Mueller statement

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
29,394
Reaction score
2,927
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Shocking....:coffee:

BREAKING, Mueller Edited Report, Left Out Key Information To Frame Trump

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opi...dited-report-left-key-information-frame-trump

Over time, we will discover that this is not an outlier example.

Over time, we will find that the Mueller report and the FISA applications have a lot in common involving this sort of stuff.

Just for kicks;
D77Rom9U8AAegjR.jpg

435ab052da53fc2f3333239357d1e131.jpg

Deception-is-a-lie.jpg


Now everyone understands why Mueller does not want to testify, and why the Democrats aren't pushing him too hard to testify, yes?

Now everyone understands why he said that his report is his testimony.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
29,394
Reaction score
2,927
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
5 Discrepancies Call the Accuracy of Mueller’s Report Into Question

he Mueller report appears to have been carefully worded by the lawyers working under former special counsel Robert Mueller, and perhaps Mueller himself, in a manner designed to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump.

Additionally, we now know that sections of the report were also selectively edited to provide damaging portrayals. Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report, and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

Lastly, there are troubling and disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader.

What makes these examples particularly notable is that access to the underlying material used in the Mueller report is extremely limited. In each of the instances where information is publicly available—documents released in the ongoing Flynn case, a rebuttal letter from lawyers for the individual mentioned in the Mueller report, and details surrounding the Papadopoulos case—they highlight inconsistencies, thereby raising concerns that Mueller’s report may be hiding many more such problems.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) highlighted the Dowd transcript in a May 31 tweet, saying, “This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It’s all a fraud…”

Selective Editing in President’s Lawyer’s Voicemail

Contained within the executive summary to Volume II of the report, which pertains to Mueller’s obstruction investigation, is a section dedicated to an interaction between Dowd and attorneys for Flynn.

As previously reported, “the Nov. 22, 2017, voicemail from Trump’s lawyer to Flynn’s lawyer was prompted by Flynn’s withdrawal from a joint defense agreement with Trump, in order to enter a plea agreement with the special counsel. The Mueller report states that Flynn’s attorneys returned the call the next day.”

Flynn’s attorneys reportedly told the special counsel that “the President’s personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement” and also stated that Dowd told them that he interpreted what they said to him as “a reflection of Flynn’s hostility toward the president,” Flynn’s attorneys also reportedly said they “understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the President’s personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the President.”

Notably, Dowd was never interviewed by the special counsel, who cited attorney-client privilege issues as the reason in a footnote within the report. Dowd’s voicemail was edited in the presentation within the Mueller report to appear as follows:

“I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms. … t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with … the government. … f … there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, … so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can …. [R]emember what we’ ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains …”

This somewhat menacing version leaves out important details and distorts the actual context of Dowd’s voicemail. Dowd’s full message was actually far more friendly and touched on two distinctly separate matters. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Dowd specifically cautioned Flynn’s attorney that he wasn’t requesting any confidential information:

“Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I’m-I’m sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t … state it in … starker terms. If you have … and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh … I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that. .. implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know … some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So … uh … you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of … protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information. So, uhm, and if it’s the former, then, you know, remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.”

The Dowd discrepancies were first discovered by a researcher on the internet who goes under the Twitter name Rosie Memos.

Dowd himself also responded to a fellow attorney on Twitter with a short statement on the discrepancy in the report, noting “It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel – with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed.”

Dowd also issued a more formal statement, in which he noted that he had “provided to Flynn’s counsel, advice and encouragement to provide to the SC as part of his effort to cooperate with SC. SC never raised or questioned the President’s counsel about these allegations despite numerous opportunities to do so.”

In a recent interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Dowd noted, “Isn’t it ironic that this man who kept indicting and prosecuting people for process crimes committed a false statement in his own report. By taking out half my words, they changed the tenor and the contents of that conversation with [Flynn lawyer] Robert Kelner.”

The Rtskhiladze Texts

Another example of selected editing exists in a short sequence detailing communications between former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who was born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and has been a US citizen since 2017.

The Mueller report, which incorrectly refers to Rtskhiladze as a “Russian businessman,” contains excerpts of some texts between the two men:

“On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know …. “

Rtskhiladze said ” tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump, rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia.

Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze.

Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.”

In a strongly worded 10-page letter to Attorney General William Barr that includes attachments with photos of the actual texts, a lawyer for Rtskhiladze walked through each allegation and provided more lengthy rebuttals. The attorney noted that Rtskhiladze indicated to Cohen “that there was nothing to the rumors of the tapes, and that he did not believe there were any tapes, nor had he seen what was on the tapes, even if they existed.”

The Mueller report also removed the word “some” from the text transcript. The original text exchange read “some tapes,” indicating Rtskhiladze did not know actual details about the tapes. Follow-on dialogue that provided context was also removed by the special counsel, but was highlighted by Rtskhiladze’s lawyer in the letter to Barr:

Rtskhiladze: Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so u know.

Cohen: Tapes of what?

Rtskhiladze: Not sure of content but person in Moscow bragging [that he] had tapes from Russia trip. Will try to dial you tomorrow but wanted to be aware. I’m sure it’s not a big deal but there are lots of stupid people.

Cohen: You have no idea.

Rtskhiladze: I do trust me.

It seems clear from the actual texts that Rtskhiladze didn’t know what was on the tapes nor did he know exactly who said they had them. Rtskhiladze’s lawyer specifically noted that Rtskhiladze “does not know and cannot identify who allegedly made the statements about the tapes.”

Rtskhiladze’s lawyer noted that this information was specifically conveyed to the special counsel lawyers, and that both the FBI and the attorneys who authored the report are in possession of all the text messages between Rtskhiladze and Cohen. He closed his letter with a demand for a “full and immediate retraction of these gross misstatements.”

much, much more...about Papa and other stuff, here...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/5-dis...of-muellers-report-into-question_2951924.html
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
35,143
Reaction score
6,292
Points
113
Age
73
5 Discrepancies Call the Accuracy of Mueller’s Report Into Question

he Mueller report appears to have been carefully worded by the lawyers working under former special counsel Robert Mueller, and perhaps Mueller himself, in a manner designed to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump.

Additionally, we now know that sections of the report were also selectively edited to provide damaging portrayals. Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report, and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

Lastly, there are troubling and disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader.

What makes these examples particularly notable is that access to the underlying material used in the Mueller report is extremely limited. In each of the instances where information is publicly available—documents released in the ongoing Flynn case, a rebuttal letter from lawyers for the individual mentioned in the Mueller report, and details surrounding the Papadopoulos case—they highlight inconsistencies, thereby raising concerns that Mueller’s report may be hiding many more such problems.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) highlighted the Dowd transcript in a May 31 tweet, saying, “This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It’s all a fraud…”

Selective Editing in President’s Lawyer’s Voicemail

Contained within the executive summary to Volume II of the report, which pertains to Mueller’s obstruction investigation, is a section dedicated to an interaction between Dowd and attorneys for Flynn.

As previously reported, “the Nov. 22, 2017, voicemail from Trump’s lawyer to Flynn’s lawyer was prompted by Flynn’s withdrawal from a joint defense agreement with Trump, in order to enter a plea agreement with the special counsel. The Mueller report states that Flynn’s attorneys returned the call the next day.”

Flynn’s attorneys reportedly told the special counsel that “the President’s personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement” and also stated that Dowd told them that he interpreted what they said to him as “a reflection of Flynn’s hostility toward the president,” Flynn’s attorneys also reportedly said they “understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the President’s personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the President.”

Notably, Dowd was never interviewed by the special counsel, who cited attorney-client privilege issues as the reason in a footnote within the report. Dowd’s voicemail was edited in the presentation within the Mueller report to appear as follows:

“I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms. … t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with … the government. … f … there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, … so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can …. [R]emember what we’ ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains …”

This somewhat menacing version leaves out important details and distorts the actual context of Dowd’s voicemail. Dowd’s full message was actually far more friendly and touched on two distinctly separate matters. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Dowd specifically cautioned Flynn’s attorney that he wasn’t requesting any confidential information:

“Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I’m-I’m sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t … state it in … starker terms. If you have … and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh … I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that. .. implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know … some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So … uh … you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of … protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information. So, uhm, and if it’s the former, then, you know, remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.”

The Dowd discrepancies were first discovered by a researcher on the internet who goes under the Twitter name Rosie Memos.

