A must-read article deconstructs the Mueller report

Less than 6 minute read

July 11, 2019

After a long and exhaustive investigation, Robert Mueller issued a report that found no conspiracy between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. NONE WHATSOEVER. However, the report offers much detail that it claims supports the conclusion that not only did the Kremlin interfere in our elections in 2016, but it did so specifically to elect Donald Trump.

Indeed, from the very day Trump stunned the world by winning the Presidency, his adversaries have assumed that Russia’s goal was to secure his victory. Why, their “meddling” on his behalf was the main reason Hillary lost! Just ask her and she’ll tell you.

Aaron Mate begs to differ. His razor-sharp analysis of the Mueller report that appeared July 5 in RealClearInvestigations chips away at that conclusion.

Mueller’s report claims that Russia’s interference took place essentially in two ways:

1) Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents.

2) A government-linked troll farm created a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign to damage Hillary and promote Trump.

After examining the report, Mate finds that these conclusions are not supported by the evidence cited in the report or publicly available elsewhere. He also cites shortcomings in the investigation and conflicts of interest among the key players (especially John Brennan) that undercut Mueller’s findings. That doesn’t prove his conclusions are wrong --- just that there is not sufficient evidence to support them. Yet Mueller came to those conclusions anyway.

Let’s look at Mueller’s assertion that Russia’s main intelligence agency, the GRU, hacked into Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails and then used stolen Democratic National Committee credentials to hack into the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) servers in April of 2016. Mueller goes on to say that the GRU created two online personalities, “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0,” to begin releasing the stolen material. The report describes in detail just how this would have been accomplished, with Guccifer 2.0 supposedly transferring the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, which as we know released them just ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

But Mate finds that there are crucial gaps in the evidence supporting this scenario. Mueller must have been aware of such gaps, as he used a weasel word to describe what purportedly happened: GRU officers “APPEAR [emphasis mine] to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments...” Not that they stole them, but that they APPEAR to have stolen them. Huh??

Mate quotes former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley as saying, “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.” Sounds as though Mueller isn’t really quite sure.

Mueller’s team also couldn’t confirm how the stolen Democratic material got transferred to WikiLeaks. A careful reading of the report turns up this sentence: “The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.” Sorry, that’s a huge hole in the evidence. The most Mueller can say is that the GRU, through Guccifer 2.0, MAY have somehow transferred the emails to WikiLeaks. Even then, he can’t even say with certainty that it was the GRU that hacked the DNC –- only that it appears so.

There’s a problem with Mueller’s timeline as well. If it’s correct, Julian Assange would have to be a mind-reader, as he announced publication of the emails two days before the supposed source had even communicated with him. If another Russian source had already contacted Assange, Mueller provides no evidence of this. So it doesn’t make sense.

Also, Assange publicly announced he had the stolen material a full month before Mueller suggests Guccifer 2.0 sent it to him.

Of course, Assange has always denied the Russian government is his source for the DNC material and says the U.S. government does not know who it was. Recall that he said in January of 2017, “The U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained its material or when the sequencing of our material was done or how we obtained our material directly. WikiLeaks sources in relation to the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any government.”

Assange has made it clear that he will never give up a source, but as far as we can tell he also has never lied about who they are.

Mate finds additional reason to doubt that Guccifer 2.0 was WikiLeaks’ source. He cites a report in the New Yorker by Raffi Khatchadourian that says the documents released directly by Guccifer 2.0 were “nowhere near the quality” of the material published by WikiLeaks, and they also contained “easily discoverable Russian metadata.” There’s no evidence that WikiLeaks released anything Guccifer 2.0 provided. As Assange said in 2017, he “didn’t publish” any material from them because much of it had been published elsewhere and also because they “didn’t have the sources to independently verify.”

Mate cites a 2018 report from our friend John Solomon at THE HILL that said Assange had told the Justice Department in 2017 that he “was willing to discuss technical evidence ruling out certain parties” in the leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks. He had denied Russia’s involvement, so presumably he meant he wanted to discuss evidence ruling them out. But, incredibly, the interview never happened; according to Solomon, then-FBI Director James Comey personally intervened.

