David Leonhardt: William Barr, media handler

Ten unanswered questions about the attorney general’s conveniently brief letter. View in [Browser]( | Add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your address book. [The New York Times]( [The New York Times]( Tuesday, March 26, 2019 [NYTimes.com/David-Leonhardt »]( [Op-Ed Columnist] Op-Ed Columnist William Barr did a skillful job of managing the news media this weekend. He released a four-page letter summarizing Robert Mueller’s investigation, which rightly received blanket coverage, since it was the only official description of the investigation. But I think much of the media was too credulous about Barr’s letter, producing banner headlines and chyrons that treated it as an objective summary of Mueller’s work rather than as a political document meant to make President Trump look good. And it was very much a political document. Barr, the attorney general, works for Trump. Before he joined the administration, he made clear that he felt some disdain for the Mueller investigation — especially about whether Trump obstructed justice. That disdain surely increased his chances of being appointed attorney general. Trump fired the previous holder of the job, after all, for not doing more to control the Russia investigation. It’s still possible that Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report is fair. But the longer that Barr waits to release a fuller version of the report, the more suspicious we should be. Barr has been around Washington a long time. He understands that an initial story line can matter more than the details that emerge later. Barr has to be very happy with the media coverage he has received over the past two days. “The Barr summary did its job: control the narrative and turn ‘not enough to charge on this’ into ‘no issues with Russia ever,’” as [Tom Nichols]( a national security expert, wrote. [Susan Hennessey]( of Lawfare put it this way: “It is possible that the report really does say that there is no evidence. It’s also possible there’s a mountain of evidence just short of the criminal standard. Or something in between. Any of that would be consistent with Barr’s summary.” Ten questions As I [wrote yesterday]( I now assume that the Trump campaign did not coordinate with Russia in a significant way. But I also still have a lot of questions that Barr’s letter didn’t answer. Here are 10 big questions, compiled with help from articles that appeared elsewhere in the last two days; you’ll find links to them at the bottom. 1. Did Robert Mueller find evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but that the collusion was not criminal? 2. Related: Why did Barr’s four-page summary appear to define coordination with Russia so narrowly — as an “agreement” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government — and does this word choice suggest that the Mueller investigation found coordination that did not rise to the level of an agreement? 3. What did Mueller discover about Paul Manafort — Trump’s campaign chairman — having shared poll data with a political operative who had apparent ties to Russian military intelligence? (Manafort’s lawyers inadvertently revealed those interactions earlier this year.) 4. Why did Trump and his associates repeatedly lie about their contacts with Russians? 5. Why did Mueller not charge Jerome Corsi, a conservative conspiracy promulgator and an associate of Roger Stone, despite reportedly engaging in plea negotiations with Corsi last year? 6. Does the arrest of Maria Butina, a Russian spy with ties to the National Rifle Association, have anything to do with Mueller’s investigation? 7. Did Mueller find evidence that the activities of Trump or his aides have compromised national security? 8. Did Mueller find any evidence of efforts by the United Arab Emirates and other Middle Eastern countries to influence the 2016 election? 9. Did Mueller issue no decision about obstruction of justice because he believed a sitting president could not be charged with a crime — and thus the decision was ultimately a political matter, to be decided by Congress, rather than a legal one? 10. Did Mueller investigate the possibility that Trump’s businesses helped Russian criminals launder money before he became president, or did Mueller consider this beyond the scope of his investigation? (If he investigated and found no evidence, it would reduce the urgency for the House to pursue this matter.) For more, see [Asha Rangappa]( a former F.B.I. agent, writing for CNN; [Adam Davidson]( in The New Yorker; [Shane Harris]( of The Washington Post; [Garrett Graff]( who wrote a book about Mueller’s F.B.I., in Wired; and [Nick Akerman]( a former Watergate prosecutor, in Washingtonian magazine. ADVERTISEMENT If you enjoy this newsletter, forward it to friends! They can [sign up for themselves here]( — and they don’t need to be a Times subscriber. The newsletter is published every weekday, with help from my colleague Ian Prasad Philbrick. David’s Morning NYT Read [In India, a Boon for Low-Paid Working Mothers: Nearby Child Care]( By VIDHI DOSHI Parents who migrate to cities often have no choice but to leave their children alone while they work. Now there’s some relief. The Full Opinion Report [Collusion Was a Seductive Delusion]( By FARHAD MANJOO It’s our own fault we elected Trump. [Trump’s Kakistocracy Is Also a Hackistocracy]( By PAUL KRUGMAN The invasion of hucksters has reached the Federal Reserve. [No Criminal Collusion. Lots of Corruption.]( By MICHELLE GOLDBERG Don’t let Trump pretend he has been vindicated. [The Paranoid Center]( By ROSS DOUTHAT The Russia panic shows us how a paranoid style can take root in the heart of the American establishment. [We’ve All Just Made Fools of Ourselves — Again]( By DAVID BROOKS The awful corruption of scandal politics. [Investigate the Swamp!]( By TIM WU The many serious crimes that Mueller uncovered, almost by accident, show us that we have to prioritize official corruption. [Our Constitutional Emergency]( By GREG WEINER As the House attempts to override President Trump’s first veto, we the people aren’t holding up our end of the bargain, either. [Not All Medicare Cuts Are Bad]( By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Democrats are engaged in indiscriminate attacks on President Trump’s 2020 budget proposal. They are ignoring some worthy ideas. [Can We Block a Shooter’s Viral Aspirations?]( By CHARLIE WARZEL How to curb the exposure of videos like that of the shootings in New Zealand. [Why Colleges Like Trump’s Campus Speech Order]( By MARK BAUERLEIN Deans don’t want call-out culture either — they just can’t say so out loud. [Thaksin Shinawatra: The Election in Thailand Was Rigged]( By THAKSIN SHINAWATRA The junta is ready to destroy an entire system just to stay in power. [The Islamic State Is Like a Chronic Disease]( By GRAEME WOOD It can be managed but never really cured. [A God Problem]( By PETER ATTERTON Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent. [The Mueller Inquiry: So Many Questions]( Readers discuss the findings, the president’s reaction and what’s next. ADVERTISEMENT FEEDBACK and HELP If you have thoughts about this newsletter, email me at [leonhardt@nytimes.com](mailto:leonhardt@nytimes.com?subject=David%20Leonhardt%20Newsletter%20Feedback). If you have questions about your Times account, delivery problems or other non-journalistic issues, you can visit our [Help Page]( or [contact The Times](. FOLLOW OPINION [Facebook] [FACEBOOK]( [Twitter] [@nytopinion]( [Pinterest] [Pinterest]( Get more [NYTimes.com newsletters »](  | Get unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. [Subscribe »]( ABOUT THIS EMAIL You received this message because you signed up for NYTimes.com's David Leonhardt newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Manage Subscriptions]( | [Change Your Email]( | [Privacy Policy]( | [Contact]( | [Advertise]( Copyright 2019 The New York Times Company 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018