For more than two years, the “Trump was trying to get Raffensperger to lie for him” canard has been widely accepted as true, ended up in the second Articles of Impeachment, and will likely be the focus of yet another Trump indictment in Georgia.
Yesterday Barr slides this one in: “There are innocent interpretations of what [Trump said]: Of all the votes that we think are bad, certainly among them are some that are slam dunk”
Anyone who paid attention to what Trump was trying to do in December/January understood that to be true. Trump’s legal strategy was to get a toehold to establish standing so he could have his day in court on perceived election irregularities.
Fearful of both the timeline and practical implications of having a court case advance, nearly everyone criticized his strategy.
The left spun pernicious lies about Trump’s intentions that to this day still soil our public discourse. Many who were in positions to help lend clarity to this turmoil sat on their hands and bit their tongues.
In other words —and to quote Barr himself— he knew all this was “bullshit” and never sought to speak clearly on it?!? Really?

And let me be clear, the point isn’t that Barr should have “helped” Trump.
Barr, who wraps himself in the flag and distances himself from Trump’s brash style tries to transcend the moment and portray himself as a statesman.
As such, he has an obligation to be a truth teller. Sitting silent while Trump gets railroaded by injustice isn’t at all statesmen-like.

It would be easy to dismiss Barr’s unwillingness to speak truth about the election as cowardice, especially as the narrative around the January 6th riots was being set and being on “the wrong side of history” would surely be concerning for a guy like Barr.
But when you see him —today— out actively spreading mistruths about the election aftermath, it’s clear that he’s speaking from a place of deep malevolence:
“The legal doctrine they came up with, having the Vice President unilaterally determine who won the election”
That’s a blatant lie.

Trump’s strategy in no way sought to make Pence the “decider”: they had proposed a scheme where VP Pence would seek to force a mechanism to resolve the legitimate allegations regarding certain States not hewing closely to the Constitutional provisions for selecting Presidential electors by forcing it back to the House of Representatives — an entirely legitimate Constitutional process that would have put the decision closer to the people (where it belongs) and saved the country from the January 6th riots, and most of the turmoil since.
*Incidentally I still don’t think that would have resulted in Trump getting a second term, but I’m absolutely certain that process —had it been allowed— would have been better for the country.