Bad news 2:

William P. Barr, President Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, wrote an unsolicited memo to top Justice Department officials in June objecting to the notion that Mr. Trump may have committed the crime of obstruction of justice.

And by “memo” they don’t mean a short note scribbled on an office pad with “Memo” at the top.

In a 19-page memo, Mr. Barr sharply criticized an apparent aspect of the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, that Mr. Trump may have committed a crime by trying to get the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, to quash the criminal investigation into his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, and later by firing Mr. Comey.

Mr. Barr argued that the Justice Department must not accept the notion that a president can violate a statute that criminalizes obstruction of justice by exercising his constitutional authority in an otherwise lawful way — such as by firing a subordinate, pardoning someone, or using his “complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding” — but with a corrupt motive.

In other words Barr told the Justice Department that a president – in this case the runaway maniac Trump – is above the law.

Mr. Barr’s views are likely to become a topic of intense scrutiny at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. They raise the question of whether, if he is confirmed and takes over supervision of Mr. Mueller’s inquiry as attorney general, he would order Mr. Mueller to shut down the obstruction-of-justice component of his investigation.

Ya think? It’s hard to see how he wouldn’t do that.

Mr. Barr’s theory that obstruction-of-justice statutes cannot cover a president’s exercise of authorities echoed constitutional arguments put forward by other defenders of Mr. Trump over the past year, including Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law School professor. But the now open embrace of it by a nominee to take over the Justice Department — and supervision of Mr. Mueller — elevated the debate to new significance.

Several Democrats reacted with alarm. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Mr. Barr’s memo “very troubling,” saying it concluded that “the president is above the law.”

I don’t think it’s “very troubling.” I think it’s fucking terrifying. We cannot be having a Trump who is above the law, a Trump the law cannot constrain.

Renato Mariotti on the memo:

THREAD: What should we make of the memo written by Trump’s Attorney General nominee that is sharply critical of Mueller’s obstruction investigation?

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 20, 2018

3/ A memo like this would cost a client tens of thousands of dollars. Why did Barr take this much time to write a lengthy memo criticizing Mueller and send it to DOJ? They didn’t ask for the memo. He also sent it to Trump’s personal attorneys, as @matthewamiller noted.

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 20, 2018

5/ Essentially the argument is that the president can’t obstruct justice by doing things that would otherwise be legal, even if he has the intent to obstruct justice, because criminalizing those actions would unconstitutionally limit or burden the president’s power.

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 20, 2018

8/ At times Barr’s assertions or arguments are unfair or materially misstate the facts. For example: “the President’s motive in removing Comey and commenting on Flynn could not have been ‘corrupt’ unless the President and his campaign were actually guilty of illegal collusion.”

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 20, 2018

12/ For Barr not to even consider and address the potentially serious consequences—a president that is above the law, for instance—is deeply troubling.

I should also note that Barr’s language is at times sharp and dismissive of Mueller and those who share his views.

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 20, 2018

This is the guy who will be Trump’s next Attorney General if he’s confirmed.