Dowd himself also responded to a fellow attorney on Twitter with a short statement on the discrepancy in the report, noting “It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel – with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed.”

Dowd also issued a more formal statement, in which he noted that he had “provided to Flynn’s counsel, advice and encouragement to provide to the SC as part of his effort to cooperate with SC. SC never raised or questioned the President’s counsel about these allegations despite numerous opportunities to do so.”

In a recent interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Dowd noted, “Isn’t it ironic that this man who kept indicting and prosecuting people for process crimes committed a false statement in his own report. By taking out half my words, they changed the tenor and the contents of that conversation with [Flynn lawyer] Robert Kelner.”

The Rtskhiladze Texts

Another example of selected editing exists in a short sequence detailing communications between former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who was born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and has been a US citizen since 2017.

The Mueller report, which incorrectly refers to Rtskhiladze as a “Russian businessman,” contains excerpts of some texts between the two men:

“On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know …. “

Rtskhiladze said ” tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump, rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia.

Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze.

Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.”

In a strongly worded 10-page letter to Attorney General William Barr that includes attachments with photos of the actual texts, a lawyer for Rtskhiladze walked through each allegation and provided more lengthy rebuttals. The attorney noted that Rtskhiladze indicated to Cohen “that there was nothing to the rumors of the tapes, and that he did not believe there were any tapes, nor had he seen what was on the tapes, even if they existed.”

The Mueller report also removed the word “some” from the text transcript. The original text exchange read “some tapes,” indicating Rtskhiladze did not know actual details about the tapes. Follow-on dialogue that provided context was also removed by the special counsel, but was highlighted by Rtskhiladze’s lawyer in the letter to Barr:

Rtskhiladze: Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so u know.

Cohen: Tapes of what?

Rtskhiladze: Not sure of content but person in Moscow bragging [that he] had tapes from Russia trip. Will try to dial you tomorrow but wanted to be aware. I’m sure it’s not a big deal but there are lots of stupid people.

Cohen: You have no idea.

Rtskhiladze: I do trust me.

It seems clear from the actual texts that Rtskhiladze didn’t know what was on the tapes nor did he know exactly who said they had them. Rtskhiladze’s lawyer specifically noted that Rtskhiladze “does not know and cannot identify who allegedly made the statements about the tapes.”

Rtskhiladze’s lawyer noted that this information was specifically conveyed to the special counsel lawyers, and that both the FBI and the attorneys who authored the report are in possession of all the text messages between Rtskhiladze and Cohen. He closed his letter with a demand for a “full and immediate retraction of these gross misstatements.”

much, much more...about Papa and other stuff, here...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/5-dis...of-muellers-report-into-question_2951924.html


So much in/uncredible shenanigans and in the end it all will go out in the Friday night trash. :facepalm:
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
29,394
Reaction score
2,927
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

Why Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

continued...

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...eport-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department


Pretty much what I said back over a year ago when the lefties were all in a tizzy over the "breaking news proof of Russia collusion" at the time.

http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=73274&page=158

Funny...first the altered Flynn transcripts, now the omission of the fact that Kilminik is actually a US spy for the State Department not a Russian spy, after the "revelation" that Joseph Mifsud is actually a spy for the US, British, and Italian intelligence services, rather than the Russians...

I dunno....it's beginning to look like there aren't, in fact, any Russians whatsoever in the entire Russiagate conspiracy, outside of Sergey Kizlyak, the actual ambassador...ROFL ROFL

Subpeona Mueller to testify! Let's do it!

Maybe wait until more of his bullshit report falls apart.

3 years later, and I am still waiting on that proof. Whodathunkit? I'm still waiting on that video proof that was going to validate the Steele Dossier, remember that? Still waiting on the "Mueller Time" proof of Russia Collusion.

Incidentally, want to know the real reason why Muller didn't conclude that crimes were committed?

18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


He is hoping to dodge the above statute. He may or may not.

