The Mueller Report -- Points of interest as I'm listening and reading

[ohknow35]

clyburn says it’s coming.

Send money now.

[Blackwolf]

You want it too much. You’re going to jinx yourself.

[ohknow35]

I’ll have to check back tomorrow. No impeachment today.

[Blackwolf]

Rest and hydration. It’s a lonely vigil but we appreciate your dedication.

[WuWei]

@mobiusptc

@madasheck

Several days ago I mentioned that you can get a free audio version of The Mueller Report from Amazon. Been listening to this and I’ve found it seems a lot more informative than reading it and sometimes scanning over things. So I thought I’d mention some stuff here in this thread that I’ve found interesting. I’ll post a free PDF link from the Justice Department at the end for those that want a free downloadable copy. Additionally, for those with Kindles, there’s a free Kindle version.

I’ll preface this with this item from page 2.

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be
supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out
the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other
instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with
confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events
occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there
was no evidence of those facts.

That last sentence is a blinder to Trump supporters. It says that there may have been evidence for certain facts, but that in some cases it didn’t establish those facts. In other words, there was a partial case. Not totally innocence.

Page 33 details interactions between the Trump campaign and the IRA (Internet Research Agency), which was a Russian-based operative.

The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and
. members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between
the IRA and the Clinton Campaign.) First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the
Trump Campaign promoted-typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of repostingpro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media
accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons
to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and
coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States.

a. Trump Campaign Promotion of IRA Political Materials
Among the U.S. “leaders of public opinion” targeted by the IRA were various members
and surrogates of the Trump Campaign. In total, Trump Campaign affiliates promoted dozens of
tweets, posts, and other political content created by the IRA.
Posts from the IRA-controlled Twitter account @TEN_GOP were cited or retweeted by
multiple Trump Campaign officials and surrogates, including Donald J. Trump Jr.,96 Eric Trump,97 Kellyanne Conway,98 Brad Parscale,99 and Michael T. Flynn. 100 These posts included
allegations of voter fraud, 101 as well as allegations that Secretary Clinton had mishandled
classified information.102

The Report establishes that the Trump campaign – knowingly or not - was used by the IRA to spread information.

Your comments are welcome.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

interesting about the IRA, i did not realize just how much the campaign used their content. there was an article not long ago about the the IRA reaction in the hours and days after MH17 and how that actually has affected and cemented some false conspiracy theories. its hard not to compare and contrast

Good post. I agree.

[madasheck]

@peek-a-boo

So no charges for Trump or for anyone having anything to do with Trump campaign. Got it.

Do some reading and you might find a surprise!!

[pam95650]

Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

[peek-a-boo]

How bout we speed this up and you simply point me to the content charging Trump with conspiracy or obstruction.

Outside of that, I have absolutely no interest. I simply don’t care.

[peek-a-boo]

Denial of what? There was no collusion and there was no obstruction. No charges. Mueller probe has concluded. Those are all facts. What exactly am I denying???

[madasheck]

@peek-a-boo

How bout we speed this up and you simply point me to the content charging Trump with conspiracy or obstruction.

Outside of that, I have absolutely no interest. I simply don’t care.

How about if you be patient. I intend to post a lot in this thread. Hang in there.

[peek-a-boo]

No thanks.

I responded to the OP because you invited comment. I planned to stay away following my initial post because I have absolutely no interest. I only returned because you responded to my original post.

I will now take my leave and leave you to your exploration.

[madasheck]

Early on, the President went ballistic when AG Jeff Sessions appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel. Here is that section of the Report.

Beginning on Page 78.

I. The Appointment of the Special Counsel and the President’s Reaction

On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller, ITT as
Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the Russia investigation and matters that arose
from the investigation.

The President learned of the Special Counsel’s appointment from
Sessions, who was with the President, Hunt, and McGahn conducting interviews for a new FBI
Director. Sessions stepped out of the Oval Office to take a call from Rosenstein, who told him
about the Special Counsel appointment, and Sessions then returned to inform the President of the
news. According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special
Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, “Oh my God. This
is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’ m ■■■■■■■■ The President became angry and
lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating, “How
could you let this happen, Jeff?” The President said the position of Attorney General was his
most important appointment and that Sessions had " let [him] down," contrasting him to Eric
Holder and Robert Kennedy. Sessions recalled that the President said to him, “you were
supposed to protect me,” or words to that effect. The President returned to the consequences of
the appointment and said, “Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins
your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst
thing that ever happened to me.”

