"We’re not going to do anything inappropriate before the election"
Or in other words, the country doesn't get to see people locked up; an event that would sway voters because it would cement and show that people did something to be punished for. The whole notion that you can't do things before the election, is flawed. If Democrats can start phony investigations into Trump as a candidate, then Trump as president...then we can start actual prosecutions on people before the election too.
Furthermore, justice delivered at any time should not be considered inappropriate. Justice should not be delayed because of elections, especially when the election will determine whether or not justice will ever be delivered.
"Tomorrow, there will be a development in the case. It’s not an earth-shattering development"
If it's not earth shattering, then what's the point of announcing it as a significant development?
I think Barr is planning for the potentiality that Trump could lose the election, and that Barr will no longer be there as AG to prosecute. So he's trying to set things on a path to where things have to happen after the election.
It seems like Barr thinks he can set things up to where there will be "political" consequences if Democrats do anything to stop the wheels of justice if he is no longer AG after the election.
The problem is, we all know Democrats will sweep this under the rug if they win the election, especially considering the fact that the guy running against Trump, was part of the origins that ordered the coup to begin with, and is fully implicated in other crimes.
Political consequences are not justice, especially in this political atmosphere where Democrats can get away with anything.
I like Barr, and I believe he wants to see justice. But Barr needs to stop appeasing politics and start locking people up, before the election. Justice demands it.
The choice of the word "inappropriate" is very interesting. Who defines inappropriate? Maybe it's just me -- but if you have evidence to indict a criminal running for office -- I think doing so is entirely appropriate.
The left have been playing with dictionary definitions for a long time. And when they don't have a term they like -- they create new words.
Funny thing about Mr. Barr -- he tends to gravitate toward classical definitions.
So to him -- inappropriate would mean just that. To my knowledge -- there is no law that prevents the indictment of an individual running for office if there is sufficient evidence that he/she has committed a crime. Therefore, it would be appropriate to indict such a person, wouldn't it?
He means inappropriate in that he doesn't want to be seen as influencing the election. But it's only "inappropriate" in the sense of politics, not as a matter of law. Which is why what he says is soo unnerving, because even inaction influences politics. You can't say that you're going to stay out of politics, then dictate your lacks of actions based on politics. Not taking actions because of politics, even if only as a way to say you're staying away from politics, is still an action dictated by politics.
Or in other words, just like prosecuting someone during an election can be seen as election meddling, not prosecuting someone because of an election is still an action based on politics, that is also technically election meddling. And in two senses; firstly being that it's allowing elections to dictate the wheels of justice, and secondly, it's allowing the people who committed crimes against a person in the election, even going as far as to try to frame the person for crimes, to have the lack of their facing justice, which affects the election.
So as much as they say arresting people would affect the election, not arresting people also has an effect.
The only course of action for Barr, is to follow the law, and completely ignore the politics. That's the only way he can be on the right side of things at the end of the day.
"We’re not going to do anything inappropriate before the election"
Or in other words, the country doesn't get to see people locked up; an event that would sway voters because it would cement and show that people did something to be punished for. The whole notion that you can't do things before the election, is flawed. If Democrats can start phony investigations into Trump as a candidate, then Trump as president...then we can start actual prosecutions on people before the election too.
Furthermore, justice delivered at any time should not be considered inappropriate. Justice should not be delayed because of elections, especially when the election will determine whether or not justice will ever be delivered.
"Tomorrow, there will be a development in the case. It’s not an earth-shattering development"
If it's not earth shattering, then what's the point of announcing it as a significant development?
I think Barr is planning for the potentiality that Trump could lose the election, and that Barr will no longer be there as AG to prosecute. So he's trying to set things on a path to where things have to happen after the election.
It seems like Barr thinks he can set things up to where there will be "political" consequences if Democrats do anything to stop the wheels of justice if he is no longer AG after the election.
The problem is, we all know Democrats will sweep this under the rug if they win the election, especially considering the fact that the guy running against Trump, was part of the origins that ordered the coup to begin with, and is fully implicated in other crimes.
Political consequences are not justice, especially in this political atmosphere where Democrats can get away with anything.
I like Barr, and I believe he wants to see justice. But Barr needs to stop appeasing politics and start locking people up, before the election. Justice demands it.
The choice of the word "inappropriate" is very interesting. Who defines inappropriate? Maybe it's just me -- but if you have evidence to indict a criminal running for office -- I think doing so is entirely appropriate.
The left have been playing with dictionary definitions for a long time. And when they don't have a term they like -- they create new words.
Funny thing about Mr. Barr -- he tends to gravitate toward classical definitions.
So to him -- inappropriate would mean just that. To my knowledge -- there is no law that prevents the indictment of an individual running for office if there is sufficient evidence that he/she has committed a crime. Therefore, it would be appropriate to indict such a person, wouldn't it?
He means inappropriate in that he doesn't want to be seen as influencing the election. But it's only "inappropriate" in the sense of politics, not as a matter of law. Which is why what he says is soo unnerving, because even inaction influences politics. You can't say that you're going to stay out of politics, then dictate your lacks of actions based on politics. Not taking actions because of politics, even if only as a way to say you're staying away from politics, is still an action dictated by politics.
Or in other words, just like prosecuting someone during an election can be seen as election meddling, not prosecuting someone because of an election is still an action based on politics, that is also technically election meddling. And in two senses; firstly being that it's allowing elections to dictate the wheels of justice, and secondly, it's allowing the people who committed crimes against a person in the election, even going as far as to try to frame the person for crimes, to have the lack of their facing justice, which affects the election.
So as much as they say arresting people would affect the election, not arresting people also has an effect.
The only course of action for Barr, is to follow the law, and completely ignore the politics. That's the only way he can be on the right side of things at the end of the day.
Influencing an election is newspeak.
EVERYONE INFLUENCES AN ELECTION, WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW AND IT IS NOT A CRIME