“Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.” – The Main Finding in the Mueller Report
“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment” – Mueller’s report conclusion on obstruction.
This is our in depth analysis of the lies in the Mueller report.
Paragraph 2: The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
OK, this is very early in the report and is the first mention of Russian hacking. Let’s review. The DNC REFUSED to allow the FBI to examine the server. The only evidence that the server had been hacked via the INTERNET is that the DNC says so. News articles attributed releases of data to Russians. That’s again a completely fabricated source with no proof. Finally Wikipedia releasing the stolen materials – Assange has formally stated that it did NOT come from Russians or anyone associated with Russia.
Mueller quotes this story again in his report – “Days after the June 9 meeting, on June 14, 2016, a cybersecurity firm and the DNC announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC and obtained access to opposition research on candidate Trump, among other documents. ”
That company was crowdstrike and no specific hard evidence is ever cited by them. Our government NEVER found evidence of this. And refusing to hand over the server to the FBI goes against all rules – the only reason they would have done that is if they had something to hide.
More likely? Seth Rich who was a server admin, copied the file onto a flash drive. William Binney makes the point that the timestamps on the files SHOW it could not have been done on the internet. The DNC counters that the files could have been copied again changing the creation date times. That is highly unlikely and that is speculation. Seth Rich was “robbed” and shot in the back four times, with several hundred dollars and credit cards left in his wallet one day after handing over the files to a Wikileaks representative.
A group of experts including Binny found:
VIPS concluded that the DNC data were not hacked by the Russians or anyone else accessing the server over the internet. Instead, the data were downloaded by means of a thumb drive or similar portable storage device physically attached to the DNC server.
How was this determined? The time stamps contained in the released computer files’ metadata establish that, at 6:45 p.m. July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes (not megabits) of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. This took 87 seconds, which means the transfer rate was 22.7 megabytes per second, a speed, according to VIPS, that “is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.” Such a speed could be accomplished only by direct connection of a portable storage device to the server. Accordingly, VIPS concluded that the DNC data theft was an inside job by someone with physical access to the server.
VIPS also found that, if there had been a hack, the NSA would have a record of it that could quickly be retrieved and produced. But no such evidence has been forthcoming. Can this be because no hack occurred?
Even more remarkable, the experts determined that the files released by Guccifer 2.0 have been “run, via ordinary cut and paste, through a template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints.” In other words, the files were deliberately altered to give the false impression that they were hacked by Russian agents.
The Papadopoulos Scam
Paragraph 3: In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks’s first release of stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.
More lies. Mifsud was a CIA asset as was the Honeypot female who accompanied him. They told HIM that Russia had Hillaries emails. So this was a setup from the CIA, and ILLEGAL SPYING, NOT Papadopoulos commiting wrongdoing. Papadopoulos LEFT the TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS in a briefcase on the bed in his hotel room and refused to accept it. FBI agents were waiting for him upon arrival hoping to catch him in the sting operation, but he didn’t have the cash.
Devon Nunez had this to say about Mithsud – “Mifsud, a London-based professor and former Maltese diplomat, has long been suspected of deep ties to Russian intelligence. … “They can’t even tell us who Joseph Mifsud is,” he told host Maria Bartiromo, adding, “We believe he has ties to the State Department.”
There is more backstory here. Papadopoulos was given a high paying job as part of his entrapment and sent to the meeting by his company. All of this was coordinated by the American FBI and CIA to fake a pretence to begin spying, even though they had been illegally spying even before this.
So rather than being what PROMPTED the FBI to begin the investigation, it is actually a FALSE PRETENCE implanted by the FBI.
Paragraph 4: That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations,” and, ” [t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.” After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were examining Russia’s interference in the election
This is the FBI and CIA now pushing the lies that they have ZERO evidence for. And without examining the actual DNC server there is zero information that the Russians were involved. MORE LIES.
Paragraph 6: First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign
This is the one point of truth. The IRA focused its activity on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Later, Tumblr and Instagram accounts were created. In the beginning, Russian trolls were manning only fake individual accounts. By 2015, however, they began creating larger groups and pages. Finally, they attempted to flex their network effect to hold real-life rallies. They had twitter and Instagram accounts.
According to Mueller’s report, the Facebook groups were particularly popular. By the time Facebook deactivated them in 2017, the Russia-controlled group “United Muslims of America” had over 300,000 followers, the “Don’t Shoot Us” group had over 250,000 followers, the “Being Patriotic” Facebook group had over 200,000 followers, and the “Secured Borders” Facebook group had over 130,000 followers.
While it was claimed that these were one sided anti-Hillary groups, really they were out to foment disarray and agitation between groups. Specifically the “Don’t Shoot Us” group was pro black power which is a pro Hillary side. But regardless, this one group did seek to foment disruption in America. But was it Russian Collusion? No.
But the final sentence – That there were numerous LINKS between the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign – IS A LIE. ANOTHER LIE! Trumps campaign had Senators, and other high ranking officials who would normally meet with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak when he was in town.
Mueller’s entire statement on the Hack of DNC emails is pure conjecture and his following statements about Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks are utterly baseless:
In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign
volunteers and employees, including campaign chairman John Podesta. In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government’s role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks.
This is quite troubling. There is no chain of evidence to support this. It is what the Democrats WANT to say happened. It is not WHAT happened.
Moreover, where is the discussion of Chinese and Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton’s bathroom open email server. Completely absent. This is outrageous. This is more than just an oversight, skipping the PRIMARY WELL DOCUMENTED FACT OF FOREIGN INTRUSION, and instead focusing on unsubstantiated democratic pipe dreams.
