I find it hard to believe that Mueller would say that the Trump Tower meeting, the lies, Manafort giving polling data to a Russian, etc. are alright. This could be like the Clinton emails – he did something wrong but it wasn’t criminal.
Barr now says that his 4-page letter last weekend wasn't really a "summary" of Mueller's report and he never intended to summarize 400 pages because that wouldn't have been in the "public interest." The technical legal term for this is "walking back your story." https://t.co/4ZeUkWTnTB
— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) March 29, 2019
Barr realizes that he and Trump carried the nothing to see, just move along WAY too soon and must craft a narrative to defend himself from the legitimate complaint that he inserted himself and tried to exonerate Trump politically. I wonder if Mueller threatened to go public
— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) March 29, 2019
With the narrative now almost entirely set that Mueller produced a nothingburger on collusion, is Barr’s language laying the groundwork for a walk back? I suspect we’ll see that Mueller agreed with @AdamSchiff that Team Trump’s actions were far from “ok,” although not chargeable. https://t.co/mlFAWNcdWs
— Ned Price (@nedprice) March 29, 2019
Crucial point here: https://t.co/MwFCSEHhpZ
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) March 29, 2019
Nadler not satisfied. He says the April 2 deadline "still stands." He says he and Barr should work to request a court order to obtain grand jury info, saying there is "ample precedent" for doing so. And he says Barr should testify sooner than May 2 https://t.co/g8RuRooiiv
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 29, 2019
As I’ve been saying, it was unsustainable. Barr walks some of it back today. It’s do over Friday! @OutFrontCNN @CNNTonight later. (I’m most taken by Barr bypassing WH privilege objections, relying on Trump public statements as justification and putting burden on them to raise.) https://t.co/COWvZmtM3e
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) March 29, 2019
1. Fascinating new letter on the Mueller report from Barr
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) March 29, 2019
One thing that sticks out to me: Barr asserts that his initial letter is NOT A SUMMARY of the report
Seems to be trying to preempt criticism of the report diverging significantly from the tone of his letter https://t.co/2FYf40PLNK
"What Barr decides to redact and why… Certain to become the subject of scrutiny… Amid calls from the Democrats for maximum transparency… [He] addressed concerns that Trump and his attorneys will use executive privilege to conceal damaging information…" – @NicolleDWallace pic.twitter.com/GpTBYDROgM
— Deadline White House (@DeadlineWH) March 29, 2019
It is inconceivable that the Trump Administration will legally get away with withholding any portion of the Mueller report from the House, given its constitutional role in impeachment. Barr is just stalling for time, and it’s working. https://t.co/Eljufa4wem
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) March 29, 2019
Ex-CIA officer: "There is a gray area between 'no collusion' and 'Trump is a foreign agent.' https://t.co/Nlr0N71o0J @alexzfinley @Publici @voxdotcom pic.twitter.com/RIjQKCIVw8
— David Beard (@dabeard) March 29, 2019
At least two area of redactions bound to concern Ds. 1) Information that would "unduly infringe" third parties; 2) Grand jury info. "Congress is entitled to the grand jury material," D aide said, pointing to Watergate as precedent. https://t.co/zESO75G1CNhttps://t.co/g1S8kV7aaU
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 29, 2019
Yes, you’re absolutely right. But given Barr’s insinuation that he made that call based on Trump’s public comment without further consultation, who knows where they’ll land on exec privilege if Trump gets mad. But, Barr can’t assert it for him. It would have to come from POTUS.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) March 29, 2019
Sad! 