Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
I don't know about "materially misrepresenting," or even what that means, but that fact that Barr's summary does not quote even and single entire sentence is consistent with my belief that the report contains evidence of collusion that we've not yet seen.
Obviously, not enough to cause Mueller to reach a different conclusion, but something.
Yes, and this is where Barr really does seem to be playing fast and loose.
|
Material means Barr isn't changing any of Mueller's fundamental conclusions on the two issues on which Mueller reported.
Barr's weakness on obstruction is the reliance on lack of underlying crime. You can engage in obstruction without having committed a crime. That's a flatly absurd conclusion he should have omitted from the letter.* The way around obstruction is Barr's other position: That Trump clearly demonstrated a belief from the start that he did not commit a crime, as shown in his statements, and therefore did not have the intent to avoid the uncovering of anything, but was merely defending himself. That statement alone gets Barr where he needs to be. The existence or non-existence of a crime is immaterial. What's material is whether Trump was doing what he was doing to frustrate an investigation, or merely doing it to defend himself. That's a case that's really hard to make because ultimately, only Trump knows why he did what he did. Good luck getting to that answer.
_______
* ETA: Barr may have included that statement because to the general public, "no crime, no cover up" closes the case. Politically, it's smart. But to the people who'll assess his letter on logic and legal reasoning, it's damaging. I think Barr assumed, correctly, there are far fewer of us than there are people in the general public who'll accept "no crime, no cover-up."
Threaded Mode