Barr Says He Applied What He Thought Was The ‘Right Law’ To Obstruction Analysis

Attorney General William Barr told “CBS This Morning” that the Department of Justice did not agree with special counsel Robert Mueller’s “legal analysis” regarding obstruction, so he and deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “applied what we thought was the right law” instead.

“We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction,” he told CBS in an interview broadcast Friday. “In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report, it did not reflect the views of the department and it was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law.”

According to one legal analyst, the comments appear to differ from what Barr said during his press conference before releasing the Mueller report on April 18, as well as during congressional testimony in May. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at NYU and former Defense Department special counsel, pointed out that Barr previously said he accepted Mueller’s “legal framework.”

“Although the deputy attorney general and I disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision.  Instead, we accepted the special counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion,” Barr said during the April 18 presser.

He used similar language during his congressional testimony, as Goodman pointed out on Twitter.

Watch a clip of Barr’s comments to “CBS This Morning” below:

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest News
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriters:
Director of Audience:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: