RUSSIAGATE PART 1: REMEMBER THIS? 2016 PUTIN INSTALLS TRUMP IN WHITE HOUSE, AFTER RUSSIA CORRUPTS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. PART 1.

 

THE MUELLER REPORT. WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT IS NOT. (BARR SUMMARY LETTER). PARTS 1-4.

THE FIRST 4 POSTS EXAMINING THE MUELLER REPORT, WERE ARTICLES CRITIQUING ATTORNEY GENERAL BARRS SUMMARY LETTER ANALYZING THE FINDINGS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT WAS WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM A TRUMP APPOINTEE. 

(THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS 

ARTICLE IS TAKEN FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL

BARRS LETTER TO CONGRESS SUMMARIZING 

THE FINDINGS OF THE MUELLER REPORT, AND 

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED MATERIAL THAT

APPEARS ON THIS WEBSITE.)

IF YOU VISIT THIS SITE ON A REGULAR BASIS, THE

FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS PROBABLY FAMILIAR;
THE 2016 ELECTION: "INFLUENCING " AN ELECTION,
AND "RIGGING" AN ELECTION ARE TWO DIFFERENT 
ISSUES.

THE MAIN POINT OF THE ARTICLE CAN BE SUMMED UP BY
THE FOLLOWING, (TAKEN FROM THE BODY OF THE POST.)

OBTAINING INFORMATION ILLEGALLY, AND PROVIDING
IT TO ONE SIDE IN AN ELECTION TO HARM THE OTHER 
BY ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE VOTERS...

AND

...PHYSICALLY ALTERING VOTING COUNTS THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX, OR COMPUTER, SO THAT ONE CANDIDATE EMERGES VICTORIOUS...

...ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTIONS. THE TRUTH OF ONE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OTHER. THEY MAY BOTH BE TRUE, OR BOTH FALSE. ONE MAY BE TRUE, AND THE OTHER FALSE. WE MUST NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE, OR LACK OF, IN ONE CASE TO BE USED IN JUDGING THE OTHER.

HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION?

A MAIN GOAL OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS TO ANSWER THE FIRST PART, WHICH INCLUDES THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OBTAINING PRIVATE AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION ABOUT THE OPPOSITION PARTY AND CANDIDATE, AND OFFERING IT TO TRUMPS CAMPAIGN 
TO HELP WIN THE ELECTION.

HOWEVER, IN THE SECOND PART, THE ALTERING OF VOTING COUNTS TO ENSURE A DONALD TRUMP VICTORY, IS NOT SOMETHING ADDRESSED BY THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, AND HAS NO BEARING ON THE POSSIBLE FINDINGS OF "COLLUSION" OR "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" THAT ARE THE GOALS OF THE INVESTIGATION.  

ALONG THESE LINES, THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INVESTIGATION OF DONALD TRUMPS FINANCES, BOTH THE SOURCES AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY COULD BE INFLUENCED FOR THE RIGHT CONSIDERATIONS, IS SEPARATE FROM ANYTHING THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION ADDRESSED, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO BRING THEM TOGETHER IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

IN THE END, IT COMES DOWN TO THE FOLLOWING: IT IS NO MORE VALID FOR ME TO SAY THAT DONALD TRUMP IS GUILTY OF FINANCIAL CRIMES IN THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THE MUELLER REPORT SUPPORTS THE ACCUSATION OF "COLLUSION" OR "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,"... 

...THEN IT WOULD BE FOR ME TO SAY THAT HE IS INNOCENT OF ANY CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE HOUSE BECAUSE THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION DID NOT FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST HIM,(OR HIS CAMPAIGN.) 

THE MUELLER REPORT. COLLUSION OR DELUSION. (BARR SUMMARY LETTER). PART 2.

Well, it seems that a "MYTHOLOGY" has already developed around

the contents of Attorney General Barrs Summary Letter detailing

the Special Councels findings of the 2016 Election Probe about possible

COLLUSION,INTERFERENCE, CONSPIRACY etc., that provided the

TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH PRIVILEGED OR PRIVATE INFORMATION THAT

THEY USED AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON,TO INFLUENCE THE FINAL

OUTCOME.

MYTH #1.-  DONALD TRUMP, AND HIS CAMPAIGN,WERE CLEARED FROM
ACCUSATIONS THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN ANY TYPE OF COLLUSION
OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE ELECTION.

NOT TRUE- Contrary to what has been said by over the airwaves, what follows is taken from the summary letter:

THE SUMMARY LETTER SAYS THE FOLLOWING- "The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

THIS STATEMENT WAS FOLLOWED BY THIS QUOTE, WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM THE BODY OF THE SPECIAL COUNCELS REPORT-  “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The Difference? THE SUMMARY LETTER, (WRITTEN BY ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR), USES THE FOLLOWING WORDING: "Conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

THE ACTUAL QUOTE THAT IT REFERS TO SAYS: "Conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING:

"...WITH RUSSIA..." INSTEAD OF ..."WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT...",

THIS DIFFERENCE IS ESPECIALLY TELLING IF WE LOOK AT 
SPECIFIC CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT WERE UNCOVERED 
DURING THE INVESTIGATION.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD KNOW THAT.

