1. Why does the Barr Letter cover only 2 facets of the Mueller report?:
Mueller's job was to investigate 3 things, personal ties to Russia', Trump's obstruction of justice, and Russian interference in 2016. The summary covers only the first two, personal ties and obstruction of justice.
2. What does Barr mean when he says the Mueller report "did not establish" a conspiracy with the Russians?
Could mean there was no evidence, could mean there's loads of evidence but nothing definitive for a criminal prosecution.
3. Why does Barr suggest that there can be no obstruction of justice when there isn't a conviction for an underlying crime?
Barr suggests that you cannot convict for obstruction of justice if there is no criminal act or conviction for one. Just untrue, you can be convicted for obstruction without any criminal conviction. Barr's memo implies Trump firing Comey and comments on Flynn cannot be corrupt unless he was guilty of collusion.
4. Why does Barr think there was no crime?
Trump is effectively an unindicted co-conspirator in a campaign finance federal violation involving Cohen. So there was a crime, Trump is just not the primary suspect of this one for which there's already been numerous indictions and convictions.
5. Why didn't Mueller decide the obstruction issue?
Barr implies Mueller declined to prosecute because there was no obstruction, but that's not necessarily true. Mueller could've declined for other reasons, either related to jurisdiction or standards process. Mueller basically punted the obstruction problem but not on collusion or conspiracy.
6. Why did Barr weigh in on the obstruction issue?
While Mueller punted the obstruction problem, it wasn't in Barr's, as a recent political appointee by Trump, call to decide on, certainly not under 48 hours. It should've went to Congress.
7. Whose legal conclusions are these, and are there more we haven't seen?
The letter talks about the report in overarching terms but not about the legal analysis, which would've been Mueller's, or the evidence. Also Barr implies the president cannot actually obstruct justice, a minority legal opinion for which he was appointed IIRC.
8. Why did Barr quote "The Mueller Report does not exonerate the president"? (I actually thought he said it did exonerate?)
Even if Barr was trying to set up a partisan narrative if/when the full report comes out, why quote this in his summary, which seems to be an extra step since it doesn't help the President's case at all?
9. Why was there a decision made not to prosecute for obstruction of justice without interviewing the president?
There's precedence (Clinton) for making a president stand for an interview and it's unclear if this was actually explored by Mueller. Why allow written answers to written questions instead of an oral interview?
Dunno why I wasted 30 minutes on this but there you go. The OP and anyone else who posts vlogs in the future should make an effort to do this much, not necessarily for my sake but it'll keep your thread alive. People are lazy and need stuff spoon fed to them.
