After nearly two years of work by special counsel Bob Mueller, a rigorous and unimpeded probe that included more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants and close to 50 "pen registers" (allowing investigators to track cellphones), the American people should have confidence that his final report represents the most complete rendering to date of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.
Mueller, says Attorney General Bill Barr, found no direct nexus between the Kremlin's proven meddling and Team Trump. This is good news not only for President Trump but for the country.
Barr's letter to Congress quotes the report, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
What we do not know is the context of that quote. We should. We should know not only what Mueller could not prove, but what he could establish.
On the second most concerning question _ whether Trump, as President, sought to obstruct justice, blocking investigators' path as they labored to determine the truth, including in the firing of FBI Director Jim Comey _ Mueller's answer is disturbingly inconclusive. That's more pressing reason to scrutinize his still-being-redacted report.
Barr relays Mueller's own words, saying while the report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Further, Barr writes that this judgment was based on a close look at a number of actions, "most of which" have been aired publicly. Most, not all: That means there are instances of interference beyond the catalog already in public view.
But wait, say Trump's most strident defenders, it's nonsensical to obstruct an inquiry when there's no underlying crime.
Not so. A President need not fear the revelation of the specific offense to worry about what a lawman digging around might turn up, and then improperly act on those fears.
Mueller never interviewed Trump; the President only answered written questions. Without an under-oath window into his intent, conclusions about his impeding the probe are especially speculative. Particularly since, on national television, Trump has indicated he removed Comey and took other actions because of "this Russia thing."
Still, Barr _ informed three weeks ago that Mueller was unresolved on obstruction of justice _ determined that there was insufficient evidence "to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
So, two years of impartial investigation resulted in an open question, and two presidential appointees _ Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein _ were left to render a conclusion favorable to the President?
What does the report actually say?
