Mueller's actual report revealed Barr to be a lying, scheming Trump shill
newsdepo.com
The release of Robert Mueller’s redacted report Thursday finally gave the nation a chance to assess just how honest and forthcoming Attorney General William Barr had been in his original four-pages of “principle conclusions” from the original. LetMueller's actual report revealed Barr to be a lying, scheming Trump shill
The release of Robert Mueller’s redacted report Thursday finally gave the nation a chance to assess just how honest and forthcoming Attorney General William Barr had been in his original four-pages of “principle conclusions” from the original. Let’s just say, Barr’s account didn’t fare well. Actually, Barr’s account was a cover up, full stop. In fact, Barr has proven to be a lying, scheming shill for Donald Trump. He proved that through his press conference before the release and he proved that through the way he manipulated Mueller’s words to give them different meaning. Let’s do a side-by-side comparison of three of Barr’s excerpts to Mueller’s actual report, counting down to the most egregious of them all. 3. In clearing Trump of obstruction of justice, Barr twisted a Mueller quote to make it seem like there was no underlying crime to obstruct. In fact, Mueller was explaining that despite the absence of a criminal conspiracy regarding Russian interference, other potential crimes did exist for which Trump was attempting to impede the investigation. Barr: In making this determination, we noted that the special counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president’s intent with respect to obstruction. Mueller: Vol. II, Page 157: Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’ release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family. Read more