HeeHawlet

Act III, scene i

"Has Barr seen, or not seen, that is the question."

27 May, 2022 The Glen Beck Podcast

'The Justice System IS Rigged Against Republicans' | Ep 148

Glen Beck Interview Bill Barr (transcript start at time stamp above)

Glen Beck: "Have you seen 2000 Mules?"

Bill Barr: "I haven't seen it, but I don't think that is a sound argument they're making."

Glen Beck: "Why?"

Bill Barr: "Well for two reasons. First I think it exaggerates... there's no doubt in my mind, and I say, as I said in my book, they (Democrats) were probably cutting corners on harvesting and there was more harvesting than is permitted. But, I don't think that its anywhere near the scale that they're (True The Vote / 2000 Mules movie) suggesting."

Glen Beck: "So, hang on just a second, because I wanna make sure we're on solid ground here while we're talking about this. I am not one of these guys that ... there's no overturning the election.

Bill Barr: "Right."

Glen Beck: "Its over, no matter if you found that it was completely fraudulent it still the process. There's no constitutional reversal. I don't care about the elec... I mean I do, but I don't care about the past as much as I care about the election future. I just want an open and fair hearing. I don't know who would hold it I don't think we could find anybody we could get everybody to trust anymore. But I just want to have the facts up and I don't care if its a hundred votes or ten million votes, Let's know it and make sure that never happens again."

Bill Barr: "I couldn't agree more. And I keep on saying there are two separate questions. One set of questions is, if you dilute the safeguards to the integrity of an election then whether or not there is fraud people are not going to have confidence in the outcome of the election. And that's what we are seeing today. And in a closely divided country where the only thing we really have going for us is the peaceful transfer of power we have to maintain the utmost confidence in election outcomes. And we can't be monkeying around with protections whether or not you can prove fraud. So that's one set of questions."

"The only way to protect elections is to have in place on election day the safeguards that you need. Because coming in later to unscramble the egg is almost a mission impossible."

"The second set of questions was..., Was there fraud? And that should be answered. And by the way, I am all for post hock, you know, after the fact reviews, audits, anything, anything that will push toward integrity."

"Now, it just so happens that I think that the methodology used in the Mules thing is not, is not adequate in this sense that if you take two million cell phones and you impose it on any city, and you say (chuckles) uh, every time that it passes withing 100 feet of this receptacle we're going to treat that as engaging with the receptacle, uh, and how many people, you will have hundred, just statistically, people who regularly do that. You know, repair men and other... you know, people running routes and so forth and so on. And so its not... it just doesn't prove that these were people who were harvesting. Now, I held my fire..."

Glen Beck: "The video,,, the video."

Bill Barr: "The video of the cell phone information. I held my fire on this until... I assumed they'd be coming out with a lot of photographic evidence and that would be strong evidence to me. If they found the same visiting these boxes on a regular basis throwing in multiple ballots. But they didn't come up with that."

Glen Beck: "They did, a few..."

Bill Barr: "A handful. So, I think, maybe, yeah, there was some harvesting on a relatively small scale. But, here's the other thing, which goes back to the basic point we were talking about earlier. Even if you can show harvesting it doesn't mean you get to throw out all the votes. You still have to show that the votes were illegal. And so, I'm for all analysis,..." (subject changes)

2 June 2022 House January 6 Committee Investigation / Testimony Bill Barr (Video clip shown at 12 June 2022 House January 6 Committee Hearing)

@1:34:10

Bill Barr: "I thought, Boy, if he really believes this stuff he has lost contact with a, with a... you know, he's become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff."

Cut / skip in video

@1:34:23

Bill Barr: "On the other hand, you know, when I went into this and, you know, tell him how crazy some of these allegations were there was never, there was never an indication of any interest of what the actual facts were. My opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud. And I haven't seen anything since the election that changes my mind on that including the 2000 Mules movie. [Belly laughs]"

Rep. Zoe Lofgren: "Maybe you could assess that 2000 Mules movie since people are talking about that."

Bill Barr: "Well, you know, in a nutshell, I just think statistic... the GBI was unimpressed with it. And I was similarly unimpressed with it because I think if you... because, uh, I was holding my fire on that to see what the photographic was because I felt that, well, hell, if they have a lot of photographs of the same person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes, you know that's hard to explain. Uh, so I wanted to see what the photographic evidence was.

But the cell phone data is singularly unimpressive. I mean if basically you take two million cell phones and figure out where they physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever. Just by definition you're going to find that many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes. And the premise that if, you know, go by a box, five boxes or whatever it was, you know that that's a mule that's just... is indefensible. It, it, it by definition you're going to have a lot, hundreds. I saw one contractor said, "We figured out that our truck alone would account for six cell phone signals," this was, you know, some kind of contractor, "and our route would take us by one of these things on a regular basis."

