|
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
AP News: Mueller dismisses Trump's claim of 'exoneration'.
LETTING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, OFF THE HOOK.
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.
THE CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY THIS: THE DEFINITION USED BY THE MUELLER COMMITTEE IS SO NARROW, WHEN REFERRING TO "COORDINATION" TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAW(S), THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND JUST ABOUT ANYONE ELSE COULD HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF "CONSPIRACY" OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE", BUT WOULD NOT BE CHARGED UNLESS THERE WAS A FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO.
THIS DOES NOT EXCLUDE AGENTS OF ONE, OR BOTH, ACTING INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT THE "OFFICIAL " APPROVAL OF THE LEADESHIP. IN FACT, AGENTS OF ONE OR BOTH COULD HAVE BEEN "ENCOURAGED" TO ACT IN A CERTAIN MANNER TO BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, BUT WITHOUT AN ACKNOWLEDGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE "OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP," NO ONE COULD BE CHARGED CRIMINALLY. THIS EXTREMELY NARROW DEFINITION ESSENTIALLY MADE "CONSPIRACY", "COORDINATION", OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" PERFECTLY LEGAL.
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.
THE CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY THIS: THE DEFINITION USED BY THE MUELLER COMMITTEE IS SO NARROW, WHEN REFERRING TO "COORDINATION" TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAW(S), THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND JUST ABOUT ANYONE ELSE COULD HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF "CONSPIRACY" OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE", BUT WOULD NOT BE CHARGED UNLESS THERE WAS A FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO.
THIS DOES NOT EXCLUDE AGENTS OF ONE, OR BOTH, ACTING INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT THE "OFFICIAL " APPROVAL OF THE LEADESHIP. IN FACT, AGENTS OF ONE OR BOTH COULD HAVE BEEN "ENCOURAGED" TO ACT IN A CERTAIN MANNER TO BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, BUT WITHOUT AN ACKNOWLEDGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE "OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP," NO ONE COULD BE CHARGED CRIMINALLY. THIS EXTREMELY NARROW DEFINITION ESSENTIALLY MADE "CONSPIRACY", "COORDINATION", OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" PERFECTLY LEGAL.
QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED: ROBERT MUELLERS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REP. #7.
THE QUALITY AND EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE UNCOVERED WAS NOT UNIVERSALLY APPLIED.
(TAKEN FROM THE TEXT.)
In addition to targeting individuals involved in the Clinton Campaign, GRU officers also targeted individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections. Victims included U.S. state and local entities, such as state boards of elections (SBOEs), secretaries of state, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities. 186 The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.187 The GRU continued to target these victims through the elections in November 2016.
While the investigation identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, the Office did not investigate further. The Office did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims. The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity.
AND.
(TAKEN FROM THE TEXT)
Unit 74455 also sent spearphishing emails to public officials involved in election administration and personnel at companies involved in voting technology. In August 2016, GRU officers targeted employees of **** ,a voting technology company that developed software used by numerous U.S. counties to manage voter rolls, and installed malware on the company network. Similarly, in November 2016, the GRU sent spearphishing emails to over 120 email accounts used by Florida county officials responsible for administering the 2016 U.S. election. 191 The spearphishing emails contained an attached Word document coded with malicious software (commonly referred to as a Trojan) that permitted the GRU to access the infected computer.192 The FBI was separately responsible for this investigation. We understand the FBI believes that this operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government.
The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so.
(TAKEN FROM THE TEXT.)
In addition to targeting individuals involved in the Clinton Campaign, GRU officers also targeted individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections. Victims included U.S. state and local entities, such as state boards of elections (SBOEs), secretaries of state, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities. 186 The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.187 The GRU continued to target these victims through the elections in November 2016.
While the investigation identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, the Office did not investigate further. The Office did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims. The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity.
AND.
(TAKEN FROM THE TEXT)
Unit 74455 also sent spearphishing emails to public officials involved in election administration and personnel at companies involved in voting technology. In August 2016, GRU officers targeted employees of **** ,a voting technology company that developed software used by numerous U.S. counties to manage voter rolls, and installed malware on the company network. Similarly, in November 2016, the GRU sent spearphishing emails to over 120 email accounts used by Florida county officials responsible for administering the 2016 U.S. election. 191 The spearphishing emails contained an attached Word document coded with malicious software (commonly referred to as a Trojan) that permitted the GRU to access the infected computer.192 The FBI was separately responsible for this investigation. We understand the FBI believes that this operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government.
The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so.
WHAT DO THESE PASSAGES TELL US?
THAT WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO JUDGING THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA PORTION OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE MUELLER REPORT GATHERED THE INFORMATION, AND EVALUATED ITS WORTH IN DRAWING CONCLUSIONS, AND THE DECISION TO FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES.
HOWEVER, WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS GATHERED UNDER THE CATEGORY OF, "Intrusions Targeting the Administration of U.S. Elections." THE FOLLOWING WAS THE PROCEDURE:
WHAT FOLLOWS BELOW ARE QUOTES TAKEN FROM THE TEXT.
While the investigation identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, the Office did not investigate further... The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity.
ALSO THIS:
The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so.
SO, TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THESE CASES, WE SHOULD BE TURNING TO THE ABOVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, AND NOT THE REPORT ITSELF?
MR. MUELLER, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE ABOVE ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE?
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
THE MUELLER REPORT AND TESTIMONY, ARTICLES AND POSTS, START TO FINISH: QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED: ROBERT MUELLERS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REP. #6.
HERE ARE A FEW MORE EXCERPTS REGARDING RUSSIAN SPONSORED HACKING OPERATIONS.
However,You may notice one thing...it is that the operations included a agency, the IRA, which
specialized in the Social Media Operation. It also refers to WIKILEAKS, and incidences of releasing
information detrimental to the CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
"At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus ·on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations. In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign.""
"In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees....the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government's role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks."
"The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign" or "Campaign") showed interest in WikiLeaks' s releases of documents and welcomed their Potential to damage candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, HARM TO ONGOING MATTER forecast to senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton. WikiLeaks' s first release came in July 2016."
Now, the Investigation into the above categories provided enough evidence to the committee that
made them confident in drawing definite conclusions, and in some cases, filing Criminal Charges...
CHARGES RELATING TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
NOW HERE IS WHAT IS INTERESTING...
However,You may notice one thing...it is that the operations included a agency, the IRA, which
specialized in the Social Media Operation. It also refers to WIKILEAKS, and incidences of releasing
information detrimental to the CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
"At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus ·on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations. In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign.""
"In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees....the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government's role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks."
"The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign" or "Campaign") showed interest in WikiLeaks' s releases of documents and welcomed their Potential to damage candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, HARM TO ONGOING MATTER forecast to senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton. WikiLeaks' s first release came in July 2016."
Now, the Investigation into the above categories provided enough evidence to the committee that
made them confident in drawing definite conclusions, and in some cases, filing Criminal Charges...
CHARGES RELATING TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
NOW HERE IS WHAT IS INTERESTING...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)