Preet Bharara on 'troublesome language' in Barr summary of Mueller report

Now, from Rachel Maddow's excellent in depth reporting, we understand that Mueller was not trying to draw any conclusions from his collected material. According to the law, his material was to be given to Congress so that they could reach their own conclusions. Barr tried to create an enlarged role in the matter for himself to be the interpreter. The law gives him no such duty, role or power. His only duty was to report to Congress that the investigation was finished and prepare to arrange to pass all the material over to them for their analysis and conclusions.



As the dutiful syncopant he was appointed to be, Barr stepped into the gap to assert a clearance that cannot reasonably exist. Just because Mueller did not conclude that there was a conspiracy, does not mean that there was none. It only means that he withheld his judgement,  as precedent instructs him to do.



Can any sane person believe that; all of these several and highly placed people, with their knowledge of law and with their political skills and reputations-- would go before Congress and casually assert needless and actionable lies, under oath and affirmation -- for completely innocent reasons? It boggles the mind to even try to approach a scenario under which such insanity could just happen. Then happen and happen over and over again several times with a variety of different people. It's easier to believe in Peter Pan. Good luck with that Trumpsters!