1 pg on Russian interference.
1 pg on obstruction.
It quotes Mueller on obstruction: "While this report does not conclude that the Pres committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
It's Barr's short letter, not Mueller.
We need to see the report.
"The investigation did not establish" conspiracy or coordination.
But any lawyer would ask about what legal burden of proof Mueller was using.
Proof "beyond a resonable doubt"?
But that's not the only relevant standard.
Mueller may have been explicitly using a higher standard in this context. We just don't know.
Wikileaks was not the Russian government, but coordinating with Wikileaks is plausibly soliciting/conspiring.
Barr seems to be deliberately obscuring. Unclear.
Why not share that summary, even if Barr did his own rough redactions?
Barr quoted only 3 sentences from Mueller. Why would he not offer more than 3 sentences from Mueller?
I find that highly questionable.
Mueller surely offered similar summaries.
And yet Barr did not share those summaries.
Just 1 full sentences and 2 partial sentences from Mueller.
-"Our judgment," not Mueller's...
- Implicitly focused on proving "beyond reasonable doubt."
Extreme unitary executive theory.
So Barr's legal conclusion is no shocker here.