A QUESTION NO ONE'S ASKING, for other legal analysts out there: If the Attorney General objected to Mueller not making a decision on obstruction, didn't he have the power to decline to accept Mueller's report until Mueller made a decision on obstruction? Mueller was his employee.
1/ That's the best evidence Barr is corrupt. He received a report from an employee (Mueller) he believed had been improperly conducted, and he accepted it anyway so he could issue a judgment on a matter that (he now admits) he expected Mueller to make. He's caught in a lie, here.
2/ This is also the very best justification for Mueller testifying. Someone needs to explain to Congress why Barr accepted Mueller's report (when he absolutely did not have to as Mueller's boss) if he believed it was incomplete. Barr should never have accepted the report. Period!
3/ I'm serious: I think Barr so poorly thought through his recent corrupt acts that he doesn't realize his CBS News interview is a confession that he improperly accepted the Mueller report as complete when he didn't believe it to be. He's just accused himself of corrupt behavior.
4/ And there's no *possible* motive that Barr could've had for *knowingly* accepting a report he considered incomplete *except* that he wanted to supplant *his* judgment for that of the Special Counsel, which is definitionally a violation of the DOJ's Special Counsel regulations.
5/ (I really need @neal_katyal to tell me if I've gotten anything wrong here.)
You can follow @SethAbramson.