George Conway rains hell on Bill Barr for blatant distortions of Mueller’s report
George Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, rained hell on Attorney General Bill Barr on Thursday for blatant distortions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.
Even though Barr did his best to paint Mueller’s report as an exoneration of the president, Conway said that he made this argument by ripping a quote from Mueller’s full report completely out of context.
In his original four-page summary of the conclusions of Mueller’s report, Barr wrote that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
However, the full sentence on which that quote is based actually reads, “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.”
Reacting to this, Conway said it was shameful for Barr to truncate a quote this way without including its full context.
“Could you imagine what a judge would say if you cropped a sentence this way in a brief?” Conway asked. “Without acknowledging anywhere else in your brief the substance of what you cropped out?”
Without acknowledging anywhere else in your brief the substance of what you cropped out?# p #7_11 # ad skipped = true #
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 18, 2019# p #8_11 # ad skipped = true #
Conway also took Barr to task for distorting his rationale for declaring the president clear of obstruction of justice charges.
“Barr’s March 24 letter said that ‘[o]ur’ — his and Rosenstein’s — determination on obstruction ‘was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president,'” he wrote. “He conveniently left out the fact that the Special Counsel’s decided not to make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” on obstruction precisely because the longstanding DOJ view that a sitting president cannot be indicted.”