Mueller announces no collusion and the difficulty of the terms which are not criminal terms. But he never takes on the issue that the entire order to start a special consul REQUIRES THE STATEMENT OF A CRIME. So here is is in effect declaring that the entire project is a lie.
… collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ ed]”-a term that appears
in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The TRUMP-RUSSIAN timeline is full of lies:
2015. Some of the earliest contacts were made in connection with a Trump Organization real-estate project in Russia known as Trump Tower Moscow. Candidate Trump signed a Letter of lntent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015, and in January 2016 Trump Organization executive Michael Cohen emailed and spoke about the project with the office of Russian government press secretary Dmitry Peskov. The Trump Organization pursued the project through at least June 2016, including by considering travel to Russia by Cohen and candidate Trump.
That date – June 16 – is a Michael Cohen lie. Trump argues it ended long before that, and before trump announced his candidacy on June 15, 2016. But it’s important to twist that date to imply work with Russia continued with Candidate Trump. IT DID NOT.
Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands 5 U.S. Department of Justice l\.ttortte~· Work Pt’od1:1et // Mtty Cotttttitt Mttterittl Proteeted Uttder Fed. R. Criffl. P. 6(e) of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.
The entire Papadopoulos narrative is a lie. It was all a setup with CIA and FBI and Foreign Intelligence agencies to plant a SEED of Russian collusion. Papadopoulos KNEW it was a setup and has stated so on several interviews. He left the 10,000 cash payout in his hotel room before returning to the USA where he was arrested. This was meant to be the critical supporting evidence to launch the Mueller investigation and it worked. But now we know it was a lie and a scam, and very illegal.
Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as “official documents and information …
It’s rather shocking that they quote the Don Jr. Meeting with the Russian Spy. This is now known to be another SETUP!
The second line of evidence reframing the Trump Tower meeting — after the Ohr-Steele-Simpson correspondence – was first reported in June by RealClearInvestigations. It shows that, starting in March 2016, FBI confidential sources and other figures associated with Western intelligence services and the Clinton campaign approached the Trump team promising damaging information on Clinton.
At the center of it all was Fusion GPS, which had two clients whose interests were served by the Trump Tower meeting: the Russians and the Clinton campaign.
Even though no evidence has emerged from the meeting of any dark conspiracy, appearances were evidently enough. In sworn Senate testimony last year, Simpson claimed the meeting corroborated one of the key claims made in the reports filed by Fusion GPS contractor Steele: “Trump and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.”
Nonetheless, Simpson also testified that he had no knowledge of the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and others until it was reported a year later. There is reason to doubt that account.
In fact, the Russian lawyer at the center of the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was his client.
She has publicly stated that she used talking points developed by Simpson for the Russian government in that discussion. Kremlin officials also posted the allegations on the Prosecutor General’s website, and shared them with visiting U.S. congressional delegations.
In addition, Simpson has testified that he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the night before the meeting and the night after.
Fall 2016. On October 7, 2016, the media released video of candidate Trump speaking in graphic terms about women years earlier, which was considered damaging to his candidacy. Less than an hour later, WikiLeaks made its second release: thousands of John Podesta’s emails that had been stolen by the GRU in late March 2016.
Here again, Mueller is attempting to INFER correlation between these two events, as if Assange was acting to help Trump. Again, Mueller states without ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the emails were stolen by the GRU. Another fraud by Mueller.
On January 6, 2017, members of the intelligence community briefed President-Elect Trump on a joint assessment-drafted and coordinated among the Central Intelligence Atterttey ‘Nerk Prndttet // Mtty Cetttttitt Moterisl Preteeted Uttder Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
National Security Agency-that concluded with high confidence that Russia had intervened in the election through a variety of means to assist Trump’s candidacy and harm Clinton’s. A declassified version of the assessment was publicly released that same day.
This is another point of collusion, except that it’s our FBI and CIA working to hammer a false narrative. They concluded with “high confidence” yet ZERO EVIDENCE. Another ghost created by ghosts. Treason.
Beginning on September 20, 2016, WikiLeaks and DCLeaks resumed communications in
a brief exchange. On September 22, 2016, a DCLeaks email account email@example.com sent an email to a WikiLeaks account with the subject “Submission” and the message “Hi from DCLeaks.” The email contained a PGP-encr ted with the filename “wiki_mail.txt.gpg.” 174 lllliliiliiiiil. lliiljiillllllilili The email, however, bears a number of similarities to the July 14, 2016 email in which GRU officers used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to give WikiLeaks access to the archive of DNC files. On September 22, 2016 (the same day of DCLeaks’ email to WikiLeaks), the Twitter account dcleaks sent a sin le messa e to WikiLeaks with the strin of characters. The Office cannot rule out that . stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016. For example, public reporting identified Investigative Technique170 See SM-2589105-DCLEAKS, serial 28; 9/15/16 Twitter DM, @G uccifer_2 & @WikiLeaks.171 See SM-2284941, serials 63 & 64 Investigative Technique
At the time, certain Apple operating systems used a setting that left a
downloaded file’s creation date the same as the creation date shown on the host computer. This would explain why the creation date on WikiLeaks’s version of the files was still September 19, 2016. See SM2284941, serial 62
So while they quote an email, they do not tell us the SIZE of the attachment NOR do they tell us it’s content. Furthermore, even IF guccifer had sent Assange stolent emails, that does not shut down the Seth Rich possibility. In short Mueller just doesn’t know and the FBI doesn’t know either.