Attorney General William P. Barr wrote a letter saying what Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller wrote. What Mr. Barr wrote is not what Mr. Mueller wrote. Mr. Barr wrote about what Mr. Mueller wrote.
That's for starters. The media frenzy surrounding Mr. Barr's letter sometimes confuses Mr. Barr's letter with Mr. Mueller's report. That is a mistake.
In the letter, Barr says a couple of things that are best understood, perhaps, with the help of a dictionary that translates Barr-bar-talk into English.
Mr. Barr writes that Mr. Mueller "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election." (Emphasis added.)
"Find" means "conclude."
So, when Mr. Barr is saying that Mr. Mueller "did not find," he means that Mueller did not conclude.
That does not mean that Mr. Mueller "found no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia," as some have said it means. Not at all. (And remember, these are not the words of the Mueller Report that we are quoting here. These are, to say again, the words of Barr in a letter he wrote to say what Mueller said.)
And it certainly does not mean that the Special Counsel 'found that the Trump campaign (etc.) did not conspire or coordinate with Russia." Even Mr. Barr did not say that. (And remember, again, that these are not the words of the Mueller Report but the words of Barr's letter that we are looking at here.)
Also, Mr. Barr's letter quotes a part of a sentence from the Special Counsel's Report that "[T]he [sic; so in Barr letter] investigation did not establish" conspiracy. (Emphasis added.) Well, in the language of a lawyer like Mr. Barr, "did not establish" means that Mr. Mueller "did not file charges" of conspiracy that could arguably be proved beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
Again, that does not mean that "the investigation did not establish" that there was evidence of conspiracy, or that 'the investigation did establish' that there was no evidence of conspiracy either, just that the evidence that was established did not lead Mr. Mueller to seek indictments to prove crimes beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
So, there you have it, a practical dictionary for interpreting the Barr letter. Corporate media, those who have ears to hear, let them hear, as it says in the Good Book.
And as for understanding not so much what Mr. Barr wrote in the letter, but understanding why he wrote the letter and why in less than 48 hours he was able to divine that there was no intent by his boss to commit a crime where Robert Mueller and the Special Counsel's Office apparently could not prove intent based on the evidence, well to answer that question you do not need the help of any dictionary. All you have to do is have a brain which, thank God, you have already.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments