Why not? Would you condone a police chief doing the same? Or an Attorney General? Conflict of interest is a thing. The subject of an investigation should never have any control over that investigation. Being the President doesn't change that.
You're technically correct - it is a way of reading the language. However, most people don't consult a dictionary and thesaurus every time they speak. I contend that MOST people would not derive the same meaning that you're ascribing to Barr's words (or the words of his questioner). Perhaps Crist did truly mean his question in the precise, narrow manner in which you (and Barr?) have interpreted it. But somehow I doubt that.
ETA: When I was a kid, my parents would ask me "Rocks, did you brush your teeth?" before I went to bed. My inner lawyer eventually decided that it was technically not lying to say yes, provided I had brushed my teeth some time in the past. However, I still got in trouble for lying when my dad checked my toothbrush and found it dry.
Using semantics and narrow definitions of words and phrases so as to technically tell the truth is at best unethical, and at worst, still a lie (depending on who you ask). It should not be applauded, nor should it be seen as an admirable quality in our government officials.
Would you condone a police chief doing the same? Or an Attorney General? Conflict of interest is a thing. The subject of an investigation should never have any control over that investigation. Being the President doesn't change that.
What “should” or should not be done is irrelevant. I pose no position as to what “should” or “shouldn’t” happen. The point by Barr is obstruction cannot exist within a specific set of facts for a President when he terminates an investigation. Ostensibly, Barr is referring to the statutory crime of obstruction, based on his remarks. He may be speaking more abstractly, which is to say no obstruction outside the context of a statute under a certain set of facts.
Barr is asserting an element of obstruction is missing in his fact pattern, the element of intent/motive, hence no obstruction. In regards to your examples, if the subjects of your hypo lack the requisite intent/motive, then there’s no obstruction for ending the investigation. That’s the point.
You're technically correct - it is a way of reading the language. However, most people don't consult a dictionary and thesaurus every time they speak.
Well, I’m part of the “most” as I do not either, but I digress, your point lacks relevance. The fact is Barr was asked a specific question, with specific words used, and he answered the question honesty. There’s no point trying to play the role of the Pythia in the temple and seek a divine interpretation of what was “meant” to be asked but wasn’t, because of inartful wording by the person asking the question.
No point in guessing what was meant, especially since, well, the questioner May have meant to ask exactly what he did in fact pose as a query to Barr. I know it’s perhaps a shocking revelation that people actually meant to ask the question they in fact posed to someone.
But your retort is reflective of a wider, systemtic problem, share by many wanting to impugn the integrity of Barr, which is wanting an outcome, that outcome being Barr lied, and then conjuring poorly conceived arguments to support the conclusion.
To defend your claim Barr lied you have to resort to the mysticism of “spirits” and suggest the question asked wasn’t meant to be the question, although there’s no evidence or good reason to believe the questioner meant another question than the one specifically asked.
Resorting to the mystic arts of reasoning to arrive to a conclusion Barr lied should
at least begin to hint at the notion the argument and fact Barr lied are lacking and rationally unpersuasive.
Using semantics and narrow definitions of words and phrases so as to technically tell the truth is at best unethical
Except Barr did not do anything such thing, or better yet, there’s no evidence he did. Barr answered the specific question asked. Doesn’t make any sense to deride a person for comprehending what’s asked and answering the question posed. The problem here is doing so doesn’t fit your agenda. Your preconceived agenda is the problem.
And what ethical rule are you consulting?
What moral theory is it based on? What meta-ethical theory is it based on? Are you a moral realist, or a subjectivist, or a non-cognitivist, or an error theorist, or what?