Mueller Report: No collusion, but also no exoneration on obstruction of justice.

On Friday at 5:00 pm, Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave his report to Attorney General William Barr.     Less than 48 hours later, Barr made his report to Congress and released the four-page letter to the public.

In short, there are two main findings, two important clarifications, and an important question.   First, Mueller reported that his investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

It's important to note that this does not call into question the findings of our intelligence agencies that Russia did interfere in the election.   The Mueller report concludes that Russia did interfere;  but it also says that it "did not establish" that the Trump campaign helped them do it.  "Did not establish that they did" is not quite as conclusive as saying there is proof that they didn't.   It also does not deny that the Trump campaign benefited from Russia's help.

The second finding, as reported by Mueller and so stated in Barr's letter, is that, on the question of obstruction of justice by the president, the Special Counsel "did not draw a conclusion -- one way or another -- as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. . . .  while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Of course, Trump being Trump, his first public statement not only, rightly, claimed "no collusion;"   but he also loudly proclaimed that there was "complete exoneration" on the question of obstruction.    That is demonstrably not true.

However, although Mueller left the question open regarding Trump and obstruction, Attorney General Barr's letter states that he and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient, under federal prosecution principles, to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

They were influenced in this decision, in part, by the fact that there was no finding of an underlying crime.   Now it is still a crime to obstruct an investigation, even if there is no crime;   but they also considered whether there was "corrupt intent" on the part of the president when he made the suspect verbal statements.

This is a judgment call, and others might have decided it differently.  It will likely be widely discussed, because it will raise questions about the impartiality of Trump's recently appointed Attorney General Barr.   Why did Barr feel he had to decide, with no additional evidence, rather than simply reporting Mueller's lack of a decision?   Is it because, as was already suspected, that Barr was chosen by Trump as his Attorney General because of his stated opinion that a president cannot obstruct justice, given that he is in charge of the Justice Department and therefore all federal prosecutions?

That will remain a cloud over this result, as Democrats are already calling on Congress to demand that Barr, and perhaps Rosenstein and Mueller, be called to testify as to this process.

As to clarifications, the first clarification I want to highlight is that, as Americans, we can feel proud that our system worked.    Despite all the threats and obvious attempts by Trump to demean Mueller and the investigation, and despite his attempts to end the investigation -- the fact is that Mueller was able to complete his investigation.

The second clarification is this:  Even though Mueller has concluded his core task concerning any conspiracy with Russia, investigations into Trump and his associates will continue in other jurisdictions, such as the Southern District of New York and others federal offices, as well as state courts.

As many legal experts have been saying for some time, the Mueller investigation was far from Trump's biggest legal worry.   The SDNY is far more of a threat to him.   Already he is an unnamed co-conspirator (Individual 1) in the Michael Cohen charge of a campaign finance violation.  There are other cases and potential cases against him involving the Trump Foundation, as well as bank fraud and other financial crimes.

The question I want to raise about "no collusion with Russia" is still the unanswered question all along:    Why, if there was no collusion with Russia, did so many of Trump's associates lie about their contact with Russians?     The latest count is that there were 102 contacts between Trump officials and Russia-linked operatives, all of which were initially denied.  The list includes:   Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, Donald Trump, Jr., Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, and many others.    In addition, several spokespersons for the Trump administration repeatedly, falsely reported that there were no contacts by Trump team members and Russia.

The question is:    If there was nothing improper, why did they all lie about it?

That question still needs to be answered.

Ralph