Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” host Jeanine Pirro criticized Attorney General William Barr, who she argued was missing as the results of the presidential election are being questioned.
Barr had earlier dismissed allegations of election fraud, which led Pirro to deem him part of the so-called “swamp.”
PIRRO: When 100 million people vote before an election and a huge portion are mail-in ballots, extraordinary regulatory oversight is required. When election laws are changed for a presidential election on the eve of that election in violation of the Constitution, extraordinary regulatory oversight is required.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures and leaders. Unfortunately, the Attorney General Bill Barr has proven himself to be anything other than extraordinary.
This week, Barr commented that he has not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election. Really? It’s curious, Barr, the head of the DOJ, would affirmatively make a statement regarding a pending investigation.
As a former prosecutor for over three decades, I, and virtually everyone similarly situated know that DOJ guidelines do not allow comments on investigations. They neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation. Yet, Barr actually goes beyond that and takes it upon himself in the midst of a presidential election before some states have certified as affidavits alleging fraud continue to come in before electors have even voted — that there is not sufficient evidence.
So why would Barr do that? Why would he not continue an investigation as the evidence continues to come in? Why would he even share information on a pending investigation? It’s just not done.
Now, before you made that blanket conclusory statement, did you determine the answer Bill to these allegations? On Election Night, with the president comfortably ahead in many swing states, why was the counting stopped? Why were observers not permitted to reasonably observe ballot counting? Why were observers removed from counting areas? Why did counters cheer when Republican observers were removed?
Why were windows boarded up in Detroit so that observers could not observe? Why, when observers were allowed to re-enter, was there an unusually large number of ballots with an unusually high percentage of 90 and above for Joe Biden? And why was there a failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots? Why was there a destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures?
Why does a Voter Integrity Project in Georgia estimate that over 20,000 people who no longer meet residency requirements were casting ballots in Georgia where Biden’s margin is only 12,000 votes?
Why are there statistical anomalies in the chain of custody breakdowns? Why are there record numbers of dead people voting? How is it that ballots in pristine condition without creases suggesting they have not been in mail-in envelopes as required by law?
Why is Joe Biden the first candidate to lose Florida and Ohio and still become President? Might it be that Florida and Ohio have safeguards in place, which the other states do not?
Why are 18 of the 19 bellwether counties historically indicative of a presidential win won by Trump and not Biden? How is it that Biden underperformed Clinton in New York, Chicago and LA, but won in the swing states cities of Milwaukee, Atlanta, Detroit and Philadelphia, each known historically for voter corruption?
How is it that Joe Biden underperformed with African-American voters everywhere but in those swing states? Why were ballot watchers in Pennsylvania not allowed to meaningfully observe to the point where they had to get a court order, and yet when they got one, they still were not allowed to observe?
How is it that The New York Times and Jimmy Carter and James Baker and all agree that absentee ballots are the largest source of fraud, allowing for changing votes, but now are suddenly secure? Bill, did you really have an answer to all those questions before you made your premature comments?
Have your U.S. attorneys even finished their investigations?
Now, you know many were impressed with you, Bill, because you were unflappable. And you said all the right things, but you haven’t done anything that makes you any different from your predecessor, the one who spent two years hiding under his desk, Jeff Sessions.
And where is the Durham report? Where are the prosecutions of individuals referred to you by the Inspector General like James Comey for perjury and Andrew McCabe for perjury? How was it that as soon as you became Attorney General, you will affirmatively came out protecting Barack Obama and Joe Biden?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Whatever their level of involvement based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PIRRO: Since when does an Attorney General say that unless the investigation was complete, and you knew they had no involvement? But then again, if the investigation was complete, where are those prosecutions?
Do you really want America to believe that one low-level F.B.I. attorney by the name of Kevin Clinesmith is the only one person responsible for the Russia collusion delusion? You affirmatively exonerate Joe Biden running for President who was in the Oval Office in that meeting on January 5th where Obama, Biden, and Comey discuss General Flynn and the Logan Act is discussed.
And yet, you who actually work for President Trump were not willing to affirmatively do anything, as the Democrats trumped up a Russia collusion delusion against him. And you’re not wanting the Durham report to come out before the election. Gee, that would only help Biden, doesn’t it?
You say you don’t want to weaponize the DOJ against political enemies. Charging someone who commits a crime, by the way, is not weaponizing the Department of Justice. It’s fulfilling your legal obligation, your mission. It is your job.
You admit that the DOJ used one standard for Hillary and another for Trump. You said that. And you can’t allow that to ever happen again. How? If you don’t sanction or penalize or prosecute, of course, it’s going to happen again. You’ve incentivized them to do it again. You’ve created the precedent that these cases are not to be prosecuted.
So what are we going to do, Bill? Should we write another nonsensical BS report on lessons learned, one that no one reads but is simply a nail in the coffin used to bury in your face corruption; another Benghazi report with lessons learned that we already learned from the bombing of the USS Cole.
Like I said, Bill, you talk a big game. So now you say the Russian collusion investigation will not be swept under the rug because you’ve made John Durham special counsel.
Hey, Durham was supposed to wrap up last summer, but he didn’t. Why? And don’t give me this nonsense. He can’t be removed now because special counsel aren’t subject to day-to-day supervision by the AG.
Let me tell you something if Biden is the President, he will ask every United States attorney to hand in their resignation, and that includes John Durham, and no pinpricked prophylactic protection you give him can counter that directive.
Biden can still direct the Attorney General to fire Durham. How sad it is that it was the Republicans who wanted to stop President Trump from firing special counsel Mueller, not that he even said he would, but they wanted to stop him.
But I doubt there’s any Democrat who is going to try to tell Joe Biden he can’t fire John Durham, especially since Adam sack-of-Schiff stated that Biden’s Attorney General could and perhaps should and John Durham’s inquiry into the Trump Russia investigation.
Surprise, surprise. The Democrats are going to get away with it again.
You know, Bill, Americans are furious over the Russia collusion hoax, especially the 10 million more Americans who voted for Trump this election. We need answers. We need action. We need justice. And you, Mr. Barr, are so deep in the swamp, you can’t see beyond your fellow reptiles.
And you are not the exceptional leader needed at this exceptional time in history.