[ad_1]
The new report raises as many questions as answers about what Barr said in his four-page summary of the Mueller report of over 300 pages – and what he did not say. Here are the most intriguing questions for me:
1. What is the extent of Barr's dissatisfaction with the special board office?
In the Times article, it is very safe to say that "some investigators of Robert S. Mueller III" told "associates" that they were not satisfied with the way Barr presented its findings and how it seemed to minimize the negative information contained in the report. We are talking about a team of about 60 people, according to the Times, do less than five people feel this? Or is it half (or more) who thinks that Barr has under-sold the report? The former could be considered as the usual dissensions of a small number of people within a larger team. The latter seems to be a real darkening effort on the part of Barr.
Rudy Giuliani, the lawyer for President Donald Trump, was on television Wednesday night to sell the idea that these complaints were coming from a small number, not many. "They are a sneaky and unethical group of fugitives," he told Fox News' Laura Ingraham. "And they are rabid democrats who hate the president of the United States."
2. Do the concerns relate to obstruction or collusion?
Both in the Times and in the Post, there is strong presumption that the discontent of some of the special advocates' staff may be more obstructionist – although it is never quite clear.
"Officials and other interviewees declined to explain why some of the special council investigators felt their findings were potentially more damaging to the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report looks at Mr. Trump's efforts to foil the investigation. "
"Members of Mueller's team complained to close associates that the evidence they had gathered about the obstruction was alarming and significant."
3. Why did Mueller not make a recommendation on the obstruction?
So why, when he was given the opportunity to clarify whether what he had discovered suggested or not an obstruction, Mueller sent him to Barr? After all, Barr was not only named by Trump, but he had also stated very clearly in a memo while he was a simple citizen that he was not inclined to see the president as obstructing justice. Mueller had to know what to leave the question of obstruction open to interpretation would mean that Barr would not pursue it.
New information from The Times is that Barr seems to have been equally confused about Mueller's decision not to make a decision. "The two Justice Department officials believe the Special Council investigators failed in their task of refusing to decide whether Mr. Trump had illegally hindered the investigation, according to the two government officials," the Times wrote.
4. Why did Barr not publish summaries of special tips (and why did not they suggest that he should)?
We all know that Barr spent about 48 hours summarizing a Mueller report of more than 300 pages in a four-page summary that he then sent to Congress. What we did not know until Wednesday night was that the special council office had in fact prepared summaries of its own findings for Barr.
Here's how the Times reported:
"The Special Council investigators had already written several summaries of the report, and some members of the team believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on the 24th." March, outlining their key findings, according to the government's officials aware of the investigation. "
And / but in the following paragraph, the Times notes that "the special board's office has never asked Mr. Barr to publish the summaries shortly after receiving the report," said one person familiar with the report. 39 "investigation" – and that the summaries contained sensitive information. information that would have made it impossible (or at least very difficult) to publish without writing. (There is some disagreement here, the Post said the summaries "have been prepared for different sections of the report, in order to make them public".)
Why did the special attorney's office not write a summary of this type of information and recommended to Barr to publish it – knowing that the withdrawal of a report from more than 300 pages in a very short time would, of course, help to put aside some critical details? Or, conversely, why did Barr not use one of the summaries prepared by the special advocate's office to write what he felt was necessary and then present it, rather than his four-page summary that hardly quotes the Mueller report, as the first cut of all this? Or did Barr simply ignore the abstracts, even if they could have been published as is, and simply create his own document because he wanted it?
5. Will we ever see the summaries? (Or the whole report?)
The summaries, which, according to the Post, have been "prepared for different parts of the report" may well be the key to all this. Assuming that it is very unlikely that we would see the FULL Mueller report – Barr indicated that he was currently reviewing it for deleting information – the summaries are perhaps the best look we can have on the main conclusions, as seen by Mueller's team.
The issue is whether sources claiming that the summaries contained sensitive information making it difficult to publish or whether sources claiming that they had been written with a minimum of sensitive information to facilitate their publication were correct. .
And, for the moment, only Barr and his assistants have the ability to answer this question. And they do not speak.
[ad_2]
Source link