He will dodge it in regards to the Trump campaign, but the Corsi case, and a possibly pending Flynn case, could end with Mueller in handcuffs.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
2,075
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
I'll believe it when I see it. The administration cannot even remove security clearances right. I now believe that only the people involved with Trump will be jailed, for bullshit reasons. If I were a GOP house member I would ask for impeachment proceedings just to tell the dems to put up. I would say or shut up but..........
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
29,394
Reaction score
2,927
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims

At a May press conference capping his tenure as special counsel, Robert Mueller emphasized what he called "the central allegation" of the two-year Russia probe. The Russian government, Mueller sternly declared, engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American." Mueller's comments echoed a January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) asserting with "high confidence" that Russia conducted a sweeping 2016 election influence campaign. "I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process," then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate hearing.

While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump's victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred "principally" on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.

But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.

The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.

Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.

U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.

Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).

Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.

John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it. This shortcoming has gone overlooked in the partisan battle over two more highly charged aspects of Mueller's report: potential Trump-Russia collusion and Trump's potential obstruction of the resulting investigation. As Mueller prepares to testify before House committees later this month, the questions surrounding his claims of a far-reaching Russian influence campaign are no less important. They raise doubts about the genesis and perpetuation of Russiagate and the performance of those tasked with investigating it.

Uncertainty Over Who Stole the Emails

The Mueller report’s narrative of Russian hacking and leaking was initially laid out in a July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers and is detailed further in the report. According to Mueller, operatives at Russia's main intelligence agency, the GRU, broke into Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's emails in March 2016. The hackers infiltrated Podesta's account with a common tactic called spear-phishing, duping him with a phony security alert that led him to enter his password. The GRU then used stolen Democratic Party credentials to hack into the DNC and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) servers beginning in April 2016. Beginning in June 2016, the report claims, the GRU created two online personas, "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0," to begin releasing the stolen material. After making contact later that month, Guccifer 2.0 apparently transferred the DNC emails to the whistleblowing, anti-secrecy publisher WikiLeaks, which released the first batch on July 22 ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

The report presents this narrative with remarkable specificity: It describes in detail how GRU officers installed malware, leased U.S.-based computers, and used cryptocurrencies to carry out their hacking operation. The intelligence that caught the GRU hackers is portrayed as so invasive and precise that it even captured the keystrokes of individual Russian officers, including their use of search engines.

In fact, the report contains crucial gaps in the evidence that might support that authoritative account. Here is how it describes the core crime under investigation, the alleged GRU theft of DNC emails:

Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC’s mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016. [Italics added for emphasis.]
482917_5_.png


The report’s use of that one word, “appear,” undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence that GRU officers stole "thousands of emails and attachments" from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language used in his July 2018 indictment, which contained no such qualifier:
482919_5_.png


"It's certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller's indictment and the extra wiggle room inserted into his report a year later," says former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley. "It may be an example of this and other existing gaps that are inherent with the use of circumstantial information. With Mueller's exercise of quite unprecedented (but politically expedient) extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict foreign intelligence operatives who were never expected to contest his conclusory assertions in court, he didn't have to worry about precision. I would guess, however, that even though NSA may be able to track some hacking operations, it would be inherently difficult, if not impossible, to connect specific individuals to the computer transfer operations in question."

The report also concedes that Mueller’s team did not determine another critical component of the crime it alleges: how the stolen Democratic material was transferred to WikiLeaks. The July 2018 indictment of GRU officers suggested – without stating outright – that WikiLeaks published the Democratic Party emails after receiving them from Guccifer 2.0 in a file named "wk dnc linkI .txt.gpg" on or around July 14, 2016. But now the report acknowledges that Mueller has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information: "The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016."
482920_5_.png


Another partially redacted passage also suggests that Mueller cannot trace exactly how WikiLeaks received the stolen emails. Given how the sentence is formulated, the redacted portion could reflect Mueller's uncertainty:
482921_5_.png


Contrary to Mueller’s sweeping conclusions, the report itself is, at best, suggesting that the GRU, via its purported cutout Guccifer 2.0, may have transferred the stolen emails to WikiLeaks.

Continued...

https://www.realclearinvestigations...ndercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

Can't wait for Mueller's testimony. He is going to be forced to discredit his own report! ROFL ROFL
 

AkPatsFan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
7,889
Reaction score
2,062
Points
113
Location
Eagle River, Ak
CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims

At a May press conference capping his tenure as special counsel, Robert Mueller emphasized what he called "the central allegation" of the two-year Russia probe. The Russian government, Mueller sternly declared, engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American." Mueller's comments echoed a January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) asserting with "high confidence" that Russia conducted a sweeping 2016 election influence campaign. "I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process," then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate hearing.

