Guest post by Joe Hoft

The Mueller report, produced by a gang of conflicted Hillary supporters, is full of holes. We’ve put together the ten biggest lies in the report.

1. The Russians wanted Trump to Win and were afraid of Crooked Hillary

Obama’s Deep State and its media said from the start insisted that Russia wanted to damage Hillary and help Trump in the 2016 election. This is noted in the report in the section discussing the Russian hackers (noted below) and inferred throughout the report and consistently in other mainstream media posts, but this is clearly not the case.

TRENDING: OUTRAGEOUS! Ohio State University President Sends Ignorant Text Message to Students Following Breonna Taylor Decision -- And a Crazy-Ass Video!

The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation received millions from the Russians in return for the sale of 20% of US uranium while Hillary was Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. The Russians knew that they could use this against Hillary and that she could be easily bribed for a few million dollars. The Russians knew Hillary posed no threat to them.

The Russian Facebook ads targeted Hillary and Trump voters.

None of the anti-Hillary ads ran weeks out before the election.

Of course the Russians wanted Hillary to win!

2. The Russians Hacked the DNC – but we never checked the servers

The Mueller report states that the Russians hacked Hillary and the DNC –

The operatives working for the Russian intelligence directorate, the GRU, sent dozens of targeted spearphishing emails in just five days to the work and personal accounts of Clinton Campaign employees and volunteers, as a way to break into the campaign’s computer systems. The GRU hackers also gained access to the email account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, of which its contents were later published. Using credentials they stole along the way, the hackers broke into the networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee days later. By stealing the login details of a system administrator who had “unrestricted access” to the network, the hackers broke into 29 computers in the ensuing weeks, and more than 30 computers on the DNC. The operatives, known collectively as “Fancy Bear,” comprised several units tasked with specific operations. Mueller formally blamed Unit 26165, a division of the GRU specializing in targeting government and political organizations, for taking on the “primary responsibility for hacking the DCCC and DNC, as well as email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign,” said the Mueller report.

But we know that this is a myth because Mueller’s team never even reviewed the DNC server as noted in the ‘report’. It’s impossible to know how the DNC was hacked without obtaining and investigating the server –

In his extensive report, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not “obtain or examine” the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in determining whether those servers were hacked by Russia.

Is “Fancy Bear” even a reality?

3. The Russians provided DNC and Podesta emails to WikiLeaks –

The far left Washington Post stated that the Mueller report shows how the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta’s emails and then transferred them to WikiLeaks –

Mueller’s indictments against a number of alleged Russian intelligence agents details how they accessed the Democratic National Committee network and Podesta’s email account (among other targets) and transferred the data to WikiLeaks. There, the stolen material became a central component of the election coverage for much of the last month.

There is no evidence to date to support the claim that the Russians gave the DNC or Podesta emails to WikiLeaks.

This is the same story that Democrats and the DNC have shared for over three years, yet there is no proof that the DNC server was ever obtained and inspected by the FBI! At least six times WikiLeaks claimed that Russia was not the source of the emails they leaked to the press related to the DNC and creepy John Podesta. One such example is below –

–https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763055329781350401

Mueller’s gang claims that Russia gave DNC and Podesta emails to WikiLeaks and yet they never even interviewed WikiLeaks to obtain their testimony!

4. Russia reached 126 million Americans by spending only $100,000 on Facebook ads –

According to CNN –

The report details Russian attempts to sew discord among Americans by amplifying both extremes of the political spectrum. Using a cover group known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a team of Russian agitators created Facebook groups such as United Muslims of America, Stop All Invaders, and Being Patriotic. From the Mueller report: “The IRA’s ‘United Muslims of America’ Facebook group had over 300,000 followers, the ‘Don’t Shoot Us’ Facebook group had over 250,000 followers, the ‘Being Patriotic’ group had over 200,000 followers, and the ‘Secured Borders group had over 130,000 followers.” Reaching up to 126 million Americans isn’t too expensive; the IRA spent just $100,000 on Facebook ads. Meanwhile, the natural ebb and flow of sharing and liking made sure their posts disseminated further.

It is absolutely and positively impossible that a $100,000 spend in Facebook ads could reach 126 million Americans. In addition, this amount of advertising dollars is minuscule.

