Based on his prior position that Trump could not have obstructed ... even before he read the evidence. Not what was his opinion based on ... since it couldn't have been based on the evidence?
His opinion, which is shared by many legal heavyweights, is based on the Constitution. Barr is biased as to following the law.
He is also following the law regarding releasing the Mueller Report. The law which was passed by Dems and signed by a Dem President. But now, you're all for transparency, right?
Again, whether one has violated a law, depends on the facts, as well as the law. Barr formed his opinion without knowing the facts -- pure, uncut, bias.
I haven't spoke on his releasing the report nor transparency.
Give us a for instance of how YOU think a President can obstruct justice.
First, logically and sensibly explain to us;
How Barr could conclude a President could not obstruct justice without knowing the facts, and also explain;
How this doesn't show that Barr is biased.
First off, a President can fire whomever they wish to for whatever reason, including Comey and Mueller. A President can also tell them what to investigate or not investigate. All within a President's Constitutional power.
Many people think that either of those actions would equal obstruction of justice. Not so fast.
First, logically and sensibly explain to us;
How Barr could conclude a President could not obstruct justice without knowing the facts, and also explain;
How this doesn't show that Barr is biased.
Do your homework if you don't understand Barr's and others position on the matter.
I rest my case.
OMGWOW, take the blinders off and look around dude.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/30/trumps_top_10_achievements_of_2018_139046.html