AG Barr says that Mueller “ignored” aspects of Steele dossier that damaged its credibility

Share:

In a recent interview that aired on May 8th, Attorney General Bill Barr stated that special counsel Robert Mueller had ignored evidence that showcased potential mistruths with regard to the Russia/Steele dossier investigation.

By now, most are well-aware of the controversy that surrounded the 2016 election in terms of alleged Russian collusion between the country’s government and President Donald Trump’s campaign.

The Steele dossier was touted as the smoking gun that led to the likes of the FBI wiretapping Trump campaign aide Carter Page during the fiasco.

Back in May of 2017, Robert Mueller was put at the forefront to head the investigation as to whether Trump conspired with Russia in an effort to sway the 2016 election.

Yet, multiple facets of the infamous dossier have been proven either false or flimsy over the past year. Furthermore, the Mueller report unveiled in April of 2019 that there was no evidence of the alleged conspiring between Russia’s government and the Trump campaign.

In turn, the revelation of the investigation’s findings dispelled the clamoring that transpired the years prior by a myriad of the presidents most staunch critics.

AG Barr commented on his concerns over the possibility that the Kremlin was intentionally feeding the former British spy, Christopher Steele, disinformation while he was looking into the Trump campaign:

“I think that’s one of the most troubling aspects of this whole thing.”

During the course of the Russian collusion investigation, the FBI had apparently gotten their hands on information as early as 2017 that suggested Steele was being fed false information by Russian operatives.

From AG Barr’s perspective, he feels as though Mueller didn’t apply enough due diligence while looking into the Steele dossier as a credible source of information.

While the dossier was initially thought to be proof-positive that Trump was being influenced by Russia, more evidence was mounting that it was a disinformation plot to smear the sitting president:

“I think that is something that Robert Mueller was responsible for looking at under his charter, which is the potential of Russian influence…but I think it was ignored and there was mounting indications that this could very well have been happening and no one really stopped to look at it.”

LET has a private home for those who support emergency responders and veterans called LET Unity.  We reinvest the proceeds into sharing their untold stories. Click to check it out.

Murdered officer's grave desecrated before headstone even placed

Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson released a statement after further footnotes were revealed from the Mueller report.

The duo noted the mockery that the Russia probe made of those who felt as though the Steele dossier was the undeniable gospel:

“It’s ironic that the Russian collusion narrative was fatally flawed because of Russian disinformation. These footnotes confirm that there was a direct Russian disinformation campaign in 2016, and there were ties between Russian intelligence and a presidential campaign – the Clinton campaign, not Trump’s.”

What’s odd in all this evidence showing that the Russia probe was a fool’s errand is that Democrats are still clutching to the notion that there was collusion between President Trump and Russia.

Adam Schiff took to Twitter on May 8th to claim that the Trump/Russia conspiracy is “all too true”:

“Trump said it was a hoax that Russia helped get him elected. It was all too true.”

Even Newsweek columnist Seth Abramson clings to the idea that the Russia probe is still an ever-evolving case, and that nothing has been disproven:

“Not a *scintilla* of the Trump-Russia investigation has “fallen apart.” Not a shred. Not an iota. Not a scrap. Not a speck. Not a jot.”

This is despite more and more instances that are cropping up that damage the narrative against Trump that was so heavily circulated.

For instance, there was the revelation of a former Obama official that admittedly lied on national television with regard to having “evidence” against President Trump that showcased his collusion with Russia during the election.

Former Obama administration defense official Evelyn Farkas had admitted under oath that despite her claims during a March 2017 interview on MSNBC that there was evidence against Trump that pointed to Russian collusion, she in fact did not have nor know of any said evidence.

Sworn testimony that was delivered by Farkas during the House Permanent Select Committee on June 26th, 2017, showed then-chairman of the committee Trey Gowdy ask the following of Farkas:

“Did you have information connecting the Trump campaign to the hack of the DNC?”

Farkas responded: “No.”

Gowdy then later clarified, and referenced her own words from the 2017 MSNBC interview, with this follow up:

“So, when you say, ‘We knew,’ the reality is you knew nothing?”

To which Farkas responded with: “Correct.”

Why the Russia probe is still a concept being tightly held by Democrats at this point is rather confusing.

_

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Related Posts