- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,737
- Reaction score
- 4,941
That's not what I'm suggesting. I have an example from my professional experience (CPA who worked in audit in past lives) which should clear up how I see it.
We gather evidence to support our opinion on the accuracy of a set of financial statements (that we're engaged to audit). For example we would obtain and read all material contracts (lending/debt agreements, contracts with vendors/customers, equity agreements, etc.). Now let's say I have one of my staff read the loan agreement and draft a summary of the main points and accounting/disclosure conclusions and I read the memo. If the audit partner asked me if I reviewed the loan agreement I would never say I did on the basis that I read my staff's memo! And if there was something vague or not consistent and my professional judgement made it clear it was really important to get it right I would sure as hell read the agreement myself and make sure I agree with my staff's conclusions.
Now I fully understand that this is an entirely different field with different practices and I'm open to being wrong (but I do see prosecutors arguing that Barr should have reviewed the evidence) but this is what I mean by review. I'm not asking Barr to recreate evidence or conduct second interviews but shouldn't he read the interviews and other documents to help him make a determination? I can't see how he can determine there was no obstruction by reading Mueller's report itself when Mueller couldn't come to that conclusion!!! That doesn't make sense.
Because Mueller’s report actually outlined the items that where considered for obstruction and collusion. All you’d have to do is review those items, which included the facts in support/contrast for them to make a decision. There’s no need to go rewatch the clip of trump saying, “hey Russia, if your listening” to make a determination about it.

