Barr Testifies: Mueller Complained About Media Coverage
May 1, 2019
RUSH: (impression) Poor Robert Mueller. Poor Robert Mueller. He writes a letter to William Barr complaining that Barr’s summary letter did not capture the “context” of the probe.” There is no context! You didn’t find any collusion, and you punted on finding obstruction, and there’s nothing that’s changed, and the summary just said that. Upset it didn’t capture the context? The hell it didn’t! You had 488 pages. Barr writes a four-page summary. The media’s taken care of your context for you, Mueller. For crying out loud! You have the audacity to complain about media coverage?
Robert S. Mueller III complaining about media coverage? For crying out loud, this guy’s been portrayed as Mr. Honor, Mr. Integrity, Mr. Honesty, the most honorable/the most honest man in Washington — except when he couldn’t find any collusion, and now he’s a schlub. So he’s gotta protect his well-cultivated, 75-year image with the Washington D.C. media. I tell you, folks, this is just disgusting. All of this is. But you know what? If the Democrats want to not let go of this, and if the media wants to maintain their complicity in this all the way through 2020, you go ahead and let ’em.
RUSH: I now want to move on to the audio sound bites. We’re gonna start here with Lindsey Graham — Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here’s a portion of his opening remarks.
GRAHAM: August 26, 2016: “Just went to the southern Virginia Walmart. I could smell the Trump support.” October the 19th, 2016: “Trump is a f[bleep]ing idiot. He’s unable to provide a coherent answer.” Sorry to the kids out there. These are the people that made a decision that Clinton didn’t do anything wrong and that a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign was warranted. We’re gonna — in a bipartisan way, I hope — deal with Russia. But when the Mueller report is put to bed — and it soon will be — this committee is gonna look long and hard at how this all started.
RUSH: He was reading from the texts between Strzok and Page. August 26, 2016: “Just went to the southern Virginia Walmart. I could smell the Trump support.” October the 19th, 2016: “Trump is a f—ing idiot,” and he read the word! And apologized to the kids for it. Let me show you what… This is all they’ve got. I mean, this is just… This continues to boggle my mind. This is Dianne Feinstein, who was feebly asking questions here today. But before she got to the questions — you know, she’s the ranking member, the lead Democrat on the committee. Here’s a portion of her opening remarks…
FEINSTEIN: The Mueller report documents the Trump campaign’s communications regarding Secretary Clinton’s and the DNC’s stolen emails. Specifically, the report states — and I quote — “Within approximately five hours of President Trump calling on Russia to find Secretary Clinton’s emails, Russian intelligence agency GRU officers, quote, “targeted, for the first time, Clinton’s personal office,” end quote.
RUSH: Aw, come on.
FEINSTEIN: The Mueller report also reveals that President Trump repeatedly asked individuals affiliated with his campaign, including Michael Flynn, quote, “to find the deleted Clinton emails.”
RUSH: He’s out there telling a joke. “Hey, Russia, maybe you can find the Clinton emails.” Mueller actually says that within five hours, the Russian GRU (that’s the new version of the KGB, the GRU) went out there and — within five hours of receiving instructions from Trump — they followed through and attempted for the first time, for the first time targeted Clinton’s personal office. What an abject crock! It is all a crock. It is a joke, and they are trying to make something out of it, and the fact that Barr is actually using this…
Why not…? Let me tell you, why not find collusion, if they’re gonna report this? Let me ask a serious question: Why not report that there was collusion? All it would have taken for Mueller to do was say, “Right here, Trump was unwittingly colluding with the Russians. When he asked them to find Hillary’s emails, they — in five hours — began to try to find Hillary’s emails.” Why not conclude that there was collusion? That remains, by the way, a big question. But I’m throwing it out here. Why not conclude that?
I mean, if you’re gonna write this, if you’re gonna make the claim that the Russian intelligence agencies were busy twiddling their thumbs until Trump gives them the order to find Hillary’s missing 30,000 emails, and for the first time the Russians tried to hack her personal account…? There wasn’t any collusion. They had so many opportunities to claim there was. Now, the reason is because if they had called this collusion, there would have been an investigation into this, and they would have been embarrassed with egg on their faces.
