Aaron Maté wrote a compelling piece for Real Clear Investigations this week that exposed the soft underbelly of the Mueller Report.
Titled “CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims,” the column laid out in clear detail the contradictions within the Russia investigation:
The report claims that the interference operation occurred “principally” on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.
But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources.
You can pick out your favorite weak spots on your own, but they all suggest that the absolute certainty of Democrats that Trump colluded with Russians to steal an election is based on nothing more than a hope and a dream. For instance, although Mueller’s team pretends that they have clear evidence that Russian agents stole DNC emails, listen to the language they used in the report:
Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC’s mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016. [Italics added for emphasis.]
Most interestingly, Maté details inconsistencies in the Mueller timeline that suggest he can’t really prove his case against the Russians.
The report’s timeline defies logic: According to its account, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only before he received the documents, but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
As the Mueller report confirms, on June 12, 2016, Assange told an interviewer, “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great.” But Mueller reports that “WikiLeaks’s First Contact With Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks” comes two days after that announcement.
If [as Mueller contends] Assange’s “First Contact” with DC Leaks came on June 14, and with Guccifer 2.0 on June 22, then what was Assange talking about on June 12? It is possible that Assange heard from another supposed Russian source before then; but if so, Mueller doesn’t know it. Instead the report offers the implausible scenario that their first contact came after Assange’s announcement.
There is another issue with the report’s Guccifer 2.0-WikiLeaks timeline. Assange would have been announcing the pending release of stolen emails not just before he heard from the source, but also before he received the stolen emails.
If the New York Times and Washington Post had half the brainpower of this one solitary reporter, they would never have persecuted President Trump for the last three plus years. Or if they did, they would have proven themselves to be pawns of the Deep State. Come to think of it, that’s just what they did.
Read Maté’s piece at RealClear Investigations to get the whole picture. (By the way, my column at Real Clear Politics will be coming out early on Friday instead of next Monday, and I will refer to Maté’s column again.)
Frank Miele writes from Kalispell, Montana, at www.HeartlandDiaryUSA.com and is a columnist at Real Clear Politics. To read more of my columns about the Dishonest Media, the Deep Swamp, the failed presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and Trump’s war to restore American greatness, read my “Why We Needed Trump” trilogy or “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake?”. They are available at Amazon in paperback or Kindle editions.
Also visit Heartland Diary on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1FmrOF2TF-njRznqoU4yjA