Quote:
|
I'm saying that a federal judge saying that Barr isn't credible is proof that you were wrong when you said, don't worry, Barr won't do anything to risk his credibility. And BTW, if other people's opinion is that you aren't credible, you're not credible.
|
It's evidence that I possibly was wrong, not proof I was wrong. I know this may break your understanding of the world, but the judge may be wrong, and his opinion is not final. He can say whatever he likes, and then someone can read it and say, "He's wrong," and say why.
Quote:
|
OK, why don't you explain to me how the court of appeal is going to review the trial judge's determination that Barr is not credible and that he therefor needs to review the redactions made by DOJ himself. You're predicting that DOJ will file an interlocutory appeal of the judge's order that the report be produced in camera, and in the course of that proceeding the DC Circuit is going to say that the judge was clearly erroneous in finding that Barr lacked credibility?
|
Whoa there... Xanax perhaps?
I was not getting into any of the procedure or standards. I was merely saying we have these things called appeals courts because judges are often wrong and their opinions need to be judged by other judges.
