,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. I am finding it utterly impossible to reconcile Barr’s testimony on Mueller's analysis of obstruction, with Mueller’s actual analysis of obstruction theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
2. Mueller laid out his logic with perfect clarity. It wasn’t difficult to understand. He wrote that, since he couldn’t charge a president and thereby give him the protections of the legal process, neither could he say he would have charged the president if he could've.
3. On its face, it appears that Mueller intended to present evidence of facially obstructive acts, and leave the question of what to do with that evidence to Congress (through the process of impeachment) or to prosecutors (after the president leaves office).
4. Barr effectively overruled that approach, declining to release the summaries, and announcing his own conclusion that there had not been chargeable acts of obstruction. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
5. In the end, though, it does not matter what Barr makes of the Mueller report, or whether he thinks these acts were criminal. That—as Mueller reminded us—has properly been a question for the House all along. And it’s time for the House to take it up: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
