centuries of american jurisprudence on its head. that is not how it is supposed to go. you have a presumption of innocence. the most important point here being that barr said he could have made the call and should have made the call. he did not do that as a tactic to turn this over to congress for impeachment, that is exactly what he wanted, that is what he s going to get. ed: let s get harry, to buck s point, at the peace in the new york post saying, among other things, this was a disgraceful mass by robert mueller. the i could not exonerate him point is discomforting for another reason, which is since when do prosecutors exonerating people pray that is not a prosecutor straw. maybe in the aftermath of a wrongful conviction with irrefutable physical evidence, prosecutors will say something inculpatory but even in most of these cases, they usually drop charges on grounds of insufficient evidence, not positive proof of innocence. what say you, sir? actually, that is dead wrong. bu
if this was so obvious and president obama recognizes it as obvious, i want to know why he waited until this point in his presidency to make this move. he could have made this move the the first six months of his presidency. would you have been okay with it then? no, but clearly it s legacy building he recognizes the risks. if he did this in year two, we d be able to see the outcome and it won t be liberalization from within cuba. it will be this regime strengthened economically with an iron fist continuing to hold that at the throats of the cuban people. we all want normalization, all want it to be a happier, better more liberal place. i don t think this achieves that goal. jaulian, to buck s point, you have big human rights issues here and you ve got significant differences the president calling them deep and significant differences between the two governments. how does he most effectively walk that line? you have to remember that s true of many allies who were engaged at tha