Barr is covering for Trump

Attorney General William Barr has been sitting on Robert Mueller's report for a week. He supposedly is busy redacting "four categories of information":

grand jury information, information related to intelligence sources and methods, information pertinent to ongoing investigations and anything that could harm the "reputational interests" of "peripheral third parties."

As Rachel Maddow noted, Robert Mueller's team filed dozens if not hundreds of indictments and other legal briefs to federal courts, all or nearly all of which contain heavy redactions. Mueller and his team knew their report would be of intense interest to the public. It's inconceivable, then, that they would not have prepared a redacted version of the final report.

Barr, therefore, need not spend time redacting at least the second or third categories of information. As for the first, grand jury information, prior investigations into Watergate, Whitewater and other alleged presidential misconduct all provided grand jury information to Congress; a prosecutor need only seek permission from a judge. Barr, however, has not indicated he is seeking such permission. Why not?

As to the fourth category, "reputational interests", where is that defined in the law? What gives Barr the legal right to redact on that ill-defined but presumably highly subjective basis?

Don Trumpone and his cronies get themselves into trouble by lying to and withholding information from both law enforcement and the public. At least one of those cronies, Paul Manafort, has tried to lie to the courts, too. The consequences have been unpleasnat for him.

Barr may have had a sterling reputation going into his confirmation hearings, but that reputation is shot now as he dances as fast as he can to avoid providing every word of Mueller's report to anyone but Rod Rosenstein and himself.

The public may not be entitled to see sensitive intelligence discussed in Mueller's report. but Congress, and especially the intelligence conmmittees, are entitled — under the law.

As for the rest, I don't know whether we, the public, are entitled to see testimony given to the grand jury. I'm certain we aren't entitled to see information pertaining to ongoing investigations.

But "reputational interests"?

If Mueller didn't charge a person, it's because he didn't have evidence that that person committed a crime. But that person might have behaved in a way that makes the rest of us queasy. He might, for instance, have shown a painful inclination to trust Vladimir Putin over fellow Americans. That's just one possibility, of course. In any case, if that person occupies a position of trust in our government, do we, the public, not have a right to know such a thing?

Even if there's an argument to be made that the public should not see such information — and to be clear, I don't imagine there is such an argument — there is absolutely no way to justify withholding such information from Congress.

Congress is not limited to investigating crimes. Congress may investigate anything that its members deem necessary. Given that members of Congress take an oath to defend the Constitution, it's their sworn duty to investigate anything that may threaten the nation. They not only have the right, they have the positive responsibility to see if Mueller's team uncovered any non-criminal but still threatening activities. "Reputational interests" are irrelevant to "national (security) interests".

If Barr redacts as much information as he's suggesting he will from what he provides to Congress, I would argue he is obstructing Congress from fulfilling its Constitutional responsibilities.

Every second Barr delays getting the full report to Congress, along with its underlying materials, lends weight to the suspicion that he is protecting Don Trumpone by eating up time Congress requires to digest the Mueller report and its implications.

Barr may be comfortable with Don Trumpone but the rest of us aren't. Everything Barr has done so far makes us less and less comfortable with him, too.