Barr Presser Follows Memo to Whitewash Mueller Report
(As Favor to Protect Trump)
Introduction: As it turns out, in some cases, Barr’s
characterizations of the Mueller report were incomplete or misleading. The Mueller report is more damning of Trump than the
attorney general indicated.
From
CNBC this from
Trump – double talking (again):
Trump said
there was no reason to respond to statements he claimed were “total bullshit.”
He made those remarks in a series of Twitter posts (April 19), one day after AG
Barr released a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to the public during his presser.
Extracts:
Trump said that since he
had not agreed to testify: “It was not necessary for me to
respond to statements made in the ‘Report’ about me, some of which are total
bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look
bad).”
The
newly-released report showed that Mueller decided against issuing a subpoena for Trump because he
believed it would cause a significant delay in the investigation.
Trump also said: “Watch
out for people that take so-called ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed.”
He possibly was
referring to parts of the report that are attributed to notes taken by White
House officials. Citing notes from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ chief
of staff, Jody Hunt, the report claims that Trump was concerned when Sessions
told him a special counsel had been appointed to investigate Russia’s influence
in the 2016 election.
The report says Trump responded: “Oh my God. This
is terrible. This is the
end of my presidency. I’m f**ked.”
According to the
report, Trump told
Sessions he was worried about the impact of a long investigation on his ability
to govern, saying it could take “years
and years and I won’t be able to do anything.”
Now what follows
is from
the Washington Post re: their analysis between them and the New York Times. They reported April 3 — after
Barr’s letter was released — that some of Mueller’s investigators were
frustrated by the attorney general’s limited disclosures about their work.
The Post
reported that “members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates
that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant,”
and more acute than Barr had indicated.
· Here’s the letter from Barr dated March 24.
· Here’s the transcript of Barr’s presser April 18.
· Here’s the Mueller report.
A spokesman
for Mueller declined to comment for this fact check. But the plain language of
the report in several respects does not match Barr’s claim.
TWO EXAMPLES OF BARR’S NON-FACTUAL PURPOSE.
IN MY VIEW: To twist or hide the factual truth while Whitewashing the report to favor and protect Trump w/o any doubt.
FIRST EXAMPLE:
Barr in his March 24 letter stated
and then quoted directly from the Mueller report, highlighting its conclusion
that:
“The investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities.”
However, left out was a key statement from Mueller that came right
before what Barr quoted in his letter:
“Although the investigation established that
the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and
worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would
benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian
efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign
conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election
interference activities.”
Noteworthy (again, my emphasis and view is the same
as the article):
“Expecting to benefit may not be
the same as actively cooperating (to benefit). But, the omission
in Barr’s letter is significant nonetheless. The full sentence from Mueller
casts a different, less flattering light on the Trump campaign than Barr’s
letter indicated. In short, Russia wanted Trump to win, and
Trump campaign members were aware that they would reap an advantage from the
“information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
SECOND EXAMPLE:
Barr during his April 18 presser: “There
was no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s hacking.”
Barr at some
points in his news conference used the word “collusion,” which is not a legal term for a crime. (The word “collusion” does not appear in the
attorney general’s March 24 letter).
Mueller’s report says: “In
evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals
constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion.’ ... [C]ollusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United
States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those
reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal
liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”
At other
points in his news conference, and throughout his letter, Barr used the more
specific terms “coordinated” and “conspiracy.” That matches the language in
Mueller’s report.
My 2 cents: This joint analysis by the NY TIMES and
WASHINGTON POST is worthwhile for many reasons (two examples above) of AG Barr’s
blatant whitewashing the report to fit what he thinks and what Trump wants (or
maybe demanded from Barr).
After all, Trump now calls the report (his words not mine: bullshit).
Further, Trump wants the investigators investigated.
So, here we go all over again and a warm up to 2020, Trump chants of: “Lock her up, get the witches, punish the
sad, corrupt FBI and Clinton campaign and Steele dossier, failing NY TIMES, etc.,
etc., etc., Ad infinitum.”
All to favor Trump’s reelection bid and win since
this man cannot accept losing no matter the stakes. Whether losing someone else’s
money or now losing our country. Just as long as he wins by hook or crook — and mostly by crook – wait and see.
To win by any means possible
Impeachment and removal is the only solution and
remedy from this hellish nightmare.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment