Judge alleges Barr made ‘calculated attempt’ to spin Mueller report in Trump’s favor

A federal judge has accused Attorney General Bill Barr of misrepresenting the contents of the infamous Mueller report, almost a year after Barr promptly released the document that finalized the special counsel’s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016.

Remarkably, the Robert Mueller-led investigation is still being litigated by liberal journalists and sympathetic judges like Reggie B. Walton, who accused Barr on Thursday of making a “calculated attempt” to spin the report in President Donald Trump’s favor, The Hill reported. The Washington district court judge said Barr’s actions raise doubts about his “credibility” and ordered the AG to provide the court with an unredacted version of the report.

Judge attacks AG

Barr released a four-page memo summarizing the Mueller report shortly after the special counsel probe ended last year, clearing Trump of collusion and obstruction while noting that Mueller did not reach a conclusion himself on whether Trump had obstructed the investigation. Democrats immediately accused Barr of trying to spin the report in Trump’s favor, and they have never given up that claim.

It seems Dems planted the seeds of a media narrative that never died — and is apparently now corrupting the brains of otherwise intelligent judges — that Barr, despite promptly releasing the report, was somehow engaged in a “cover-up” of Mueller’s findings and that the AG himself is some nefarious henchman who will trample on the Constitution to protect Trump. Walton echoed those talking points Thursday, accusing Barr of a “lack of candor” that may have influenced the report’s release.

“The court seriously questions whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” Walton wrote, according to Fox News.

Walton is weighing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits brought by BuzzFeed and the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center, which are seeking the unredacted report. According to The Hill, the judge demanded that Barr provide the court with an unredacted version to determine if Barr’s redactions were justified.

Barr under fire

In his report, Mueller said that he did not establish any collusion scheme between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, although he identified some potentially obstructive acts. Mueller’s probe came finally crashing down last year when the special counsel, in testimony to Congress, appeared only faintly familiar with his own supposed findings.

While the rest of the country has long since moved on from the Russia collusion delusion, journalist-activists, judge-activists, and Democratic hacks in Congress are insistent on relitigating the hoax and, apparently, attacking the attorney general with warmed-over innuendo about his alleged schemes to turn the United States into a dictatorship.

The attorney general recently faced calls to step down, or even be impeached, after his department intervened to lighten Trump associate Roger Stone’s punishment for obstruction crimes. A group of over 3,000 lawyers accused Barr of working with Trump to destroy democracy with the move and called for him to resign, according to Reuters — all on account of his department’s opinion that Stone’s recommended sentence, up to nine years for witness tampering and lying to Congress, was excessive.

Mueller probe still reverberates

The Stone controversy was a distant reverberation of the original Mueller case, which many reasonable people had assumed would be over in March of 2019, when Mueller’s probe ended. But Stone’s case, which grew out of the probe, revived many of the anti-Barr talking points from the spring of 2019; Democrats have accused Barr of acting at Trump’s behest to help Stone, a friend and confidante of Trump’s.

The case also appeared to reveal that anti-Trump bias is not confined to one or two judges. Many conservatives accused the judge presiding over the Stone case, Amy Berman Jackson, of showing a political prejudice against Stone, who she rebuked for trying to “cover-up” for Trump, according to CNBC.

Among his achievements, Trump will be remembered for exposing just how much liberal bias there really is in Washington, D.C. and the judicial system.

Share on facebook
Share To Facebook