FACTS ARE, HE SUBORNED THINGS:

As Barr says:

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding's truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed, the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such "bad acts" involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President's plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion--such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding--does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts.

This is a broad statement about presidential exposure to criminal obstruction of justice. As Marcy Wheeler has noted, and as I explain further below, this statement holds potential peril for Trump. Wheeler thinks that Trump has suborned false statements from former national security adviser Michael Flynn that, under Barr's theory, counts as obstruction of justice. She may be right--the answer is not yet clear. The point for now is that Barr's memo in no way rules out this conclusion and, indeed, invites it, depending on the facts--which Barr concedes he does not know. This shows that Barr has not, as Hemel and Posner allege, "made up his mind about the investigation."

Tweet   @brothersjudd