Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Remember the tell:
You don't need a "4-page letter" or blitz of interviews if the goal is to simply allow the DOJ's exhaustive work to speak for itself when it comes out.
People can read the Mueller Report or IG Report to get that.
Barr is up to something else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
If people would allow the IG report to "speak for itself" neither Barr or Durham would need to comment on it. Barr's comments were less about the actual IG report than trying to rein in absolutely ridiculous overreading of it and the insane and incorrect "conclusions" being drawn from it.
People are taking the IG report as the be-all-end-all conclusion about the "
investigation of the Russia investigation" and a completely false narrative is emerging from that (which you have completely bought into).
That's what Barr is rebutting, NOT the IG report . . . The report says all it
COULD say; you are the one ignoring that fact and representing it saying things it does not say.
All Barr and Durham are saying is the IG's subordinate, limited investigation is
NOT conclusive.
Barr said that the IG's purview was limited, he could only look at procedures and process within the DOJ and could only question people who were working at DOJ at the time of questioning.
Horowitz could not compel testimony or threaten charges . . . all he could do is ask a question and unless he independently knew of direct conflicting information, he registered that answer as the truth / fact and he was duty bound to report that answer as the truth / fact -- and those answers are what comprises his report . . . IOW, he is only relying on people's word.
That's plainly evident in Horowitz repeatedly saying he found no evidence of bias; people told him that did not act with bias and Horowitz had to
accept that at face value and include that in his report, which is why he just said he
DID NOT make an actual "finding" that there was no bias. He could not report that there was bias because nobody admitted they acted with bias was or told him there was bias.
Given your continued and evolving mischaracterizations of the report, your statement that we need to "let the report speak for itself" would be funny if it weren't so disingenuous which is why you are only deserving of ridicule.
.