And thanks to Comey, the FBI never even got direct access to the DNC servers, relying instead on a forensic report from CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC. Mate finds numerous problems with this; perhaps the most obvious is that CrowdStrike was hired by...drum roll, please...Perkins Coie, the law firm hired by Hillary and the DNC to engage Fusion GPS in the creation of the Steele “dossier”! It’s unbelievable that Comey did not insist on maintaining a proper chain of custody for the evidence (the servers) and having the FBI conduct its own examination. CrowdStrike and lawyers for the DNC were even allowed to submit redacted records. What a farce.

There’s much more at the link. I urge you to take the time, as this article is a must-read for anyone who wants the truth about the Mueller investigation. Yes, it’s long, but remember that Aaron Mate has saved us from having to comb through the 448-page report to find its significant discrepancies and problems. (Democrats reading it aloud on the House floor apparently didn’t pick up on any of these, but then, I don’t think reading comprehension is one of their strong points.)

In the end, no matter what “official” conclusions Mueller reached after almost two years, there are problems with the evidence that still leave us at a loss to say with certainty who hacked (or leaked?) the DNC and DCCC emails, who gave them to Julian Assange, and what the motivation was. Assange could have cleared that up, if Mueller had wanted his testimony.

 

CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims | RealClearInvestigations

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

AG Barr has draft of Horowitz report; what happens now?

AG Barr has draft of Horowitz report; what happens now?

Follow-up: Reader responses to Joe Biden commentary

Comments 1-16 of 16

  • Stephen C Gasper

    07/12/2019 01:26 PM

    Thank you Mike for your great summary and for the link to the underlying, outstanding report by Aaron Mate.
    The lies that have been continuously presented to the American people by the “Hate Trump” media and the Democratic Party need to be exposed over and over by the relatively small group of well informed people. We GREATLY appreciate your efforts in this endeavor. To be frank, you are one of my “most trusted” sources of political truth.
    The appalling inadequacy of the Mueller report to actually pursue obvious exculpatory evidence represents a travesty fostered on the American people. Many of the issues raised by Aaron “appear” to have been intentionally avoided by Mueller, “perhaps” to protect himself and/or “perhaps” to protect close personal friends.
    Isn’t it amazing how a couple of well chosen words can allow anyone to imply anything they want about anyone else?
    I’m very happy that Barr is investigating the investigators.

  • Robert Hornbeck

    07/12/2019 11:15 AM

    Gov, After 50+ years of being in the computer/electronics industry, I can confirm that once the hack connection is broken/completed, if the hackers do NOT want you to know where they are or who they are, there is absolutely no way to trace them. There is NO WAY CrowdStrike could possibly trace and thereby know who did the hack. We may never know who did do it but who had the most to lose with another Clinton presidency? Who had the most problem(s) with the Obama presidency? What leader of the free world had the most contentious relationship with Obama? What organization has the moxie and supreme proficiency to make it "LOOK" like the Russians did it?

  • Mary Jo Wilson

    07/12/2019 09:10 AM

    Thank you Governor for continuing to explain in plain language what the real fact are. I have long since stopped watching the news for my information for obvious reasons. I always look to you for the truth, and you never let me down. Thank you again and oh, by the way, I love your show and watch it every week-end. Thank you for doing that too.

  • Ed Williar

    07/11/2019 09:30 PM

    Governor:
    Do you think that any of the people involved in this whole sordid affair will be held accountable for their actions?

  • Barbara Gray

    07/11/2019 07:45 PM

    Governor, this has nothing to do with the article about Mr Mate, just wanted to inform you of something I have noticed in the last 3 weeks. The little pop-ups that appear with your news letter usually advertise ways to loose weight or buy smart clothing or even what Elvis Pressley looked like at age 3 - made that one up. But you know what I am talking about. Anyway, it caught my eye, as I watch Fox News mostly. The ads that have been appearing are about Fox News personalities like Sean, Tucker and Lara and are all negative things about them. Oh, I still get the amazing way to cure cancer and diabetes and they don't show up everyday. But they have only just started about 3 weeks ago. Like many computers, mine has MSN and Google as search engines, etc. Don't know if any of your other readers have noticed activity like this or not, but thought about it a bit and it sure seems funny to me. I do get news letters from Hannity and Dan Bongino and Sara Carter and you and Fox News and frequently pull up clips from Lara and Tucker. Wonder if that has anything to do with spying on me?

