Attorney General William Barr is supposed to be America's chief law enforcement officer. He has an overriding duty to defend the laws of the United States, not the president who appointed him. Yet from his remarks before Thursday's release of the redacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller, you'd think Barr was on retainer as President Donald Trump's personal attorney.

Barr strained to reflect the evidence in the most positive light, obfuscated problematic facts and took gratuitous jabs at investigators — tactics an especially tenacious private lawyer might employ while representing a paying client. But for America's lawyer to act so blatantly in the president's defense is a disgrace to both offices.

The full implication of Thursday's release — a two-volume, 448-page report — will take time to assess. Analysis will be complicated by the fact that Barr, whose loyalties are clearly conflicted, controlled what parts were omitted from public disclosure. That must not stand.

But even the unredacted parts make clear that Trump actively and repeatedly attempted to derail the investigation into whether his campaign worked with or encouraged Russian election meddling. Scholars may differ on whether this meets the legal definition of obstruction, but it definitely meets the common-sense one.

Mueller's report confirmed that, in mid-2017, Trump ordered White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn to have Mueller fired. McGahn warned him that he risked being accused of obstruction. When The New York Times accurately reported this exchange, Trump denounced the report as "fake news," meaning Trump misled the nation.

Trump tried again and again through surrogates to pressure then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions into closing down the Mueller investigation.

The report reveals or confirms a mountain of other apparent attempts at obstruction. Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey to end "this Russia thing." He personally concocted a public lie to explain why campaign officials met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer in Trump Tower. Upon learning of Mueller's appointment, he told Sessions, "You were supposed to protect me" — which, again, isn't the attorney general's job.

That's the backdrop for Barr's glowing assessment Thursday that the report shows Trump "fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation" and showed no "intent to obstruct the investigation."

In summarizing Mueller's report last month, Barr inexplicably omitted one key passage: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

What report did Barr read? And what planet was he on when he read it?

As for Barr's repeated declaration that the report found no "collusion," it's interesting what context he glossed over. Though inadequate evidence was found to win a conviction for collusion-related offenses, the report said, "the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."

Such passages hardly match to the "total exoneration" assertion made by the White House in reference to the Mueller report.

Barr waxed sympathetic in stressing the "unprecedented situation" Trump faced, with "federal agents and prosecutors ... scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office," while weathering "relentless speculation in the news media about the President's personal culpability."

But Trump brought this on himself, especially when, as a presidential candidate, he publicly called on the Russians to hack his opponent's emails. Hours later, they did exactly that.

Even in its redacted form, Mueller's report paints a disturbing portrait of, if not outright illegality, at least a virtually unprecedented cesspool of improper, unethical and potentially impeachable behavior by this president. Americans of all political persuasions owe it to themselves to read the actual Mueller report and ignore the attorney general's bizarrely skewed interpretation.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH