To the editor: I felt uneasy when I read U.S. Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller Report. It sounded like a defense of Trump’s campaign more than it did a legal analysis of the content of the report. When the redacted report was released, I felt overwhelmed by its size and precise legal language.
Then, articles started to be published analyzing some of the contents. Finally, an online book club was formed. People started reading the report and listening to experts discuss the contents. Gradually, the contents became clear and compelling.
Barr’s report clearly was not an accurate summary of the report. The report documents that the Russians worked in several ways to influence the outcome of the presidential election, that Donald Trump’s campaign encouraged and was involved in the Russians’ activities, and that Trump, as a sitting president, worked to obstruct the investigation by Mueller’s Justice Department team.
We count on our elections being fair and open. We expect that our candidates will not seek the support of internationals to surreptitiously influence the public in support of their campaign. We most certainly expect that our elected officials, especially the president, do not attempt to interfere in an ongoing investigation. And, finally, we are appalled by a president who lies about his efforts to engage a foreign government in support of his campaign and about his attempts to stop any and all investigations into his conduct.
The Mueller Report leaves to Congress to execute its constitutional power to examine the president’s conduct for the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” especially in regard to obstruction of justice. The report names many instances where the president and his administration sought to obstruct Mueller’s investigation.
I encourage everyone to read the Report, which is readily available.