In sharing that the Mueller investigation has been far more destructive to our country than Russia, President Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner, who worked the campaign said that the Trump campaign spent $160,000 on Facebook ads every three hours during the election cycle –

The entire Facebook yarn in the report is comical.

5. The crime collusion is really conspiracy:

Mueller in his report spends much time defining the collusion crime his gang investigated –

He concluded that the law related to his investigation is actually conspiracy –

Gregg Jarrett from FOX News discussed the crime of collusion in October 2017. In his post Jarrett makes many statements that are almost shocking, but none more than the fact that the entire investigation is lawless. Jarrett states the following about the recent charges reported in the Russia collusion story –

George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns. It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

Mueller had to redefine the crime collusion to conspiracy in order to carry out his investigation and thought it was no big deal to do so.



6. The President could be indicted on obstruction charges for actions he is constitutionally provided:

This is also not the case. Mueller dedicated 20 pages in the report to the topic of obstruction. Mueller and gang argued a much broader definition of obstruction per the law than what the law states. Will Chamberlain at Human Events explained this well –

Let’s start by looking the statute, excerpted here: (c) Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction]. (Emphasis added). Why was this so important to Mueller? Because most of the obstruction statutes couldn’t possibly apply to President Trump’s behavior, as they require that a defendant obstruct a “pending proceeding” before an agency or tribunal. It is settled law that an FBI investigation does not constitute such a proceeding. But § 1512(c) applies to acts of obstruction done with the intent of impairing evidence for a future, potential proceeding. That made it potentially usable against the President. Second – the language of subsection (c)(2), read in isolation, is *very* broad. Removing subsection (1), it reads like this: “Whoever corruptly… obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction].” If taken to its extreme, it could be read to cover any act – no matter how lawful – that has the effect of impeding a federal investigation. That would include, for example, asking an FBI director to lay off an investigation, or firing an FBI director. The Mueller Report revealed that Mueller interpreted § 1512(c)(2) in just such a broad fashion.

According to Chamberlain, Barr disagreed with Mueller’s definition in his report to Rosenstein in mid-2018 –

Conversely, in Barr’s reading (as detailed in his June 2018 memo) subsection (c)(2) is a “residual clause” – a catch-all clause “most naturally understood to cover acts that cause a similar kind of result as the preceding listed examples, but cause those results in a different manner.”⁠ Because subsection (c)(1) deals with types of obstruction that impair evidence, Barr argues, subsection (c)(2) has to be read narrowly, as limited to obstructive acts “that impair the integrity or availability of evidence.” Mueller firmly disagreed: in the Mueller Report, he addressed this argument specifically, boldly asserting that nothing in the text of subsection (c)(2) “limits the provision to acts that would impair the integrity or availability of evidence in an official proceeding.”

However, Barr never had to get into a legal fight on obstruction in the final report –

In a twist, Barr didn’t rely on a narrow reading of § 1512(c)(2); instead, he exploited the malleability of Mueller’s theory and determined that Trump lacked the requisite intent to commit obstruction.

Mueller twisted the obstruction law to use it against the President in the same manner he and Andrew Weissmann twisted the law to cause the loss of more than 80,000 Arthur Andersen employees’ jobs in the mid-2000’s. An action that was later overturned by the Supreme Court 9 – 0. In the end, it didn’t work.

7. Mueller was unable to determine if Trump committed obstruction:

Barr met with Mueller and team and found out about Mueller’s position on obstruction –

At the March 5 meeting, Mueller indicated that he and his team of more than a dozen prosecutors would not bring charges against the president for obstruction – but they wouldn’t exonerate him.

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction, and we asked them a lot on the reasoning behind this and the basis for this,” Barr testified. “We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision, and when we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.” Mueller submitted his report March 22. Barr testified that he had asked Mueller to flag portions of the report that included secret grand jury material, and which therefore might require redactions. The attorney general said that Mueller did not do so, prompting a delay in the report’s release – and a crucial factor in Barr’s decision to release a letter describing the report’s main findings.

“Unfortunately it did not come in that form, and it quickly became apparent that it would take three to four weeks to identify that material and other material that would need to be redacted,” Barr testified.