It would have been obvious that they can’t take a joke, they have no sense of humor, or worse. Here’s Barr. I mentioned earlier, it’s really refreshing to hear somebody that’s confident, and assured, and not at all excitable, just plain factual, answering questions. This is a portion of his opening remarks dealing with this little attempt by Mueller’s office and the Washington Post with this story last night claiming that Mueller wrote Barr a letter saying that Barr misrepresented his conclusions. So they want everybody to think that Barr is lying about Mueller’s conclusions in his report.
Here’s how Barr dealt with that today…
BARR: I received a letter from Bob, the letter that’s just been put into the record, and I called Bob and said, “You know, what’s the issue here? Are you sugg…?” And I asked him if he was suggesting that the March 24th letter was inaccurate. And he said, no, but that the press reporting had been inaccurate and that the press was reading too much into it. And I asked him, you know, specifically what his concern was. And he said that his concern focused on his explanation of why he did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. And he wanted more put out on that issue. He argued for putting out summaries of each volume, the executive summaries that had to be written by his office. And if not that, then other material that focused on the issue of why he didn’t reach the obstruction question. But he was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report.
RUSH: That’s all there is. The Washington Post, thus, exposed — although they’re not, because it’s the technique the media is using. You issue a fake news story with a fake headline designed to create the impression, in this case, that William Barr lied, that William Barr misreported, that Mueller did find collusion and that Barr didn’t report it and that Mueller is now mad. That’s what their story said. But then if you get to the 13th paragraph, you find where the Washington Post makes clear that that’s not what they’re saying, that Mueller was not challenging Barr’s summary, was not challenging the accuracy but rather was upset with the media narrative.
But the first 12 paragraphs are designed to make the reader (and small-minded, single-minded members of the Drive-By Media) think that Mueller is accusing Barr of covering up what’s in Mueller’s report. That there was collusion, that Mueller found it, and that Barr doesn’t want to report it because Barr is Trump’s “handpicked attorney general;” therefore, is conflicted. But right there it is in paragraph 13 of the Washington Post’s own story. They essentially say, “The first 12 paragraphs of this story are a lie.
“The first 12 paragraphs are designed to give you a total misunderstanding of what actually happened, and we don’t think you’re gonna get to paragraph 13 and it’s why we’re putting it here. But if we’re called on it, we can say, ‘No, our story makes clear that Mueller was not challenging Barr’s summary.'” So the first 12 paragraphs are devoted to making the reader think that’s exactly what happened, and this has become a new journalistic technique. The New York Times perfected it in these past 2-1/2 years, the Washington Post does it, and now each paper is a wingman to the other.
The Times now has an accompanying story basically backing up what the Washington Post says in its first 12 paragraphs. So they’re doing their best today to make you think that there was collusion, that Mueller found it, and that Barr lied about it. But there was no collusion. Barr reminded everybody today — once again, under oath — at the Judiciary Committee. He said (summarized), “Nothing’s changed. There’s no collusion, there’s no obstruction, there’s not a single thing of substance that has changed. And in fact, Bobby Mueller is simply mad that the media did not get the narrative that he wanted, and he wanted me to fix it. He came to me like a 4-year-old and said, ‘Daddy, fix it for me, please,’ is essentially what happened here.”
What a bunch of phonies!
RUSH: And it’s hard to disagree with that. Even though you can and even though you should take my word for it, you don’t have to. We’re we go to ABC News special coverage, William Barr testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After an exchange between Pat “Leaky” Leahy and Barr, the anchor David Muir cut in and talked to the chief legal analyst, Dan Abrams, and they decided to bump out of coverage. It was a dud. Barr had not lied, and so there’s no reason to continue wasting time covering this. This is how that sounded.
MUIR: A very nuanced answer. And Dan Abrams, it sounded to me as thought he was splitting hairs there saying, “I didn’t talk to members of his team, so I didn’t know why they were upset.”
