Special Counsel Mueller–Disingenuous and Dishonest by Larry C Johnson

Larry Johnson-5x7

While President Trump is correct to celebrate the Mueller Report’s conclusion that no one on Trump’s side of the ledger attempted to or succeeded in collaborating or colluding with the Russian Government or Russian spies, there remains a dark cloud behind the silver lining. And I am not referring to the claims of alleged obstruction of justice.  A careful reading of the report reveals that Mueller has issued findings that are both disingenuous and dishonest. The report is a failed hatchet job. Part of the failure can be attributed to the amount of material that Attorney General Barr allowed to be released. It appears that Bill Barr’s light editing may have been intended to expose the bias and sloppiness of Mueller and his team.

Let us start with the case of trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. If you were to believe that the Steele Dossier accurately reported Vladimir Putin’s attitude towards Trump, then a Trump real estate deal in Moscow was a slam dunk. According to one of Steele’s breathless reports:
The Kremlin’s cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia, especially in  relation  to  the  ongoing  2018 World Cup soccer tournament. How ever, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP had not taken up any of these.
Then there is reality. The impetus, the encouragement for the Moscow project came from one man–Felix Sater.
In the late summer of2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert), a Russian real-estate development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov.J07 Sater had known Rozov since approximately 2007 and, in 2014, had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov’s purchase of a building in New York City.30S Sater later contacted Rozov and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and brand from the Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee of I.C. Expert. (see page 69 of the Mueller Report).
To reiterate–if the Steele Dossier was based on truthful intelligence then the Trump organization only had to sit back, stretch out their hands and seize the moment. Instead, little Felix Sater keeps coming back to the well. In January 2016, according to the Mueller report,
Sater then sent a draft invitation for Cohen to visit Moscow to discuss the Trump Moscow project,along with a note to “[t]ell me if the letter is good as amended by me or  make whatever changes you want and send it back to me.”
After a further round of edits, on January 25, 2016, Sater sent Cohen an invitation- signed by Andrey Ryabinskiy of the company MHJ-to travel to”Moscow for a working visit” about the “prospects of development and the construction business in Russia,” “the various land plots available suited for construction of this enormous Tower,” and “the opportunity to co-ordinate a follow up visit to Moscow by Mr. Donald Trump. .
This produced nothing. No deal, no trip. But Sater persisted:

Beginning in late 2015, Sater repeatedly tried to arrange for Cohen and candidate Trump, as representatives of the Trump Organization, to travel to Russia to meet with Russian government officials and possible financing partners. . . .

Into the spring of 2016, Sater and Cohen continued to discuss a trip to Moscow in connection with the Trump Moscow project. On April 20, 2016, Sater wrote Cohen, ” [t)he People wanted to know when you are coming?,,

On May 4, 2016, Sater followed up:

“I had a chat with Moscow. ASSUMING the trip does happen the question is before or after the convention. I said I believe, but don’t know for sure, that’s it’s probably after the convention. Obviously the pre-meeting trip (you only) can happen anytime you want but he 2 big guys where [sic) the question. I said I would confirm and revert.”

On May 5, 2016, Sater wrote to Cohen:

“Peskov would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg Forum which is Russia’s Davos it’s June 16-19. He wants to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either Putin or Medvedev, as they are not sure if 1 or both will be there. This is perfect. The entire business class of Russia will be there as well.” 

On June 14, 2016, Cohen met Sater in the lobby of the Trump Tower in New York and informed him that he would not be traveling at that time.

