, 75 tweets, 21 min read Read on Twitter
1) ....and it's midnight. So we will review what the Mueller report actually said (note: based on the Executive Summary; if you want all the bits and pieces read the 450 page report.)
2) We need to get a good grounding in what the report is saying before "filling in the blanks" with the other key reports, news stories, and Q posts that provide the context we need to really understand what went on here.
3) Let's begin with the bottom line:

Russia did try to interfere in our election, and what they did violated our laws. However, neither @POTUS nor anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with them, and the head of the FBI told the President that this fact was known.
4) The entirety of President Trump's behavior must be understood in that context. It wasn't just that he knew he was innocent, it was that THE FBI TOLD HIM SO BUT NOBODY WOULD GO OUT THERE AND SIMPLY SAY IT.
5) Since the President's innocence was a foregone conclusion, AND KNOWN TO THE FBI, anything that the FBI did to pretend he was guilty or to enable that perception WAS AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
6) President Trump, in this report, is visibly frustrated at the head of the FBI, the Attorney General, the White House lawyer, his advisers, the heads of the intel community, & the media b/c WASHINGTON IS A SMALL TOWN AND THEY ALL REFUSED TO DEFEND HIM, KNOWING HE WAS INNOCENT.
7) Consider the TOTAL AND COMPLETE HYPOCRISY AND DESTRUCTIVENESS of people who essentially FRAMED HIM FOR A CRIME HE DIDN'T COMMIT and then accused him of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE for protesting!
8) Amid all the smoke and mirrors here, it is hard to see how outrageously the @POTUS was treated. But it was singularly outrageous, and he has every right to be angry!
9) All of this is just plain and simple common sense, and yet here we are distracted from real national security and bread-and-butter issues -- all wound up, litigating A COLOSSAL FRAUD, over and over and over again.
10) What's also outrageous is that the government spends a BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR ON ADVERTISING but nobody at the Department of Justice thought that perhaps the public would want (minimally) a webpage explaining the Special Counsel's report in detail.

gao.gov/products/GAO-1…
11) OK. So what did the Russians do?

Number one, they used covert propaganda to sow discord among the American public and undermine the election process.

Their tools included included social media, advertising, and political rallies.
12) The second thing they did was to hack into Democrats' servers, and the personal email of Democratic political figures, and dump what they found through several phantom social media accounts as well as Wikileaks.
13) In the beginning the Russians were generally fomenting discord (2014-2015), but then (2016) they turned actively toward pushing the election in the direction of @POTUS and away from candidate Hillary Clinton.

These are established facts.

Not conjecture.
14) There was no collusion, and some of these supposed circumstantial evidence examples are absolutely mind-boggling. Why are they even here?
15) For example, we are told that the infamous Access Hollywood tape was released (damaging to candidate Trump) and less than 60 minutes later there was a Wikileaks dump.

So?
16) We have been told through social media that military/intelligence officials worked together to help @POTUS get elected. Is it impossible that these people posed as Russian hackers and did the dump themselves?

Why are we playing hypothesis games?
17) Here's another dumb example. Candidate @realDonaldTrump made a sarcastic comment about the Russians releasing Hillary's (BleachBit!!!!) "missing" emails & this is included as evidence?

The same report states that Trump did not think the Russians did the Wikileaks hack!
18) Here's another one. The Trump campaign was interested to learn that Wikileaks might dump damaging emails about Hillary.

What is actually noteworthy about this?

@POTUS, like everyone else, knows that Hillary is crooked and wants her to be found out! Prosecute her!
19) We learn right up front that the IRA (no, not THAT IRA, the "Internet Research Agency," a front for a Russian oligarch) organized campaign rallies and contacted Trump campaign people & supporters about them. But nobody on the Trump team knew who they actually were!
20) In fact, no U.S. citizen colluded with the Russians at all. Again, we get this information upfront.
21) @POTUS @realDonaldTrump did say he didn't have business with Russia, though. The report shows there were negotiations through June 2016 for a “Trump Tower Moscow” skyscraper licensing deal.

#FactsMatter
22) It is interesting to me that the Special Counsel so definitively says "the Russians" did it with respect to hacking, when we know that hackers can pretend to be Russian when they are in fact someone else entirely.