While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump's victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred "principally" on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.

But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.

The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.

Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.

U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.

Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).

Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.

John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it. This shortcoming has gone overlooked in the partisan battle over two more highly charged aspects of Mueller's report: potential Trump-Russia collusion and Trump's potential obstruction of the resulting investigation. As Mueller prepares to testify before House committees later this month, the questions surrounding his claims of a far-reaching Russian influence campaign are no less important. They raise doubts about the genesis and perpetuation of Russiagate and the performance of those tasked with investigating it.

Uncertainty Over Who Stole the Emails

The Mueller report’s narrative of Russian hacking and leaking was initially laid out in a July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers and is detailed further in the report. According to Mueller, operatives at Russia's main intelligence agency, the GRU, broke into Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's emails in March 2016. The hackers infiltrated Podesta's account with a common tactic called spear-phishing, duping him with a phony security alert that led him to enter his password. The GRU then used stolen Democratic Party credentials to hack into the DNC and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) servers beginning in April 2016. Beginning in June 2016, the report claims, the GRU created two online personas, "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0," to begin releasing the stolen material. After making contact later that month, Guccifer 2.0 apparently transferred the DNC emails to the whistleblowing, anti-secrecy publisher WikiLeaks, which released the first batch on July 22 ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

The report presents this narrative with remarkable specificity: It describes in detail how GRU officers installed malware, leased U.S.-based computers, and used cryptocurrencies to carry out their hacking operation. The intelligence that caught the GRU hackers is portrayed as so invasive and precise that it even captured the keystrokes of individual Russian officers, including their use of search engines.

In fact, the report contains crucial gaps in the evidence that might support that authoritative account. Here is how it describes the core crime under investigation, the alleged GRU theft of DNC emails:

Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC’s mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016. [Italics added for emphasis.]
482917_5_.png


The report’s use of that one word, “appear,” undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence that GRU officers stole "thousands of emails and attachments" from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language used in his July 2018 indictment, which contained no such qualifier:
482919_5_.png


"It's certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller's indictment and the extra wiggle room inserted into his report a year later," says former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley. "It may be an example of this and other existing gaps that are inherent with the use of circumstantial information. With Mueller's exercise of quite unprecedented (but politically expedient) extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict foreign intelligence operatives who were never expected to contest his conclusory assertions in court, he didn't have to worry about precision. I would guess, however, that even though NSA may be able to track some hacking operations, it would be inherently difficult, if not impossible, to connect specific individuals to the computer transfer operations in question."

The report also concedes that Mueller’s team did not determine another critical component of the crime it alleges: how the stolen Democratic material was transferred to WikiLeaks. The July 2018 indictment of GRU officers suggested – without stating outright – that WikiLeaks published the Democratic Party emails after receiving them from Guccifer 2.0 in a file named "wk dnc linkI .txt.gpg" on or around July 14, 2016. But now the report acknowledges that Mueller has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information: "The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016."
482920_5_.png


Another partially redacted passage also suggests that Mueller cannot trace exactly how WikiLeaks received the stolen emails. Given how the sentence is formulated, the redacted portion could reflect Mueller's uncertainty:
482921_5_.png


Contrary to Mueller’s sweeping conclusions, the report itself is, at best, suggesting that the GRU, via its purported cutout Guccifer 2.0, may have transferred the stolen emails to WikiLeaks.

Continued...

https://www.realclearinvestigations...ndercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

Can't wait for Mueller's testimony. He is going to be forced to discredit his own report! ROFL ROFL
I can just imagine what the Republicans on that committee are going to ask him.
 

AkPatsFan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
7,889
Reaction score
2,062
Points
113
Location
Eagle River, Ak
Only the questions asked by democrats will be reported by the media.

Fox will be covering it and I’m sure Newsmax and OAN will be also, they can run but they can’t hide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,803
Reaction score
2,602
Points
113
Age
62
Location
Windsor, CT
CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims

~snip~

Can't wait for Mueller's testimony. He is going to be forced to discredit his own report! ROFL ROFL

Could it be, that Joe Biden knew something and so didn't make a gaffe his recent CNN interview?

