July 25, 2019
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
After Mueller testimony, there will be no Trump impeachment before Nov. 2020
After former
Special Counsel’s Robert Mueller’s testimony: If there was no Trump-Russia conspiracy,
what was the basis, the conspiracy theory the Justice Department spent three
years pursuing that Mueller ultimately debunked saying there was no evidence?
Mueller could not say. And now it is abundantly clear based on Mueller’s (lack
of) testimony that to find the answer, Attorney General Barr — whom President
Trump has delegated his declassification authority to — must get to the bottom
of why the heck the Justice Department and intelligence agencies were doing
investigating and conducting surveillance on the opposition party in an
election year. Spy agencies getting involved in politics is a mortal threat to
our republican form of government. And Mueller had no good answer for why it
happened. It’s about time we found out. The lack of accountability here is
appalling. It’s time to declassify this mess, Mr. Attorney General.
Breitbart.com: FOIA Request Submitted Relating to DOJ Alleged Bribery Under Eric Holder
“Americans for Limited Government requested
documents Tuesday relating to an Obama-era corruption case at then-Attorney
General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice. Americans for Limited Government
requested documents pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request relating to ‘alleged public corruption, abuse of power, misuse of power
or the otherwise compromised status’ as well as ‘alleged acceptance of bribes’by
Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
officials.”
Daily Signal: Media Requests for EPA Records Soar Under Trump
“Major
news outlets, seemingly more prone to investigative reporting in the Trump era,
are much more aggressive in seeking records from the Environmental Protection
Agency than they were in the final years of the Obama administration, The Daily
Signal has learned. ABC News, CBS News, the Associated Press, The New York
Times, The Washington Post, and Politico are among 20 news organizations
showing a large increase in Freedom of Information Act requests, according to
EPA numbers obtained by The Daily Signal. The 20 media outlets include not only
news organizations with liberal perspectives but some, such as CNN, BuzzFeed,
Mother Jones, and Huffington Post, that freely mix news coverage and
left-leaning opinion. According to the data, the biggest percentage increase in
FOIA requests to the EPA by the 20 media outlets occurred between 2016, Barack
Obama’s last year as president and 2017, Donald Trump’s first year as
president. The organizations made a total of 626 FOIA requests to the EPA in
2017, more than doubling the 249 requests in 2016.”
John Solomon: Robert Mueller soon may be exposed as the 'magician of omission' on Russia
“Conservative
defenders of President Trump, including former House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.), have raised recent concerns that Mueller’s portrayal of the
Mifsud-Papadopoulos contacts doesn’t add up. Roh told me the information he is
preparing to share with Durham’s team from his client will accentuate those
concerns. Mifsud was a ‘longtime cooperator of western intel’ who was asked
specifically by his contacts at Link University in Rome and the London Center
of International Law Practice (LCILP) — two academic groups with ties to
Western diplomacy and intelligence — to meet with Papadopoulos at a dinner in
Rome in mid-March 2016, Roh told me.”
After Mueller testimony, there will be no Trump impeachment before Nov. 2020
By Robert Romano
If Democrats want to get rid of President Donald Trump, they’re going to have to do it at the ballot box in November 2020. There is not going to be any impeachment now.
Especially after Robert Mueller’s uninspiring performance at the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. Designed to bring attention to the supposed crimes of President Donald Trump, it instead called attention to what a complete waste of time the Russia investigation Mueller eventually headed up really was for the country.
As Mueller noted in his testimony, referring to his report, “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not.”
That’s putting it mildly.
Republicans at the hearing raised an incredibly important question: If there was no conspiracy with Russia, what was the basis, then, legitimate or illegitimate, for the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory the Justice Department spent three years pursuing that Mueller ultimately debunked?
What efforts did the FBI and Mueller make to corroborate the 2016 Christopher Steele dossier that had been commissioned by Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign before they used it as the basis of several FISA warrants against Carter Page?
Mueller could not say.
In his testimony, Mueller said because it was an ongoing matter at the Justice Department he simply would not answer any questions about the origins of the investigation: “I am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment or matters related to the so-called Steele dossier. These matters are subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should, therefore, be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department.”
Thank goodness the Justice Department is reviewing this. But Mueller headed up the very same investigation. He should have been able to acknowledge in the least how his team treated the Steele dossier, because we know the dossier was most certainly used by the Justice Department in the FISA warrants and the court-ordered surveillance. And it was explicit about the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory adopted by the Justice Department.
According to the dossier, Steele alleged the “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years.”
And, in 2016, Steele alleged there was “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries.”