MUIR: “I talked to Bob Mueller himself.”
ABRAMS: Look, it’s a very lawyerly answer. And this is why, you know I don’t think they’re going to be able to truly, kind of prove that Barr, quote unquote, “lied.” Right? Because I think that there’ll be an explanation for every one of Barr’s comments about the Mueller investigation.
RUSH: Okay. See, he’s admitting they’re trying to prove that Barr lied and they can’t. We gotta bump out of coverage, we’re never gonna be able to prove Barr lied. Why? Well, maybe because he didn’t. Maybe because the Mueller report says there was no collusion, and maybe because the Mueller report didn’t have the guts to say whether or not they thought anything that happened was obstruction. And so the report doesn’t find collusion, didn’t find obstruction, and Barr said that.
So now they’re hoping that they can find evidence today that Barr lied and ABC’s concluded, “Well, we’re not gonna be able to prove Barr lied, damn it, so we’re ending coverage.” And also over on CNN Anderson Cooper last night, this is David Gregory talking about what was upcoming last night.
GREGORY: Can I just offer one contrary view, though. I think that there is a fair argument to be made that this is a special counsel who works for the attorney general. The special counsel did a report and concluded that he couldn’t conclude. Well, guess what? The boss gets to decide and concludes that there was no obstruction of justice. Time to move on. And he’s still releasing the report to Congress, Congress is still gonna take a look, could decide to initiate impeachment proceedings. I think there is an argument in defense of Barr that says he was doing what he was supposed to do.
RUSH: It helps here that Gregory’s wife is a very accomplished lawyer and probably read him the truth of this last night. “Hey, Dave, jsut so you don’t embarrass yourself, good old hubby of mine, Barr runs that show, not Mueller, and whatever Barr says goes.”
Here’s another thing. Members of Congress were demanding the unredacted report, demanding it, because they knew somewhere in there, there had to be evidence of collusion. So Barr prepared an unredacted version, and it’s in a room where anybody in the Senate can go look at it. They can’t take it out, but they can go look at it. You know how many people have? Two.
Two members of Congress have gone to look at the unredacted report, and both are Republican. Not a single Democrat has gone in to look at the unredacted version, meaning they’re lying through their teeth. They know that the report doesn’t have any collusion. They’re just saying this stuff for public consumption so they can continue to try to poison the minds of the American people who only watch Drive-By Media for their news.
The whole unredacted version is there for anybody in Congress that wants to see it, and only two people have. I think 12 people have scheduled appointments, but only two people have gone up to actually look at it. And none of them are Democrats.
Quickly to Decatur, Illinois, the original home, by the way, of the Chicago Bears. Decatur, Illinois. They were the Decatur Staleys when George Halas put them all together. This is Greg. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. It’s great to finally get through to you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Since you were talking about the Mueller investigation, I have one observation to make, and this comes from someone who has acted as a special prosecutor on occasion. The nature and function of a special prosecutor is to gather evidence and decide whether or not that evidence is sufficient to sustain a charge.
Because Mr. Mueller found no evidence of collusion, he did reach a determination of that. His failure to reach a determination to bring a charge on obstruction is itself, when you consider the function and purpose of a special prosecutor, a conclusion that the evidence was insufficient, whether he stated so or not.
RUSH: Well, you know what? That’s actually a good point. His point is that Mueller punted the decision on obstruction. By the way, Professor Dershowitz ripped Mueller a new one for cowardice shortly after this happened. I’m sure Mueller didn’t like that either.
(imitating Mueller) “Hey, Mr. Attorney General, you make Dershowitz quit criticizing me, it isn’t fair, it’s not fair.” Crybabies, crybabies in the special counsel office. Anyway, the point is, hey, he punts on finding obstruction. That’s a conclusion in and of itself and it’s hard to disagree with that.
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, here’s the bottom line. There were no crimes that were found by Robert Mueller except for the crimes that were created by his investigation. There were no crimes. If there had been no investigation, there would have been zero crimes. The only crimes that happened were those that this investigation created.