Strong statement from Barr, really quite brilliant and encouraging. Barr is a great legal writer, up there with Clarence Thomas (who is better than the sainted Scalia, and who never gets the credit he deserves.)
But we simply do not know what evidence Durham has, and so it is impossible logically to apply Barr’s statement to the Durham investigation.
I do think the following statement is justified: if there are indictments, the evidence will be far stronger and airtight than even our side knew (as opposed to justifiably suspecting).
And if there are no indictments, Barr will explain the inaction on an eloquent justification of prosecutorial discretion.
Only questions I want Barr to answer is when will Joe Pientka testify and why or why not?