In the days after Attorney General William Barr released a summary of Robert Mueller’s report finding no collusion between Team Trump 2016 and Mother Russia, Democrats accused him of lying and trying to ‘cover up’ what the special counsel really found.
The collusion hoax has been pushed real hard by serial leakerAdam Schiff (D-Calif.), now, amazing, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the original Russian collusion “truther” (as Tucker Carlson calls him) and also-ran 2020 Democratic presidential contender Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).
These two Donkey Party members don’t just wear tin foil hats, they traffic in them.
In any event, none other than The New York Times attempted to legitimize their claims by publishing an extremely thinly-sourced “report” claiming that some “associates” of Robert Mueller’s staff— not Mueller’s Democrat-aligned prosecutors themselves — claimed that the special counsel’s report was really ‘more damaging’ to the president, as The Daily Caller noted:
Democrats and members of the media have accused Barr of inaccurately summarizing Mueller’s report when he said that there was no evidence from the investigation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and not enough evidence to show President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice.
A thinly sourced report from The New York Times similarly claimed that members of the special counsel team were upset with Barr’s letter to Congress because they believe the actual report is much more damaging to the president.
But in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, AG Barr dropped this bombshell: He gave Mueller the opportunity to ‘correct’ the four-page assessment of the full special counsel report and Mueller declined the invitation.
“The letter of the 24th [of March], Mr. Mueller’s team did not play a role in drafting that document, although we offered him the opportunity to review it before we sent it out, and he declined that,” Barr said.
I Love My Freedom commented on this exchange:
This is a pretty astonishing announcement by Barr considering the New York Times claimed that special counsel members were not happy with Barr’s summary because it didn’t properly convey what the report said. The fact that Mueller declined to review the summary, shows that this report by the New York Times may not be valid.
Last month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in an interview with Fox Business Network‘s Maria Bartiromo that Barr, who has a reputation for being a by-the-book kind of guy and a straight shooter, was none too happy with the way the Justice Department he ran for President George H. W. Bush handled the bogus “investigation” into Hillary Clinton’s criminal mishandling of classified emails.
“Nobody in the Clinton e-mail investigation went to jail for lying about the process, because there was no process,” Graham said. “And I know Bill Barr pretty well, and he’s pretty upset about the way all this was handled.”
Graham wants a second special counsel to look into the way the probe was handled.
“I don’t know if he’s going to have a special prosecutor to look at the probability of criminal misbehavior. I’m going to look at what happened from an oversight role, but I hope there’s a special counsel appointed to look at DOJ corruption and political bias because Mueller did his job against Trump,” he said.
“Nobody’s really looked at the Clinton campaign, the FISA warrant abuse or the counterintelligence investigation, criminality yet — and somebody should.”