Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on December 14, 2020 by sundance
President Trump announced via Twitter that following a meeting to discuss the current state of 2020 election fraud with Attorney General Bill Barr, the U.S. AG will be departing his position before Christmas:
“Just had a very nice meeting with Attorney General Bill Barr at the White House. Our relationship has been a very good one, he has done an outstanding job! As per letter, Bill will be leaving just before Christmas to spend the holidays with his family…”
Attorney General Bill Barr provided the following resignation letter:
While the topic of the meeting today is briefly mentioned within the resignation letter, that subject matter is conspicuously absent from the body of content. As with the entire career of Bill Barr, this could be interpreted two ways.
♦ Either Bill Barr is unwilling to steer the DOJ during a time of election challenge and turmoil…
♦ By resigning Bill Barr just inoculated himself from criticism if he was to support the DOJ findings of election investigations from outside offices.
Given Bill Barr’s history of conduct in the DOJ approach to the Flynn case (cowardice), the former seems most likely.
It also does not seem coincidental this resignation decision was reached on the same day the Daily Mail published a highly critical article about Bill Barr’s decision-making during the 2020 election cycle.
DAILY MAIL – Attorney General Bill Barr used the force of his office to instruct prosecutors investigating Hunter Biden not to take any steps that might cause the probe to be publicly revealed in the run-up to the election.
The directive, reported in the Wall Street Journal, was in keeping with existing Justice Department policy against taking investigatory steps close to an election that might interfere with it.
Barr and his team took steps to ‘insulate’ the investigations, according to the report, even as President Donald Trump repeatedly demanded a probe of his political rival’s son.
Those instructions were given orally in ‘conversations with prosecutors,’ according to the Journal, which would appear to suggest there is no paper trail for it. They included asking if staff members involved in the situation could be trusted. (read more)