Mueller's conclusion raises new questions

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Attorney General William Barr has notified Congress that special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence during his inquiry that President Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

The bombshell disclosure appeared to resolve a core question of the Mueller investigation. It sent shock waves through Washington, with Trump and his allies claiming total vindication of the president after the investigation dogged the White House for just shy of two years.
However, Barr’s four-page letter sent Sunday has raised new questions, and the full contents of Mueller’s final, confidential report to the Justice Department remain shrouded in mystery.

Here are three questions that remain even as Mueller closes up shop.

Why didn’t Mueller make a judgment on obstruction of justice?

-snip-

What investigations did he refer to other districts?


-snip-

What does the report actually say?

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/435551-muellers-conclusion-raises-new-questions

[pnwmom]

1. Barr's summary of what he claims Mueller concluded. n/t

[triron]

3. Thanks for the clarification/correction.

[triron]

2. Mueller was NOT done! I repeat NOT done.

Barr ended the investigation prematurely.

[bluestarone]

5. THIS

Needs to be addressed for sure!! I feel we ALL kinds know Mueller was shut down!!

[True Blue American]

6. I agree on that!

[uponit7771]

7. +1, which is the reasons the Kremlin KKKlan isn't screaming for the full report to be released...

... to congress with dem stipulations.

Sanders and Red Don are hinging the release of the report on Barr ... the person who just summarily pardoned Red Don

[euphorb]

4. Actually Barr did not say that.

His letter said that the Special Counsel did not "establish" conspiracy with the "Russian government." I take did not establish to mean that there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. That is very different from saying there was no evidence. Furthermore, there has never been a credible claim that the campaign conspired with the Russian government as such. Rather the claims were that there was collusion with Russian elements (oligarchs, etc.) other than the government itself. Barr was silent as to whether the Special Counsel found anything in that regard.

[rzemanfl]

10. Bookmarking for later. n/t

[Igel]

11. Partly agreed.

"Establish" is not the same as "some evidence," however it leaves open that the "some evidence" might be ambiguous. That's a danger; knowing the goal you use the evidence for can produce blindness as to alternative interpretations.

I'd argue that "government" is to be more broadly construed that some are trying to make it, given what Mueller would know about how overtly non-governmental actors were nonetheless working on behalf of the government.

Even the claim about Deripaska ultimately boils down not to "Manafort shared information with a private citizen" but "Manafort shared information with a private citizen, an oligarch, closely connected to Putin and other government-affiliated or governmental groups." The narrowness of how we construe the term is also goal-oriented, to make sure that the exoneration itself is has to be taken to be very, very narrow in scope.

[coti]

8. Again, there's that "no evidence" bullshit nt

[rusty fender]

9. I have a couple of questions to add:

Why did Mueller recommend leniency for Flynn if Flynn didn’t give Mueller some info on a bigger fish?

Was all of Flynn’s testimony just against himself?

[Igel]

12. Because it's not a criminal investigation?

Perhaps just providing more information because the goal of the investigation was investigation, not to prove any specific wrong doing. It was a counter-intelligence investigation, don't forget, and the finding that one line of inquiry led nowhere would itself be an important thing to establish.