BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE MESSIAH CHRONICLES: BREAKING DOWN THE MUELLER REPORT: FOR ANSWERS, LOOK IN THE RIGHT PLACES.

            SMITHSONIANMAG.COM                                                       CBSNEWS.COM

PICTURES FROM THE JAN, 6, 2021 ATTACK ON THE WHITE HOUSE. HERE IS A SAMPLE

OF THE "AMERICANS" THAT TRUMP AND THE RUSS-PUBLICAN PARTY COUNT ON TO 

KEEP THEM IN POWER.

BLAST FROM THE PAST.

HERE IS PART OF THE STORY OF THE 2016 ELECTION,

THE YEAR THE U.S. PLACED AN INCOMPETENT DEMAGOGUE

IN THE WHITE HOUSE. IT IS ALSO THE STORY OF A RIGGED ELECTION

THAT WAS ALLOWED TO STAND, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS DIRECT

EVIDENCE OF BOGUS RETURNS IN A NUMBER OF STATES.

Any words that are colored RED represent portions
of the Transcript that were BLACKED-OUT, 
AND COULD NOT BE READ. WORDS LIKE
"INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE" ARE NOT
MY CREATION, BUT WERE PLACED OVER
BLACKED-OUT AREAS)

As you go through the MUELLER REPORT, there is one very important detail that must be acknowledged: IT IS THE STORY OF TWO INVESTIGATIONS. Why do I say this? BECAUSE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN WERE NOT ARRIVED AT BY THE SAME PROCESS,WITH JUST ONE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING EACH EVENT, AND THE VALUE OF THE CORRESPONDING EVIDENCE.

WHAT DO I MEAN? CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS, TAKEN 
DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT. (IN ITALICS)

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. 

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations.

First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 

RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN. 
(HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE BODY OF THE TEXT.)

Internet Research Agency (IRA) carried out the earliest Russian interference operations identified by the investigation. A social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States.

- The IRA was based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and received funding from Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin and companies he controlled. Pri ozhin is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. HARM TO ONGOING MATTER.

- The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton. 

- The IRA later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed "information warfare." 

 The IRA' s operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United States. To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials in the United States. 
-


Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released the stolen documents. 

RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATIONS. 
(HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE BODY OF THE TEXT.)

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 2 categories provided enough evidence to the committee that
made them confident in drawing definite conclusions, and in some cases, filing Criminal Charges. I will cover these in more depth at a later time, but there is one more category to cover. What you read below may seem to be a part of the RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATION...

...BUT THERE IS ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE.


EXCERPTS FROM THE BODY OF 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. 

By at least the summer of 2016, GRU officers sought access to state and local computer networks by exploiting known software vulnerabilities on websites of state and local governmental entities. GRU officers, for example, targeted state and local databases of registered voters using a technique known as "SQL injection," by which malicious code was sent to the state or local website in order to run commands (such as exfiltrating the database contents). 188 In one instance in approximately June 2016, the GRU compromised the computer network of the Illinois State Board of Elections by exploiting a vulnerability in the SBOE's website. The GRU then gained access to a database containing information on millions of registered Illinois voters, 189 and extracted data related to thousands of U.S. voters before the malicious activity was identified.

GRU officers INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE scanned state and local websites for vunerabilities. For example, over a two day period in july 2016, GRU OFFICERS INVESTIGATVE TECHNIQUE
for vulnerabilities on websites of two dozen states. INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE.

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.



The Hacking operations that included the following:

- Individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections.

- 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.

- Private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such 
as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.

- 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. 

- Florida county officials responsible for administering the 2016 U.S. election...


WERE NOT EVALUATED, IN TERMS OF THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE, BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL.


FROM THE TEXT:
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. 


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 DOES THIS MEAN? WHILE THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE THAT THE GRU"TARGETED THESE INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES", NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION WAS DONE.

WHY?

"The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity."

"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."

Well this answers the question: "Who is exonerated by the Mueller Report?"
ANSWER: NO ONE. The Evaluation of the
most important information regarding fraud in 
the 2016 election was not part of their 
responsibility. They couldn't exonerate anyone
even if they wanted to. 

TO BE CONTINUED...

BLAST FROM THE PAST: So, allowing Putin to Dictate Foreign Policy to NATO members is the Better Choice? Caving into Despots always ends well.

As you read the content below, keep in mind the "Governments" that have allied themselves with Putin and his repressive regime. As we have seen in the Hate Speech and Public Statements by the Political and Religious Leadership of certain Countries regarding the LBTGQ COMMUNITIES within their Borders, Fascism takes on different forms. Sometimes it is behind a Lectern, other times a Pulpit. One thing never changes: Do what we say, when we say it, and maybe you'll get along. RIGHTS, HUMANITARIAN GOALS AND CREATING LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICIES THAT BENEFIT ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE SOMETHING FASCISTS CARE NOTHING ABOUT. All that matters is Power, and how to keep it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

LET'S lay this one out:

NATO is a Treaty Organization created to protect its members from possible Foreign Invasion. (Which, at its creation, WAS THE U.S.S.R AND ITS SATELLITE PUPPET GOVERNMENTS.)

So, with the breakdown of the U.S.S.R, former IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES SUCH AS POLAND, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, AND GERMANY joined NATO. Given the recent history of THESE COUNTRIES BEING SUBJECT TO THE TYRANNIES OF STALIN AND HITLER, allying yourself with other DEMOCRACIES for mutual protection would seem to be a NO-BRAINER.

