Being lied to. Will posted the link. I used his own link against him. Barr’s words in that link were that the doj is doing a good job handling the laptop. I don’t need to check into that investigation or appoint a special counsel. It wasn’t right wing media buddy. You know will like you, only reads from the far left.
He kept saying Barr didn’t appoint a counsel. Then posted a link as to why. He didn’t realize what Barr’s quoted words were. That is the ironic part of all of this.
Used my link against me? I don’t understand what that means. Yes, of course Barr says he thought the DOJ was handling the investigation well. You are entiry missing the point that I’ve made over and over again.
Perhaps it will help if we take this one point at a time.
Barr, who served under Bush 1 and Trump, is a loyal Republican.
Barr is, at a minimum, competent at his job, given he was chosen by two different Presidents decades apart to serve as AG.
Barr’s FBI and DOJ had the laptop for nearly two years (December, 2019) before the 2020 election.
Legitimate or verifiable evidence that Joe broke any laws would have impacted the election.
Barr was well aware that Trump was hungry for Biden/Ukraine dirt given he was
impeached for trying to leverage US aid for dirt in a call with Zelensky.
The fact that Trump was impeached for a matter related to the Bidens and Ukraine would mean that legitimate evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine would be even more politically explosive than it would have been otherwise, which was huge.
A special counsel is an attorney appointed to investigate, and possibly prosecute, a case in which the Justice Department perceives itself as having a conflict or where it's deemed to be in the public interest to have someone outside the government come in and take responsibility for a matter.
Ok, can we agree on the above? I’ll assume so.
My point, if it still isn’t clear, is that the laptop was never what it was claimed to be by republicans. How can I prove that?
Barr could have investigated/validated the laptop for a full year and still appointed a special counsel ten months before the election, which would have been his absolute responsibility to do if he thought there was reasonable proof or even evidence that Joe took bribes from a foreign entity. This is the textbook scenario for a SC.
And, as a loyal Republican, he was also well aware of the fact that reasonable evidence of crimes by Joe would have likely given Trump the election and appointing a special counsel would have immediately publicized the matter.
So Barr can say whatever he chooses to at this point. If he thought they had reasonable evidence that the Dem nominee for President was involved in a foreign influence scheme, he absolutely would have appointed a SC. He didn’t appoint a SC because, as evidence, the laptop is hugely problematic and the other investigations into the matter didn’t find corroborating evidence.
So again, if you don’t like how the laptop was handled, you should be blaming Barr, or perhaps blame the fact that you were lied to about the laptop by political operatives with an agenda. It’s never been what it was claimed to be, and still isn’t.
There may be proof out there that Joe committed crimes, but we haven’t seen it yet.