The claim is that "Russia meddled" in the 2016 presidential election in two distinct ways: 1) By hacking Clinton campaign and DNC emails and releasing them to Wikileaks, who then published them, and; 2) That "Russia" bought social media ads, many of which had nothing to do with the elections, in order to "sow discord" among Americans and get candidate Trump elected.
Background: In a January 2017 DNI report titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections," with the input of the CIA, then headed by John Brennan, and the FBI, headed by James Comey, with information gleaned from the NSA, and issued by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, claimed those agencies had "high confidence" that "Russia's" attempted to interfere in the 2016 election with the intent of helping Donald Trump win the election.
Despite dozens of reports to the contrary, which were updated and "corrected" at a much later date, all 17 intelligence agencies were not represented in the report, only information from the three named above, and the report produced by the of of the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
An example of one of those corrections by the mainstream media, via Free Beacon, of the Associated Press correction posted on four different stories incorrectly claiming 17 intel agencies concurred, shown below:
In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment.
At the time the report was issued, many questions ensued that were never answered. For example, why did only those specific four agencies have input, but more importantly, why did the report begin by informing the public that while they were offering their "conclusions," and assessment, the "report does not and cannot include the full supporting information?"
Since January 2017 when the report was released, a number of very relevant facts have emerged, along with a recent rebuke by a federal judge of a key finding in the Mueller report, which was then repeated by Attorney General William Barr after the release of the Mueller report, which brings up the very real possibility that Russia, as a government, may not have even interfered, meddled, call it whatever you want, at all.
ABOUT THAT 'RUSSIA HACKED' CLINTON AND DNC COMPUTERS NARRATIVE..........
The "supporting information" that the DNI report refused to reveal to the public.... information they used to conclude that Russia hacked into the DNC computers and parts of the Clinton campaign with the Podesta emails that were released by Wikileaks, did not come from government investigators, it came from a private company called CrowdStrike that the DNC hired independently, and who told the U.S. intelligence community that it was "Russia."
Everything listed below is publicly available information and has been reported on, but the information has been spread out over the course of the past three years, so they appeared as "separate" issues, but when seen together, a picture emerges that justifies questioning the official narrative that the media has been pushing for years.
• The DNC refused to allow the U.S. Intelligence community access to the servers that were "hacked."
The DNC claimed at first the FBI never asked to see the server, so even they admit that no one in the Intelligence community independently verified that the DNC server was "hacked" at all.
• FBI only saw 'draft' CrowdStrike report with redactions
In a DOJ response to a court filing by Roger Stone, they admitted in a footnote, that the reports provided to the FBI were marked "draft" and the DNC and the DCCC "informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced."
So, Comey, Brennan and Clapper took the word of a private firm, used a redacted report from CrowdStrike, to base their "assessment," claiming they had high confidence that Russia hacked the DNC to interfere in the presidential election to help Donald Trump.
• The investigators are under investigation
The same three men, Comey, Brennan and Clapper, that created the original report that claimed it was Russia that "hacked" the DNC and the Clinton campaign, are under investigation for their agencies actions during 2016 election are being reviewed by the DOJ Inspector General for inappropriate action. AG Barr also appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigation possible illegal activities conducted by the Intelligence communities, especially the agencies the three led during the Obama administration.
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
[....]
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
[....]
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
FEDERAL JUDGE REBUKES MAJOR CLAIM OF MUELLER REPORT
In a recently unsealed order by a federal judge, we see another major claim in the Mueller report, which was also used to bring an indictment against a private Russian company, has been rebuked.
Namely that the "Russian government" was behind the second prong of attacks that the media, and former Obama officials have claimed Russia conducted against the U.S. to interfere in the presidential election.
Specifically Mueller's determination (as well as the DNI report) that those Russian troll farms can be proven to be linked to the Russian government.
The troll farms were spewing out a small number of "ads" and social media posts, very miniscule in comparison to overall ad spending on the social media platforms, some ads geared toward politics, some simply pushing both sides of an issue to "sow discord," and Robert Mueller decided it would be a good idea to take those companies to court, assuming since they are Russian based, no one would be present to argue the case.
Only the Russia business hired some DC based attorney's to fight the charges against Concord Management and Consulting LLC and that is where the trouble began. Team Mueller now actually has to provide evidence of their claims.
To make a long story short, Mueller handed his report to AG Barr. Barr then issued a short statement, under severe pressure from Democrats to publish the report immediately, claiming he was hiding things. Then Barr hurriedly made the appropriate redactions of grand jury materia,l which it is illegal for him to expose, and released the report with a statement, quoting certain portions of Mueller's report.
Concord then filed a motion with the court to have both Mueller and Barr cited for criminal contempt for misrepresenting their company by claiming their were part of the Russian government, to justify the claim that those social media posts were part of "Russian interference" in the 2016 presidential election.
The judge denied the claim to charge Mueller and Barr with contempt, but agreed with Concord that the U.S. government violated the rules the court had handed down about what can and cannot be said publicly, in regards to the attempt by team Mueller to link the companies with the Russian government, because those links were not established in the original indictment and the trial date has not even been set as of yet.
Here are some of the key portions from the judge:
The screen shots are credited to Aaron Maté, the same writer of the Real Clear Investigation article cited above, on his Twitter account, where he concludes with a very good question, asking "This inconsistency, confirmed by a DC judge, raises new Qs about the validity of Mueller's claim of a "sweeping and systematic" Russian gov't interference campaign. If Mueller was disingenuous in falsely trying to link it to Russian gov't, what else was he disingenuous about?
If Robert Mueller's "dream team" of prosecutors could not even establish in their own indictment against Concord that the Russia government was linked to those social media advertisements, and in fact, could not provide any supporting evidence, proof that Russia was behind the "hacks" of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, using only the same information the FBI and the Intelligence community used, which was a private contractor for the DNC....... then it is fair and even logical to ask whether anyone can provide the public with actual evidence proving that Russia "meddled" at all or whether this was an elaborate plot to blame Russia, accuse President Trump of collusion, all to overthrow a duly elected President.
This whole thing is beginning to look like the biggest hoax perpetrated on American citizens, by the Obama administration, in history.
EMERGENCY FUNDRAISER:Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.
So ANP is accepting emergency donations throughout July. PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:
So, Comey, Brennan and Clapper took the word of a private firm, used a redacted report from CrowdStrike, to base their "assessment," claiming they had high confidence that Russia hacked the DNC to interfere in the presidential election to help Donald Trump.
