'In plain sight': Counter-intelligence expert lambastes Barr claim that there was 'no collusion'

Counter-intelligence expert Malcolm Nance said that he witnessed "collusion and conspiracy in plain sight," but special counsel Robert Mueller's bar was so high, that unless it was observed by an agent, it's impossible to prove.

"The part I'm mainly focused on is the question of conspiracy," Nance told MSNBC's Ari Melber on Sunday. "Whether there was an actual operation where, as Robert Mueller put it: 'if there was explicit or tacit coordination' in some way, shape or form... We have had people who have done things before where there were, you know, there were not signs of an explicit agreement with them. One, for example, is former CIA officer Aldrich Ames. He started to do his treason in 1988, but it wasn't until he was caught making a chalk signal on the mailbox they saw an actual explicit act and then the FBI arrested him."

Nance noted that Mueller's standard was a legal one that wasn't about winks and nudges, it had to be extremely clear.

"Well, you know, I saw all of the collusion and conspiracy in plain sight," Nance said. "The question is Robert Mueller's standard for that -- which is a legal standard for that -- which, to him, was if there is no a wink and a nod that I can see or technically a signed SFB contract then I can't bring them up on the charges. But we have seen the things occur and in any other standard the person would have been arrested, would have been polygraphed and brought to trial. I found that a high standard. Maybe it's a legal standard we need to take a look at, but I want to hear him tell me why the 'Russia if you're listening' speech -- did he accept it as a joke?"

Nance also asked about the changing of the Republican Party platform to benefit Russia and whether Mueller would consider that to be a "joke."

"If it was, I couldn't get a slam dunk then the Russians have won on a very well planned and coordinated operation even by Mr. Mueller's standards," Nance said.

Watch his full commentary below: