There are many things that not only bother me about the Barr Report Summary -- and keep bothering me even more the more I think about them.  But at the center of them all is one thing that strikes me as foundational to the problems.

It's when Attorney General William Barr (R-Trump Towers) writes in his summary that a person can't commit Obstruction of Justice if there's no underlying crime.  Now, I'm not only not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV or in print -- and the moment I hear that it immediately struck that it couldn't be right, that it made no sense.  A person can lie or cover-up and obstruct prosecutors if he or she doesn't want to talk about something that's perfectly legal (like having an affair, for instance, or It hurts their reputation, or they want to protect someone).  So, I couldn't believe that the law the Attorney General said was true --  even though he's the Attorney General, and I type my various thoughts. 

So, it was a great comfort to me and my non-existent legal degree that federal prosecutor after federal prosecutor all day yesterday came saying the same thing all day -- that Attorney General Barr was wrong, that there was no such legal principle.  That anyone can obstruct justice for any reason, whether there is an underlying crime or not.  The most innocent person, they all said, can obstruct justice.  (Interestingly, many of these federal prosecutors used the same, famous example -- that Martha Stewart had actually committed no crime, but lied to federal prosecutors about her actions, committing obstruction of justice and going to jail for five months because of it.)  That what Attorney General William Barr said is not the law, and he made the chimera up out of thin air and a large dose of obfuscation.

What bothers me so much about this and why I find it almost more problematic than any of the other transgressions in his summary (though it's a close race for #1) is not only because it's not just deceptive, but because he's the Attorney General of the United States and knows it's deceptive, and knows that every lawyer listening knows it's non-existent and deceptive (as well as many non-lawyers, including all those people who went to jail for lying and obstructing justice even though they hadn't committed an underlying crime) but also since the point Barr is making up is so central to the whole investigation.  Obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice is no small matter here.  Trump is on record for firing FBI Director James Comey -- the man in charge of the investigation -- specifically because of "the Russia thing."  He fired most of the people he could who had subsequently been in charge at the FBI or had significant positions in the investigation.  And when you fire the people who are investigating you, even if you haven't been convicted or just indicted for a crime, you are not only obstructing justice...but your obstruction might be the very reason that the people investigating you have been blocked and unable to conduct a proper investigation and get the actual evidence needed to indict you.

Indeed, obstruction of justice is perhaps the very reason William Barr is currently Attorney General, since he is the man who wrote a 19-page, unsolicited letter in an effort to get his job as Attorney General that argued it was not Constitutionally possible for a president to commit...(let's say it all together now...) obstruction of justice.

And there's the Attorney General lying, making up the most childish, non-existent legal doctrine that if you haven't been convicted of a crime, it's therefore not illegal to lie about it and obstruct justice to keep officers of the law from asking questions.

And it was from that core whitewash lie that Barr's entire manifest summary to protect Trump was built. 

If only Martha Stewart's attorneys had known this legal principle at the time!! All her fellow inmates would have been spared the hell having to eat on doilies at every meal for the five months she was in prison.

Thanks to my The West Wing buddy Shelly Goldstein for the heads-up on this.  The Lady Shellington and I used to call one another after each episode and joyfully analyze the bejeepers out of it.  How this special video from a couple years ago, made during the Obama Administration, slipped through our joint awareness is beyond me.

The background is a famous episode in which a subplot concerned Big Block of Cheese Day, which was from the days of Andrew Jackson.  A...well, big block of cheese was stationed in the White House for the general public, but the larger point was for people to have access to the administration for making comments and complaints.
​

As a bonus, here is an interview with the show's creator Aaron Sorkin and one of the stars Bradley Whitford when they appeared on The Late Show with James Corden.  It's enjoyable, but what stands out is a story that Whitford tells about rehearsing his lines one day when they were on location in Washington, D.C.
​

I would have expected this tweet from Don Jr. or Devin Nunes, but instead it came from CNN.  What they wrote is that -- "Special counsel Robert Mueller found that no one in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in 2016 -- but Democrats are not ready to accept that finding "

Seriously, CNN? You've actually read the full report?  Cool. One anxiously waits to hear the details of what else it says!!  Oh, right, sorry, the actual report hasn't been released yet, so we don't have an idea yet what it really says.  And by "we," I include CNN.

That aside, CNN is also wrong. Attorney General Barr's summary says that the report states there was no "chargeable collusion" -- that's totally different from saying it didn't occur and no one in the campaign conspired, which even Barr himself doesn't claim it says.  All it found is that the Special Counsel investigation doesn't have the evidence of collusion beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard needed to indict.

I had another article planned for today.  Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men...

