Obstruction question is left to thrash out

Both sides already drawing battle lines

WASHINGTON – Attorney General William Barr’s conclusion that the special counsel investigation had not turned up “sufficient” evidence that President Donald Trump obstructed justice seemed certain to set up a new clash between the administration and Democratic lawmakers.

Sunday, two days after receiving the results of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Barr told Congress that although Mueller’s report “does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on whether he obstructed justice. Barr said Mueller did not reach a conclusion about whether

Trump committed obstruction.

Instead, Barr said, he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, after consulting with other Justice Department officials, concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Trump with obstructing justice.

Barr’s involvement in that decision rekindled concerns among Democratic lawmakers about a 19-page memo he wrote to Rosenstein in June 2018, outlining his opposition to an obstruction investigation of Trump. He shared that memo with White House lawyers.

That memo, written months before Trump selected Barr as the next attorney general, called the obstruction theory “fatally misconceived” and said it was based “on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law.” Barr acknowledged that he did not know what type of case Mueller was pursuing but argued that Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey didn’t constitute obstruction and that the president shouldn’t be forced to testify to Mueller’s investigators.

Democratic senators challenged Barr on the memo at his confirmation hearing in January and urged him to recuse himself from overseeing Mueller. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that Barr’s decision came as no surprise and that his summary of Mueller’s findings was “inadequate.”

Democratic leaders of Congress – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York – issued a joint statement Sunday calling Barr biased.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said he would call on Barr to testify about his reasons, describing his conclusion as “a hasty, partisan interpretation of the facts.”

Obstruction was a central subject of Barr’s confirmation hearing. Barr argued in his unsolicited memo that the Constitution permits Trump to make his own personnel choices, and the president can wield the powers of his office even on subjects in which he has a personal interest. To conclude that Trump acted “corruptly,” as federal obstruction statutes require, if he tries to influence a proceeding in which his own conduct is scrutinized is “untenable,” Barr said.

“Because the Constitution, and the Department of Justice’s own rulings, envision that the president may exercise his supervisory authority over cases dealing with his own interests, the president transgresses no legal limitation when he does so,” Barr wrote.

Barr said that for investigators to conclude that Trump obstructed justice, they would have to find that he coordinated with Russia to win the presidency. Mueller’s investigation didn’t find that anyone from the Trump campaign conspired with Russians, according to the summary Barr revealed Sunday. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said at Barr’s confirmation hearing that Barr’s memo “sounds like it was an effort on your part to ingratiate yourself with an administration which is now nominating you for attorney general.”

Under questioning, Barr said his memo dealt with a narrow theory of obstruction. He said that if Trump lied to investigators, destroyed evidence or persuaded someone else to change his or her testimony, that would qualify as obstruction of justice.

His summary Sunday was silent on those questions.

Attorney General William Barr is not new to the debate over obstruction of justice.