For me, such clarifications look completely unproblematic.
The rest of the paragraph isn't unimportant, but it kind of makes the point: The problem with Barr's summary starts with the fact that it is extraneous. There is an actual law that governs what happens in these situations, and presently the Attorney General has every appearance of trying to find some way to sabotage it. He sent a letter advising that Mueller submitted a report; that was his job. A couple days later he sent another letter, summarizing the principal conclusions. Several days later, feeling the heat for his action, he issued yet another letter, compounding the problems of the first.
Any number of political points can go here, but the first and foremost fact to bear in mind is that the 24 March letter and its 29 March clarification both were beyond prescribed duty and protocol. In the question of why a public attorney, especially an attorney general, would do that, simple answers like saying it seemed like a good idea so what's wrong with it jump past the heart of the question.
We have, here, a process, and an Attorney General who took office under an obvious cloud of suspicion, which in turn he has only fulfilled. Sure, that reads like a basic political point but its underlying American reality is a reminder of why we have standards in the first place.
This occurs in the plain light of statute, but also in a seemingly obscure corner of juristics that people need to remember: All attorneys have obligations toward integrity, conflict of interest, and basic appearances thereof. For all the dirty business we accuse lawyers of getting away with, there are some things that are supposed to be sacred. An attorney is not supposed to outright lie, and this actually looks like what happens when a lawyer verges up against that threshold. Think for a moment of defense attorneys. In the U.S., they are notorious, but also the stuff of legend. Donald Trump's attorneys in his business dealings over the years have been effective, but the true stuff of legend is the laws they had to work with. And within the context of establishing doubt, as a defense attorney does, there is only so much room to maneuver before crossing the line into dissimulation. Once upon a time, Americans abided a pretense that state attorneys were supposed to be above all that, but, even still, the
mere appearance of impropriety is a standard in effect for law enforcement lawyers, and especially one with a title like Attorney General. And we can make a political point, to be certain, about this being the Mockery Presidency, to the point of President Trump actually calling off The New Colossus, but we're so deep into all of this extraordinary deviation it will be a while before people recognize what buzzed through Twitter but not so much any substantial banner headlines; by the time we get down to the joke about the evangelical bloc ... well, that is its own manner of point that is not unimportant. Still, though, the functional realities of such political considerations are stark; another of this President's iconic moments is yet again striking for its reckless petulance.
While a political point would be to observe the fact that these are Republicans behaving exactly like they accuse and wail about others, or that the Party known to argue that government doesn't work seemingly hell-bent on demonstrating its thesis, the underlying
functional point of governance in this is that everything about Attorney General Barr's installation and subsequent actions in re the Mueller investigation drips with the look and stench of impropriety.
To simplify:
Were it you and me watching the pub regulars do their thing, certain behavior might not seem problematic; were we listening to the speaker at the symposium clarify, not only would clarification generally not be problematic, it would in particular cases seem useful. By contrast, Attorney General Barr's clarification is as problematic as what it clarifies because this isn't a pub, where ethics of argument are considerably less constraining, nor a symposium wherein the presentation and clarification are part of the reason for the person in front of us to even be speaking in the first place. This is the Attorney General of the United States behaving extraordinarily poorly in about as obvious a manner as he might.
Here's a difference between the political and the functional:
Ok, maybe you are completely stupid so that you completely miss how your writings will be interpreted by other people which follow usual standards of argumentation?
As a political consideration, sure, the purpose of addressing Iceaura in this manner, according to the dispute 'twixt the two of you, seems pretty straightforward.
As a functional consideration, even setting aside the question of whether Iceaura's repeated assertions of your ignorance and vulnerability have valid basis, we might wonder what the point you made has to do with
you. More generally per the proposition of argument itself: Why change the subject to other people? Do you need the implied weight of their implied scrutiny as some sort of surrogate? It just seems the weirdest change of subject.
Which, in turn, is the problem with political hits as substantive argument: Yeah, really, it does seem pretty straightforward, and, sure, we all get you, and maybe Iceaura is either embarrassed at feeling he has been somehow burned or, more likely, annoyed at the stupidity of it all. But that's the thing: Sure, maybe we get you, but that doesn't mean you actually have a useful point. That is, sure, we get what you're after, but, no, you're
really not the one to deliver that line.
As a political zinger, your line is what it is. The functional reality, of course, is that those who attend more usual standards of argumentation are an interesting question about a meaningless phrase. Even setting aside the fact that this is Sciforums, there is your history of making believe in lieu of more useful or valid° forms of argument.
And inasmuch as our neighbor might repeatedly assert your ignorance and vulnerability, it's also true I can think back
ten months ago↗, when I said your anti-Americanism relies on a phantom caricature of America even more dysfunctional than the real caricature Americans have made of themselves over the years.
And while it is true, even many Americans just don't attend the basic workings of government closely enough to notice certain subtleties, that does not change the point that your arguments depend on critiques not necessarily attending the detail of what they purport to criticize.
Such as the clarification not being problematic; the difference, compared to Iceaura's reference
#306↑ to the 29 March letter, that Barr "is obviously correct to cover his ass like that", is that your point is entirely political and disregards what American civic understanding would cover; my phrasing, in
#316↑, to scrutinize what Barr wrote according to the point of how it is not a disqualifying lie, reflects the same basic understanding. The clarification, in its own context, is straightforward and dubiously predictable. To be clear,
dubiously because to presuppose an Attorney General of the United States would behave this way is itself a grave and presupposing insult.
As long as your arguments characterize the U.S. and its people according to foreign-born, oppositional propaganda, your assessments of what is going on in this country will always be suspect.
Consider that the answer to your question about how other people will interpret what he writes is already known: They will either leave it to the two of you, pick a side based on superficial factors, or spend some effort trying to figure out what either of you are on about. Meanwhile, you're not doing your own self any good along the way. The question of how other people see one's writing is, as you have expressed it, left to each author. And, furthermore, this is Sciforums, after all. So, all in all, your appeal to shame, as it seems to be, reads as some manner of trembling indignance thoroughly unprepared to make any dignified or useful stand, which might result from the lack of principle or even mere point to stand on.
____________________
Notes:
° Per its usage, "usual standards of argumentation" implies statistical outcomes, and thus does not preclude that one might discard reliability and validity while encountering or achieving a "usual" argumentative circumstance or outcome. Accuracy is not a prerequisite of what is or isn't usual.