Ex-veep Joe Biden claimed Friday that Russia would never interfere in an election if he were president — even though the US intelligence community unanimously concluded they did just that when he was in the White House.

“While Putin’s trying to undo our elections, he’s actually undoing elections in, in Europe,” Biden told CNN.

“Look at what’s happening in Hungary … look at what’s happening! You think that would happen on my watch, on Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that, but I promise you it wouldn’t have. And it didn’t,” the gaffe-prone Democratic presidential frontrunner said.

This is of course, a trick question. :coffee:
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
29,394
Reaction score
2,927
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Could it be, that Joe Biden knew something and so didn't make a gaffe his recent CNN interview?



This is of course, a trick question. :coffee:

Curious that he mentions Hungary specifically.

Apparently, everywhere, everything, and everywhere who is anti-Globalist, Euroskeptic, and anti-Soros is part of a global Putin conspiracy.

Wonder why he didn't say "Look at what's going on in France" (Yellow Vests), or "Look at what's going on in the UK" (Brexit Party).

I like Joe, but he is struggling mightily. I hope he fades away before he goes down in a blaze of Glory. That would make me sad. I want to see him retire with his dignity intact.
 

O.Z.O.

rude and offensive
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
21,523
Reaction score
1,996
Points
113
Age
56
Location
Stocking the bunker
Curious that he mentions Hungary specifically.

Apparently, everywhere, everything, and everywhere who is anti-Globalist, Euroskeptic, and anti-Soros is part of a global Putin conspiracy.

Wonder why he didn't say "Look at what's going on in France" (Yellow Vests), or "Look at what's going on in the UK" (Brexit Party).

I like Joe, but he is struggling mightily. I hope he fades away before he goes down in a blaze of Glory. That would make me sad. I want to see him retire with his dignity intact.

fuck that, I want to see him get Mondaled. What is it about this guy do you like? He is every bit as slimy as all the other clowns in this circus. He has been on the wrong side of every issue throughout his entire political career.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
29,394
Reaction score
2,927
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
fuck that, I want to see him get Mondaled. What is it about this guy do you like? He is every bit as slimy as all the other clowns in this circus. He has been on the wrong side of every issue throughout his entire political career.

He's too unsophisticated to pretend he is something that he isn't. That's why he gaffe's all the time...he is just speaking his mind.

He is a rare bird, a politician that generally says exactly what he means and thinks.

AND....when he lies, he is a terrible, terrible liar.

Really, that's why I like him. I don't have to interpret anything, I know where he stands. He is relatively honest about it....and that's what gets him in trouble.

He's just simple minded Joe.

I liked Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Ron Paul for the same reasons. They don't hide their true thoughts and intentions, and that's my primary requirement in a politician.

I don't have to agree with a politician to like them, and liking them doesn't mean I'd vote for them, any more than liking particular football players means I would root for their team to win, and disliking a football team means I have to personally hate the players. That's silly and irrational.

I hope that clarifies my thoughts on Joe.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
2,075
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
He's too unsophisticated to pretend he is something that he isn't. That's why he gaffe's all the time...he is just speaking his mind.

He is a rare bird, a politician that generally says exactly what he means and thinks.

AND....when he lies, he is a terrible, terrible liar.

Really, that's why I like him. I don't have to interpret anything, I know where he stands. He is relatively honest about it....and that's what gets him in trouble.

He's just simple minded Joe.

I liked Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Ron Paul for the same reasons. They don't hide their true thoughts and intentions, and that's my primary requirement in a politician.

I don't have to agree with a politician to like them, and liking them doesn't mean I'd vote for them, any more than liking particular football players means I would root for their team to win, and disliking a football team means I have to personally hate the players. That's silly and irrational.

I hope that clarifies my thoughts on Joe.
I can agree with all but Biden. I was a big Tsongas supporter though.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
41,099
Reaction score
4,447
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
The Lefties are just pissed off that they didn't get what they wanted. Also pissed off because they know moving forward with impeachment is suicide.

All the while their heroes are swirling in the Epstein cesspool. This is going to be fantastic.

And when the best they can come up with is Pocahontas and Trump wins again they’ll all be looking for a high accessible roof.
 

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,454
Reaction score
2,496
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
Top