With the recent invasion of UKRAINE BY PUTIN, it would seem to be a pretty smart move, considering the fact that the rest of the world has apparently forgotten the LESSONS LEARNED BY THE CONFLICTS OF THE 20th CENTURY.  LESSONS SUCH AS:

APPEASING OR BACKING DOWN TO SOCIOPATHIC HEADS OF STATE, WILL NOT MAKE THEM:

- MORE REASONABLE IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION.

- WILLING TO IMPLEMENT "HUMANITARIAN POLICIES."

-  PURSUE LESS AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICIES THAT WILL 

ENSURE NO FURTHER DIRECT PHYSICAL INTERVENTION

INTO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHER NATIONS.

Current NATO Countries and the Years They Joined:

Note: * indicates a founding member

Country	Joined		Country	Joined
Albania	2009		Lithuania	2004
Belgium	1949*		Luxembourg	1949*
Bulgaria	2004		Montenegro	2017
Canada	1949*		Netherlands	1949*
Croatia	2009		North Macedonia	2020
Czech Republic	1999		Norway	1949*
Denmark	1949*		Poland	1999
Estonia	2004		Portugal	1949*
France	1949*		Romania	2004
Germany	1955		Slovakia	2004
Greece	1952		Slovenia	2004
Hungary	1999		Spain	1982
Iceland	1949*		Turkey	1952
Italy	1949*		United Kingdom	1949*
Latvia	2004		United States	1949*

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ABOVE LIST, ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS:

- HOW MANY WERE FORCED BY MILITARY INVASION OR PHYSICAL INTIMIDATION

TO JOIN NATO? 

- SO NATO IS A THREAT TO RUSSIA? PERHAPS YOU CAN LIST FOR ME THE NUMBER OF

MEMBER  NATIONS THAT INVADED ANOTHER SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, AND SEIZED 

CONTROL OF ITS GOVERNMENT?

- HOW MANY OF THESE NATIONS SUFFERED THE TYRANNIES OF THE U.S.S.R,  NAZI

GERMANY, OR OTHER FASCIST REGIMES BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER WW2, AND WILL

CLAIM THAT THEY WERE COERCED INTO JOINING?

AT THE SAME TIME, THINK OF HOW OFTEN THESE COUNTRIES SUFFERED BECAUSE OF POLICIES AND AN AGENDA DIRECTED BY A HEAD OF STATE SITUATED IN MOSCOW?

...WHAT WILL THE EXCUSE BE WHEN PUTIN DECIDES TO PUT ANOTHER COUNTRY ON HIS SHOPPING LIST, AND LIES THROUGH HIS TEETH ABOUT HOW IT WAS NECESSARY TO INVADE, TO PROTECT RUSSIA?

I REALLY SUGGEST THAT PICKING UP A HISTORY BOOK MIGHT "ENLIGHTEN" SOME WORLD LEADERS AS TO WHAT COULD BE LOST, IF WE CHOOSE TO THINK THAT THE PUTINS AND TRUMPS OF THIS WORLD CAN BE TRUSTED.

RI Heritage Hall of Fame pumps brakes on honoring Michael Flynn.

 BOSTON GLOBE: 

After facing outrage for honoring Trump’s disgraced former national security advisor, the orgainzation said in a statement that it will “defer Flynn’s induction to a more peaceful and rational time and a more secure place. 

I am not going to go into the Body of the rest of the Article, except to point out the reasoning skills offered in the following Quote;

“A majority of the board that voted to induct Flynn relied upon his 30-year record of public service and high attainments,” Conley wrote. “It accepted as true the grant of clemency from the president of the United States asserting that no crime was actually committed..."

Sorry to point this out, but an act of clemency or a pardon from the President, IS NOT PROOF OF INNOCENCE. IT IS BASICALLY AN ACT OF FORGIVENESS FOR CRIMINAL ACTIONS. TRUMP PARDONED THE ACTIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO COMMITTED CRIMES HE ADMITTED TO, THAT BENEFITTED TRUMP.

STATISTICS AND POLLS. Rules to live by. #1.

 MANIPULATING THE RESULTS IS TO EASY.

This should be a given, but it is often not reported or ignored.  Poll results can be greatly influenced by the Tactics of those conducting them.

Example-  How often do you hear a poll prefaced by words like...

"... among registered..."

"...survey of likely voters..."

"...who identify themselves as.."

"...popularity among age groups..."

What do they all have in common? They tell us virtually nothing.

-  Where did the questioning take place?  Particularly, the "COMMUNITY."  Even in a small city or town, political differences can vary greatly, so knowing the exact locations can give us an indication about the validity of reported results.

-  How much of the information acquired about those who were interviewed or polled, was self- reported or unverifiable?

-  What were the guidelines or standards set that could disqualify an individuals answers from being included in the final results?

-  If there was more than a single question asked, was each individual asked ALL of them, or did previous answers influence the length of the interview?

-  What protocols were in place to guarantee that the Interviewers or Pollsters followed proper procedures?

NEVER ASSUME THAT  POLL RESULTS, EVEN IF THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF YOUR POINT OF VIEW, WERE CONDUCTED WITHOUT BIAS, WITH ALL SIDES TREATED FAIRLY. TO OFTEN THIS LEAVES US WONDERING..."WHERE DID IT ALL GO WRONG?"