(03-29-2019 03:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: (03-28-2019 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I think we should all wait for the full report (or as much of the full report as can lawfully be released) before forming any final conclusions. But I can say a few things about your comparable:
1) the law was different back then, and it would not have been appropriate for Reno to have done such a thing,
2) I am more inclined to trust Barr than Reno, and far more inclined to trust Barr than, say, Loretta Lynch.
3) if Barr has significantly misstated anything, then I believe Mueller would have both the right and a constitutional duty to set the record straight ASAP; I have seen nothing like a move in that direction by him; have you?
Let me ask you a question. You say you are not willing to accept Barr's word for it. Are you willing to accept Mueller's?
1) I was not saying anything regarding any law...just the only real comparison one could make for such an unprecedented occurrence for our presidency.
2) I'm not. Barr is on record of his feelings on this investigation.
3) Yes, but not in public and that's not how Mueller operates. Plus it does him little good to do so before the report is public anyway.
And I've made it abundantly clearly for months now that I'm not accepting anyone's word until I see the whole report.
Thankfully, Barr just said in a letter to congress that he expects the full, redacted for security and personal aspects, report (over 400 pages without attachments) to be released Mid-April at the latest.
1) It is unprecedented because the law is different. This is the process that is now required by law. Under the old law, the report went directly to congress. Now it goes to the AG. Not doing it this way before was following the law then in effect. Doing it this way now is following the law in effect now. Don't like doing it this way? Change the law.
2) Barr is on record regarding one specific application of the law. Alan Dershowitz, among others, agrees with his interpretation on that point. To say that he is on record with respect to the investigation as a whole would be a bit of an overstatement. I still trust him more than I would trust Reno, and I trust either of them more than I would trust Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch.
3) Barr was very public to correct the record once. I hardly see any reason why he would be less so if there were any reason to correct the record now. I understand that Mueller and Rosenstein are working with Barr on the redaction effort.
I've argued for seeing the full report from the beginning.
Here's what I expect. Let's say that elements A, B, and C are required to constitute a particular crime. What I've heard from democrats for months is, "We've got something that sorta kinda maybe looks like A, and if this and that and the other are all true, then we might have C. We don't have any evidence of B, but if we have A and C, then we just might have B too." I expect there will be more of that kind of posturing when the full report comes out. We sorta, kinda, maybe might have something kind of like circumstantial evidence, so let's impeach him and throw him in prison.
I would contrast that to Comey's statement on Hillary, "We have proof of A, we have proof of B, we have proof of C. But let's not prosecute, because we might have difficulty convincing a jury of intent, even though 1) intent is neither A nor B nor C, and is not a required element of the crime, and 2) two primary indicia of intent are repeated violations and cover-up attempts, both of which we have in spades."