luthervol
rational (x) and reasonable (y)
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2016
- Messages
- 46,224
- Likes
- 19,553
About three weeks behind there, sparky?
Volume 2, Page 1.
Literally, page 1. Office of legal counsel concluded that you cannot indict a sitting president, and this became DOJ policy. Maybe at least read the summaries before jumping in with both feet with your hot takes.
You have no idea what evidence or basis he’s seen yet on the spying you’re speculating. I don’t believe he’s given any background for his conclusion there yet? I haven’t seen it anyway.You left out 2 bullet points.
- Barr has quickly concluded that spying did occur on the Trump campaign but didn't need to review the underlying evidence in the Mueller report to conclude that obstruction of justice did not occur.
- Whether or not you think Barr is guilty of perjury, the question he was asked by Senator Crist on April 9th was a prompt to discuss any feedback he had received from the Mueller team about his "summary of principal conclusions". Instead of being forthright and discussing the letter he had received from Mueller, Barr was unnecessarily coy and he chose to play dumb. There was no reason not to discuss Mueller's letter. That wasn't classified or sensitive information and it was bound to be leaked anyway (and it was).
"drive by"? .... "hit job cherry picking"? It was a direct question and Barr played dumb. Why not mention the letter and be forthcoming? He knew Mueller had objections to his "summary of principal conclusions" letter and he knew why. He was being coy and evasive and not behaving like an independent authority should.You have no idea what evidence or basis he’s seen yet on the spying you’re speculating. I don’t believe he’s given any background for his conclusion there yet? I haven’t seen it anyway.
The Crist drive by is a dry hole. It’s going nowhere... which is exactly where hit job cherry picking statements and agendas belong.