Missing from the Mueller Report

by Leo Goldstein

The mislabeled “intelligence community assessment” that alleged Russian elections interference was false. It was cooked by John Brennan and James Clapper in less than four weeks and published on January 5-6, 2017, apparently in an attempt to block Congress’ certification of the election. Compare that to the Special Counsel investigation which took two years. The assessment was based on the infamous “Steele dossier” and the DNC hacking misattribution, produced by the DNC contractors Fusion GPS and CrowdStrike, respectively. This book points out many errors in the putative intelligence community assessment”, and highlights a few lesser known conflicts of interest in the Mueller probe. There was no Russian interference in the 2016 elections; at least, there was none in favor of Trump. The Obama administration attempted to collude with Putin to get his support. In the months leading up to the elections, it even allowed Russian officers to literally beat US diplomats in Moscow without any response. Robert Mueller and his team of Angry Democrats (“MAD”) launched an unprecedented witch hunt based on allegations and fabrications by the DNC, Obama administration, and foreign governments allied with them. The Mueller investigation was one-sided, aimed at accusing the Trump campaign and clearing the DNC and Spygate perpetrators. The Mueller report is opposition research on steroids. But failing to find any evidence of collusion, Mueller was at least brave and honest enough to say that. The most important quote from the "... the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." But do you know - Robert Mueller was legal counsel for Facebook and other Silicon Valley companies when they transferred technology to the Russian Federation in Skolkovo, Saint-Petersburg? - When appointed as Special Counsel, Robert Mueller was a partner in a law firm working for China that achieved the extremely favorable trade terms that Trump is trying to change? - During the 2016 electoral campaign, his law firm bet on Hillary against Trump at the ratio 773:1, measuring by their political contributions? The book contains more than a hundred references to the sources. But Amazon’s rating system allows intolerant activists (mostly woke leftists) to downvote a book just because they don’t like the political conclusions in it. It is still better than Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube, all of which just ban authors who contradict their anti-Trump narratives.

82 pages, Kindle Edition

Published March 19, 2019

Reviews

[Mimi Wolske]

I think I clicked "order" accidentally on April 20th, 2019 -- I don't remember ordering this book.
But I read it...as far as I could.
There are no stars because this book is so full of libel, I'm surprised the author is not being sued.
PLUS, it is a book about what's "missing" from the Mueller Report, before the report was published (not once but twice) for anyone other than AG Barr and Pres Trump...If that doesn't make you ask "how did the author know what was missing not just BEFORE it was released?", well, then, I have nothing else to say.

[L'illette Vasquez · Rating 1 out of 5]

Crock of crap

If you want a seriously overwrought playbook of Trumpeter conspiracy theories, fantasies and disinformation, this is your read! Totally absurd. One star is one too many.

[Anon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is aptly named and provides information that most Americans don’t have the patience or skills to hunt for themselves. The author describes the circumstances surrounding Mueller’s investigation, the conflicts of interest, and the manipulation and politicking that have characterized the investigation. His claims are well-supported and links to sources are embedded throughout. This book captures the larger picture of the Mueller investigation, and it is informative reading.

[Anon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing! The only shortcoming is that the book attempts to cover too much material in too short a volume. References are not a replacement for explanations. I give it five stars for the accuracy and sourcing.

[Linda Galway]

Lies and conspiracies/doesn’t rate anything but trash