There should at least be a disclaimer to that effect.
23) The report points out that there were meetings on a range of topics between the Trump campaign and various Russian officials and these meetings (including offers of help to the campaign) are not called out as criminal or collusive.
24) One of the questions not explored in the report is whether the Russians' activities (including activity ascribed to the Russians, which may have been ordered by non-Russians posing as Russians) actually affected the election results.
25) But this is a moot point, because there were many, many shills acting to influence the election -- as in ALL the media figures the Hillary campaign pushed narratives to; ALL the so-called "grassroots" organizations funded by people like George Soros; and so on.
26) In fact, in 2006, it was Hillary Clinton herself who sought to rig the Palestinian elections. They literally have her on tape saying: "We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

observer.com/2016/10/2006-a…
27) "'I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,' said Sen. Clinton. 'And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.'”
28) This is who Hillary was talking to. Again, her comments are on tape.
29) Interference in foreign elections is something the United States does with some regularity.

nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sun…
30) Let's be honest here.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
31) 85 countries and counting.

globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-…
32) Nevertheless, the intelligence community got together and on January 6, 2017 they released an "assessment" which told us what we already knew.

Yes, the Russians interfered in our elections.
33) The sequence of events here is odd.

Mid-January - February 2017 - Congress says they'll look into it.

March 20, 2017 - James Comey, then-director of the FBI, says they've already been looking into it.

May 9, 2017 - @POTUS fires Comey.

Why?
34) The official reason was that DOJ recommended it.

But the real reason was that Comey knew @POTUS never colluded -- he told the President so privately.

But Comey wouldn't clear the President's name in public.

He let people think @POTUS was guilty.
35) On May 17, 2017 - Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel to continue the investigation and any related matters under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

Any related matters.

Any related matters.
36) These "related matters" could include attempts to interfere with or block the Special Counsel's investigation, as well as “new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation.”

law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/60…
37) That report we just got has 855 redactions.

Not all of them have to do with matters currently under investigation, but some of them clearly do.

thesmokinggun.com/buster/donald-…
38) One interesting question concerns former President Obama and his weak response to Russian President Vladimir Putin on election meddling, which his Administration was keenly aware of.

Was he actually allowing the interference to occur?

npr.org/2018/02/21/587…
39) Is it possible Obama's conduct toward Putin is one of the matters still under investigation?

Certainly, it is odd that Obama told us that he told Putin, about the hacking: "Cut It Out."

Cut it out = what you say when someone splashes water on you.

nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/…
40) Let's pause for a couple of minutes so I can read notifications.
41) A few people are bringing up the matter of Seth Rich, and the widespread belief that he was the one who hacked the DNC server (at least). The public really needs closure on this, and it is not going to be enough to say "there are certain things which can never be revealed."
42) But in any case, we continue.

As you read the below, consider the possibility that Mueller actually is a "white hat" who had to come up with SOMETHING to make this investigation look real...while the true criminals are pursued.
43) I've organized @POTUS "non-obstructive misdeeds" (or whatever you want to call them) by person.
44) So first we have @GenFlynn, who concealed his interactions with Russia during the Presidential transition, and whose lies (said the Special Counsel) interfered with the FBI's investigation.

vox.com/policy-and-pol…
45) Basically, Obama signed an Executive Order against Russia ordering sanctions for their election interference; Russian ambassador calls Flynn; Flynn (after consulting with the Presidential Transition Team) asks Russia not to escalate things over it. Russia agrees.
46) Of course there is the obvious question as to why Obama waited until Trump won the election to do anything about Russian interference; basically the EO can be seen as a way to stick it to Trump as much as to punish Russia.
47) Keep in mind that everything Flynn is doing, he's doing at the behest of the Presidential Transition Team, which is working at the behest of the President. And yet Flynn is taking the fall.
48) Additionally - Flynn was asked by a senior member of the Transition Team to contact foreign govs, including Russia, to ask them to delay/defeat a forthcoming anti-Israel UN resolution (settlements).

Flynn said Russia never got back to him; they did; they wouldn't oppose.
49) There were also some "materially false statements and omissions" concerning his consulting group's work in Turkey - this matters because it concerns contact with a foreign government.
50) So what did the President do wrong here? Nothing. He asked his Deputy National Security Advisor to make a note for the record that he never asked Flynn to contact the Russian ambassador. She wouldn't do it; she wasn't sure what was true.

