>>6225229

The writer of the report

Mueller ?

Weissman?

characterize Potus DJT as disavowing business deals with Russian, when Cohen was said to have been working on a deal for Trump

However, there was never any deal.

So Writer of the report insinuates Potus DJT was lying[?] when he repeatedly denied business relations with Russia

In fact, The numerous disavowals would be what one would expect of a person falsely accused.

POTUS DJT was correct is stating to Cohen that there was no reason to mention the potential deal, because it was never fulfilled, completely or closed.

Since the Report writer was trying to set-up POTUS they make it a point of note that Cohen was questioned by POTUS as to why Cohen would / should mention an alleged deal that never came to fruition.

>>6225229

page 232a

Using sophistry to try to "win" :

The report Mis-represents the contention of POTUS DJT associates that POTUS had no business with Russia as "party line"

That's a mischaracterization and counts as a way to appear to "defeat" one's enemy without actually doing it

The report author catalogs the times those associated with POTUS DJT pulled back from association with Russians once the allegations became known.

^^^^

This would be normal for someone who was afraid of the motives of the SC; as it has been shown POTUS DJT was; He did not minimize the power of the SC;

Someone who knows they are innocent yet knows the FBI is out to get them [cf case of Aaron Swartz] would show prudence in staying as far away as possible from any perception of "collusion with Russia" once the accusation was known

Proves nothing.

Where did the Mueller investigation crew get the idea that it was Russia behind the emails leaks!

From an announcement by the federal [small "F"] the day after the emails were received by Wikileaks!

footnote 50 see image

>>6225229

pg 232 b

footnotes

232b

Podesta chimes in, soon after the DHS claimed the hacking was from the Russians, to state the FBI was investigating the RUSSIAN hack.

If you notice the footnotes all cite weak or compromised alleged sources.

>>6225229

pg 233a

Here the report author cites Pence denying that the Trump campaign was involved in releasing emails damaging to HR Clinton's campaign

Think:

Why would any information related to HR Clinton be damaging, if she was on the "up and up"

J. Assange hinted at this in his answers to Hannity of Fox News in one of his interviews.

So the Trump-haters framed the question.

That is very powerful and a Propaganda technique.

Whoever defines the playing field has the advantage.

Think: The Trump opposition defined the "playing field" as "Who stole [hacked] H.R. Clinton's emails?"

There are more relevant questions:

Were her emails in fact private property?

Aren't charities tranparent?

Aren't the activities of the Secretary of State part of th public record?

Why were these emails damaging specifically to H.R. Clinton, rather than say: Heads of State she was still in contact with, etc,or others?

Why does she care?

Of what did they consist?

What did they show?

Despite the denials of Hope Hicks as to the contacts between the "entourage" of the Trump campaign and Russia, the writer of the report believes the "Russian government" on the matter, yet does not give a citation for where the SC got that information.

The SC report cites "the press" in reporting that "U.S. Intelligence Agencies" concluded that Russia interfered with the election in order to

boost" Trump's chances, YET no citation is given for either what Press reports or What U.S. inteligence agencies .

Another question is beggin to be answered:

Why would the SC take the word of a Press report?

[P.s. same B.S. done on 9/11. Only lists of passengers came from press, nothing official, no official airline or government lists]

This despite the President - elect's denial.

Considering the insistnce of the denials, shouldn't they have dug a little farther, to find out who really was promoting the idea, i.e. names.

Also, facts, details?

What was the basis of their source's claims?

Why did they take the Russian government [alleged] as their source?

>>6257947

^^^ Sorry this need to be proof - read a little more. Don't know where to post a better version. Don't want to eat too much bread here.

>>6225229

New info came in within the last few days from the Russian Government itself, which belies the claims of the writers of the Mueller Report that Russia was verifying the suspicious alleged contacts.

>>6225229

pg 233b

More citations from biased sources.

And informants from Russia who give vague claims without naming specific individuals.

The SC Report writer uses newspaper articles for evidence; doesn't do their own research.

Much like the the rest of the "sheeples" who just take the news sources "word" for it, listen to the news and believe it, without checking.

This has been going on for 50 years and has polluted the Justice system.

There are other important examples of this.

Many judges take the view that the "status quo" belief system derived from the newspapers, is reliable, and don't bother to get the supporting data.

In this case we have a "Merry-go-Round" since Comey leaked through a friend to the New York Times, which triggered the article in the Times which was used by the FBI to receive the warrant, for extreme surveillance over the subjects of their interest.

>>6258036

Here is a link to the Russian Report I referenced above

THE RUSSIAGATEHYSTERIA:A CASE OF SEVERE RUSSOPHOBIAAPRIL18, 2019

https://washington.mid.ru/upload/iblock/3c3/3c3d1e3b69a4c228e99bfaeb5491ecd7.pdf

pg 234

The writer of the Mueller report [on alleged Russian collusion] uses PODESTA as a source.

POTUS again denies involvement but Obama Hussain plunges ahead and puts sanctions against Russia for the alleged favortism to DJ Trump POTUS-elect.

Before Inauguration on the 20th of Jan. 2017, in early January POTUS had a meeting to be briefed on the situation.

The report does not name who it was who briefed the President-elect.

Somehow after the briefing whoever it was [?] felt confident to release a definitive statement regarding the reality of their accusations.

THINK:

What information did they have to brief him with?