As you might imagine, other news came along yesterday which pushed that out of today's line-up.  And so instead we jump in for a look at Attorney General William Barr's summary letter about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation report.  I'm glad I waited, rather than writing something yesterday, since my opinion has shifted a bit, growing stronger.  If only Mr. Barr had taken the same advice and didn't rush out his response.  Though I suspect  given the source it may not have mattered.  After all, this was a man who pretty much had made up his made mind about the whole investigation and how it was inappropriate long before it was completed 

The jumping off point is a short email I received from one of my various friends who was having a meltdown kind of day.  He wrote --

"How does Mueller leave this up to Barr?  How does Mueller not come to a conclusion?  At the very least -- the LEAST -- how do you not indict Junior for perjury?  And how does Barr so swiftly and conveniently exonerate?  We have to see the report.  None of this makes sense."

A few things.  Starting with – I agree with my friend, of course.
 
There’s too much in Barr's summary that doesn’t make even the remotest sense.  After all, there are already six guilty verdicts (so far) and 37 indictments.  But according to Barr, all’s well. Trump is "exonerated."  Nothing to see here, move along, folks.
 
A few thoughts do stand out.
 
First and most obvious is that it must be fully recognized (though it won't be by Trump and the far right) that this is a summary by Trump's appointed-Attorney General,, it is not Robert Mueller’s report.  And Barr is drawing conclusions in two days that Mueller didn’t draw in two years.  And most notable of those Barr conclusions is that Mueller Did Not exonerate Trump, but Barr does.

(Related to this is that the general standard on investigations, according to what federal prosecutors were saying, is that when the prosecutors draw no conclusions in their reports, it is unheard of for the Attorney General to then draw conclusions which were never made by those who did the investigating.)

Second, Barr says that the report claims there was no conspiring with “the Russian government”.  Yet we know the reality is that there was, in fact, a great deal of contact with Russian oligarchs and Russian citizens who are not officially “the Russian government,” but the way Russia operates they pretty much are one and the same.  So, that’s parsing words incredibly carefully by Barr. Oleg Derispaska is not part of the Russian government.  He is, however, one of the most powerful Russian oligarchs and one of the closest allies of Vladimir Putin, and was very deeply involved conspiring with Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort.

And third, not only is William Barr's appointed-Attorney General, he should never have been in a position of summarizing the Mueller Report and instead have recused himself.  Remember, this is a man who wrote a private letter to the Justice Department when "auditioning" for the job of Attorney General and long ago had declared his personal position that the Mueller investigation was "grossly irresponsible."  And this is the person "summarizing" Robert Mueller's two-year investigation in two days, and drawing conclusions he specifically notes that Mueller himself never drew.

That's why I say that the more I read, hear and think about Barr's summary, the more my galled reaction to Barr's action has grown stronger.

Former Deputy Attorney General Elliot Williams made the point on an MSNBC panel that Barr himself doesn't try to claim that Robert Mueller concluded there was no collusion -- rather, Barr explains only that the Report said there was no "chargeable collusion."  That could mean there was indeed collusion, but there wasn't enough evidence to meet the standard of reasonable doubt needed to convict in court, which is required to bring an indictment.  Or it could mean that there was such evidence, but a president can't be charged.  Not having "chargeable collusion" does not mean there wasn't misconduct or collusion.
 
My understanding is that in his report Mueller looked at two things in terms of Russia – Russian attempts to manipulate the election, and quid quo pro interaction between Russians and the Trump administration.   And according to Barr's summary Mueller said that, yes, there was clear evidence that Russia did attempt to manipulate the election, though nothing definitive that could be proven in terms of Trump campaign involvement in such actions specifically, and so no criminal charges could be brought on that.  But Barr focuses solely on this first issue alone and totally ignores the critical quid pro quo aspect of it all, which is profound and substantive.  (And includes, among other things, for one example the Trump Tower meeting.)  That's a massive omission on Barr's part.  It's like saying, "The police investigation shows evidence that it was the robbers alone who broke into the house, with no help from any accomplices, and all others are exonerated for that crime" -- but then leaving out mentioning that the same investigation said these accomplices appeared to have a deal in place to fence the stolen goods after the initial crime was committed.
 
I think the larger reality is that Democrats in Congress will without question be outraged by Barr's deeply partisan, very quick and inappropriate summary -- not even addressing how long Mueller's report was that he was summarizing -- and will do everything to get the full report and subpoena Mueller to appear.  Much more will come out.  And of course there’s still the Southern District of New York investigation, along with other New York City D.A. and New York state Attorney General investigations (and California is now involved) and House investigations.  Unfortunately, this news "summary" yesterday from his Attorney General gives Trump and the far right cover to claim complete exoneration which with absolute certainty is not the case of the full report.  But that’s where the House comes into play, and though the hurdle for them is now higher, it will be dealt with.
 