I, I, I, but then the movie came out, uh, you know I think the photographic evidence in it was completely lack..., I mean, you know, there was a little bit of it but it was lacking. It didn't establish wide spread, uh, illegal, um, harvesting.

And the other thing that people don't understand is that its not clear that even if you can show harvesting that changes the over... that that changes the results of the election. You're not, courts are not going to throw out votes and then figure out then, you know, what votes were harvested and throw them out. You still have the burden on the challenging party to show that illegal votes were cast. Votes were the results of undue influence, or bribes, or there was really, you know, the person was non compos mentis. But absent that evidence I don't, I just didn't see courts throwing out votes anyway."

https://youtu.be/jblC2Ooog2U?t=5678 / time stamp

14 June 2022 Dinesh D'Souza Podcast / Opening soliloquy

@0500 start transcript (talking about Bill Barr) / Full podcast link below

"But then I listen to the kind of stuff he says, he goes, you know he hasn't changed his mind on election fraud. Well, let's give him a pass in November of 2020 because in fairness he hadn't seen the evidence.

But then he goes (reading), "I haven't seen anything since the election that changes my mind including the 2000 Mules movie."

And then I listened very carefully to see has Barr actually seen the film. I can't be sure about it but I think the answer to that is no.

Let's look at what Barr says about the film. He says (reading), "I was holding my fire to see what the photographic evidence was. If they have a lot of photographs..." Photographs? Well, first of all the film doesn't have photographs, it has surveillance video. "... of the same person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes. That's hard to explain." I am going to come back to this issue of the same mule at multiple drop boxes later in the the podcast when I deal with debunking Liz Cheney's debunking claim.

But here I want to talk about the cell phone data because Barr kinda zooms into it. He basically says (reading), "if you take two million cell phones in a big city just by definition you will find that many hundreds of them will have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes." And so he goes, "By the premise that if you go by five boxes or whatever it was."

Again. Has he seen the movie? The movie makes it really clear that you have to go ten or more drop boxes and separately to five or more organizations. But what essentially what Barr is saying in a random distribution of people moving you've got a lot of people going by multiple drop boxes. I think the fundamental flaw of this it confuses going to by a drop box to going to a drop box. And this is easily discernible in geotracking. I mean, think of it, it it wasn't discernible you could make the same point about every other area that geotracking is used and dismiss it. In a big city like Washington D.C. there's going to be tons of people driving around and by the Capitol and the idea that you could use cell phone geotracking to identify who is in the immediate vicinity of the Capitol is just nonsense.

Obviously it is not nonsense. Why? Because geotracking can place you with some precision and there's also a time factor because when you have geotracking you can tell this guy, this moving dot, approached the front door of the Capitol. Then, it stopped outside the door about six to eight feet away. Then it moved inside the door and all of this can be told and is in fact done routinely by the Defense Department, its done by Intelligence Agencies its done by Law Enforcement. It was done for January 6, it was done by the CDC.

And so the weird thing for Barr, he knows about January 6. He know that there's... that geotracking was used extensively, not only to arrest defendents, but in their cases themselves. And for him to now suddenly act like this whole technology is extremely vague and will randomly capture people moving around the city. I mean, is there anybody whose familiar with geotracking who will defend Barr's comments on this. I haven't seen a single person do that, but to have the Attorney General expose himself as such an ignoramus is a little bit of a sight to see."

https://rumble.com/v18fxzu-kangaroo-court-dinesh-dsouza-podcast-ep350.html

01 June 2022 Penultimate comment copy/paste from long thread / see link below for OP / IMO good read / transcript of youtube embed video link below.

// begin copy/paste

Barr states he has not seen 2000 Mules yet...

https://youtu.be/1CeIYc4RWGc?t=3406

Comments based on having seen a preview of the documentary, not the documentary itself.

Listen to the later remarks... they all fall within the scope of the scenes in the preview.

Still see him as strategically scripted.

Plausible deniability maintained.

Ghost in the machine.

// end copy/paste //

https://greatawakening.win/p/15IEAWbeQj/devolution-22--irregular-warfare/

So, Barr had not seen the movie by Friday 27 May 2002 when he is interviewed by Glen Beck and gives his testimony to the House January 6 Committee six days later on Thursday 2 June 2022. I don't see a lot of difference between what he said about 2000 Mules to Glen Beck and what he said about 2000 Mules to the House January 6 Committee. In fact, his interview on the Glen Beck Podcast, in retrospect, sounds a lot like a dress rehearsal for the House January 6 Committee testimony.

Or maybe he’s a douchebag.

Ohhhhhhhh.

I'm smiling so much my cheeks are hurting.

I knew something was up Brilliant use of the Streisand affect once again!

Free advertising. Thanks Barr

A lot of commies will want to see it now that they think it's de-bunked. Just so they can talk shit about it.