And the part you conveniently left out: "Instead the report recounts 10 episodes involving the president, and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those theories to the elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the office of legal counsel, and other department lawyers, the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel, is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense."
Now, are you going to tell me you have some sort of superior legal information and knowledge that Barr doesn't have, considering the efforts he went through to prove whether obstruction happened? Are you going to tell me that you're going to read the report and somehow come to a better legal conclusion that he?
Tell me MR, where did you get your law degree, how long have you been practicing, and where have you practiced?