Legislative Testimony

In watching the Affidavit testimony of several witnesses, in three of the six states where election fraud has obviously taken place, the Democratic Legislators have all been unified in their defense. The sworn affidavits are insufficient “evidence” or that The Attorney General, William Barr has claimed that he has “not seen any evidence of fraud”.

To the first point that The Democratic Legislators are making: Why in the hell would anyone go through that much effort to file these affidavits just because they support any given candidate in the election? The winning or losing candidate has absolutely no personal connection to them, nor can one predict how the outcome would or wouldn’t affect them on that same level, unless they were genuinely concerned citizens about wrong doing that they witnessed. Many of the witnesses have attested to just that.

To the second point regarding Barr: If he hasn’t seen or been given the affidavits for review, then he can’t say that he has seen any evidence. Regardless, Attorney General Barr has absolutely nothing to do with these legislative hearings, as they are being conducted at the state level, as well as any investigations that are being done to that regard. In light of the fact, however, which Barr has unnecessarily weighed in, and in a controversial statement, he needs to either be replaced or keep silent until he has reviewed the facts. I am of the opinion of the latter, as he has given neither indication about The Durham Report one way or the other, nor any indication as to Hunter Biden’s nefarious deeds, which should have come out before the election. I think it’s long overdue that both Barr and Wray be replaced. I would suggest that Matthew Whittaker replace Bill Barr, and perhaps Bernard Kerik or Dan Bongino to replace Christopher Wray to head up The F.B.I.

These are all the same distraction tactics that we are sick and tired of seeing and hearing over the past four years, and I’m waiting to see how “The Race Card” is going to come into play here, because historically, it has to be pulled out of the Democrat “playbook” at some point.