'The President Was Frustrated.' Here's Why Attorney General Barr Believes Trump Did Not Obstruct Justice

Mahita Gajanan

Special Counsel Robert Mueller documented at least 10 episodes in which President Donald Trump may have obstructed justice during investigations of his campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

But Attorney General William Barr said Thursday morning that he did not believe Trump met the legal standard for obstruction of justice, in large part because he had other motivations for his actions.

“There is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” he said.

Mueller’s report is not yet public, but critics have long charged that Trump may have obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey, reportedly threatened to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, dictated a misleading statement to the New York Times on behalf of his son and regularly attacked prosecutors, threatened potential witnesses and praised allies.

But the legal standard to prove obstruction of justice is a high bar, requiring prosecutors show a “corrupt intent” behind the actions, and Barr argued in a press conference before the report came out that the standard had not been met.

In the report, Mueller declined to make a traditional law enforcement decision on whether Trump had obstructed justice, but Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein then determined that he had not, informing Congress of their decision in late March.

Read More: Full Transcript of William Barr’s Press Conference

Barr gave several reasons for this decision: 1) he and Rosenstein disagreed with Mueller’s legal theories on some of the episodes, 2) Trump’s state of mind during the investigation gave him other motivations than “corrupt intent” and 3) Trump otherwise cooperated with the investigation.

In spite of their disagreements with Mueller over legal interpretations, Barr said he and Rosenstein still found the evidence fell short.

“Although the deputy attorney general and I disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision,” Barr told reporters.

Barr also argued that it was important to understand the context of Trump’s behavior.

“President Trump faced an unprecedented situation,” he said. “As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability.”

Read More: The 270 Arguments Trump Has Made About the Russia Probe

Despite Trump’s frustration, the White House “fully cooperated” with Mueller’s probe, “providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims,” Barr said.

He added: “At the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.”

Democrats were unhappy with Barr’s remarks during the press conference.

“It’s a disgrace to see an Attorney General acting as if he’s the personal attorney and publicist for the President of the United States,” tweeted Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.