Special counsel Robert Mueller just confirmed every American’s worst fear.
His team never gave up on trying to assist Nancy Pelosi in bringing down Donald Trump.
But things went from bad to worse when Mueller leaked one bombshell story to the press—and it’s bad news for Donald Trump.
Robert Mueller turning in his report to Attorney General William Barr marked the end of the Mueller probe.
As mandated by law, Barr provided a summary of the special counsel’s findings to Congress.
In a four page letter summarizing the top-line conclusions, Barr reported that Mueller found no evidence of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.
Mueller also did not make any findings on obstruction of justice.
Instead, Mueller left that up to Barr.
Barr – and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – determined there was no obstruction of justice because Mueller never found any evidence of an underlying crime.
This infuriated the Democrats and members of the fake news media who were convinced Mueller would turn up the smoking gun to finish Trump.
So the fake news media immediately switched gears and moved the goal posts.
Fake news “reporters” and Democrats claimed that because Barr’s summary was only four pages, compared to the nearly 400 page long Mueller report, Barr must be hiding evidence of impeachable offenses.
This new talking point received a jolt of energy when the New York Times published a “bombshell” story claiming that members of Mueller’s team were voicing concerns that Barr did not convey the extent of damaging information Mueller had put in his report about Trump.
The New York Times exclusively reported, “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, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.”
However, critics of the fake news media immediately raised two questions.
First, what was this information these anonymous sources claimed Barr left out?
In the story, so-called “reporters” Nicholas Fandos, Michael S. Schmidt, and Mark Mazzetti wrote, “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.”
Second, skeptics of the Mueller probe – Americans who learned to question the media reports after a number of “bombshells” turned out to be duds – also wondered who on Mueller’s team voiced these concerns?
Was it Mueller himself?
Or a couple of his partisan Democrat prosecutors?
Was it a James Comey loyalist assigned to the investigation?
Or was it someone who would just get coffee and sandwiches for the team?
The story does not identify the sources.
Despite numerous media outlets getting burned by the fake news fed to them by “anonymous sources,” the Times saw fit to print whatever negative information about Trump they could find.
And this thinly sourced and thinly reported story will surely set off a flurry of uninformed speculation on fake news CNN and MSNBC.
But if the last two years have taught Americans anything, it is to discount the agenda-driven propaganda spewed by the left until the full facts emerge.
We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.
