Citing dubious anonymous sources, The New York Times claimed Tuesday that certain unnamed members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation team are unhappy with Attorney General Bill Barr over how he had portrayed their recently concluded investigation.
“Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated,” the Times reported.
According to the Times’ anonymous sources, which have a track record of being wrong, the public memo Barr released on March 24, two days after the conclusion of Mueller’s investigation, seemed to downplay or ignore Mueller’s allegedly more “troubling” findings.
What sort of “troubling” findings? The Times’ anonymous sources appear to have no clue.
“The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained,” the Times noted, adding that it’s “unclear how widespread the [alleged] vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel.”
The exorbitant lack of clarity is not surprising given the source. Despite the spuriousness of these allegations, the Times’ far-left base have bought the allegations hook, line and sinker.
I’m absolutely shocked that AG Barr — the sycophant who wrote an unsolicited memo criticizing Mueller’s investigation in order to get the job — would w/hold damaging info about Trump from Congress & the public. 🙄#ReleaseTheFullReport#ResistersForum https://t.co/e1CAIixCxD
— Minh Ngo (@minhtngo) April 4, 2019
Can an Attorney General be charged with obstruction of justice?
Asking for a friend….https://t.co/hNTtiB3Jb6
— Kayla (@KaylaAmberLA) April 4, 2019
Wait, are you saying Barr, a former CIA operative and seasoned cover-up artist who was hand picked by Trump, may be hiding something? “I’m shocked,” said literally no one. https://t.co/WYtsKrPDGA
— Lisa Guest (@lisaguestGTM) April 4, 2019
History will be cruel to Attorney General William P. Barr https://t.co/Smpkfsxc9h
— David Rothschild (@DavMicRot) April 4, 2019
His four page book report on a 400 page book wasn’t thorough and well thought out, even though he read the book and wrote the summary in less than 48 hours? That’s crazy!! I am sooooooooooo surprised!!
— Peggy Walter (@peggy007) April 3, 2019
Revising priors further. Also if you were one of those “BARR LETTER PROVES MASSIVE MEDIA FAILURE” people it’s not looking super good that you were so eager to jump to politically-convenient conclusions after criticizing everyone else for that very thing. https://t.co/yipZaiKs1g
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 4, 2019
The latter tweet by left-wing statistician Nate Silver is particularly galling given the demonstrable evidence of the media’s utter lack of reliability vis-à-vis Mueller’s investigation.
As a reminder, the media spent two to three years dropping “bombshell” story after “bombshell” story alleging that, according to their anonymous sources, President Donald Trump would eventually be indicted for having colluded with Russian operatives to affect the 2016 election.
While Mueller’s report contained no conclusions about whether the president obstructed justice — ergo the current concerns by the left-wing media over Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s conclusion that Trump didn’t obstruct justice — it did explicitly specify that Trump never colluded.
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” the report said.
Barr revealed this quote in the March 24 memo he published. He likewise included his and Rosenstein’s judgment on obstruction of justice. He basically explained that since Trump didn’t collude with Russian operatives, that means there had been nothing for him to hide/obstruct.
“In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction,” he wrote.
But for some inexplicable reason — Trump Derangement Syndrome, perhaps? — congressional Democrats and their left-wing media allies have refused to accept this conclusion.
As a result, the media have been posting a new hash of “bombshell” stories that hint at some sort of clandestine cover-up. And of course, Democrats are loving this coverage.
Watch Congressman Eric Swalwell speak with CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the Times’ report:
“This is a clarion call for us to see this report immediately,” he said Wednesday.
This cannot happen because the full report contains classified information that first needs to be redacted. Barr is currently working with Mueller to identify those parts of the report that need to be scrubbed, but Democrats and their media allies have continually ignored this fact.
It’s not shocking given that Democrats and their media allies were eager to defend former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when it was found that, thanks to her recklessness, she had “accidentally” transmitted classified State Department intelligence on an unsecured email account.
Dovetailing back to the Times’ latest “bombshell” report, there’s nothing actually substantive within it, as noted by a slew of astute critics on social media.
1. The source(s) are anonymous
2. There’s 0 inclination on what info could be damaging; 0 indication it’s criminal
3. The report admits the sources are “concerned” that Trump is winning the narrative on Mueller’s report
4. Mueller’s team had no Republicans on it, only Democrats https://t.co/iO0EaIP2fU
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) April 4, 2019
Exactly! There’s no meat in this story. Just clickbait headlines. I’d love to hear how widespread disagreement is, and why. And they offer absolutely nothing.
— El Jefe (@ElJefeTulum) April 4, 2019
Did you actually read the whole article? Nothing to indicate there’s anything being hidden other than grand jury and classified info
Refreshing to see how many people are willing to take this article at face value. Just as they did with the accusations of Pissgate, and Russian collusion despite all the sources being anonymous and no evidence presented.
— Aaron Williams (@Ayy_Dub) April 3, 2019
According to “Anonymous” sources 😳 https://t.co/gvd3lDkb7h
— MG (@MichaelGindi1) April 4, 2019
So I get it lets write another NYT bullshit misleading article with information gained thru a 3rd person hearsay?!https://t.co/9NrFOTt33N
— Gary (@214_8272) April 4, 2019
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept urged caution before celebrating Trump’s demise:
Anyway, we’ve had 3 years of anonymously-sourced “bombshells” journalists spend 16-24 hours tiring themselves out celebrating on Twitter, only for it to fizzle into nothing (ie: no indictments from Mueller for conspiring with Russia). Why not have one more? An addict’s last fix.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 4, 2019
If only everybody possessed this capability to think critically.
Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)
- NY Times commits ‘virtual act of treason’: Intel officials say they can’t tell Trump, but tell NYT cyber-secrets - June 16, 2019
- New 2020 poll by Fox News looks bad for Trump, but he’s not sweating it - June 16, 2019
- Guy thinks he’s buying $9,100 villa at county auction. He’s stuck with a foot-wide strip of land. - June 16, 2019