Why was Felix Sater the one repeatedly identified pushing to arrange deals with the Russians and yet did not face any subsequent charges by the Mueller team? Sater had been working as part of the Trump team since 2003. Why is it that the proposed deals and travel to Moscow came predominantly from Felix Sater? As I noted in my previous piece–The FBI Tried and Failed to Entrap Trump–Sater was an active FBI undercover informant. He had been working with the FBI since 1998. When he agreed to start working as an undercover informant aka cooperator in December 1998 guess who signed off on the deal? Andrew Weissman. You can see the deal here. It was signed 10 December 1998.
An honest prosecutor would have and should have disclosed this fact. He, Sater, was the one encouraging the Trump team to cozy up to Russia. Mueller does not disclose one single instance of Trump or Cohen or any of the Trump kids calling Sater on the carpet and chewing his ass for not bringing them deals and not opening doors in Russia. Omitting this key fact goes beyond simple disingenuity. It is a conscious lie.
The circumstantial evidence indicates that Sater was doing this at the behest of FBI handlers. We do not yet know who they are.
But Sater’s behavior and status as an FBI Informant was not an isolated incident. We also have the case of Michael Caputo and Roger Stone being approached by a Russian gangster named Henry Greenberg. According to democratdossier.com:
Greenberg’s birth name is Gennady Vasilievich Vostretsov, the son of Yekatrina Vostretsova and Vasliy Vostretsov. He later adopted new names twice as a result of two different marriages and became Gennady V. Arzhanik and later Henry Oknyansky. Henry Greenberg is not a legal alias, but he uses it quite commonly in recent years.
But you would not know this from reading the Mueller report. Mr. Disingenuous strikes again:
In the spring of 2016, Trump Campaign advisor Michael Caputo learned through a Floridabased Russian business partner that another Florida-based Russian, Henry Oknyansky (who also went by the name Henry Greenberg), claimed to have information pertaining to Hillary Clinton . Caputo notified Roger Stone and brokered communication between Stone and Oknyansky.
Oknyansky and Stone set up a May 2016 in-person meeting.260 Oknyansky was accompanied to the meeting by Alexei Rasin, a Ukrainian associate involved in Florida real estate. At the meeting, Rasin offered to sell Stone derogatory information on Clinton that Rasin claimed to have obtained while working for Clinton. Rasin claimed to possess financial statements demonstrating Clinton’s involvement in money laundering with Rasin’s companies. According to Oknyansky, Stone asked if the amounts in question totaled millions of dollars but was told it was closer to hundreds of thousands. Stone refused the offer, stating that Trump would not pay for opposition research.
How does a guy like Vorkretsov/Greenberg, with an extensive criminal record and circumstantial ties to the Russian mob gain entrance into the United States? Very simple answer. He too was an FBI informant:

In an affidavit, Vostretsov explained to an immigration judge he worked for the FBI for 17 years throughout the world, including in the US, Iran and North Korea. He explained in the same paperwork the FBI granted him several temporary visas to visit the US in exchange for information about criminal activities.

Please take time to read the full dossier at democrat dossier.
This is more than an odd coincidence. This is a pattern. The FBI was targeting the Trump campaign and personnel in a deliberate effort to implicate them in wanting to work with Russians.
And there is more. George Papodopoulus was entrapped by individuals linked to British MI-6 and the CIA with offers to provide meetings with Russians and Putin. The Mueller account is a lie:
In late April 2016, Papadopoulos was told by London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, immediately after Mifsud ‘s return from a trip to Moscow, that the Russian government had obtained “dirt” on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, on May 6, 2016, 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 candidate Clinton.
Papadopoulos shared information about Russian “dirt ” with people outside of the Campaign, and the Office investigated whether he also provided it to a Campaign official. Papadopoulos and the Campaign officials with whom he interacted told the Office that they did · not recall that Papadopoulos passed them the information. Throughout the relevant period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. That meeting never came to pass.

Once again, the Mueller team treats the provocateur–i.e., Joseph Mifsud–as some simple guy with ties to Russia’s political elites. Another egregious lie. Mifsud was not working on behalf of Russia. He was deployed by MI-6. Disobedient Media has been on the forefront of exposing Mifsud’s ties to western intelligence in general and the Brits in particular.

Mifsud’s alleged links to Russian intelligence are summarily debunked by his close working relationship with Claire Smith, a major figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. A number of Twitter users recently observed that Joseph Mifsud had been photographed standing next to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee at Mifsud’s LINK campus in Rome. Newsmax and Buzzfeed later reported that the professor’s name and biography had been removed from the campus’ website, writing that the mysterious removal took place after Mifsud had served the institution for “years.”

WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange likewise noted the connection between Mifsud and Smith in a Twitter thread, additionally pointing out his connections with Saudi intelligence: “[Mifsud] and Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and eight-year member of the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link University in Rome and appear to both be present in this [photo].”

The photograph in question originated on Geodiplomatics.com, where it specified that Joseph Mifsud is indeed standing next to Claire Smith, who was attending a: “…Training program on International Security which was organised by Link Campus University and London Academy of Diplomacy.” The event is listed as taking place in October, 2012. This is highly significant for a number of reasons.

This is not a meer matter of Mueller and his team “failing” to disclose some important facts.  If they were operating honestly they should have investigated Mifsud, Greenberg and Sater. But they did not. Two of the three–Sater and Greenber–alleged Russian stooges have ties to the FBI. And Mifsud has been living and working in the belly of the intelligence community.

When you put these facts together it is clear that there is real meat on the bone for Barr’s upcoming investigation of the “spying” that was being done on the Trump campaign by law enforcement and intelligence. These facts must become a part of the public consciousness. The foreign country that worked feverishly to meddle in the 2016 Presidential election and the subsequent rule of Donald Trump is the United Kingdom. Russia is the patsy.

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson, Russiagate. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Special Counsel Mueller–Disingenuous and Dishonest by Larry C Johnson

  1. turcopolier says:

    IMO the FBI leadership, Clapper, Brennan and his flunkies were working with the Brits at some senior level of their IO apparat to screw Trump. Mueller’s testimony before the Congress should be revalatory of his true position.

  2. Don’t hold your breath .The so called deep state which in reality are our plutocratic oligarchical class that win. Look at the new boss same as the old boss.
    It was obvious from way back in June 2016 when most of the fabricated /novella known as the Steele Dossier was floating around and the role Fusion GPS played in the Clinton POTUS machine. There is a lot out there but as per usual smokey mirrors and deception.
    I live you with this one thought.
    Look at all the hair triggers that have been laid out with the TRUMP regime since he bacame POTUS with regards to the ME and the Russian Federation . THe IRGC being labelled a terrorist organization and further more both Dems and Repub are trying to introduce a bill that labels the Russian Federation as a sponsor of terrorism.
    You just can’t make this stuff up. Least we forget replacing the meme of ASSAD HAS TO GO TO MADURRO HAS TO GO.
    War is a racket and as per usual we the sheeple just fall for it.
    Ret> Col Wilkerson lays all out at last years Israeli influence conference.

  3. The Special Relationship is hopefully entering the divorce stage. None too soon. Great work, Mr. Johnson.

  4. likbez says:

    Bravo ! One word “Bravo!!!”
    This is a very good, probably the best so far in depth analysis of Mueller’s final report.
    And your phase “disingenuous and dishonest” is like a stamp on Mueller’s hatchet job:

    A careful reading of the report reveals that Mueller has issued findings that are both disingenuous and dishonest. The report is a failed hatchet job.
    Part of the failure can be attributed to the amount of material that Attorney General Barr allowed to be released.
    It appears that Bill Barr’s light editing may have been intended to expose the bias and sloppiness of Mueller and his team.

  5. JohnH says:

    Makes me wonder if this started out as a standard operation by the FBI to gain leverage over a presidential contender. That would explain Sater’s early attempts at apparent entrapment. Since that didn’t work, a different strategy had to be devised to deny the presidency to someone over whom the intelligence services lacked sufficient leverage. Hillary gladly cooperated and raised the specter of collusion with Russia, which she trumpeted in the debates, downplaying other issues that could have resonated more with voters. Since she thought she was a slam dunk, she thought she could afford to cooperate. It could only help ingratiate her with the borg. On the other hand, Brennan and others in the borg used their allies in the media to promote and propagate the story, which mushroomed when Trump defied the odds and won. Hillary was eager to play the victim as a way to excuse her failure. And the borg began hyping the story to cripple Trump unless he heeled. Initially Trump resisted, firing Comey. But with Bolton now ensconced as the National Security Advisor, it is clear that the borg has won, and the lack of any conspiracy could now be revealed.
    Such a scenario would explain why Sater, Mufid, Steele and apparent attempts at entrapment got buried. And, with obstruction still hanging over Trump’s head, the borg’s leverage is still there if needed.

