Barr and Mueller are using a flawed and rejected definition of coordination
The footnote in Barr's Mueller report letter we need to pay attention to
Yet, hiding in plain sight is a footnote in which Barr explains that he and Mueller are using a definition of coordination that requires proof of an agreement, which is contrary to the law and Federal Election Commission regulations and, more importantly, has been rejected by the Supreme Court. It is also a definition with which Americans should not feel comfortable.
....
While the FEC coordination regulations are overly complicated and there is a debate about their application to activity on the internet, the FEC, Congress and the Supreme Court have made it clear that it is naïve and unnecessary to define coordination as requiring an agreement. Nevertheless, this is apparently what Mueller and Barr have done.
....
Given the footnote 1 flag Barr raised in his letter, we should look carefully at what Mueller's report says about what went on outside of a provable agreement. Regardless of what Mueller may think, discussions and activities involving a "wink or nod" come with the same potential for foreign influence as the Russians just giving the campaign money does.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/opinions/mueller-report-legal-definition-coordination-noble/index.html
I thought Mueller was supposed to be straight as an arrow. Or did Barr direct him to craft his report in this fashion?
= new reply since forum marked as read
