One of the *only* things we know from the Barr Letter is that, by reporting he found substantial evidence of an impeachable crime (Obstruction) but declining to make a prosecutorial decision, Mueller put a case file rumored to be in the seven figures (of pages) in Congress's lap.
1/ As @IngrahamAngle knows from reading the thread she linked to, I was predicting (in 2017) Mueller would create a massive substantive record on an impeachable offense (the one I was speaking of being Obstruction) which he'd then handle in a way that would let Congress impeach.
2/ So far, so good, @IngrahamAngle.
(I wish I'd been as smart as Mueller in 2017 and realized that Mueller making a decision on Obstruction himself would reduce his credibility by rendering him political—whereas the way he handled it kept his evidentiary presentation objective.)
3/ Laura—like me a lawyer—hangs her hat on the opinion of just one man: Barr. (I don't count Rosenstein—as he's a *witness* in the Obstruction case.) And Barr's legal reasoning in trying to block Obstruction from being considered by Congress has been disagreed with by *everyone*.
4/ Given that the only people in America who think you can't have Obstruction without an underlying crime are Barr and Laura Ingraham, even conservative lawyers would say that Mueller would have assumed that by not making a decision on Obstruction the matter would go to Congress.
5/ So Robert Mueller created a massive and substantive record on an impeachable crime and put it in the lap of Congress at a time he knew it was controlled by Democrats. Without getting into his head, I'd say my prediction on Obstruction from 2017 looks just fine, @IngrahamAngle.
6/ @IngrahamAngle, don't ever quote-tweet a thread of mine without reading it first. And don't ever think you'll match me in a debate on the Trump-Russia case—I've forgotten more about it in the minutes it took me to write this thread then you've ever known. Have a great evening.
You can follow @SethAbramson.