Debunking Three Myths About Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report
William Barr’s missive purporting to briefly summarize Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report was, as the Washington Post pointed out, mischaracterized by cable news. Given the language of Barr’s carefully lawyered letter, this is somewhat to be expected. But it’s also immensely damaging to the rule of law.
So, let’s dispel three of those myths.
Myth No. 1: Mueller found no evidence of collusion. (Wrong, wrong, wrong.)
Regrettably, “(a)ll three major news networks were consistent in saying that the special counsel found no evidence of collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.” Both CNN and MSNBC heralded that “TRUMP CLAIMS ‘COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION’” on Russia. Fox claimed “MUELLER PROBE FINDS NO PROOF OF COLLUSION.” This is wrong as a matter of law and as a matter of fact.
Barr did not say there was no evidence of collusion. Quoting Mueller himself, Barr reported that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election” (emphasis added). What this means is that Mueller collected lots of evidence, but what his team found was not enough for a slam-dunk criminal conviction of anyone else.
I say “of anyone else” because Mueller already found sufficient evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Russians conspired to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Those conspiracies are set forth in painstaking detail in two existing indictments from the Mueller grand jury. (I encourage you to read them both.)
more:
https://thebulwark.com/debunking-three-myths-about-barrs-summary-of-the-mueller-report/amp/
= new reply since forum marked as read
