the sentence is not only vague, but misleading – “Papadopoulos suggested … that the Trump campaign had
received indications.”
This implies that information allegedly given to Papadopoulos – an adviser to the campaign – was shared with the entire campaign, YET, the report later says it found no evidence that Papadopoulos told anyone else on the campaign about the emails!
The descriptor “
received indications,” is even more amorphous than “
suggested.” An “
indication” could be anything from a light flashing Morse code to one of the grifters in “The Sting” putting a finger to the side of his nose. If Papadopoulos was told something, why not simply write he “was told”?
Because this is an official investigation not a television show
They repeated what was told to them. IF GP said suggested then that what was written in the report. Don't get hooked on one word as the end results is what matters
He does not deny that he was told this by Mufsud
We know that the Russians had started infiltration of computer in 2015
We know that the 3rd party he told this to though it was important enough to inform the FBI
We know that the Russian attacked DNC and Hillary associates computer between March to June 2016.
This was later released for general public consumption
We know in June Trump also announced to the public that he hopes the Russians find those missing emails and hours later they use the previous methods to look for Hillary associates emails
It not the tiny bits that count but the whole result that is the issue
Where did those indications come from? The “Russian government,” according to Dirty Bob, a false claim. The source of his information was Joseph Mifsud, whom the special counsel describes as a “London-based professor
who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016.” There is a difference between someone with unspecified “connections to Russia” and the “Russian government.”
Obviously he did know that computers were compromised
Dirty Bob lies again when he states the Russian government offered to “assist the Trump Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”
The answer is not in what GP says cause he was vague with I don't recollect but I might have
still the email release did happen on Trumps Cue
There is no evidence that Papadopoulos said anything about a plan to “assist” Trump through “anonymous” action to the man in the London bar – whom the report oddly refers to as a “representative of a foreign government” when everyone knows he is
Alexander Downer. As Downer told The Australian newspaper in April 2018, Papadopoulos “mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.”
So, Dirty Bob's oft-repeated statement:
“Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton”
Is actually nothing more than:
“Papadopoulos said to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer that a professor who had traveled to Russia had told him Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton and might release it before the election.”
But, that's far less suggestive of any wrongdoing and doesn't justify Crooked Comey taking the extreme step of investigating a presidential campaign.
Still Russian hacked the DNC and hillary computers in March 2016 to June which was a crime that needed to be investigated
Trump comments about seeking Russian help does not help him in this investigation but place the spotlight on him
GP meeting with Russian in mid 2016 looks suspicious and then he lies about it.
Russian involvement in the election is known by intelligent organizations and that this involvement favored Trump
Why would they not investigate
As Trump has said if a foreign government had dirt on an opponent he would take it
He also has said that there is nothing wrong with getting dirt on an opponent
But, Dirty Bob didn't stop there: with its grudging tone, its sly assertions resembling proof, and its insistence that not being found guilty should not be confused with innocence: “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”
Dirty Bob used a number of rhetorical devices to couch evidence and craft a narrative so that a document that ultimately clears the president can also be read as an indictment.
Dirty Bob' report is deeply contentious. It isn’t a set of findings so much as an assertion of what the findings might have been if only there had been more evidence. It is like a closing argument in a criminal case already dismissed for lack of evidence but in which the prosecutor is determined to redeem what he can of his case. Mueller turns to a variety of strategies: hectoring repetition; the use of extraneous detail to add heft to flimsy assertion; and a resort to insinuation and innuendo to prejudice the reader against those who have not been indicted.
For example, this colossal pile of crap sentence pops up repeatedly in the report:
“Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
“Papadopoulos suggested.” What exactly did he say? “Suggested” implies he expressed himself indirectly. Did he imply, or did Dirty Bob infer? The report’s use of that squishy verb six full times it refers to the conversation is
a direct admission by Dirty Bob that Papadopoulos did not directly make the explosive claim that the whole Witch Hunt and all the illegal spying is based on.
The next part of the sentence is not only vague, but misleading – “Papadopoulos suggested … that the Trump campaign had
received indications.”
This implies that information allegedly given to Papadopoulos – an adviser to the campaign – was shared with the entire campaign, YET, the report later says it found no evidence that Papadopoulos told anyone else on the campaign about the emails!
The descriptor “
received indications,” is even more amorphous than “
suggested.” An “
indication” could be anything from a light flashing Morse code to one of the grifters in “The Sting” putting a finger to the side of his nose. If Papadopoulos was told something, why not simply write he “was told”?
Where did those indications come from? The “Russian government,” according to Dirty Bob, a false claim. The source of his information was Joseph Mifsud, whom the special counsel describes as a “London-based professor
who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016.” There is a difference between someone with unspecified “connections to Russia” and the “Russian government.”
Dirty Bob lies again when he states the Russian government offered to “assist the Trump Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”
There is no evidence that Papadopoulos said anything about a plan to “assist” Trump through “anonymous” action to the man in the London bar – whom the report oddly refers to as a “representative of a foreign government” when everyone knows he is
Alexander Downer. As Downer told The Australian newspaper in April 2018, Papadopoulos “mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.”
So, Dirty Bob's oft-repeated statement:
“Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton”
Is actually nothing more than:
“Papadopoulos said to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer that a professor who had traveled to Russia had told him Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton and might release it before the election.”
Insinuendo
I'm sure Dirty Bob does NOT want to answer questions about his report.
He has already said that he is not intrested and this his report says it all but unfortunately people seem to misunderstand it and now he has to testify.
granted testifying won't clear up anything as peoples mind are already made up but it will be entertaining and everyone will put out their opinion.
Crooked Trump will have more light shined on him
