[ad_1]
According to members of the Robert Mueller Special Council team, Attorney General William Barr investigated whether the Trump campaign had plotted with Russia in the 2016 election, according to the New York Times and Washington Post.
The Times report, titled "Some members of the Mueller team say that the report was more damaging than Barr revealed" does not include quotes, anonymous or otherwise. He quotes no one from the special advocate team, but relies entirely on its authors, who paraphrase "anonymous anonymous public servants". [the Mueller team’s] frustrating, "anonymous" frustrations of well-informed civil servants [Attorney General William Barr’s] thinking, "and anonymous" government officials familiar with the investigation ".
The title of the post reads as follows: "The limited information provided by Barr about the investigation of Russia has frustrated some members of Mueller's team.
"It was a lot more serious than Barr suggested," said a newspaper reporter. A "United States Officer" who was informed of the case "also said:" The team was immediately unhappy when it saw how the Attorney General had characterized their work instead ".
The Mueller report has been prepared "so that the foreword of each section can be published immediately – or very quickly", the "American Journal". official "added. "This was done in such a way that minimal deletions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have been eloquent."
Like the Times, the post article does not quote or paraphrase the members of Mueller's team. The article instead attributes its findings to "people familiar with the subject," "two people aware of their reactions" and "people aware of their answers".
You will forgive my skepticism. I will wait for someone to go through the minutes or provide evidence to support what these unnamed "government officials" suggest. This is based on the record of such anonymous Mueller bombs, which previously guaranteed prosecution or even indictment.
Barr announced on March 24 that the Mueller team had not "established that Trump campaigners had conspired or coordinated their activities of electoral interference with the Russian government". the interviews failed to find sufficient evidence "to establish that the president had committed an offense of obstructing justice". Whatever complaints Mueller may raise, there will be no more lawsuits.
And Barr's record in terms of accuracy is at least better than the Post or the Times. Barr put his name on his assessment, taking the risk of reputation, while the sources of the Times and the Post Office remain anonymous. In addition, newspaper sources are just vague enough not to be open to an obvious and easy rebuttal, but not so vague that they do not sound like major and scandalous developments. The so-called "familiar" sources refused to elaborate whatin particular, Barr minimized. We do not even know how much The members of the special advocate team are supposed to agree.
Meanwhile, Mueller himself has not challenged Barr's assessment. And Mueller has already gone to the record to refute the erroneous descriptions of his team's findings. If Barr allegedly under-sold the special council's investigation, Mueller chose a fun time to stay silent.
[ad_2]
Source link