What’s odd is that I’m sure Trump and his supporters will try to claim this proves it was a witch hunt – when of course the very opposite is true, that by not making the indictments and being fair-minded, it shows how honest and open it all was.  All the while still, I’m sure, finding wrongdoing.
 
And ultimately that’s one of the biggest points.  Lost in all of this, and which I'm sure will remain lost to many is that the Special Counsel was not tasked to do a criminal investigation -- rather his sole job was to look into counter-espionage, and write a report on threats to the country.  And so Robert Mueller can find grave threats caused by the administration that may not be actual crimes (or may be…) , yet nonetheless are still devastating misdeeds to the country.  For instance, giving Jared Kushner a top security clearance isn’t a crime – but it puts the country at risk.  Kushner and Don Jr. – and Trump – could have been compromised by Russians, yet not committed “a crime.”  (Or an action that was "chargeable" as a crime.)  That -- and that alone -- was what Mueller was tasked to find:  threats by Russia to the country.  Along the way, he found 6 guilty verdicts (so far) and 37 indictments.  Many of the guilty verdicts were for lying – and clearly they were lying to hide SOMETHING.

More to the point, the Special Counsel was not tasked with investigating efforts by Trump and his administration to "aid and abet" Russia and its interests after the election, during his presidency.  And we know that while all federal intelligence agencies (and the Mueller Report) say that Russia did, in fact, attempt to manipulate the election, Trump has repeatedly said he didn't believe them and even said he specifically believes Putin's denials, famously asking "Why would he?"  None of that was under Mueller's purview, and none of it is necessarily a felony -- but it all certainly is an abrogation of one's oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and a danger to the country.  Further, money laundering for Russia was not part of Mueller's task either, so he may not have felt compelled to recommend any indictments if it occurred, yet it certainly would be interesting to see if it's a subject mentioned in the full report, while ignored by William Barr.
 
That’s all now for Congress to investigate.  And for the Southern District of New York.  And…if he gets subpoenaed, for Robert Mueller himself to address in the full report, not a 4-page summary by a political hack on record beforehand trashing the process.
 
Does this make it easier for Trump in his re-election bid, as I have heard some claim?  I'd put it this way -- I think it makes it less difficult.  And that's not semantics.  I think (based on his low approval ratings, the Democratic Blue wave in 2016 -- which centered on health care and the lack of immigrant "hordes" attacking the U.S. -- policies that separated parents from their children, support of murderous dictators, enabling of white supremacists, and two years pandering to his base without any attempt to expand it), Trump has an uphill race, so nothing for him will be easy.  He most-certainly can win, but saying that anything makes his chances of re-election "easier" creates the wrong impression of the profound challenges he faces.  It's not just that there are more investigations, but there will be more revelations (some devastating), and more indictments.  And there will be the full Mueller report -- which for all we know may address all the actions for which Trump could have been indicted, but wasn't indicted simply because he is president and it is Justice Department policy not to indict a sitting president.  Perhaps not.  But we haven't seen the full Report, yet have seen that it DOES NOT EXONERATE Trump.  What Trump doesn't have to deal with now this is an indictment from the Mueller Report (which few expected) and gets to be covered by an inappropriate summary by his hand-picked Attorney General who was long on record as being against the investigation.  That does not make anything "easier" for Trump -- it makes some things less difficult.  Which given the deep range of problems Trump and his crime family face does qualify as at least a positive.

But if they are celebrating it is a massive mistake.  In the end, over the next year-and-a-half I have no doubt that there will be more headlines of corruption that will make today's news seem almost a distant memory.

Rather than comment too quickly about today's news, I decided that -- unlike the Attorney General -- I'm going take a little bit more time to think about his summary of the Mueller Report instead of just rushing something out.  Sadly, that means I won't be exonerating Mr. Barr of all crimes and misdeeds tonight...

In the meantime I thought it would be proper to deal with another con man and dive back into my recent postings of uncommon videos of The Music Man.

This is a short version, but long enough to be great fun of the song "(Ya Got) Trouble" performed by, of all people, Martin Sheen.  It comes from an episode of the Netflix series, Grace and Frankie, that stars Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin, along with Sam Waterston and Sheen.  In this scene, as far as I can tell, it seems that the local community is either putting on a production of The Music Man that Sheen's character is starring in, or more likely it may be a talent show.  Whatever it is, it's a treat.