Volume I Number 19: Fill & Download for Free

12 Facts From the Mueller Report That Donald Trump Doesn't Want You to KnowUpdated on July 19, 2019jeff61bJeff is a computer professional who takes a great interest in politics and tries to always distinguish fact from opinion.Contact AuthorOfficial Portrait of Donald Trump and Robert MuellerThere are a lot of misconceptions about the Mueller Report due to the fact that Donald Trump and his supporters falsely claim that the report clears Trump and his campaign of any wrongdoing. In fact, it does quite the opposite. Much of the information in the Mueller Report is very damning toward Trump and his campaign.Please don’t take my word for any of this. I encourage you to download the full Mueller Report and verify for yourself that everything in this article is accurate using the page numbers I've included.1. Trump believed the Mueller investigation would destroy his presidency.When Attorney General Jeff Sessions told President Trump that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked." Trump also told Sessions that “you were supposed toprotectme.” (Mueller Report, Volume II, Page 78)Trump’s obsessive fear of the investigation was also evident in his public statements for the entire 2 years that the Mueller investigation was going on. In addition to his constant whining about the investigation and repetition of “No collusion, no collusion”, he personally attacked Robert Mueller and the other investigators, falsely claiming they were “Trump haters” and that Mueller had a conflict of interest. Trump’s advisers told him that the alleged “conflicts of interest” by Mueller were meritless. (Volume II, page 4)2. Russian interference in the election was far greater than most of us ever knew.Russia used several different methods to interfere in the 2016 election. Volume I of the Mueller report includes many pages dedicated to discussing the efforts of the Internet Research Agency (IRA), based in St. Petersburg, Russia.The report makes it clear that Russia was firmly committed to getting Trump elected president. An email to Donald Trump Jr. from the son of a Russian real estate developer stated that they wanted to meet with Trump to discuss incriminating information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government 's support for Mr. Trump." The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., responded to the offer by saying “I love it”. This resulted in the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in New York City. (Mueller Report, Volume I, page 110)3. Russia engaged in “Information Warfare” to help the Trump campaign.The Mueller Report says that Russia called their social media campaign “Information Warfare”. In addition to purchasing political advertisements on social media, Facebook identified 470 Russian-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January 2015 and August 2017. Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Facebook accounts.In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 Russian-controlled Twitter accounts and notified approximately 1.4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IRA-controlledaccount. (Volume I, pages 14–15)4. Russia used excessive hacking of private servers to help Trump win.Early in 2016, the Russian intelligence service hacked the emails of Clinton campaign volunteers and employees as well as the DNC. In May 2016 Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos said that the Trump campaign received word from the Russian Government that they could assist the Trump campaign through the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton. (Volume I, Page 1)"Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government's role in hacking its network, the GRU (Russian Intelligence) began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitiousonlinepersonas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks." (Mueller Report, Volume I, Page 4)Although Donald Trump claims he knew nothing of the Russian hacking, at a July 2016 news conference, he said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” (Volume I, page 49)5. Russians staged political rallies for Trump in the United States.The Mueller Report states that Russians posed as US grassroots organizers to work with Trump supporters and Trump campaign officials to organize rallies. The investigation could not prove that these Trump campaign officials knew they were working with Russians. (Mueller Report, Executive Summary to Volume I, page 4)6. Russia made direct offers of help to senior members of the Trump campaign.Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer to discuss ways the Russians could help them beat Hillary Clinton.Volume I of the Mueller Report details multiple contacts between Russians and members of the Trump campaign beginning in April 2016 and continuing through the November election. Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, George Papadopoulos, Carter Page and others all had multiple contacts with assorted Russians who offered to help with the campaign. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, even shared analytical polling data with suspected RussianspyKonstantin Kilimnik that could be used to help Russia target their interference in our election. (Mueller Report, Volume I, page 7)7. Yes, there WAS collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.The Mueller Report makes it explicitly clear that the Trump campaign not only knew about Russian efforts to help Trumpwin, but members of the campaign worked with the Russians. Paul Manafort even gave the Russians analytical polling data that could help them target their interference. (Volume I, page 7)The broadest definition of collusion is “secret cooperation in order to cheat or deceive others”. The cooperation between the Russian government and the Trump campaign certainly meets that definition of collusion, but as the Mueller Report explains, collusion “…is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law”.The actual crime that Mueller was investigating was conspiracy, which is harder to prove. According to Mueller, the cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign did not meet the definition of a conspiracy because the Trump campaign did not expressly ask Russia for their help. (Volume I, page 180)8. Mueller was prohibited from concluding that the president was guilty.Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that, since the Mueller investigation did not indict him, he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. In reality, before the investigation began, it was decided that Mueller would not make any conclusion about the president’s guilt or innocence.Volume II of the Mueller report states that the Office of Legal Counsel issued a statement that the Justice Department could not indict or prosecute a sitting president because it would undermine the ability of the president to do his job.Furthermore, it was decided at the beginning of the investigation that they would not make a conclusion as to whether the president committed a crime. However, a president does not have immunity after leaving office and may be prosecuted at that time. This investigation collected evidence so that it could be used after the president leaves office. (Mueller Report, Volume II, Page 1)We considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. (Mueller Report, Volume II, Page 2)While others could be indicted and prosecuted, as far as the president is concerned, Mueller could only gather evidence about potential wrongdoing that could be used by Congress or by prosecutors after he leaves office.9. Mueller found plenty of evidence that Trump committed crimes.If you read nothing else, at least read Volume II, pages 1 through 8 of the Mueller Report. Here are the highlights of those 8 pages.Trump directed his aides to conceal emails about the June 9 Trump Tower meeting.Trump edited a press statement about the Trump Tower Russia meeting by removing a reference to an offer of information helpful to the campaign and changing it to read that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children.Trump repeatedly tried to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to stop the investigation.Trump expressed the belief that the Attorney General should “protect” him.Trump told Don McGahn to call the Acting Attorney General and get him to fire Mueller. Then, in early 2018, Trump pressured McGahn to deny that Trump ordered him to have the special prosecutor fired.After Michael Flynn began cooperating with the investigation, Trump’s lawyers asked for a “heads up” if Flynn knew of any information that implicates the president. When Flynn’s lawyer declined to do that, Trump’s lawyers told Flynn that reflected “hostility” toward the president. (Volume II, Page 6)While Paul Manafort was on trial, Trump publicly praised him and called him brave man for refusing to “break”.Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, lied to Congress to minimize Trump’s involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project. Trump’s personal counsel asked Cohen to stay on message and not contradict the president.After the FBI found evidence that Cohen lied, Trump privately messaged him to “stay strong” and not “flip”. Cohen also discussed pardons with the president’s personal counsel.After Cohen began cooperating with the investigation, Trump called him a “rat” and suggested that his family members committed crimes.Based on everything in those 8 pages, there is only one inescapable conclusion: President Trump engaged in multiple acts of obstruction of justice and witness tampering by encouraging people to lie, concealing evidence, firing or attempting to fire people who were investigating him and dangling pardon’s for people who don’t “turn” on him.10. Mueller’s final summary was very damning of Trump.Since Mueller was prohibited from making any conclusion about the president’s guilt, he chose his words very carefully. The following 2 quotes are from Volume II, page 7:“The President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis.”“Many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws.”Here is Mueller’s final word about Trump and Obstruction of Justice.“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Mueller Report, Volume II, page 8)11. Mueller says it is up to Congress to determine if the President committed a crime.Near the end of the Mueller Report there is a lengthy section about Congress’s responsibility to take action when a president commits a crime like obstruction of justice. It is explicitly clear that this investigation was not allowed to determine the president’s guilt or innocence of any crime and that only Congress can do that. The purpose of the investigation was only to collect the evidence, present it in the report and let Congress decide what to do with that information.“Congress has Article I authority to define generally applicable criminal law and apply it to all persons – including the President.” (Volume II, Page 174)“The final step in the constitutional balancing process is to assess whether the separation of-powers doctrine permits Congress to take action within its constitutional authority notwithstanding the potential impact on Article II functions. In the case of the obstruction-of-justice statutes, our assessment of the weighing of interests leads us to conclude that Congress has the authority to impose the limited restrictions contained in those statutes on the President's official conduct to protect the integrity of important functions of other branches of government.” (Volume II, Page 177)In other words, Congress, the ball is in your court now.12. Oh, and one more thing: Attorney General Barr completely misrepresented the findings of the Mueller Report.Link - Mueller Disagreed With Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report - NBC NewsIf you’re wondering why so many people believe the Mueller Report clears Trump of wrongdoing, it's because, long before anyone else had been allowed to see the report, Attorney General Barr released a 4-page memo that wrongly stated the Mueller Report found no wrongdoing by President Trump. After Barr released his summary of the Mueller Report, Robert Mueller sent him a letter stating that Barr’s 4-page summary was misleading and did not accurately represent the findings of that investigation.As mentioned previously, Donald Trump wanted an Attorney General who would protect him. It looks like he found one in Robert Barr. Instead of being impartial and objective, as his job requires, Barr deliberately and repeatedly tried to spin the Mueller report to favor the president even though the report reveals a lot of illegal and dishonest activities by Trump and his campaign.

