Add Category
Updated
"It's complete exoneration. No collusion. No obstruction."
Except it isn't. Not quite.
It appears that special counsel Robert Mueller has left a twist in the tail of his report that will prevent this sorry saga from being finally put to rest.
But at least, after 22 months of investigating, two days of waiting and plenty of false alarms, it's finally here. Except it isn't. Not quite. Sorry!
What we have is not the full report from the special counsel, but a highlights package from the Trump-appointed US Attorney-General William Barr.
If you ask the President and his allies, it means that we can all move on after a political witch-hunt.
"This was an illegal take-down that failed," the President said after the letter was made public.
Republican senator Lindsey Graham agreed.
"The cloud hanging over President Trump has been removed," he said, calling it "a bad day for those hoping the Mueller investigation would take President Trump down".
The President's son, Eric, called for a "simple apology" from the media for "the hell everyone has been put through" during the two-year probe.
"It's a shame that our country had to go through this," the President said.
"To be honest, it's a shame that your President has had to go through this."
However, the President's claim that "there was no obstruction and none whatsoever, and it was a complete and total exoneration", is not true.
Mueller punted obstruction of justice question
According to the Attorney-General's letter, the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities," Mr Barr wrote.
So you can check off collusion.
However:
"The special counsel did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction," Mr Barr wrote.
Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact".
Then he quotes from Mr Mueller directly: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Remember when the President sacked FBI boss James Comey and later told a journalist he did it because of the Russia probe?
"I said to myself, I said, "You know this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story".
That's what we're talking about here.
"No obstruction" and "total exoneration"? Not so fast.
But Mr Barr goes on to say that, after talking it over with Justice Department officials including his Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein, he's concluded that the evidence is not enough to warrant an obstruction of justice offence.
This has Democrats spitting chips.
The Attorney-General argues that the President's actions do not meet the high "beyond a reasonable doubt" legal standard and that the "no collusion" finding "bears upon the President's intent with regard to obstruction".
In other words, since there wasn't a crime of collusion to begin with, there was no need for the President to obstruct justice to cover it up.
Mr Barr also mentions that the President's actions "took place in public view": Mr Trump wasn't acting with "corrupt intent" because he was tweeting publicly, not trying to be sneaky.
There's also the open question of why several of Mr Trump's former associates felt the need to lie to investigators about their interactions with the Russians if there was nothing to hide?
Seems relevant.
Obstruction of justice could be a felony crime, punishable by anything from a few fines to 10 years in prison.
Democrats will push until they see the report
Do you reckon the Democrats will let go of the discrepancy between Mr Barr and Mr Mueller's legal opinions? No sirree.
Already the House Judiciary committee chairman is calling for Mr Barr to testify.
Democrats won't be satisfied until they see Mr Mueller's report with their own eyes.
"Attorney-General Barr's letter raises as many questions as it answers," read a joint statement from Democratic Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
"Given Mr Barr's public record of bias against the special counsel's inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report."
The politicians are referring to the time when Republican Mr Barr wrote an unsolicited memo calling Mr Mueller's probe "fatally misconceived".
But that was before Mr Trump nominated him to be Attorney-General.
He's since declared his independence from the President and said under oath that he'd "do the right thing" when it came to the Russia investigation.
In his summary, Mr Barr suggested he'd try to release the report, but it could take a while.
"I am mindful of the public interest in this matter," Mr Barr wrote.
"For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the special counsel's report as I can, consistent with applicable law, regulations and departmental policies."
So what sort of laws would prevent this from going public? The big one relates to grand jury investigations, which have to, by law, remain confidential.
The idea behind that rule is that it's not fair for officials to publicly release unsavoury information about someone who's not guilty of a crime.
Another law relates to ongoing investigations. We know Mr Mueller has already sent some investigations to other offices to carry out, such as the Southern District Court of New York.
Mr Barr writes in his summary that it will take some time to sort out what information can be shared without violating those laws.
"As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously," he said.
Topics: law-crime-and-justice, foreign-affairs, donald-trump, australia, united-states
First posted