Steele defined the conspiracy: “the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the WikiLeaks platform. The reason for using WikiLeaks was ‘plausible deniability’ and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team. In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue…”
It also accused one-time Trump lawyer of traveling to Prague in 2016 to coordinate with Russian intelligence officers.
So, in short, Trump was a Russian agent, Russia hacked the DNC and Trump and his campaign helped was the allegation. The Justice Department and intelligence agencies acted on that information in 2016 and conducted top secret court-ordered surveillance of the Trump campaign.
But, after three years, it turned out none of it was true.
The Mueller report stated, “In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government — or at its direction, control or request — during the relevant time period.”
Manafort was brought up on unrelated tax and bank fraud charges. As for Cohen, per the Mueller report, “Cohen had never traveled to Prague…” And so, he very well could not have been there meeting with Russian intelligence officials. Page was not charged with anything.
So, it was all fake. The Steele dossier claimed the sources were Russian but they are not named: Source A was a “former top Russian intelligence officer”; Source B was a “senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure”; Source C was a “senior Russian financial official”; Source D was a “close associate of Trump” (golden showers source); Source E was an “ethnic Russian close associate” of Trump (golden showers source); Source F was a “female staffer of the hotel”; and source G was a “senior Kremlin official”.
Was Steele receiving Russian disinformation? Did he even have real Russian government sources? Was it all made up?
We don’ know, because Mueller would not talk about the Steele dossier that made the allegation, even though the dossier was central to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant application against the Trump campaign and included material Steele said came from Russian intelligence sources and Mueller’s express mandate was to investigate Russian interference in the U.S. electoral process. He would not say how his team had debunked it.
He would not talk about Fusion GPS, which hired Steele.
He would not talk about the mysterious Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud who approached one-time Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos with promises of Hillary Clinton emails from Russia but who has been revealed to have extensive ties to Western intelligence agencies.
Mifsud might not have been a Russian agent either. Papadopoulos has said he was encouraged to meet Mifsud by the FBI in the first place. On Twitter on March 30, he wrote, “a woman in London, who was the FBI’s legal attaché in the U.K. … encouraged me to meet Joseph Mifsud in Rome in March 2016…” So, if Papadopoulos was the genesis of this investigation because he spoke about his meeting with Mifsud to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, but the Mifsud meeting was a sting operation against him, then the investigation had to start before he spoke to Downer.
Mueller says all these questions should now be directed to the Justice Department. Yes, let’s do that.
It is now abundantly clear based on Mueller’s (lack of) testimony that to find the answer, Attorney General Barr — whom President Trump has delegated his declassification authority to — must get to the bottom of whay the heck the Justice Department and intelligence agencies were doing investigating and conducting surveillance on the opposition party in an election year. Spy agencies getting involved in politics is a mortal threat to our republican form of government.
And Mueller had no good answer for why it happened. It’s about time we found out. The lack of accountability here is appalling. It’s time to declassify this mess, Mr. Attorney General.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured report from Breitbart.com, Americans for Limited Government has requested FOIA information from the Justice Department related to alleged corruption during the Obama-Holder era:
FOIA Request Submitted Relating to DOJ Alleged Bribery Under Eric Holder
By Sean Moran
Americans for Limited Government requested documents Tuesday relating to an Obama-era corruption case at then-Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice.
Americans for Limited Government requested documents pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request relating to “alleged public corruption, abuse of power, misuse of power or the otherwise compromised status” as well as “alleged acceptance of bribes” by Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials.
The documents pertained to a years-long investigation into financial crimes that the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) executives “allegedly committed over a period between 2002-2012.”
“Further, the Department of Justice should be reminded of the policy in favor of disclosure mandated by former President Barack Obama on January 26, 2009. President Obama instructed departments and agencies to operate with a presumption towards disclosure,” Rick Manning, president of the conservative group, added.
The conservative group requested all records “pertaining to the communications” from FBI and DOJ officials regarding the Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) letter requesting more information about this corruption investigation.
In a February 2012 letter to Grassley, the Obama DOJ denied knowledge that two of its prosecutors accepted bribes in connection with the investigation into financial crimes committed by the CFC.
A Daily Caller investigation in 2012 found that two DOJ prosecutors accepted cash bribes from indicted finance executives in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Obama DOJ had failed to arrest and prosecute the already-indicted financial executives because bribery had corrupted the process.
Grassley wrote to Holder in his request for a meeting in 2012:
“If the article is correct, the case was apparently a priority for the Department because more than 25 prosecutors were working on the case in some capacity. The whistleblowers in the article allege that confidential information was being leaked from the Department to the targets of the investigation. The article states that a meeting was held with all of the prosecutors involved and it was uncovered that two Department officials had accepted cash bribes and other improper contact had occurred.”
