Mueller Told Barr Three Weeks Ago He Wouldn’t Reach Obstruction Conclusion

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Attorney General Bill Barr has known for three weeks that special counsel Robert Mueller would not be making a determination on whether President Trump obstructed justice, multiple outlets reported Monday.

A source told CNN that this “unexpected” move on Mueller’s part left it to Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to determine how to weigh in on the issue.

There has been much speculation over how it took Barr only 48 hours from the time Mueller’s final report was submitted on Friday to release his Sunday afternoon summary, in which he said he and Rosenstein concluded there was “not sufficient” evidence to bring such a charge. This new development reveals the two Justice Department officials had more time to reach this conclusion. It’s not clear how much of the evidence Barr and Rosenstein were shown before Friday.

Barr noted in his four-page letter that Mueller laid out the evidence on both sides of the obstruction question, stating that, “‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

Lawmakers from both parties are still pushing for the full report to be released so the public can know exactly how Mueller determined that the Trump campaign did not coordinate with Russia in 2016, and his reasoning on the obstruction question.

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. Then why did it take him 48 hours to write his ‘summary’. He could have just appended it to his memo and released it. He already KNEW what he was going to say. This is the same crap that happened with Iran Contra…I wonder if now they are going to pardon everyone because they couldn’t find TRUMP guilty…it doesn’t matter about the rest of the grifters.

  2. But there’s so much obstruction that’s been admitted or took place in public. Like firing Comey after he would not go easy on Flynn, or drop the Russia investigation.

    I’ve seen it suggested that Barr thinks there cannot be obstruction if there’s no underlying crime. That’s clearly wrong. Suppose a man disappears under circumstances that suggest he’s been murdered and the body disposed of. If I’m a suspect and I get someone to lie and say that he was with me at a relevant time, that’s obstruction, even if the supposed victim reappears unharmed, and it turns out that he just went away for a vacation.

  3. Yep, been reading that all over the internet. Well coordinated effort.

  4. Right now, I really need the ‘king’s man’ (Rosenstein) to throw the new ‘high sheriff’ (Barr) under the wagons and this will be the best week evaaa.

Continue the discussion at

94 more replies


Avatar for robg Avatar for old_curmudgeon Avatar for clemmers Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for inversion Avatar for evan Avatar for chuck_voellinger Avatar for bonvivant Avatar for jkrogman Avatar for nemo Avatar for moreyampersand Avatar for thunderclapnewman Avatar for tena Avatar for jonney_5 Avatar for dmcg Avatar for jtx Avatar for khyber900 Avatar for cuwrs Avatar for marymaryquitecontrary Avatar for lisaport Avatar for redwingblackbird Avatar for aiddon Avatar for carolson Avatar for holywah

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: