Thread by @TheViewFromLL2

Barr wrote: "The SCO's decision [to not] reach[] any legal conclusions leaves it to the AG to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime."

Barr lied. Mueller concluded that it was not the role of any prosecutor to determine Trump committed a crime.

Mueller's decision was clear: if he determined Trump committed no crime, he would state that fact. If he determined that Trump did commit a crime, he would not state that fact.

Barr overruled Mueller's report and issued his own determination, contradicting Mueller's findings.

Volume II of the report reviews Trump's conduct under an obstruction of justice framework, and then rejects each of Trump's purported legal defenses as meritless.

The conclusion is not explicit, but still obvious: Mueller would have indicted Trump if he wasn't president.

For acts of possible obstruction where the evidence could suggest, but did not establish, that Trump had a corrupt intent to obstruct justice, Mueller is not at all shy about stating his conclusions. Take, for example, Trump's lies about the June 9 meeting:

But for other acts of possible obstruction, Mueller describes Trump's conduct, examines how that conduct obstructed justice, and then explains why the evidence shows that Trump intended for his act to obstruct the investigation.

Mueller found Trump obstructed justice. Full stop.

Mueller's report finds, again and again, that the evidence of Trump's conduct established every element of obstruction of justice. Just look at the section on Trump's message to Sessions via Lewandowski:

Mueller may have forgotten the second T in TREAT, but that doesn't change what his report concludes: that the evidence of Trump's conduct re: Sessions establishes every element of obstruction of justice; that evidence is "substantial"; and is supported by still more evidence.