  6. Alves says:

    The most farcical thing in the Mueller report is that he did not fill obstruction charges or even recommend that it should be filled, but yet he did not “exonerate” Trump.
    In other words, Mueller did not think that he had enough to make an obstruction case in the courts of justice, and keep in mind that an indictment requires only “probable cause”, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for a criminal conviction, but nevertheless he went out of his way to leave the obstruction sword hanging over Trump`s head so the political infighting does not end.
    IMO, that is the biggest evidence that the whole thing was an attempt at facilitating a political power grab instead of a serious criminal investigation.

  7. turcopolier says:

    Mahmoud Saadi
    I will allow you to post this kind of thing one time because you appear to be new here and unfamiliar with our standards, but in the future if you do not provide your own argumentation and merely provide links I will disapprove your offerings.

  8. turcopolier says:

    falce, etc. So, who is your candidate for 2020?

  9. Special Relationship? All it’s possible for the outsider to see in that are questions.
    The UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the US in repelling the Russian threat. Also, along with France, helps with any R2P that needs doing. That’s a consistent if by now bedraggled story.
    But Europe, including the UK, is now going hell for leather at the “European Army” project. How long will it be before that becomes a respectable independent force? A decade?
    In the meantime all recognise that the US is the only significant European defence force. It’s not just the money. The US ties the European components of NATO together and provides the big reserves of men and equipment. Even Mr Blair accepts that reality. I’ve been listening to his talk at the Munich Security Conference.
    So the US is to hold the fort in Europe while the Europeans prepare to supplant NATO? Do the Europeans plan to be a military superpower themselves eventually?
    And where does Trump fit in? Trumpphobia is as strong as Russophobia in the UK and stronger than Russophobia in continental Europe. So Trump is supposed to sit there placidly defending Europe until the Europeans are strong enough to dispense with the American alliance, and that while the Europeans, including the UK, throw mud at him?
    Neither in neocon terms nor in terms of sensible defence are these various stories compatible. Is there any sort of coherent defence policy in this respect on either side of the Atlantic? Or are they all just winging it and ignoring the inconsistencies?

  10. JamesT says:

    The most intelligent discussion of Russiagate that I have seen is Chris Hedges interviewing Aaron Mate on RT:
    The fact that one has to go to RT for such professional journalism is telling. A pundit on Vesti is arguing that the current situation is “USSR reversed”, in that the US now feels the need to “mute” Russia but Russia does not feel the need to “mute” the US. Because Russia is the country whose leadership is being more truthful, this results in Russia being more open to foreign media and dissident opinion. He says “openness is beneficial for us”, “openness makes us the winning side”, and “there is nothing they can tell us about us that we don’t already know”. I have been thinking along the same lines. From the 3:00 mark onwards here:

  11. blue peacock says:

    Who is taking the over/under on whether Barr will actually investigate the origins of the attempted entrapment of Trump in Russia collusion and the roles played by key players in US law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as the Brits & Aussie government agencies therein?
    I’m willing to bet that it will all be swept under the rug and that Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Lynch & Rice will not be testifying to any grand jury. Barr has received multiple criminal & conspiracy referrals from Rep. Devin Nunes. However, Trump himself disregarded Nunes recommendation to declassify several documents & communications including the FISA application on Carter Page. The question is does Trump want to get to the bottom of the conspiracy? So far all he’s done is tweet. IMO, Barr is the epitome of a Swamp Rat.

  12. Fred says:

    “Unconfirmed reports….may be smoking gun”!!!
    The quality of the trolling and disinformation has really declined since the Mueller report was released.