“The Department is not aware of facts supporting any allegations of bribery, as purported by the article,” a DOJ official claimed in 2012.
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured report from the Daily Signal’s Kevin Mooney, news organizations are proving they are more likely to investigate a Republican administration by almost tripling the number of FOIA requests to the EPA:
Media Requests for EPA Records Soar Under Trump
By Kevin Mooney
Major news outlets, seemingly more prone to investigative reporting in the Trump era, are much more aggressive in seeking records from the Environmental Protection Agency than they were in the final years of the Obama administration, The Daily Signal has learned.
ABC News, CBS News, the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico are among 20 news organizations showing a large increase in Freedom of Information Act requests, according to EPA numbers obtained by The Daily Signal.
The 20 media outlets include not only news organizations with liberal perspectives but some, such as CNN, BuzzFeed, Mother Jones, and Huffington Post, that freely mix news coverage and left-leaning opinion.
According to the data, the biggest percentage increase in FOIA requests to the EPA by the 20 media outlets occurred between 2016, Barack Obama’s last year as president and 2017, Donald Trump’s first year as president.
The organizations made a total of 626 FOIA requests to the EPA in 2017, more than doubling the 249 requests in 2016.
Dating to 1967, the federal Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure, upon written request and with exceptions, of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the U.S. government. Such requests—whether by a media outlet, other organization, or an ordinary member of the public—have come to be known as FOIAs, after the law’s acronym.
The Washington Post, which added the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness” to its home page after Trump’s election, submitted just one FOIA to Obama’s EPA in 2014 and none in 2013, 2015, or 2016.
But during the first two years of the Trump administration, the Post submitted 43 FOIA requests to the environmental agency, jumping from nine in 2017 to 34 in 2018.
“Based on The Washington Post’s failure to seek transparency during the Obama administration, it is clear that if democracy does die in darkness, then it died during Obama’s eight years in office,” Rick Manning, the president of Americans for Limited Government, a nonprofit based in Fairfax, Virginia, said in an interview.
“It is not surprising at all to find that Obama’s collaborators in the media showed zero curiosity about the inner workings of Obama’s regulatory regime,” Manning said.
With 2019 only half over, the 20 media outlets have submitted a total of 341 FOIAs to Trump’s EPA, more than the full-year requests to Obama’s EPA in any single year between 2013 and 2016.
The FOIA numbers The Daily Signal obtained from the EPA don’t go back further than 2013, the first year of Obama’s second term.
Here’s a look at what else the FOIA numbers at the EPA show:
The New York Times submitted 59 requests in 2017 and 36 in 2018, up from two in 2016. Politico filed 45 requests in 2017 and 125 requests in 2018, up from five in 2016.
CBS News submitted 13 requests in 2017 and five in 2018, up from two in 2016. The Associated Press made 23 requests in 2017 and 19 in 2018, up from three in 2016.
ABC News filed 22 requests in 2017 and 10 the next year, compared with three in 2016. BuzzFeed submitted 20 requests in 2017 and 18 in 2018, up from three in 2016.
CNN made 19 requests in 2017 and 28 last year, compared with nine in 2016. The Los Angeles Times submitted seven requests in 2017 and four in 2018, up from one in 2016.
Manning said his organization, Americans for Limited Government, continues to “aggressively FOIA” agencies of the Trump administration, to acquire information denied to him and his team by Obama administration officials.
Kevin Dayaratna, a senior statistician and research programmer with The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that FOIA requests to government agencies such as the EPA are critical to the cause of openness and transparency regardless of who is in power, because executive agencies need to be kept in check.
“The work the EPA does definitely deserves public scrutiny,” Dayaratna said. “Several years ago, I found a mistake in the EPA’s social cost of carbon models used to guide regulatory policy that resulted in overestimates of the Obama administration’s stated results. It is imperative that the public keep an eye on work done by the EPA and other organizations that, if not done properly, can deceive the public and mislead policymakers.”
Dayaratna said public frustration with the lack of government openness during the Obama years may have been a contributing factor to Trump’s election:
“I think one reason Trump was elected is that the public saw that the EPA and other agencies were not being completely transparent. So, the American people elected an outsider to shake up Washington. A number of government [computer-based] models have essentially been treated as a black box for years, when they should have been made open and available for public scrutiny.”
In addition to The Washington Post, other media outlets that submitted zero FOIA requests during the Obama years include Mother Jones in 2014 and 2015, ABC News in 2015, and the Los Angeles Times in 2015.
