Thread by @HoarseWisperer

This is indeed correct. The language in the letter was very narrow and very, very specific.

For example, if Mueller found any of these:

1) Trump engaged in a quid pro quo where he provided sanctions relief in the hopes of advancing his hotel project (not to win the election)
1/

https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1110730968405606400

2) Trump or his allies conspired with intermediaries like Roger Stone and Wikileaks - but - Mueller could not conclusively establish that they knew those intermediaries were in turn collaborating with Russian actors

2/

3) Trump or his allies conspired with Russians but they were NON-STATE actors - Meaning, individuals who were arguably not agents of the Russian government itself (like private businessmen, bankers, etc.)

3/

If Mueller found any of those things, Barr's letter would still potentially be truthful.

The letter's language was deliberately specific to the point of being inscrutable. It contained "specific generalities". Phrases which sound broad and lead people to assume wide meaning.

4/

The close, careful read reveals that Barr's language was NOT broad though. It was very specific.

It left room for a wide range of inappropriate or potentially impeachable conduct that Mueller may very well have found and included.

We need to see the full report. Period.

5/5

p.s. the more lengths William Barr, Trump, McConnell, et al, go to in order to prevent the release of the report, the more certain you can be that William Barr's language was meant to mislead the public about a report that contained seriously damaging findings.