Mueller report: It doesn't tell us how it knows some things.

Here is an example:

"In the summer of 2017, the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children."

Just exactly HOW in the world could they possibly know that?

 

Sources who may have been told this, by either Trump or his son or both may have reported it to Mueller, or documented it, or maybe Trump or his son said so directly either to Mueller or media. Remember this is not a courtroom proceeding. Heresay is allowed !

 

Trump wasn't interview by Mueller was he?

 

I gather that he responded to some questions posed by Mueller in writing. He did a lot of that 'I don't recall...' thing we have seen before in these situations. Its safe to say that Mueller was not impressed with his candor.

 

Any idea why they don't say how they know?

 

I haven't read the report. He may not have wanted to reveal the source of the statements if they were third party. Maybe it was redacted? I know that the House Dems want you to know. they want the full report released as well as the foundational material on which the report was based.

 

Well the report document is full of references when it makes a claim, which correspond to interviews that they conducted. However, this section of the report includes no references.

 

Chat with the man in charge of the editing, his name is William Barr.

 

Your thread title is excellent.

Indeed, the Mueller report makes many claims, much innuendo, for which there is no proof WHATSOEVER.

IMO the best example of that is the claim regarding the hacking of the DNC material. As many experts have pointed out long before the report came out, the material was not hacked, it was LEAKED.

How can a rational reader place any faith in a report that cannot get that point straight? He cannot.

 

No, the redactions are in the form of black highlighting through the text. Barr didn't remove any referencing.

 

What? How was it leaked exactly then?

 

Google answered the question in like 0.15 seconds.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/a-timeline-of-trump-tower-meeting-responses/

 

Where does that mention, "deleting a line?"

 

Sure, but leaked by who?

 

The heavy favorite in the speculation is that Seth Rich leaked it, and that was the reason for his death, but it really doesn't matter who leaked it.

The point is, according to William Binney, a computer expert and 20 year man with the NSA who blew the whistle, that the digital fingerprints show the material was not hacked, it was not stolen, it was leaked. Various small facts related to the digital world show that it could not possibly have been hacked, it was leaked by a human being.

 

The Mueller report often references reports from the Media.

 

Yes, thereby rendering it mostly propaganda.

 

Sure, but not in this instance. No references whatsoever.

 

It was probably Hope Hicks. I think she was the one that said the emails would never see the light of day.
We should get to see the grand jury testimony then we would probably know for sure.

 

How would that mean that Trump edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line?

What grand jury testimony?

 

Barr accepted Mueller's report without any expressions of doubt about what it contained.

Mueller and his team have completed it.

Thus, naysayers trying to tear down the Report with prepared inaccurate and incorrect talking points don't matter and can be ignored.

 

Hope Hicks was on the plane with him when he was editing Jrs. statement.

All of it.

 

"Notes taken by Donaldson on May 9 reflected the view of the White House Counsel's Office that the President's original termination letter should "[n]ot [see the] light of day"" https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

This just says that it was the view of the White House Counsel's Office, with no mention of Hicks. And I can't figure out why the quote has "n" and "see the" in square brackets. Very weird.

Why is the grand jury testimony so significant?

How do you know that?

 

I think that's a different memo. What page?

It has the detail of what Muller summarized.

Page 104.

 

It is easier to just do a word find search for "light of day." Considering there is only one search result, whatever you heard didn't come from the Muller report. Do you remember where you heard it?