What's really interesting about Barr to me in this whole thing is the role he's choosing to play. I can't really speak on what his intentions are, but he's definitely treading a weird line.

In both the Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment, the special council punted to congress on obstruction. Watergate was a little more obvious and this set of 10 obstruction inquiries is more likened to the stuff Clinton did to obstruct.

And there's actually a reason that the SCO always punts to congress. That is, in our constitution, it is written pretty plainly that congress is responsible to reach a conclusion on obstruction as a check and balance to presidential corruption.

In the past, the SCO provides evidence of obstruction, that the AG passes on to congress to make a conclusion. The AG's job is to summarize those findings for congress, so congress can then make a conclusion.

I don't really think it makes a difference. Congress is still going to do their job and the SCO seems to have done theirs.

It's just a little odd to me that Barr is asserting himself into the conversation, and attempting to shield the president and undermine the constitution to do congress's job for them.

Dont really have a comment one way or another, just find it extremely odd he's so blatantly ignoring what the constitution says to do.