Here Are 5 Big Holes in Mueller’s Work
By Aaron Maté,
August 1, 2019
Robert Mueller’s two-year, $25.2 million investigation was supposed to provide the definitive account of Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election. Yet even after he issued a 448-page report and testified for five hours before Congress, critical aspects remain unexplained, calling into question the basis for the probe and the decisions of those who conducted it.
Time and again in his report and his testimony, Mueller refused to address a wide range of fundamental issues, claiming they were beyond his purview. Some of the issues Mueller and his team did not clarify include whether the FBI had a sound predicate for opening a counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign; whether the FBI knowingly relied on false material; and the links between U.S. government agencies and key figures who fueled the most explosive claims of an illicit Trump-Russia relationship. Mueller claimed that he was prevented from answering critical questions due to ongoing Justice Department reviews, one by Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham and the other by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. In the meantime, here are some of the biggest mysteries that Mueller’s team left hanging in the air.
- Who Is Joseph Mifsud, and Was He the Actual Predicate for the Russia Investigation?
“Did the FBI egregiously overreact by launching its Trump-Russia probe on vague and ultimately fruitless information … or is Mifsud himself evidence that the Russia investigation was itself a set-up launched for still unknown reasons?”
- What Was the Role of the Steele Dossier?
- Why Did the Mueller Team Invent the Polling Data Theory About Konstantin Kilimnik, and Omit His U.S. Ties?
- Why Did the Mueller Team Falsely Suggest That Trump Tower Moscow Was a Viable Project – and What Was the Role of FBI Informant Felix Sater?
- Was Specious Info Leaked to Justify the Absence of Trump-Kremlin Links?
Read at RealClear Investigations
I think it is time to fill in those “unknown reasons.”
Something is very wrong when people stretch a matter beyond any possible integrity or honesty, and then shovel it out to the public as established fact. Especially when they made no attempt to be honest or fair in what they did from the very beginning.
And something is wrong when someone stands in front of a building screaming fire while the building burning is on the next street over. What are the reasons for doing any of this? All you would know is the person or people do have big reasons for it.
How sinister it is when the investigation(s) itself becomes just an extension of the ongoing cover up. And more when that investigation(s) is blessed with immune legitimacy.