. I clarified this point on a recent LNTV with our legal affairs editor, Scott Cosenza, also your co-host on the Uprising Podcast, that affidavits are evidence. They are sworn testimony. And crimes all over the world are prosecuted on affidavit testimony. They're big. They're important. They're often the most important element to a prosecution. We have 234 pages of affidavits that Kayleigh McEnany was talking about the other day. According to Rudy Giuliani, there are 11,000 -- I think it was 11,000 -- other pieces of evidence they've gathered up.
And what you say about the use of the terms unfounded, baseless, and, of course, without evidence, and also you mentioned widespread? It amuses me a little to see how all of the media organizations tend to be using the same language, saying it's unfounded, baseless, there's no widespread voter fraud. And when you think about these words, so widespread, the antonym of widespread is targeted. In an election where it's all about swing states, the opposite of widespread being targeted, that actually makes a lot of sense. When they're talking about no widespread fraud, well, so you're saying there's targeted fraud. It's a linguistic acrobatics of the mind for them to use these terms because, in all honesty, they assume that everybody else is dumb, or at least dumber than they are.
Tim: What they want is for whatever evidence they have, however voluminous, to be presented at the White House press conference by Kayleigh McEnany. Otherwise, it's considered unfounded, when in fact all of this is taking place in courtrooms across the country.
Now, let's switch gears here because you've also written about what you call a quiet war going on in the House of Representatives. Progressive and mainstream factions are fighting it out for the soul of the Democratic Party, so to speak, after they lost seats in the House when they were expected to pick up seats. Since Joe Biden is seen as merely a placeholder in the White House, how are sides drawn up in the House and who seems to have the edge in the formulation of policy going forward?
Mark: I think that all depends on who was promised what for their support. That's the big question here. What promises were made behind closed doors? At the moment, I would say it's the progressive faction that has the whip hand, as it were, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and the squad members. She has such coverage among the media that it's going to appear to the voting public and even the Democrats, whether it's true or not, that the progressives have the impetus on their side.
However, the moderates own the machinations. They own the committees. They own the state operations, the people, the ground crews in many of the important states. It's going to be a messy fight. That's the reality of it. It looks like the progressives have the upper hand, but I think the moderates have the power base. One way or the other, it's going to be messy.
~
Read more from Tim Donner and Mark Angelides.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
