No, what I said is not false, as the best you would be able to claim would be that there wasnt enough evidence to prove collusion. The statement AG Barr made was pretty straightforward.....the evidence that was collected neither incriminated or exonerated the President. That means he wasnt completely vindicated, and if you think is does, the problem would be your not knowing what those words actually mean.
For what its worth, I have always been a proponent of hoping the report actually fully cleared him so that if he manages to get smoked in the next election, nobody would be able to claim it was the report that did him in. It would be an outright rejection of him and all he stands for. Im not gonna get that, but Im not making much about Barrs statement either, as without the report being available for review, all we have is the interpretation of an employee of the person being investigated. One could hardly call that unbiased, since last year Barr made it quite clear that basically no matter what the report said, he wasnt going to do anything about it while the President was in office. What IS telling, though, is that given his stance on that, if the report HAD completely cleared the President, its pretty safe to assume they would be spiking the proverbial football right this second, and they arent. Since we know its not even close to out of character for the President to be prideful and self aggrandizing, his lack of making outlandish claims is kinda different. Makes you wonder if Barrs comments may have been a stretch of whats actually in the report nobody is going to get to see, doesnt it?
