William Barr vs. Robert Mueller, explained

[DonViejo]

Disputes over the handling of the Trump obstruction investigation have spilled into public view.

By Andrew [e-mail] Jun 1, 2019, 8:30am EDT

Major disagreements between Robert Mueller and Attorney General William Barr have spilled out into public this week, with the dispute focusing on the handling of the investigation of President Trump for potential obstruction of justice.

On Wednesday, Mueller announced his resignation and made his first-ever public statement on the investigation, giving a summary of his conclusions that was conspicuously different from Barr’s. After that, Barr responded, defending his own decisions in an hour-long interview with CBS This Morning.

Discrepancies between Barr and Mueller have simmered for some time. Barr’s initial letter describing Mueller’s findings gave a starkly incomplete picture that seemed much rosier for Trump than the full report. And he has since adopted Trump’s line that the investigation found “there was in fact no collusion.” (Mueller says there was “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”)

But the heart of the current dispute relates to the highly unusual way the obstruction investigation wrapped up — with Mueller deciding not to reach a conclusion on whether Trump broke the law, and with Barr then deciding to reach the conclusion that he didn’t.

Barr is now taking aim at several of Mueller’s choices. He says Mueller “could’ve reached a decision” on whether Trump committed crimes. He says he disagrees with Mueller’s application of obstruction statutes to certain of Trump’s acts. And he says that even if you accept Mueller’s interpretation of obstruction law, the evidence against Trump was “deficient” in every single episode.

more
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/1/18647362/mueller-barr-trump-obstruction-law