Major Mueller Report Omissions Suggest
Incompetence Or A Coverup
Robert Mueller’s 448-page
“Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election”
contains at least two major
omissions which suggest that the special counsel
and his entire team of world-class Democrat attorneys are either utterly
incompetent, or purposefully concealing major crimes committed against the
Trump campaign and the American people.
First, according to The
Federalist‘s Margot Cleveland
(a former law clerk of nearly 25 years and instructor at the college of
business at the University of Notre Dame) – the Mueller report fails to
consider whether the dossier authored by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele was
Russian disinformation, and Steele was not charged with lying
to the FBI.
The
Steele dossier, which consisted of a series of memorandum authored by the
former MI6 spy, detailed intel purportedly provided by a variety of
Vladimir Putin-connected sources. For instance, Steele identified Source A
as “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” who “confided that the
Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his
opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Other supposed sources identified in the
dossier included: Source B, identified as “a former top-level Russian
intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin”; Source C, a “Senior
Russian Financial Officer”; and Source G, “a Senior Kremlin Official.” –The
Federalist
As Cleveland posits: “Given Mueller’s
conclusion that no one connected to the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to
interfere with the election, one of those two scenarios must be true—either
Russia fed Steele disinformation or Steele lied to the FBI about his Russian
sources.”
…Trump’s
victory does not negate the reality that, assuming Steele truthfully
relayed to the FBI and the media the intel his Russian sources provided, Russia
interfered in the election by feeding Steele false intel about Trump.
Yet in
the special counsel report, Mueller identified only two principal ways Russia
interfered in the 2016 presidential election: “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.”
Surely,
a plot by Kremlin-connected individuals to feed a known FBI source—Steele had helped the FBI uncover an
international soccer bribery scandal—false claims that the Trump campaign
was colluding with Russia would qualify as a “principal way” in which Russia
interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The Russia social media
campaign to disparage Hillary Clinton wasn’t a patch on the plot the Kremlin
launched to destroy Trump: It resulted not only in bad press, but also an
investigation into the Trump campaign and the use of court-approved
surveillance exposing campaign communiques.
Even though Mueller was authorized, as he put
it in the special counsel report, to investigate “the Russian government’s
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” the report is
silent of efforts to investigate Russia’s role in feeding Steele misinformation.
–The
Federalist
Meanwhile, the only lawmaker to even
mention this possibility has been Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who raised the
issue with Attorney General William Barr last week:
“My question,” said
Grassley, “Mueller spent over two years and 30 million dollars
investigating Russia interference in the election. In order for a full
accounting of Russia interference attempts, shouldn’t the special
counsel have considered whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian
disinformation and interfere campaign?”
Barr replied that he had yet to “go
through the full scope of [Mueller’s] investigation to determine whether he did
address or look at all into those issues,” but that he would “try to assemble
all the existing information out there about it, not only for the Hill
investigations and the OIG, but also to see what the Special Counsel looked
into. So I really couldn’t say what he looked into.”
Meanwhile, Barr said that he has assembled a DOJ team to examine Mueller’s investigation, findings, and
whether the spying conducted by the FBI against the Trump campaign in 2016 was
improper.
Mueller’s second
major oversight – which we have
touched on repeatedly – is the special counsel’s portrayal of Maltese
professor Joseph Mifsud was a Russian agent – when available
evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent.
Weeks after returning from Moscow,
Mifsud – a self-described Clinton Foundation member – ‘seeded’ the rumor that Russia had ‘dirt’ on Hillary
Clinton with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos on April 26, 2016,
according to the Mueller report.
As Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) noted
on Fox News on Sunday, “how is it that we spend
30-plus-million dollars on this, as taxpayers and they can’t even tell us who
Joseph Mifsud is?”
“…this is important, because, in the
Mueller dossier, they use a fake news story to describe Mifsud. In one of those
stories, they cherry- pick it,” Nunes added.
BARTIROMO:
Then he’s working for Trump. So how come somebody from Britain, Australia,
Italy, they’re all reaching out to him? And, by the way, how come this London Center
of International Law reached out to Papadopoulos on LinkedIn to go work there,
after Ben Carson withdrew?
NUNES:
And I think a better question is, is that — so, Papadopoulos claims that he was
quitting this London Center.
So how
many companies or agencies that you know of, when you say, hey, I’m quitting,
and they say, hey, what about a free four-to-five-day vacation in Rome? We’re
going to fly you there. We’re going to put you up for free. We’re going to give
you food… And all you have to do is meet this guy Mifsud, right… We’re
trying to get to the bottom of Mifsud. So, as we talked about it on the
last segment, this guy originates the investigation. We know that the Mueller
team wrote this Mueller dossier. They used a lot of these news stories that, in
fact, sometimes were generated by leaks from the FBI.
Now, I
don’t think the American people expect 20 DOJ lawyers and 40 FBI agents to
write a 450-page report that’s built off of news stories that in many cases
they generated.
Why I particularly have a problem with this is
— with one of the stories is because they pick a news story, and then they
cherry-pick from it. So they use it partly to describe where Mifsud
worked, but then they fail to say in that same story that they have given support
to by using it in the Mueller dossier, they cherry-pick it. -Via RealClearPolitics
As conservative
commentator and former US
Secret Service agent Dan Bongino notes of Mifsud, “either
we have a Russian asset who’s infiltrated the highest echelons of friendly Intelligence
Services, or we have a friendly who was setting up George Papadopoulos.”
.@dbongino on why Mifsud is key in Spygate:
"So either we have a Russian asset who's infiltrated the highest echelons of friendly Intelligence Services, or we have a friendly who was setting up @GeorgePapa19 - That's the real scandal. This was not spying, this was entrapment."
"So either we have a Russian asset who's infiltrated the highest echelons of friendly Intelligence Services, or we have a friendly who was setting up @GeorgePapa19 - That's the real scandal. This was not spying, this was entrapment."
Perhaps Mueller’s reportedly scheduled testimony next week
will shed more light on why he failed to question the possible role of
Russian disinformation with the Steele Dossier, and why he didn’t
flush out who Joseph Mifsud really is.
Other omissions, meanwhile, are on the table as well…
✔@RepMattGaetz
Robert Mueller
never inquired about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's "insurance policy"
when he fired Strzok. When Mueller testifies in front of the House Judiciary
Committee, I’m going to ask why he never even asked about what evidence might
have been polluted by Strzok and Page.
No comments:
Post a Comment