The Daily Beast and MSNBC didn’t submit any FOIA requests between 2013 and 2016, according to the data. But The Daily Beast has submitted five requests to Trump’s EPA, while MSNBC has submitted three.
Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, told The Daily Signal in an email that the disparity in FOIA requests to the EPA between the current and previous administrations provide insight into the media’s tight relationship with environmental advocacy groups.
“These facts are shocking if you assume the media are fair and balanced, and not allied with one party or another,” Graham said.
“These facts are not shocking if you assume the media are strongly allied with the Sierra Club and the Democrats in Congress. Obama’s EPA are the ‘good guys.’ Trump’s EPA are the polluters. This underlines that when the Old Media stands on a soapbox and boasts about holding people accountable, you can add an asterisk for ‘people we don’t like.’”
The Daily Signal sought comment Monday from all 20 of the news organizations about their FOIAs to the EPA, but only BuzzFeed, Reuters, and The Washington Post responded as of publication time.
Reuters declined to comment. The Washington Post replied that it would need more time to confirm the numbers.
BuzzFeed said in an email response that the increase in FOIAs to the EPA “probably” could be attributed to its addition of a science desk and hiring of two reporters with experience in submitting FOIAs.
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured report from The Hill’s John Solomon, the George Papadopoulos meeting with the Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud could be the key to unlocking the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory:
Robert Mueller soon may be exposed as the 'magician of omission' on Russia
By John Solomon
While most of the political world focused its attention elsewhere, special prosecutor John Durham’s team quietly reached out this summer to a lawyer representing European academic Joseph Mifsud, one of the earliest and most mysterious figures in the now closed Russia-collusion case.
An investigator told Swiss attorney Stephan Roh that Durham’s team wanted to interview Mifsud, or at the very least review a recorded deposition the professor gave in summer 2018 about his role in the drama involving Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election.
The contact, confirmed by multiple sources and contemporaneous email, sent an unmistakable message: Durham, the U.S. attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI committed abuses during the Russia investigation, is taking a second look at one of the noteworthy figures and the conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.
The evidence I reviewed suggests Mueller’s handiwork may be exposed for glaring omissions that, when brought to public light, leave key questions unanswered, especially about how the FBI’s unprecedented probe of the Trump campaign started.
Durham is focused on determining whether any government or private figures who came in contact with the Trump campaign in 2016 “were engaged in improper surveillance,” a U.S. official told me when asked about the Mifsud overture.
For those who don’t remember, Mifsud is a Maltese-born academic with a VIP Rolodex who frequented Rome and London for years and engaged at the highest levels of Western diplomatic and intelligence circles.
Mueller’s team alleges that Mifsud is the person who fed a story in spring 2016 to Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos about Moscow possessing purloined emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It was the earliest known contact in the now-debunked collusion narrative and the seminal event that the FBI says prompted it on July 31, 2016, to open its probe into the Trump campaign.
Mueller concluded that Mifsud was a person with extensive Russia ties who planted the story about the Clinton emails in Moscow and then lied about his dealings with Papadopoulos when interviewed by the FBI in 2017. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Mifsud.
But unlike others accused of misleading Mueller — including Papadopoulos, former Trump adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — Mifsud was not charged with a crime.
Conservative defenders of President Trump, including former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have raised recent concerns that Mueller’s portrayal of the Mifsud-Papadopoulos contacts doesn’t add up.
Roh told me the information he is preparing to share with Durham’s team from his client will accentuate those concerns.
Mifsud was a “longtime cooperator of western intel” who was asked specifically by his contacts at Link University in Rome and the London Center of International Law Practice (LCILP) — two academic groups with ties to Western diplomacy and intelligence — to meet with Papadopoulos at a dinner in Rome in mid-March 2016, Roh told me.
A May 2019 letter from Nunes to U.S. intelligence officials corroborates some of Roh’s account, revealing photos showing that the FBI conducted training at Link in fall 2016 and that Mifsud and other Link officials met regularly with world leaders, including Boris Johnson, elected today as Britain’s new prime minister.
A few days after the March dinner, Roh added, Mifsud received instructions from Link superiors to “put Papadopoulos in contact with Russians,” including a think tank figure named Ivan Timofeev and a woman he was instructed to identify to Papadopoulos as Vladimir Putin’s niece.
Mifsud knew the woman was not the Russian president’s niece but, rather, a student who was involved with both the Link and LCILP campuses, and the professor believed there was an effort underway to determine whether Papadopoulos was an “agent provocateur” seeking foreign contacts, Roh said.
