To be fair, you're not the only dim bulb that keeps harping on the "review" aspect of Huber's directive. As if you think there's some kind of difference between "review" and "investigation".
You're either a troll or one of the dumbest posters on the forum.
You're the one who harped on the "review" aspect of the above statement in bold whilst you ignored the point.
Huber's tasks were to review (or investigate) and to report. Huber's tasks were not to review/investigate and to PROSECUTE.
That was the poster's point.
Do you get it?
No, of course you don't.
Can't prosecute without reviewing and investigating, right?
Do you know how the DOJ works?
Read haffast's post above for further information (#149).
You: Huber's tasks were to review (or investigate)
And now you admit that "review" and "investigate" mean the same thing, essentially.
Baby steps. You'll get there.
(fyi, here's the ignorance you originally agreed with).
Pear-ord.45: Huber wasnt assigned to do any further investigating. He was assigned to review what had been done and make recommendations as to what he concluded still needed to be done....
Ergo, no grand juries, no subpoenas , no indictments , no arrests and no convictions. Huber`s only task was review and report.
You: This.