When Barr referred to the fact that he didn’t have answers to his questions he probably referred to misconduct of Mueller and Rosenstein. Rosenstein didn’t have justification and mandate to expand the probe of the OSC to begin with. The extended mandate let to the Obstruction fishing expedition and to the extension of the probe which influenced the 2018 midterms results. He should have asked for the extension in congress which he didn’t. Rosenstein recommendation of Sessions to recuse was unfunded and put him in a position where he could carry out Comey and McCabe political agenda.

” I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that, that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/03/top-28-moments-from-bombshell-barr-interview/

Mueller was asked if “Was the purpose of the investigation to find a crime vs. investigate a crime?”

The unanswered questions indicate that the purpose of the probe was to smear the president and fabricate a crime for political reasons and cover up instead of pursuing justice.

New biased letter of alleged former justice Prosecutors asking to push the obstruction of justice narrative is starting to show signs of unauthorized electronic signatures.

The Narrative is currently pushed by CNN and other mainstream media outlets, even though the public can’t see the authenticity of the signatures and the letter. CNN and Medium omit the possibility that thousands of other layers wouldn’t agree with their narrative. The source already admitted that at least one of the alleged lawyers didn’t sign the letter and probably someone else signed electronically on his behalf which might be the case with other signatures. The bias of the source is reflected also with the fact that there is no possibility of collecting a signature from people of oppose the letter. In the interview CNN reporter omits the fact that there is no possibility of confirming the electronic signatures and that in the form there is no possibility to sign against the letter which makes is an opposition research narrative.

Signatories have been vetted to the best of our ability.Correction: An earlier version of this page erroneously listed Mark Klaassen as a signatory. Mr. Klaassen never signed this letter and was temporarily listed in error.

ink.medium.com/kePjcOTKQW

https://airtable.com/shrZ3dJWgziXNqScg/tblOfGdhUbL5p1uGu?blocks=hide

Medium drafted the letter in a way that would allow CNN and mainstream media to continue and disseminate the narrative that Mueller found evidence that would suffice to indict on obstruction and supposedly the OLC guidance was preventing him, which is not the case as the last special counsel letter asserted.

The people who signed electronically that letter might be either not the real people, or are politically biased or are disclosing their unprofessional conduct because they know that if Mueller had enough obstruction evidence (like Kenn Starr did), congress would have been able to follow up on it even with the OLC guidance and that some inner circle people would be indicted on collusion or obstruction.