How President Trump’s legal team outfoxed Mueller

How President Trump’s legal team outfoxed Mueller, by Will Chamberlain. A longish but very interesting article about how Mueller quickly found there was no collusion between Trump and Russia, so went after Trump for obstruction instead. The issue hinges around a single catch-all sentence in a statute, and how to interpret it. Mueller and the Democrats wanted a broad interpretation, but it is so broad that anything is obstruction.

Trump’s legal team countered in legalistic ways, and thwarted the broad interpretation, ended Mueller’s investigation, and generally won the day. This is the behind-the scenes story of how. Barr is the guy.

Mueller adopted an expansive, acontextual, and constitutionally questionable interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) and used it to justify an extensive investigation into potential obstruction of justice by President Trump.

Barr’s interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) –- which was far more textually and constitutionally sound –- would have made it almost impossible for Mueller to justify investigating Trump for obstruction of justice. …

On June 8, 2018, Bill Barr wrote a detailed memorandum to Rod Rosenstein about what he believed was Mueller’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). While Barr professed to be “in the dark about many facts,” in light of the Mueller Report, it’s clear he knew *exactly* what Mueller was up to. …

In hindsight, … it’s clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared.

Within six weeks of his confirmation, the Mueller probe was over.

When Mueller equivocated on obstruction in his report, Barr affirmatively determined that there was no viable obstruction charge. In a twist, Barr didn’t rely on a narrow reading of § 1512(c)(2); instead, he exploited the malleability of Mueller’s theory and determined that Trump lacked the requisite intent to commit obstruction. …

No Collusion. No Obstruction. No more Mueller Investigation.