It's an "honest" representation if you're a lawyer and expect the wiggling... But to the average lay person, and media, no it's not an honest interpretation at all. The media is especially doing a bad job, because they have lawyers on hand that should be guiding them, but I guess it's too nuanced and complicated to fit into a news cycle explaining it. I suppose they do know, but are focused on squeezing out what they can during this cycle, then once exhausted and congress moves, then they'll pivot over to that drama.
But this report, doesn't exonerate Trump. It only seems that way to a layperson who isn't familiar with legalise. This was a crafted job that a lawyer would do to be technically truthful but clearly misleading. It's a common trick you'll see... For instance, if the person being interviewed says something like, "I think Joe is a decent guy. I personally have no problems with him, but he has been known to cause some relationship friction with others, so I can see why someone would want to hurt him". A lawyer will cut out that quote and ask, "Did did you say on Nov 1, that '[I] can see why someone would want to hurt him?"' Lawyers will use this quote on a first pass to try and paint the picture... Then when challenged, they start battling it out in other ways... But that's besides the point. The point is, that's a common tactic.
For instance, here he partially quoted Mueller. He literally came in half way through the sentence and began the quote. That first half IS absolutely a significant modifier which is why he left it out. If that first half wasn't a significant negative modifier, and just helped Trump, then he would have kept it in. This is a common lawyer practice... Because the snippet is technically true, it's just lost all context.
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The bracket T represents the first half is cut off. There is a modifier there, and it doesn't look good, which is why it's cut out. If the first half was, "Trump is absolutely a great guy which is why the investigation did not establish...." They absolutely would have included that to build their case... But they didn't. It's more likely to be something like, "While our findings include a lot of highly troubling and suspicious circumstantial evidence pointing towards some degree of coordination, the investigation did not establish...."
Again, Barr is a veteran lawyer... He knows this game, and speaks the language... There are tons of these sort of instances... Here is one last one, and I'll stop because I don't want to keep going on:
The reports second part addresses "a number of actions by the president, MOST of which have been the subject of reporting..."
This is in regards to obstruction. The report includes other issues around obstruction which the public doesn't know about. I paraphrased because I can't remember the quote perfectly, but he used the word "MOST". Meaning, we the public only know MOST of the stuff surrounding it, not ALL of the issues surrounding it. So there are more things there, which he wont tell us. He tries to dismiss discussing them by saying, "Eh, the public already knows most of the stuff anyways.. so why bother with the rest"
But that's not the super important part... The quote goes on to bring up the key sentence to this whole thing... paraphrased:
"Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question, and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the president's action and intent can be viewed as obstruction.
This means that there is evidence listed, that the president committed multiple crimes. Mueller basically didn't make a judgement as to the guilt of the president... And just presented evidence. Mueller isn't making a determination because of the difficult issues of law and fact (can you indict a president -- but I'll ignore this part because we can get stuck in some serious weeds here). And Barr is subjectively deciding what he thinks of the evidence. This is like Pelosi being asked if she thinks Hillary's email scandal constitutes any crimes... In Pelosi's personal opinion, of course not.
Then finally, he gives his reasoning for this conclusion... But basically he goes onto list THREE different things which constitute obstructive conduct: Again paraphrased:
Constituted obstructive conduct (like asking a witness to lie or destroy documents), had a nexus to a pending or contemplative proceeding, or was done with criminal intent.
He then goes on to conclude that he didn't believe Trump did ALL three of these things at once, beyond a reasonable doubt. This, again, is where we get hung up on lawyer game. He's basically saying, if two of three of these things were met, Trump is still fine because one of the things can't be determined without a reasonable doubt (since Trump doesn't send emails or leave paper trails it's nearly impossible to find a smoking gun on him). So in theory, Trump could have ordered someone to destroy some documents, but since there were no immediate criminal inquiries at the time he made that order to destroy evidence, it can't be obstruction. He's basically bundling three different measures, and saying so long as one is not proveable beyond a reasonable doubt, then the whole thing is thrown out.
It's late, like I said, I can go on forever... But the whole report is littered with things like this.
If Barr actually thought it was nothing, then he would have gladly and happily been very to the point. He would have said things like, "This report shows conclusively by all measures that the president did not engage in collusion or obstruction, beyond a reasonable doubt... But also we are not sure we can even indict a sitting president to begin with blah blah blah blah". The fact that this thing is loaded with legalise and carefully placed trickery... Shows he's deliberately trying to hide things or misrepresent things.
It's going to slowly come out regardless of the media's reporting on this. This is a slow game. The Democrats know this, and Trump knows this. It'll get untangled over the course of 6 months. But politically, what's going on right now, is Trump with the help of Barr, are formatting the initial narrative before it all comes out. It gives them a chance to do their victory laps. To claim that they are exonerated. The feed their base and supporters what they need to hear, while chilling the democratic base... This is strategically a great move. Because now they can claim victory, and pressure the democrats away from themselves. To claim it's resolved and settled, and anything beyond this is just a witch hunt that never ends.
But it's not over... IT's just began. They got the privilege of setting the stage for this upcoming battle, and set the stage heavily in their favor... So even when things start coming out, they'll still have this moment to fall back on.
