The Editorial Board

USA TODAY

Attorney General William Barr has his work cut out for him when he goes before Congress this week — if he hopes to salvage a reputation sullied during the rollout of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.

Barr offered a cloying news conference performance just before the release of the redacted report. Rather than simply let Congress and the public read Mueller's own words, Barr offered his slant while seven times asserting presidential innocence. The pre-release spin left the nation's top prosecutor looking more like Donald Trump's personal defense lawyer.

Barr gets a chance to clean that up Wednesday — if he chooses to do so — before the Senate Judiciary Committee and Thursday, barring last minute ground rule disputes, before the House Judiciary Committee.

Here's what he needs to answer:

►Two days after receiving Mueller's findings in March, Barr issued a summary that quoted passages (as we now know) without context, and substituted his own view that Trump was innocent of obstruction after Mueller pointedly declined to reach such a conclusion. Barr's news conference was the attorney general's second attempt to shape the narrative before releasing the Mueller report. Why didn't he allow Mueller's words to speak for themselves?

►The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion in 2000 stating that a sitting president could not be prosecuted because it would interfere with his constitutional duties. Mueller's report makes it clear that he was bound by that opinion, and that it was part of the reason he didn't say whether Trump obstructed justice. But Barr downplayed that fact in his April 18 news conference, telling reporters that Mueller would not have "found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion." Why did Barr twist Mueller's words?

►While Mueller struggled with rules and regulations he found binding when deciding whether Trump committed a crime, Barr evidently did not feel bound by the same restrictions. He told reporters, "Our powers as prosecutors (are) to determine: Yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal? ... We don’t go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public." Does Barr believe that Mueller failed in his responsibility as a special counsel?

►Mueller outlined Trump's actions that had all the legal elements of criminal obstruction. They included ordering White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller; directing McGahn to deny that happened and falsify evidence; and asking former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to tell Attorney General Jeff Sessions he should change the scope of Mueller's investigation and declare Trump innocent. These were the kinds of facts, Mueller concluded, that did not "exonerate" Trump. Legal authorities such as Lawfare editor in chief Benjamin Wittes, retired Judge Andrew Napolitano, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former U.S. prosecutor Barbara McQuade all say that if Trump weren’t president, he’d be indicted. How did Barr look at the same evidence and conclude that the evidence did exonerate Trump?

►Barr depicted Trump as a persecuted figure who freely offered witnesses and evidence, and whose White House "fully cooperated" with Mueller. But Trump refused to be interviewed. He offered limited written answers and claimed lack of memory 27 times. He dangled pardons for witnesses who refused to cooperate with investigators and publicly disparaged those who did. He composed lies about the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer. And he relentlessly attacked Mueller and his prosecutors on Twitter. How does Barr consider this to be "full" cooperation?

If Barr doesn't have solid answers to those questions, he risks being viewed as a mere stooge of an embattled president. When the attorney general last served under President George. H.W. Bush, he left his post with an image of integrity that might not follow him after his visit to Capitol Hill this week.

If you can't see this reader poll, please refresh your page.