Barr authored memo last year ruling out obstruction of justice

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Nearly a year before his letter Sunday telling lawmakers he did not believe President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice, Attorney General William Barr authored a memo saying he thought the obstruction investigation was "fatally misconceived."

Barr, then a private citizen and former attorney general to President George H. W. Bush, issued the memo to senior Justice Department officials in June 2018.

Trump went on to nominate Barr to lead the Justice Department on a permanent basis after Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions in early November. As CNN reported in December, Barr's June 8, 2018, memo offers a detailed analysis of one of the most consequential episodes of Trump's presidency, concluding that while he was "in the dark about many facts," special counsel Robert Mueller's obstruction inquiry was "fatally misconceived."

In his memo, Barr added that Trump asking then-FBI Director James Comey to let go of the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn and later firing Comey was within his powers as head of the executive branch.

Barr's memo from last June took on heightened relevance Sunday, when he issued a letter to Congress offering his summary of Mueller's report.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-authored-memo-last-year-ruling-out-obstruction-of-justice/ar-BBVaOfA?li=BBnbcA1

[RockRaven]

1. Everyone who feels let down by Barr's letter needs to remember who Barr is and what his agenda is.

Barr is not Mueller, and neither of them are Justice personified (though to be fair, one is much much further away from that than the other).

And also remember that Trumpists and GOPers *WANT* you to feel dispirited. Do not let them disillusion you. This is not the end of things.

[struggle4progress]

2. "First the conclusion and then the investigation!"

[riversedge]

3. Michael Beschloss ‏tonight said Barr was partisan --he wrote this 19 page memo (msnbc)

[Igel]

4. My lay response is always to look at the conclusion.

I'd do that in my field of study, but without pause would then look at the reasoning. It's hard to remember to do that. But often the "what" is less important and less insightful than the "why".

First year grad students and undergrads would just read the conclusion and be done with it. Often because it's just heavy lifting to get through the reasoning, what with jargon and gaps in knowledge.

I haven't read the Barr memo. But the Barr letter gives the "why" and also drags in Rosenstein as co-evaluator of the evidence and the three listed criteria for what would have to be true of each alleged instance to meet reasonable standards for prosecution and conviction. They (not "he" at that point) would seem to say that while for individual listed instances of alleged obstruction at least one of the three criteria fail to be met.

While I'm not entirely sure that "he can't be acting corruptly because he's the boss" might qualify, the way it's worded tells me that sometimes it's one reason and at other times it's another. If it were the same for each instance, as his memo would entail, that wouldn't be true. And, in any event, when the laundry list of allegations is provided to whoever will get them, with the supporting argumentation pro and con by Mueller, it'll be an easy thing to judge if there was a single principle that ruled out all of them or if it was a consideration, careful or otherwise, of each charge based on Mueller's findings.