THE MUELLER REPORT. BY ANY OTHER NAME. (BARR SUMMARY LETTER). PART 3.

The main problem with Attorney General Barrs summary of the Special Counsels report, when relating information about Russian Interference in the 2016 election, and possible collusion with members of the Donald Trump Campaign, is a failure to clarify Terms and Definitions. This is especially important when the summary letter quotes actual parts of the Special Councels Report dealing with POSSIBLE RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

This occurs twice:

 As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities."

 The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

As you can see, when the Report itself is quoted, the term "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT" IS USED with no qualifications, it is clear and concise.  However, the Barr Summary letter uses multiple terms that creates confusion as to what is actually being discussed, and the exact nature of who and what is being accused or exonerated.

FROM THE SUMMARY LETTER WE GET:

- "...the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference..."

- "... persons associated with the Russian government in connection..."

- "... joined the Russian conspiracies..."

- "... Special Counsel found that Russian government actors..."

- "... Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers..." 

-"... Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

What this doesn't tell us is if these were RUSSIAN NATIONALS
WORKING:

-  WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
-  WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
-  ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
-  INDEPENDENT OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
-  AS A MEMBER OF, OR EMPLOYED BY, THE
   RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. 

THIS WOULD INCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WHO WENT "RENEGADE."

THE MUELLER REPORT.  (BARR SUMMARY LETTER). PART 4.

As we examine the Summary Letter provided by ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT IT DOES NOT TELL US, AS MUCH AS WHAT IT DOES TELL US.

When speaking of RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE in the 2016 election, we have a problem:
There is the wording in the report, made public, which we can analyze. However, when we talk about information that has not been released, we only have the ATTORNEY GENERALS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT SUCH INFORMATION REVEALS.


QUESTION #1. RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE- IT SEEMS THERE IS A NOTICEABLE LACK OF INFORMATION CONCERNING WHICH RUSSIAN GROUPS, ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION, CAN BE CONSIDERED SANCTIONED AND DIRECTED BY THE PUTIN GOVERNMENT, AND THOSE WHO ACTED INDEPENDENTLY.

QUESTION #2. HOW DO WE MEASURE THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IN TERMS OF WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY TO COORDINATE OR REPRESENT THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEES INTERESTS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHO HAD THE CAPACITY TO LEGALLY SPEAK OR ACT FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?

WHY ARE THE TWO ABOVE QUESTIONS SO IMPORTANT?

ACCORDING TO THE SUMMARY LETTER, THE FOLLOWING IS THE DEFINITION USED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN DETERMINING POSSIBLE CHARGES AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

IF THIS IS THE ONLY DEFINITION USED, THE SPECIAL COUNSELS REPORT CLEARS UP NOTHING, AND OPENS UP SOME DISTURBING POSSIBILITIES.

HOW SO?

IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE ABOVE DEFINITION IS THE 
SOLE MEASUREMENT FOR PROSECUTION, IT LEAVES US WITH  THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE SCENARIOS:

SCENARIO #1- A RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE ENLISTS A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER WITH A PLAN TO AID DONALD TRUMP, BY GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION THAT IS ANECDOTAL IN NATURE, AND FULL OF INNUENDO AND UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION.

SCENARIO #2- A TRUMP ELECTION OFFICIAL APPROACHES A RUSSIAN NATIONAL,WHO CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN THE U.S. THE REASON? HE ASKS THE BUSINESSMAN IF HE COULD OBTAIN "SPECIAL INFORMATION" THAT WOULD AID DONALD TRUMP IN WINNING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THESE ARE EXAMPLES, NOT ACCUSATIONS. THE POINT IS THIS: IF SCENARIOS LIKE THIS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ONES DID OCCUR, NO LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. WHY? BECAUSE IN NEITHER CASE WAS THE DEFINITION OF PROSECUTORIAL CONDUCT MET.

REMEMBER, IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION, THE "TRUMP CAMPAIGN," AND THE "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT" HAD TO
BOTH BE INVOLVED, NOT JUST ONE. THE EXAMPLES OF A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER, OR A RUSSIAN BUSINESSMAN,
SHOW US THAT "COLLUSION," OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" COULD OCCUR. HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEING INNOCENT OF SUCH ACCUSATIONS, AS THE SUMMARY LETTER IMPLIES, WOULD BE VALID, EVEN IF CRIMINAL ACTS WERE PRESENT IN BOTH SCENARIOS.