On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General William Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Donald Trump tweeted "Total EXONERATION!" But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.
First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report "does not exonerate" Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.
But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mueller's report does not offer any legal recommendations, Barr declares that it therefore "leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the FBI director, James Comey.
Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.
The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?
Barr's letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law.
His letter says Mueller set "out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the president's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction." Yet we don't know what those "difficult issues" were, because Barr doesn't say, or why Mueller, after deciding not to charge on conspiracy, let Barr make the decision on obstruction.
On the facts, Barr says that the government would need to prove that Trump acted with "corrupt intent" and there were no such actions. But how would Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Trump about his intentions?