Again a mischaracterisation. Mueller didn't refuse, he believed he was bound by department policy that he wasn't allowed to and that indeed Barr's assessment contravenes this policy. In any case, you didn't answer the question about why you (uncritically) accept Barr's assessment. Why is that?
You do this all the time and it's annoying. You never answer questions.
Challenging you to compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary is not an accusation. To make it easier compare Mueller's own summary to Barr's and get back to us.
I have. So what’s partisan about it again? — NOS4A2
As I’ve previously stated I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means? — NOS4A2
Hey, he tried. What more can you ask for? — NOS4A2
You asked seven questions. I answered many of them. But I never answer questions? Your lies are annoying. — NOS4A2
I would like you [Zelensky] to do us a favour though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … the server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney-General (William Barr) call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
Rather than compare the summaries you take Barr's word for it. You are either incapable of or unwilling to see how their accounts differ. Either way there is no point in continuing.
You answered yes that you were aware of several documents and statements yet nothing in your answers reflect actually knowledge of them. That's why I followed up with a substantive question that you now say if because he's the expert on this matter. I already anticipated that with another question: what if reasonable people disagree? Well?
As an apparent libertarian your political views align with the current administration to a large degree. Trump is not truly conservative, liberal, or even libertarian for that matter. The best description of his politics might simply be ‘dictator wannabe’. He’ll do anything to gain power, basically.
He lied. We can ask for less empty promises and threats, because it diminishes the office and makes us look like idiots to the rest of the world.
I’m not a lawyer, but Barr’s assessment makes sense: that little problem of proving corrupt intent, especially in an investigation with no underlying crime, is difficult if not impossible. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Barr is the top legal advisor in the United States. Excuse me while I defer to his judgement.
So why do you (uncritically) accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s? — NOS4A2
The whistleblower report was gossip, deep-state dinner theater. Zero first hand knowledge. It mentions names that Trump doesn’t, and even cites twitter and the NYT. It’s a CIA charade. — NOS4A2
Meanwhile the rest of the world bled us dry and we became a shell of ourselves. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.