Amash also said he wouldn’t kick off a presidential campaign in this manner, if that were what he was doing. The point is they’re all negative inferences drawn against public figures who criticize Trump, but you’re appealing to Barr’s conclusions as if he’s an authority.
I was fully willing to accept Barr as a quality AG choice, and accepted his letter as likely accurate and thought the weeks needed to redact the report were also reasonable. I thought all of the outrage during that period was absurd and I trusted he would release the report. So I said nothing until the report came out. Then I read the report and it seemed less favorable than his summary.
Even then, I would have bought his explanation of the letter as merely a summary of the principal conclusions. Except he basically said that, even without the OLC opinion, Trump’s behavior was not something DOJ would pursue and parroted Trump’s defense theory in saying that a jury would have a hard time convicting on those facts. And he tried to supplement the record from Mueller to make the case look weaker.
Those things weren’t appropriate for him to do. Just as I believe that drawing a conclusion would have been improper for Mueller. The criminal law doesn’t apply and the president is supposed to be accountable to the people. It should be our decision whether his conduct is punishable, not whether it’s impeachable. It’s not the place of the unelected officials at the DOJ to use their official capacity to influence public opinion on that matter. IMO.
