Lots of analysis on the revelations in Robert Mueller’s report (which, as many suspected, was extraordinarily misrepresented in Attorney General William Barr’s summary). We begin today’s roundup with this editorial from The New York Times:
So much for “complete and total exoneration.”
To the contrary, it turns out that Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors and investigators found “substantial evidence” that President Trump broke federal law on numerous occasions by attempting to shut down or interfere with the nearly-two-year Russia investigation.
In addition to pointing to possible criminality, the report revealed a White House riddled with dysfunction and distrust, one in which Mr. Trump and his aides lie with contempt for one another and the public.
And The Washington Post:
No matter his findings, we now learn, the special counsel was never going to declare Mr. Trump guilty. Mr. Mueller’s report stated that, from the very start, “we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.” That is because Justice Department guidelines bar prosecuting a sitting president, Mr. Mueller explained, and it would be unfair to charge someone who had no chance to win exoneration in court.
But Mr. Mueller did everything short of leveling an accusation. [...]
From here, the House Judiciary Committee must hear directly from Mr. Mueller. Lawmakers should insist on reading the entire report, including substantial sections that have been redacted from public view. Then they may face a difficult balancing act between the many valid reasons to regard impeachment as a last resort, and their responsibility to ensure that no one is above the law.