Coordination: Not Established. Obstruction: More Complicated.

Your reporters are remarkably gullible to accept Barr's four-page summary letter as the final word on the Mueller investigation, when you haven't yet seen the report itself. Barr auditioned for the Attorney General appointment by publishing an opinion piece stating he would do exactly what he's done, i.e. end the investigation with no further indictments.

What in the heck? This show was strangely misleading. First of all, as much as love all these reporters, not one has seen the original report. And the teasing out of what Barr stated in his report re: collusion was especially muddled, IMO. Mueller was looking for evidence of criminal conspiracy, and declined to offer a recommendation to prosecute. That is a world away from being cleared of collusion (which is the word Barr used). It's bad enough that Trump & Co have conflated "collusion" with evidence of conspiracy in the public mind, but to have NYT reporters do so (even unintentionally) is quite disturbing. I want balanced journalism, but this looks like the NYT trying so hard to "look" impartial, they're spinning the report themselves. I know The Daily is supposed to be a summary news show, but so much was left out of this podcast. Sometimes a little information can be more deceptive than no information at all.

I agree with most comments on today’s podcast. I’m left wondering what it was all about, based just on what I heard this morning. All those poor felons wouldn’t have even gotten caught if it weren’t for this awful “witch hunt!”

I understand this was a discussion of a needle-threading legal determination, but is it really the best analysis you can offer? While letting Trump off the hook, Barr could have emphasized the grave threat of Russian interference, the facts of which were at the heart of the investigation. It is frankly shocking news that he did not. Is there any doubt that when the full report is released it will be rife with examples of how team Trump acted in a dangerously unethical manner in the face of foreign meddling? Barr’s thin letter and much of the media coverage of it (including this episode) encourages casual consumers of news (ie. most Americans), to conflate the lack of an air-tight case against Trump with the entire issue of Russian interference, as if it’s all a partisan nothingburger. Our democracy is as vulnerable as it was three days ago, if not more. Unethical actions can be even more destructive than illegal ones. If legality is now the only standard that matters for our leaders' behavior, we're toast. We need the press to continuously help us maintain clarity about what’s at stake. Now more than ever.

With regard to obstruction, Mueller didn't conclude that Trump did not collude; he determined that he didn't have the prosecutable evidence. So, it's an open question whether Trump obstructed, because no evidence and successful obstruction amount to the same thing.

So, why all the LYING? Everyone connected to trump in this LIED. Trump got rid of nearly everyone involved, and wanted to fire Mueller too,and would have if not for his lawyer stopping him. Innocent people don't behave like this! Congress and the people must see the full report.

Before any more conclusions are made “clearing” Mr. Trump, he needs to explain Helsinki.

We’ve been trolled by Donald Trump ... again!

I'm really disappointed in The Daily's spin on this report. First, there is zero acknowledgement that Barr was hand-picked as AG after he had laid out a detailed case that the Muller investigation was illegitimate. To report his finding of "no obstruction" without any mention of that history is highly misleading. He is not a neutral observer. Second, there was no mention of the comment in Barr's letter that Muller referred issues to other jurisdictions. So the statement that "it's all over" is not true. And then when asked to explain why the investigation was not a witch hunt, your reporters say nothing about the dozens of indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions that did come out of it. Last but most certainly not least, I strongly disagree with treating the Muller report like the be-all and end-all of investigations, after which there is nothing more to talk about. It was always limited to questions of indictable offenses and not geared to answer the broader question of fitness for office. You make sweeping statements about the wind being taken out of the Democrats' sails regarding further investigations, but in reality there are massive questions of endemic corruption in this administration, among many other things, that bear on whether this man should be President of the United States, Further investigations are not just warranted but imperative. The NYT has a powerful role in shaping the national conversation. You have a responsibility to do better than this.

Frankly, I was unable to finish listening to today's podcast. The conclusion of the Times journalists seems clear: Trump has been exonerated of collusion with Russia. Perhaps did a little bit of obstruction of justice, but "absence of the underlying crime" would signify that there was not really anything to obstruct. Not going into the details of AG Barr's letter to Congress, this seems a rush to judgement kind of a take. Barr specifically stated collusion with the government of Russia, which is different from the individual actors representing Putin's government in all but formal capacity. We have enough evidence to claim that Trump is personally compromised by Russian interests. As far as the matter of obstruction, that was done in plain sight, clear to every observer who was paying attention. The tweets, the threats, the incessant loud complaints, the mob language. The normalization effort that's been undertaken by the Times front page and The Daily during the past 48 hours or so is sickening.

Nice intro, if on purpose. If not, still funny.

The Prez claims exoneration from the Mueller report. Then he should support release of the full report! A judge overseeing the grand jury can authorize grand jury testimony as no more indictments are planned from its investigation. The public interest in knowing the reasoning, evidence and findings supports wide and complete release to the public.

Would you please focus on Russian intervention in our elections instead of this elusive accusation of obstruction? The President repeatedly called the investigation a witch hunt. How can he celebrate the results that exonerate him of collusion, and possibly obstruction, and say nothing about Russian intervention proven definitely in the same investigation? If the House neglects to focus on this, and the media continues to be distracted by Trumpian antics (that will surely ramp up now), the Republicans will gladly ignore it, too, because they have shown that they care more about keeping Trump in office than our democracy.

William Barr is not a disinterested observer. Until this report is made public - even in a redacted form - naysayers will not be happy. It sounds as if he made conclusions that Mueller did not.