Early on in my career, I learned that there are always two sides to a story: what's seen, and what's unseen. What's unseen includes all of the missing elements of a story that could make you change your opinion if you knew of them. I also learned to assume good intent in the functions of others doing their job. I realized that if I went around conspiracy-theorizing about what I perceived as negative treatment, I always ended up in the same place: frustrated, and confused by my lack of ability to advance.

Yesterday, I decided to do a little thought experiment. I took this approach of assuming good intent with regard to Bill Barr performing his job functions, and I was amazed by the unilateral direction of the my conclusions. I decided to take what I know about his philosophy and try to think of a good reason why he's not prosecuting more people who we all know are criminals. A good reason that assumes good intent instead of assuming he's lazy or compromised.

I looked back at the House Judiciary Committee meeting for insights. After reviewing the events of the meeting, I realized one key thing. It's possible that this man is the only person I've seen more loathing directed at than Trump. I saw what appeared to be an entourage of bullies focusing on a highly coordinated attack. Why? What could justify such hatred? Is this how The Swamp treats their own? Hell no!

But that wasn't enough. I looked further. I looked at his responses to questions about certain cases he's working on during interviews. His answer is always the same: "I don't want to get into the details of a particular case." He repeats this ad nauseum. He is consistent as hell. You know the other thing he's always 100% consistent about and harps on repeatedly? This idea of the rule of law, namely that everyone gets the same treatment; everyone guilty of a crime gets struck with the same sized hammer.

The first thing I know about swamp creatures is that they're not consistent in their views. Biden, for example, can't even settle what he thinks about fracking, let alone a complex legal philosophy that could power his every move. Furthermore. There would be no reason to have this consistency as a swamp creature. So if Barr is a swamp creature, he would be the first one ever that's universally loathed by his own side and always gives a consistent response to questions. The theory that Barr is a swamp creature was not adding up.

Also consider that if Barr wanted to appeal to Trump's base as a political move, he could've given all kinds of juicy little details about leads he's found and soak up tons of celebrity and street cred with us. Why hasn't he acted like a good narcissist swamp creature and done this? Well going back to how I'd treat a colleague at work to get ahead in life, let's assume good intent. Is there a good reason he might have for not yet prosecuting the crimes of people we know are guilty?

If Bill Barr was a co-worker of mine, here's how I would assess his ability to do his job. I would say that based on his character, his reputation, his consistency, his lack of obvious narcissistic traits and his stringent adherence to a single legal philosophy, that there' only one obvious reason why a man like that would choose not to prosecute certain crimes we know people are guilty of to the fullest extent of the law: if, for the sake of prosecuting a few high-profile crimes, the ability to apply the Rule of Law equally to everyone involved would be threatened.

In my opinion, that explains perfectly what people are perceiving as a lack of action on his part. In fact, it's the only thing that could stop a man like him who loves justice from pursuing justice immediately and at once. What could stop a man who loves justice and the rule of law from pursuing justice in the short-term? Only one thing: if by prosecuting those crimes less justice would be done in the long term.