New reports has emerged that the special counsel, Robert Mueller was displeased about the characterization of his report by the Attorney General which was said to have left some important conclusions.
According to New York Times, Robert Mueller wrote a letter to the Attorney General late March expressing his displeasure over the conclusion of the report which has lead to President Trump claiming victory.
However, some believe that America has seen the report in it’s entirety. Therefore, what other “Description” is New York Times talking about?
Here’s what Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has to say about the matter:
Appearing on Foxnew’s Igraham Angle, the Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said “The report by the Washington Post [and New York Times] that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reached out to Attorney General William Barr and let him know that his summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the Russia investigation was leaked by someone seeking to “maximize the embarrassment” ahead of Wednesday’s hearings.
“The ‘Deep State’ and Washington has played these games for the whole history of the country, this is not something new,” Gingrich said on the Ingraham Angle.”
On the other hands, some are arguing strongly that the special counsel Robert Mueller erred in judgement when he left out the conclusion on the obstruction of justice to be decided by the Attorney General.
Here’s what Peter Flanigan, a New York Times Commentator has to say:
Mr. Peter Flanigan in his comment on the Times article says “By following a seemingly “facts speak for themselves” approach and not taking a stand on the issue of obstruction, Mr. Mueller allowed for this state of affairs to exist. If the Special Counsel’s office truly felt that there was a valid case for obstruction (which seems to be the case given the recent leaks expressing displeasure at Mr. Barr and now this leak regarding Mr.
Mueller’s letter) they should have indicated in the report that there was obstruction. Instead the report took no stand on the most crucial issue and that lack of conviction has led to partisan spin and obfuscation and the country and our politics have not been served well by Mr.
Mueller’s choices. In fact, the leaks from the Special Counsel’s office expressing displeasure at Mr. Barr are now only further feeding into the partisan narratives that have arisen. Mr. Mueller had his chance to decisively convey to the republic his opinion based on the facts and failed to do so.
The fact that he and his team seems to have been blindsided by partisan management of their report is more an indictment of them than Mr. Barr. This investigation was (and is) too crucial to the country and yet nothing continues to be resolved and the republic continues to suffer.”
Some has called statement like this unfortunate, and a clear evidence that Democrats are simply unwilling to move forward after the Mueller’s nearly two years investigation found no evidence of Collusion by Trump or anyone associated with his campaign with the Russians.
Mueller’s Key Findings
Investigators wrote, “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”