Nothing. It was fabricated.

Therefore, what do you think was the purpose of the "briefing"?

The writer says the President -elect will meet for a "briefing on Russian interference"?

Wouldn't it be improper to name it that, at that point in time?

wouldn't it have been, at that time, and even now, proper to call it "alleged Russian interference"

Otherwise, aren't the "Special council" and his office impugning both President-elect Trump and the State of Russian, before a case has been made?

The second half of the page is another set of bogus and/or weak citations which don't support their [attempted] case.

>>6225229

>>6258177

>>6225229

pg. 235

Again, the writer of the report makes claims about an "assessment" which is opaque, not actual data.

The citation goes to the "Office of the Director of National Intelligence"

Who is that?

The report was in early Jan. while Hussain / Obama was still in charge; no detail on the report which was called:

"Russian Campaign to influence U.S. election 2016"

(I told the report was created by an agency of which Brennan was in charge)

Buzzfeed published unverified accusations, which did not even rise to the level of crime [cf. Starr's investigation of Clinton's cock]

POTUS again vehemently denied.

Why is this even in the ^^^^ report.

Some are saying since Mueller knew he never could indict POTUS he did this to gather evidence for Impeachment.

Impeachment does not require proof of crime. Just votes.

But thats a dud too, since Senate is too Republican and allied with POTUS to reach the numbers required for removal from office.

So, even if you had 'Impeachment" it would lead to another nothing-burger.

More hot air that shouldn't have been included in the report:

Trump felt the accusations regarding Russia would ruin his Presidency.

Well, why not? Why is that of note? Is that a crime? Is it something that made his accusers feel good, that they had succeeded in perhaps ruining his Presidency.

>>6225229

pg 236

Beginning of a section on Flynn

They are saying Flynn lied to incoming Admin officials, but does not name who it is he lied to.

The lie is supposedly like this:"

Hussain/ Obama put sanctions on Russia because of Russia's alleged intrusion into the 2016 election with the intent to "bolster" Trump at the expense of HRC.

[Now we know why everybody is loathe to admit there was no Russian meddling of any consequence [13 hackers / trolls], Really?]

[ Since the Russians were made to suffer over this and it was a made-up, fabrication, it could cause an "international incident"?

So the claim about the lie is this:

Flynn didn't remember or didn't admit to talking to the Russian Ambassador. Suppsedly about the sanctions which were applied by Obama / Hussain for the reason that the Russians allegedly interfered in collusion with DJ Trump against HRC.

What was the Trump opposition, the Obama Administration, afraid that Flynn was saying to the Ambassador?

And why would Flynn be motivated to hide it?

If it is even so.

The report says they were investigating Flynn for "other matters" to start, but don't elaborate.

Supposedly this gave them the right to trick him into an interview?

[Apparently McCabe had a reason to attempt to hurt Flynn; since Flynn had whistle-blown on McCabe?]

Writers of the report claim Flynn told "similar lies" to the FBI as to others in the [Obama?] Administration?.

We are not told what those lies are.

How did the SC know that Flynn lied?

Had they Flynn under surveillance and so possessed transcripts of his phone conversations?

What's the 'big deal' if Flynn talked to a Russian Ambassador?

And if Office of SC had the transcripts [?] they should be able to say what was wrong with the conversation, not merely that it simply occurred. Also they would know if what transpired was harmful to U.S. interests. As it is, it seems the phone calls were used for innuendo only, Otherwise, the story would have fuller details.

P.S. none of this story makes sense.

The writer of the report now drifts over to James Comey and how POTUS asked him for loyalty at a private dinner.

The day after POTUS asked Comey for loyalty [according to Comey?], Potus had another private conversation wherein Comey alleges that POTUS asked him to "let Flynn go."

However, at this time, Flynn had not been charged with anything.

The writer seems to be attempting to connect things:

1. Flynn talking to a Russian ambassador over the phone

2. Flynn being interviewed by the FBI [entrapped]

3. Flynn being fired.

4. Potus having dinner with Comey, and asking for loyalty

5. Allegedly asking to "let Flynn go" when Flynn had not been charged for anything by that time [Charges came Dec. '17]

None of these things are necessarily connected.

Seems like the writers of the Mueller report experience conformation bias, or pretend to?. Because they allegedly believe in "Trump colluded with Russia" anything that happens will seem to fit into that pattern, even though there is no real evidence.

Writers of the report themselves knew there was no evidence so the function of the stringing together of the "confirmation bias" narrative/ story is to gaslight the public, not to make a real case?

>>6258550

>>6225229

amendment"

this is not true. I made a mistake

"Writers of the report claim Flynn told "similar lies" to the FBI as to others in the [Obama?] Administration?."

The lie the Mueller report claims made by Flynn was that he didn't remember speaking about the sanctions? the cause for the sanctions against Russia by Obama / Hussain to the Russian Ambassador to the U.S.A..

Flynn is said to have told people in Trump's circle that he did not speak on that subject with the Ambassador, when he actually did; And those people repeated it to others, so the report claims; but does not give names nor to where it was repeated and to what significance to anything it would have..

The exact substance of the lie will have to wait for further documents that we are told will be forthcoming for the exact nature of it, to be exposed.

So far, there's no indication or evidence that the lie had any importance other that a method to charge Flynn with a crime.

>>6225229

>>6259642 in the research general

237a