  • joseph orsini PhD

    07/11/2019 05:42 PM

    Not being a CITIZEN does NOT mean the same as being here ILLEGALLY.

  • Rick Locke

    07/11/2019 05:08 PM

    Incredible waste of our dollars. No collusion. Got it.

    Does Mueller really want us to believe that the Russians weren't interested in hacking into the RNC, or did they try, only to find out that the the RNC's cyber security was light-years more robust than that of the DNC. Maybe if the DNC (you too Hillary) would try to be a bit more responsible with our country's top secret correspondances, then they wouldn't have to worry about the Russians ruining their opportunity for a Democrat President. (What a horrible thought - a democratic president, not cyber security).

  • Rosemary W Tomy

    07/11/2019 04:57 PM

    Wasn't it Hilary and the Obama crew who were friendly with Russia and sold them American uranium! Of course the money didn't go to America, but that's another story. So why would Russia try to get Donald Trump the presidency? It seems to me they would want Hilary where they could use her for future needs. But, what do I know?

  • Lloyd McKain

    07/11/2019 04:28 PM

    This has been a total waste of OUR tax dollars and totally laughable. The DNC should have to pay the American public back theses wasted dollars. I could use a refund right about now.

  • Vernon Thompson

    07/11/2019 03:51 PM

    Report kinda has Andrew Weissman's fingerprints on it. Suspect there will be many more discrepancies!

  • Lawrence E. Foster

    07/11/2019 03:48 PM

    In addition to the evidence Mate cites, there was a report, from one of the cyber security analysts at the firm the DNC hired to (find - or cover up?) the truth behind the loss of DNC and Podesta e-mails to Wiki-leaks. That report said the data was downloaded in seconds - something impossible to do via a hack-in over the internet, give the volume of data involved. The obvious conclusion was someone with access to the DNC server had downloaded the e-mails to either a CD or thumb-drive, and pass the information to Wikileaks that way.

    Mueller, Comey and perhaps Rosenstein should all be waterboarded to get the truth from them. Brennan, Strzok and the alcoholic impersonating a DNI should all just be shot. Then we can start on Bag-man Holder, Loretta Lynch, and the other shadow players in this shadow play.

  • Steven Gibbs

    07/11/2019 03:47 PM

    Sorry the GRU is not the main intelligence agency of Russia and it was not of the Soviet Union either. I cznnot recall the current acronym, but it was the KGB. Names change but the GRU is Russian military intelligence

  • David Woods

    07/11/2019 03:45 PM

    good day, Governor!!
    i still can't figure out why the Russians wanted Trump to win the election!! Trump would've been their worst enemy!!
    it was Clinton who sold 20% of our uranium and they were sending tons of money into the Clinton Foundation coffers!
    makes no sense!!
    thank you for the great article!!

  • Terri White

    07/11/2019 02:39 PM

    Wow! Just.....wow!!!
    Oh, and love your articles!!!!!

  • Karen a Armstrong

    07/11/2019 02:10 PM

    I am not even going to play I don't get confused by the trail of evidence, and it would take someone younger, with a sharper mind than mind to follow it all (and maybe that is what they were all counting on) but a simply surface question is , ' Why would they want Pres. Trump elected in the first place when Hillary & Obama sold them all that Uranium, and we all recall the Obama open mic (except the media of course) , it makes zero sense for them to have wanted him to win.

  • rodney burke

    07/11/2019 01:55 PM

    What is NOT included in the Mueller report is more important than the lies contained IN it. That document was such a joke, the guy you cite is not the ONLY one poking holes in it. I am sure, you have poked so many holes in ti that this isn't much truth left. Truth, be told, there IS no truth , because Mueller is a liar and a political hack. I jsut love it when people READ the report and then say, lies. Mueller by using Weismann and his other henchmen, threw away any credibility he once had. His days at the FBI are infinitely more suspect than ever, as well as the Boston incident. this should be thrown out as a crime and the perps thrown in GITMO for the duration. Yes, two years wasted. I think the dems OWE him two years for what they did.