“In my mind, the circumstantial evidence presented by Mueller is overwhelming, and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed,” said Seth Waxman, a former prosecutor based in Washington, D.C. “I think Barr’s conclusion that the evidence fell short can only be understood in the context of his political considerations.”Neither the White House nor the Department of Justice responded to VICE News’ request for comment.“A lot of lawyers are simply bewildered by the conclusion Barr reached.”
Barr’s defense
- Obstructive conduct
- A connection between that conduct and some legal proceeding
- Corrupt intent
President Donald Trump speaks at the Governors' Ball in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2019. Seated left is Attorney General William Barr. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
“He sounded like a defense attorney for Trump offering flimsy legal reasoning and weak factual justifications for his client,” said Mimi Rocah, a former prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. “How does Barr know what Trump’s sincere beliefs are?”“How does Barr know what Trump’s sincere beliefs are?”
Barr’s problem
“It’s hard to see how Barr could dispute these motives as corrupt intent, but he doesn’t even try.”
Then-White House Counsel Don McGahn (R) attends a cabinet meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room at the White House October 17, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/AP Images)
Something's missing
Those cryptic comments appeared to refer to the 19-page legal memo Barr sent to the Department of Justice last summer before he became Attorney General.The document argued that, from the outset, Mueller’s theory of obstruction was “fatally misconceived.” Barr maintained that certain powers Constitutionally granted to a president, like authority over the Justice Department, couldn’t be construed as obstruction of justice — even if the president fires an FBI director in order to halt an investigation of himself.But if that’s what Barr had in mind, he hasn’t expressly said so since he received Mueller’s final report — which itself contains a lengthy rebuttal of that very idea.“Our analysis led us to conclude that the obstruction-of-justice statutes can validly prohibit a President's corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail, end, or interfere with an investigation,” Mueller writes.Cover: United States Attorney General William P. Barr testifies before the US Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on April 10, 2019, where he stated that spying occurred during the 2016 presidential campaign of US President Donald J. Trump. Credit: Stefani Reynolds“I think Barr’s conclusion that the evidence fell short can only be understood in the context of his political considerations.”