A sterling example of the side effect of collusion fever and the lengths some will go to justify the use of “bombshell” was provided in January by Esquire, in an article by pundit Charles P. Pierce headlined, ”There is a bombshell of a word in the New York Times report on the Trump FBI investigation.” Pierce posited that the Times story in question — which was, to be sure, something of a real bombshell on the FBI’s troubling decision to open an investigation on the president — included a more cryptic bombshell, apparently discoverable only by the illuminati among us.<doc-sep>Dana Bash: This is so telling about where the Republican party is NEW YORK, NY - AUGUST 24: Trump Tower stands on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan on August 24, 2018 in New York City. Following new allegations over hush money that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen paid to an adult-film actress, the Manhattan district attorneyÕs office in New York City may seek criminal charges against the Trump Organization in the coming days. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) Why GOP is standing in the way of Capitol riot investigation WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 08: US Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) remarks on the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the US Capitol November 8, 2006 in Washington, DC. Warner said he supports President George W. Bush's nomination of former CIA Director Robert Gates for Secretary of Defense. Warner said he anticipates Gates' confirmation before the end of the year. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), joined by Senate Assistant Minority Leader John Thune (R-SD) (L) and Senate Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), speaks following a Senate Republican Policy luncheon at the Russell Senate Office Building on May 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. William Barr, attorney general nominee for U.S. President Donald Trump, speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019. Barr says he'd let Special Counsel Robert Mueller "complete his work" and that he'd provide Congress and the public as much of the findings in the Russia probe as possible. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images (CNN) — Some of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William Barr did not properly convey how damaging their findings were for President Donald Trump, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported. The investigators said Barr, in his memo to Congress, did not adequately portray the results of their nearly two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the Times reported Wednesday, according to government officials and others familiar with their frustrations. Investigators have concerns that Barr was able to shape the public’s initial views of their report with his memo and now, without the report being made public, they are set in that narrative, according to the Times. Those interviewed by the Times declined to fully explain why the Mueller investigators believe their findings were more damaging to Trump than Barr disclosed. Members of the special counsel’s team also complained to close associates that the evidence they compiled on whether Trump obstructed justice was “alarming and significant,” the Post reported Thursday. Some of Mueller’s investigators were also caught off guard by Trump’s victory lap after the Barr letter was released, people familiar with their response told the Post. Mueller’s team is comprised of 19 lawyers, about 40 FBI agents and other personnel, and the Times notes it is unclear how prevalent the frustration is among the team. It is also unclear how extensively Mueller and his team spoke to senior Department of Justice officials about how their findings of the investigation would become public, the Times said. Barr submitted to Congress last month his summary of the findings of Mueller’s report. In the letter, Barr said Mueller did not establish Trump’s campaign or associates conspired with Russia. Barr wrote Mueller did not have sufficient evidence to establish obstruction of justice, but Barr quoted Mueller as saying that the special counsel also did not exonerate the President. The letter notes Mueller found evidence on both sides of the obstruction issue, a strong signal that there is information that was not positive for the President. Barr’s memo reads, “The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” Barr said last week Mueller’s report will be released to Congress and the public by “mid-April, if not sooner.” Barr has also offered to testify shortly after the report is released. Barr and his team are frustrated with Mueller and his investigators, and believe his report should have concluded whether Trump illegally obstructed the probe, according to the Times, citing two government officials. Both the Times and the Post reported that the Mueller team had prepared their own summaries of the report. Some Mueller investigators believe Barr should have included more material from their summaries in his memo to Congress, according to government officials familiar with the investigation who spoke to the Times. Mueller’s team wrote the summaries “in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary,” assuming that they would be made public and there was “immediate displeasure” when they read how Barr characterized their work, a US official told the Post. Sources told the Post and the Times, however, that the summaries included sensitive information that would have required redaction. The special counsel’s office also never asked Barr to release the summaries, the Times reported. DOJ representatives and the special counsel’s office declined to comment to the Times on the views inside both Mueller’s office and DOJ.<doc-sep>Members of Mueller’s team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant. “It was much more acute than Barr suggested,” said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity. The New York Times first reported that some special counsel investigators feel that Barr did not adequately portray their findings. Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions. “There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according to one U.S. official briefed on the matter.<doc-sep>WASHINGTON — The still-secret report on Russian interference in the 2016 election submitted last week by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was more than 300 pages long, the Justice Department acknowledged on Thursday. Mr. Barr wrote to Congress on Sunday offering what he called the “principal conclusions” of the report — including that Mr. Mueller had not found that the Trump campaign had taken part in a conspiracy to undermine the election. But he had notably declined to publicly disclose its length. The total of 300-plus pages suggests that Mr. Mueller went well beyond the kind of bare-bones summary required by the Justice Department regulation governing his appointment and detailed his conclusions at length. And it raises questions about what Mr. Barr might have left out of the four dense pages he sent to Congress. Answering those questions is likely to prove difficult for lawmakers and the public. Mr. Barr has indicated to two congressional chairmen that it will most likely take weeks to redact the report for classified and grand jury information the department deems unfit for public consumption.<doc-sep>
The New York Times appeared to lend credence Thursday to the fervent belief among some Democrats that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report might actually contain evidence that President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with the Russian government, printing a story about how critics were “raising questions” about Attorney General William Barr’s ability to summarize a length investigative report in four pages in just 48 hours. In an article titled, “Mueller Report Exceeds 300 Pages, Raising Questions About Four-Page Summary,” the Times reported that Barr’s summary was both too long and not inclusive enough (original link): The total of 300-plus pages suggests that Mr. Mueller went well beyond the kind of bare-bones summary required by the Justice Department regulation governing his appointment and detailed his conclusions at length. And it raises questions about what Mr. Barr might have left out of the four dense pages he sent Congress. In addition, the Times noted the discrepancy between claims about the length of Mueller’s report: Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, added the description ‘very substantial’ after talking to Mr. Barr on Wednesday, although neither he nor any other member of Congress has seen it and he declined to give a page count. Andrew Napolitano, a legal analyst for Fox News and a favorite of Mr. Trump, caused a stir on Wednesday when he said multiple times on the air that the report was 700 pages. Despite Democrats’ suspicions (and hopes), Mueller has not disputed Barr’s summary, which quoted the report directly: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” In the past, Mueller’s office had occasionally spoken out against incorrect reporting, when that reporting seemed to mis-state fundamental facts about the investigation and its implications for the presidency. The Times helped lay the foundation of the Russia collusion theory in its early reporting on the Trump administration, running a front-page story on Inauguration Day in 2017 reporting that “wiretapped” conversations revealed potential links between Russian agents and Trump campaign associates. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.