DOJ’s Top Voter Fraud Investigator Steps Down in Protest After AG Bill Barr Memo’s Authorizing Election Probes

  • Thread starter Thread starter toabb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

toabb

Guest
Following Attorney General William Barr’s decision to authorize the Department of Justice to probe any “substantial allegations” of alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election, a top DOJ official left his post overseeing the investigation.

The New York Times reported Monday night that Justice Department official, Richard Pilger , who was slated to aid in the voter fraud investigation, stepped “down from the post within hours” of Barr’s directive.

“Mr. Pilger, a career prosecutor in the department’s Public Integrity Section who oversaw voting-fraud-related investigations, told colleagues he would move to a nonsupervisory role working on corruption prosecutions,” The Times reported.

“Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications,” Pilger wrote in an email to co-workers at The Department of Justice, which was obtained by The Times . “I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch,” he added.

Pilger, bluntly called out the Barr memo, saying it was tantamount to “abrogating the forty-year old Non-Interference Policy for ballot fraud investigation in the period prior to elections becoming certified and uncontested.”

January cannot get here soon enough to rid us of this horrific corruption at the highest levels. It’s really sad what’s happened under this admin
 
toabb said:
Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications
Click to expand...
Thinking about the person, and not the position. I believe this person simply could not take the heat of such a burden, if they do find substantial fraud.

If, and I say again *** IF *** the voter fraud is found to be so much that it swung an election. What does the average person think will happen to those who found the fraud? Nothing? They will not be doxed? Their lives will not be smeared and ruined by the media and powerful people?

This is a big deal. I would not want to be in such a position. I could not handle it.
 
What is wrong with the DOJ investigating SUBSTANTIAL charges of fraud? That is what the department does. If nothing wrong is found, so much the better. To be afraid of the DOJ doing it’s duty is interesting. Either the poster does not know what the DOJ is all about, or is intentionally ignorant.
 
IanM said:
Interesting tweet:
Why didn’t

@davidspunt

say that the DOJ official who resigned over launch of voter fraud investigation was the same official accused of targeting conservatives with Lois Lerner at the IRS during Obama Administration?! Seems relevant.
Click to expand...
This is real key. The guy sounds real partisan, what was he doing there in the first place?


Who knows what else??
 
Merely availing a process to the legal and possible judicial review is not corruption.

Lying is corruption (kind of like government officials accusing Trump of being an agent of Russia)
 
PaulinVA said:
40.png
KMC:
Lying is corruption (kind of like government officials accusing Trump of being an agent of Russia)
Click to expand...
Corruption involves money, usually.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…I would say money, power, sex tend to be strong reasons…especially power, which will lead to money. Just ask Hunter Biden who got rich off his dad’s power and not off any merit of his own. Just ask the multitude of people who got rich after obtaining power (Bill, Hillary, Barack).

Specifically to your point: lying is the corruption of truth…corruption comes in more than one form
 
marybobo said:
What is wrong with the DOJ investigating SUBSTANTIAL charges of fraud? That is what the department does. If nothing wrong is found, so much the better. To be afraid of the DOJ doing it’s duty is interesting. Either the poster does not know what the DOJ is all about, or is intentionally ignorant.
Click to expand...
It goes against a 40 year policy.
Richard Pilger, director of the elections crimes branch in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, told colleagues in an email that the attorney general was issuing "an important new policy abrogating the forty-year-old Non-Interference Policy for ballot fraud investigations in the period prior to elections becoming certified and uncontested." Pilger also forwarded the memo to colleagues in his resignation letter.
Click to expand...

Barr knows his gig is up.
 
RidgeSprinter said:
It goes against a 40 year policy.
Click to expand...
Policy is kind of like tradition and needs to be gone against under certain circumstances, not hidden behind to absolve oneself or to keep an investigation which needs to happen at a certain time in order to have any effect from happening.

Would the police have a policy of not taking action against bank robberies until after the bank is able to tell them precusely how much was stolen instead of while it was in progress?
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
Policy is kind of like tradition and needs to be gone against under certain circumstances, not hidden behind to absolve oneself or to keep an investigation which needs to happen at a certain time in order to have any effect from happening.

Would the police have a policy of not taking action against bank robberies until after the bank is able to tell them precusely how much was stolen instead of while it was in progress?
Click to expand...
So you would agree that the policy “Not to Indict a Sitting President” should be gone as well.
 
RidgeSprinter said:
So you would agree that the policy “Not to Indict a Sitting President” should be gone as well.
Click to expand...
I would say if investigating brought up sufficient evidence to do so for a sufficiently great crime, then go for it.

For example, perhaps Clinton should have been indicted for perjury.
 
Annie said:
I would say if investigating brought up sufficient evidence to do so for a sufficiently great crime, then go for it.

For example, perhaps Clinton should have been indicted for perjury.
Click to expand...
And by the same token, Trump should have been indicted for repeated obstruction of justice at the least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top