The President then told Sessions he should resign as Attorney General. Sessions agreed
to submit his resignation and left the Oval Office. Hicks saw the President shortly after Sessions
departed and described the President as being extremely upset by the Special Counsel’s
appointment.51 1 Hicks said that she had only seen the President like that one other time, when the
Access Hollywood tape came out during the campaign.

[pam95650]

Oh please, do we have to spell it out for you people? READ THE ■■■■■■■ REPORT.

[conan]

@madasheck

That last sentence is a blinder to Trump supporters. It says that there may have been evidence for certain facts, but that in some cases it didn’t establish those facts. In other words, there was a partial case. Not totally innocence.

LOL sound like partial murder.

In court of law you have to have 100 percent substantiated evidences…not partial evidence.

Sounds like too much like you think and not based on actual evidence.

[DougBH]

@ohknow35

I’m just waiting on the impeachment.

I have a feeling I’m gonna be waiting a while (long, long time).

They’re going to impeach Trump on the basis of there is some evidence, just not enough to prove anything. That will last long in the Senate.

[madasheck]

@conan

@madasheck

That last sentence is a blinder to Trump supporters. It says that there may have been evidence for certain facts, but that in some cases it didn’t establish those facts. In other words, there was a partial case. Not totally innocence.

LOL sound like partial murder.

In court of law you have to have 100 percent substantiated evidences…not partial evidence.

Sounds like too much like you think and not based on actual evidence.

Even if Mueller wasn’t able to bring up charges, that doesn’t mean others won’t be able to.

[madasheck]

The Mueller Report says that the Russians, and not Seth Rich, were the source of the DNC emails.

Starting on Page 48:

d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen Materials

As reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian government emerged,
WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source
of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing. The file-transfer evidence described above and
other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks’s claims about the
source of material that it posted.

Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements
about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about
Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016,
the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a
US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.” 180
Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in
Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to
alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting,
“I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man
who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, "If there’s someone
who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious
matter … that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us."181

After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was
behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by
WikiLeaks had come from Russian hacking. According to media reports, Assange told a U.S.
congressman that the DNC hack was an “inside job,” and purported to have "physical proof’ that
Russians did not give materials to Assange. 182

[mobiusptc]

@madasheck

The Mueller Report says that the Russians, and not Seth Rich, were the source of the DNC emails.

Starting on Page 48:

d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen Materials

As reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian government emerged,
WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source
of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing. The file-transfer evidence described above and
other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks’s claims about the
source of material that it posted.

Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements
about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about
Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016,
the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a
US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.” 180
Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in
Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to
alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting,
“I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man
who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, "If there’s someone
who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious
matter … that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us."181

After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was
behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by
WikiLeaks had come from Russian hacking. According to media reports, Assange told a U.S.
congressman that the DNC hack was an “inside job,” and purported to have "physical proof’ that
Russians did not give materials to Assange. 182

Seth Rich, another of these conspiracy theories that are now baked in even though

• the family tells them to stop
• fox news retracted their reporting
• Wheeler claims fox news lied about his quotes
• the Washington Times apologized to the family and retracted their story
• Jeromi Corsi apologized

and yet we still have people on this very board repeating many times debunked points

[madasheck]

@peek-a-boo

No thanks.

I responded to the OP because you invited comment. I planned to stay away following my initial post because I have absolutely no interest. I only returned because you responded to my original post.

I will now take my leave and leave you to your exploration.

Exploration? Not it at all. #factsmatter.

[mobiusptc]

@conan

@madasheck

That last sentence is a blinder to Trump supporters. It says that there may have been evidence for certain facts, but that in some cases it didn’t establish those facts. In other words, there was a partial case. Not totally innocence.

LOL sound like partial murder.

In court of law you have to have 100 percent substantiated evidences…not partial evidence.

Sounds like too much like you think and not based on actual evidence.

every single case ever brought in court has 100% substantiated evidence? are you being facetious?