Misleading then? Do you really not think there's any problem with that? I understand that individuals tend to support their own side's spin, but do you honestly believe that Mueller was attempting to release liberal/anti-trump spin and therefore it was fine for Barr to block that and release a version that painted Trump in a more positive light than what Mueller's summary would have? Do you view this as typical and harmless political posturing?
I admit this might be my blind libness talking, but I've never bought the assertion that Mueller was a biased angry Democrat. I think he's as honest and principled as they come. Can you say the same for Barr? Do you genuinely believe he has acted completely neutral, or is it possible that he is acting in a way that he hopes will specifically please Trump? If so, do you see a problem with that?
Lotsa questions there, and neither of us knows the answer to any of them. I will try to give my impressions, and I realize they aren't objective, either. I'm not pro-Trump in the sense that I want him to get away with anything, but I'm pro-Trump in the sense that I think he should be treated fairly.
I think it is well established that members of Mueller's team were vociferously anti-Trump, especially one of the key people, Andrew Weisman. I think those people wanted Mueller to file obstruction charges. I think those people thought that although they weren't able to prove it, somebody on Trump's team was working consciously with Russians in some way. I think those people were unhappy about Mueller's decisions in those respects and wanted to be sure their feelings were known. I think that was the impetus for the letter.
In other words, I think those people went apeshit when Barr released his memo because they wanted him to say that the actual verdict of the Mueller probe was, to borrow a phrase from the Brits, "guilty but not proven."
I do not think Barr is "acting in a way that will specifically please Trump." There's no reason for him to do that. He's not a guy with career or political aspirations. I think he strongly suspects that Trump and his gang have not been treated fairly and professionally by elements of the DOJ and FBI and he wants to clear that up. I think his primary loyalty and concern is with the department he leads, not this particular president.
As far as whether his memo was misleading, in my view it was not. As I've said before, what I wanted to know -- the bottom line, as it were -- about the Mueller report was whether anybody was going to be charged with obstruction of justice or with conspiring with the Russkis to affect the election. I was on record many times here as saying I expected there to be evidence of both those things. Barr's memo said Mueller did not find collusion and did not charge obstruction but also did not exonerate Trump, so he (Barr & Rosenstein) decided not to file charges.
In other words, on the points that mattered to me -- and, I would bet, to a large majority of Americans -- Barr's memo accurately summed up the situation. What you guys are really arguing is that Mueller made the wrong decisions based on the evidence.
I also think some critics are not grasping Barr's point (or not grasping the same point I think he's making; I could be wrong). When I heard Barr talking about why Trump might have been justified in wanting Mueller replaced, I thought he (Barr) was making the case Trump could have made if he had been charged with obstruction. Barr was pretty clear in saying he and Rosenstein did not consider the question of whether a president could be charged when determining charges weren't appropriate. He (Barr) was explaining why it would be difficult to make the charges stick.