The evidence, he told me, “clearly indicates that this was not only a surveillance op but a more sophisticated intel operation” in which Mifsud became involved.
Roh has defended Mifsud in the media against various allegations, steadfastly denying Mueller’s claim that his client ever told Papadopoulos about Clinton emails in Russia. Roh wrote a book last year that first floated the idea of Mifsud as a Western intelligence op.
If the FBI’s and Mueller’s portrayals are correct, Mifsud’s current story could be simply a Russian disinformation campaign or an exaggeration by a lawyer who seeks media attention and book promotion. Thus, everything Mifsud says must be given careful scrutiny.
But a close examination of the Mueller report identifies significant gaps and omissions, and occasional inaccuracies, that pose troubling questions.
For example, the report never mentions the FBI’s ties to Link. If the bureau feared Mifsud had unsavory ties to Russia, why would it provide training to his academic group?
Likewise, the Mueller report portrays Papadopoulos as the instigator who initiated contact with Mifsud and his Russian contacts. “Campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016,” the report said.
In fact, the contemporaneous evidence shows Mifsud was directed to seek out Papadopoulos at the March 14, 2016, dinner arranged by the LCILP and Link. Papadopoulos didn’t know who Mifsud was when he arrived for the dinner.
A month later, in mid-April 2016, Mifsud initiated introductions to Russian figures, including an email chain with Timofeev.
“Dear George, Ivan: As promised I had a long conversation today in Moscow with my dear friend Ivan from RIAC,” Mifsud wrote in an April 16, 2016, email to Papadopoulos that I authenticated with U.S. officials. “Ivan is ready to meet with you in London (or USA or Moscow).”
Roh said the idea for introducing the Trump adviser to Russians did not come from Papadopoulos or Russia but from Mifsud’s contacts at Link and LCILP. Likewise, Papadopoulos told me he didn’t initially ask to be introduced to Russians, though he eventually engaged in Mifsud’s offer.
To back his story, Roh provided me a page from Mifsud’s 2018 deposition — the one he plans to provide Durham’s team — in which the professor suggested the woman he introduced in April 2016 to Papadopoulos as Putin’s niece was a setup taken from his campus.
“Are you joking?” the deposition quotes Mifsud when Roh asked about Putin’s niece. "The question is not Putin’s niece, in any way or form. She is a student who had just finished the, an MBA program and was like many others, given the possibility of being a stagiaire,” a European term for “trainee” or “apprentice.”
One other Mifsud portrayal in the Mueller report and in court filings has raised eyebrows in intelligence and congressional circles. Mueller portrayed the FBI as being victimized during the Russia probe because Papadopoulos originally lied about Mifsud tipping him to the Clinton emails — and that somehow impeded the Mueller team from adequately questioning the professor in February 2017.
But new documents I obtained show Mifsud was anything but elusive and easily could have been interviewed, before and after Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying.
Mifsud was in Europe in summer 2018 for his deposition, routinely corresponded and met with European political and diplomatic officials for much of 2017, and even was interviewed by media outlets during the Mueller probe, according to email correspondence I reviewed. He also exchanged emails directly with FBI agents.
Multiple American officials confirm — as do contemporaneous emails — that Mifsud was in Washington in December 2016 at the height of the FBI’s Russia probe for a meeting with a State Department-backed group, Global Ties USA.
Mifsud’s contacts that month with senior executives of the group never were revealed to congressional intelligence investigators or mentioned in the Mueller report. Nor was Mifsud’s email thanking Global Ties for meeting with him about a “collaboration.”
An American directly familiar with Mifsud’s contacts with Global Ties said they began in May 2016 and involved arranging diplomatic introductions and meetings around the globe. No one from U.S. intelligence ever warned the group or suggested that Mifsud had improper ties to Russia. The FBI never interviewed the executive who met Mifsud in December 2016, the source said.
There is now compelling evidence Mueller omitted or misrepresented important facts about Mifsud and Papadopoulos that could change the public’s understanding of events. And those aren’t the only omissions and factual errors to emerge.
Mueller never disclosed in his report that Manafort business partner Konstantin Kilimnik, identified in the final report as having ties to Russian intelligence, actually was a regular informer for the State Department from 2012-2017. The report also incorrectly identifies an American citizen from the former Soviet republic of Georgia as a Russian.
Such omissions and mistakes add to the mistrust of the final product. And as the Durham team’s overture to Roh makes clear, Mueller’s testimony before Congress may not be the final verdict for his findings.
There are too many questions still unanswered, starting with an enigmatic professor named Mifsud.
