(03-25-2019 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Truth is, I expected more from you Lad than innuendo that Barr's summary was biased for Trump.

Aw geeze, sorry to not live up to your expectations. Sorry to disappoint you, dad.

The truth is, we should all take a 4-page summary of a multi-year investigation with a grain of salt. Not because Barr might be disingenuous or lying - he is most certainly not. But because it is too short to glean anything from it outside of the final outcomes.

And the fact that Barr did not provide any supporting information as to why he found there to be no evidence of obstruction, when Mueller explicitly punted that question, should raise questions about how Barr came to that conclusion so quickly.

Question - if Obama had been investigated for conspiring with Iran, and Eric Holder provided the same short summary, would you be so happy to accept it without seeing the foundation it was built on? Would you not be suspicious that there were some politics at play in how Holder presented the findings?

First, as to the bolded, some of us hold the particular office (a very unusual office) in a tad more respect.

In that case, Eric Holder would be holding not just Eric Holder, but the legitimacy of the entire Justice Department up for grabs with such a 'summary'. So yes, when details will become available (and they will, trust me) I would probably bet my last dollar that the 'short summary' would in effect be accurate, in both cases.

But you choose to inject your personal myopia into that, which is your right to do.

As to the italicized, I suggest you go cipher on the elements of obstruction, then re-cipher them with the portion that "exonerates" Trump of any connection with collusion, or even cooperation. Instead of waving your Rachel Maddow talking points. As a matter, it was pretty fing easy to not to do so given fact presented.

As it 'being too short to glean anything', well, I guess that is true for some.

As for your comment on OO as 'dad', I suggest you tone that down some, son.

I too agree that Barr's summary will be accurate. I don't doubt that - he certainly is not going to lie in this case.

But I would not be surprised if he left out important details for a reason. We all want to make our boss look good, and you don't go getting into the nitty gritty when you can simply say, look guys, he's not charged! Do you have an idea as to why Mueller felt he needed to call out the fact that Trumps was not exonerated on obstruction of justice charges? This is something Barr seems to think is unusual, given that he writes for almost two paragraphs about it.

And Tanq, I'm disappointed that you feel the need to step in between a conversation between OO and I. I expected more of you...