Saw a series of articles saying how great Barr dropping the Flynn case was, & a series saying what an utter, corrupt catastrophe it was.
Decided to give each side a chance, read articles on both sides - only the pro-Barr articles had any actual arguments based on legal reasoning

The anti-Barr arguments were all just harangues (e.g. the NYT editorial) that did not address any of Barr& #39;s legal claims.
This does not surprise me, but it& #39;s always good to test our assumptions once in a while.