But we have no evidence @POTUS lied.
51) In all these situations, I ask myself, what would an ordinary person do in that situation? And I can tell you, it is standard practice (particularly in the government) for someone to send themselves an email (or ask someone to write down) "I didn't do that."
52) The fact that Deputy Nat Sec Advisor McFarland didn't know what to believe doesn't prove anything. The fact that she had been offered an ambassadorship, and didn't want to be accused of writing an exculpatory letter in exchange for that -- makes sense.
53) This other part about the President's lawyer asking Flynn's lawyer for a "heads up" if something came up that could implicate the President, and noting the "hostile" response (no, he couldn't provide one) - yeah, it's something, but it's weak.
54) Reading this junk, I say to myself, where's the real news?

Just as a point of comparison, in 2015, it was reported that Valerie Jarrett leaked Hillary's use of private email (of course, scandalous). VJ denied: "preposterous."

nypost.com/2015/03/14/oba…
realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/…
55) Another weak example Mueller brings is that @POTUS praised Manafort while he was on trial, even mentioning pardon, and when convicted, called Manafort was “a brave man” who wouldn’t “break.”

Oh, and @POTUS also said “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed.”
56) @POTUS is incredibly frustrated with the AG for recusing, but keep in mind the AG acknowledged that @POTUS was innocent as far as he knew. Saying "please just help me get a fair shot" when you're innocent does not even belong in the same sentence as "obstruction"!
57) The Comey interaction is really mind-boggling. The only thing here that might remotely be damning of the @POTUS is the statement that he told Comey he "required loyalty." One has to wonder (since Comey let him hang out to dry) whether Comey made that one up.
58) In March 2017, knowing that he was not under investigation, President Trump called the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of the CIA and NSA to ask them to say so publicly.

Since they obviously would know as well.

They did not.
59) You know, talking about "Russian interference" and how it destabilizes our democracy -- what about accountability for INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INTERFERENCE aimed at unduly undermining our country's confidence in the President?

What about ALL the stuff that Brennan said???
60) In May of 2017, President Trump suggested that Mueller had conflicts of interest, and his advisors said those had already been factored in by the Department of Justice and ultimately wouldn’t hold up.

Again, the President is expressing a concern that OTHERS HAD!
61) (If you read and follow #QAnon you could argue that @POTUS attempt to get Mueller off the case was really a form of reverse psychology, knowing it would never happen if he asked.)
62) @POTUS implores Corey Lewandowski to send a message to Sessions about how unfair all this is. Lewandowski won't do it and neither will another Trump official, Rick Dearborn. All of which points to the delicate situation they all found themselves in (including lawyer McGahn).
63) Because as everybody in Washington knows, there is what's right, what's ethical, what's moral and what's legal and what's required. And then there's "what will the Washington Post put on the cover?" All of the "optics" need to be factored in, and senior officials know this.
64) Then there's a discussion of the President not wanting to share emails about a meeting with a Russian lawyer (which some have argued REEKS of a setup) and of editing Don Jr.'s statement about said meeting, then denying it.

Again, Trump knew, a setup.
realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/…
65) We've covered White House lawyer McGahn, but (particularly in an environment of rampant leaks) there is no crime in asking the lawyer why he was taking notes during a meeting.
66) Some ado is made of the President wanting McGahn to deny a personal conversation about him quitting rather than removing Mueller as the President had asked.

I'm not sure this private discussion is a bit deal. Maybe someone else thinks so.
67) The President's flip-flop on Michael Cohen, who initially stayed "on message" re: the Moscow skyscraper deal...then didn't, is noted.

The project didn't go thru. But @POTUS argued that the one (business) had nothing to do with the other (election).

reuters.com/article/us-usa…
68) With respect to the Russia deal, my personal take on it is that @POTUS did not think he would win, and the project had already been in the works since 2013.

politico.com/story/2016/12/…
69) Okay, here's another question: Timing. Why was the report released now?
70) Just to close out, standards:
-- Can't pursue case if evidence insufficient.
-- Prosecution would have to serve a “substantial federal interest” that couldn’t be served in other ways (“prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives.”)
71) Flynn, Manafort, Cohen and Papadopolous are mentioned as having lied in ways that impaired the investigation.
72) On the Russian side, the IRA and GRU charged with:
* Conspiracy to defraud the US
* Identity theft
* Conspiracy to violate the federal law against computer intrusion
73) And the report notes the data was limited. This one I did not understand: "Some witnesses & information were not pursued “such as information known to atty's or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal DOJ policies."
74) OK that's all folks.

Thanks for reading!

(End.)
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Dannielle Blumenthal PhD
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!