I assume that the questioner refers to the T-34 Soviet medium tank, not the American 1944–45 prototype heavy tank. The short answer is, The Western Allies did not produce their own T-34’s was that their military’s armored forces felt that the T-34 was a) inferior to their own designs, b) would require an excess change in manufacturing plants, and c) did not fit the US/UK design philosophy.As for the first point, I’m sure that this answer will raise a heated debate between those who can be bothered to comment. The T-34 was less armored and less well armed than either its British or American contemporaries. The 75mm M3 that early-model Sherman's mounted and the QF 75mm on the Cromwell both were superior to the 76mm F-34 in all respects. Also, they both came with radios direct from the factory, as opposed to the T-34 where only command vehicles had radios until the late war. As for mobility, the M4 was only marginally slower and the Cromwell was substantially faster due its Rolls-Royce Meteor aircraft engine. However, the T-34 was usually limited to ~15 km/h, less than half its full speed, due to its poor transmission. This made it essentially a sitting duck in combat. As one of the engineers assigned to evaluate the T-34 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground said, “Whoever designed this transmission should be shot for treason.” Additionally, the air filters for the engine were sub par at best.Regarding point number two, the reasoning should be obvious. The machinery needed to build a T-34 is very different from that needed to build a Sherman, as well as the components inside. A Soviet 71-TK radio is very different from an American SCR-508 or British Wireless Set Number 19, for example. Same for the gun, or suspension, or the engine.Finally, the US and the UK could afford to build better tanks than the Soviet Union at similar volumes. They both had large industrial bases and large, well-educated populaces. Because of this, they could build better tanks, and did not have to resort to building tanks in tractor factories. They had nothing to gain from building cruder tanks, which would only serve to increase front line losses. In addition, training in the US and the UK was excellent for all branches of their militaries. There was also no reason for them to reduce the quality of their tanks so that untrained conscripts could use them more easily - armored forces in both the US and the UK received very well trained personnel.I hope that this answers your question. Please note any inaccuracies that you notice in the comments section and I will address them as soon as I am able.

It’s sort of weak evidence. You can read the preprint at Analysis of hospital traffic and search engine data in Wuhan China indicates early disease activity in the Fall of 2019. And even if it was the case, does it really matter?The premise of the article was that signs of flu-like symptoms, particularly diarrhea, started showing up in Baidu searches. They then combined that with satellite images of traffic patterns outside of the hospitals. Which is a pretty cool method. Their argument was that initial signs of increased searches for diarrhea started around late summer of 2019 long before COVID-19 was officially recognized in November/December.Unfortunately, considering that the early COVID-19 signs started with single digit numbers of people, I don’t know if that small number of people would have generated a significant movement in search volume. I think there is also an interesting lack of movement between December 1st and January 23. By early January, there were a lot of signs and concerns about a potential epidemic and we should have expected a gradual increase in diarrhea searches as more and more patients started getting COVID-19. Instead, the search traffic stayed steady. So despite the investigative value of this method, I question if it makes the right associations and looks at the right signals.They also looked at traffic outside of the hospitals. When the first COVID-19 cases started showing up, traffic actually went down rather than up. Their argument is that because of the increased volume of cars at the hospitals, something must have been up. But again, when you look at the actual association between # of cases and traffic, it actually indicates the opposite trend.In short, while I think this type of analysis is extremely cool, it reminds me a lot of the Google Flu Trends. Google was using searches of flu as a public health monitoring tool and even published their findings in Nature back in 2008.[1] While it was fairly reliable in its early years, it would later be discovered that the data was heavily overfitted and significantly missed major flu events. Ultimately Google Flu Trends was ended since it turned out to be a dangerous forecaster of events that wouldn’t happen and created widespread panic where there was none. In the same way, I think that the science and the evidence don’t line up and while it makes for an interesting hypothesis, the data doesn’t support the conclusion.Footnotes[1] Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data