  13. blue peacock says:

    Col. Lang,
    In a recent call from Trump requesting his opinion on China, Jimmy Carter noted that China has not spent a dime on war since 1979, whereas we’ve spent trillions & continue to spend even more.
    China invested trillions in their infrastructure while ours crumbles. They’ve invested in building the world’s manufacturing capacity while we dismantled ours. We spend twice per capita on healthcare compared to any other western country, yet chronic diseases like diabetes keeps growing. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined yet how superior is our weaponry compared to the Russians who spend one-tenth of what we spend? We’ve financialized our economy and socialized speculative losses of Wall St mavens but when some politicians talk about spending on the commons then socialism is labeled bad.
    The question is even if we got a candidate against the War Party & the Party of Davos, would it matter? Trump, the candidate who campaigned on the wasteful expenditures in our endless wars has surrounded himself with neocons and continues to do Bibi’s bidding ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What’s changed even with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down?

  14. Tom22ndState says:

    “Let your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” – Sun Tzu
    I have a feeling that President Trump will declassify and release the relevant documents in a manner that they will have maximum effect. It is stunning that the entirety of federal law enforcement, intelligence, and State department embraced and fortified Russian misinformation in their jihad against Trump. This must never happen again. At least the operation was run by political hacks, former analysts who fancied themselves as operators. Their ham- fisted prints are over this shit storm. Thank you God for Comey, Brennan, and Clapper- the three stooges of espionage.

  15. Mad Max_22 says:

    I suppose that it’s possible that AG Barr’s DoJ will mount a serious investigation into the many tentacled ongoing governmental debacle that began with the Lynch DoJ providing politcal direction and cover for Comey’s FBI to lie down on the Clinton e-mail investigation. Which came first, the cover or the capitulation, is not completely clear. Perhaps it was a hand in glove affair. Suffice it to say that by any standard of competence, it was a faux effort. In my opinion, what was not done should constitute the elements of an obstruction violation. It would be a difficult charge to argue before a jury. Was the level of incompetence such that a reasonable person could not believe that it could not exist in the FBI, that there had to be malicious intent?
    Nevertheless,while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the liklihood of Clinton’s accession, they had enough reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an “insurance policy.” Once again the question, could they possibly have been so incompetent. “What the heck” appears to have been the launching pad; Clinton’s going to win anyway, Trump will be crushed under the unmaskings, leaks, and innuendo; and no one will ever find out.
    But Trump wins, and the unwholesome political cabal is now stuck with an investigation of an incoming President whom they had tried to frag on the skimpiest evidentiary grounds imaginable. And worse, he appears to be sensing there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, and Cardinal Jim Comey is a shitty liar, and now he’s out, and what is going to happen to this garbage scow they’ve launched, now with Comey gone. How do they kill this thing? Worse, how do they kill the political riot this thing has caused. They can’t; they double down; they take out another insurance policy – Jim Comey’s good bud, Bob Mueller with a posse of partisan attornies, many vets of the Obama DoJ, a couple of squads of FBI Agents, including two who were prominent in the e mail case and the Steele inquiry, and a set up akin to a shadow DoJ. What could go wrong? They would hound the bastard out of office.
    Which returns us to the question of whether Barr will mount a serious investigation into the political scandal of the last 100 years, at least. I suppose it is possible, but right now I’m not optimistic. For one thing Barr appeared at the big press conference with Rod Rosenstein. Rod Rosenstein is at minimum a critical witness. There is every reason to suspect that Comey, McCabe, Mueller, and Rosenstein conferred before Comey’s leak to the NYT via a lawyer friend in furtherance of Mueller’s appointment.
    Going side by side with Rosenstein at this juncture doesn’t augur well.
    On the other hand, the continuing lunatic behavior of the demented left may give Barr no other choice but to sort the mess out once and for all for the good of the country.
    We’ll see.

  16. jdledell says:

    The biggest take I got out of the Mueller report is that Trump is a sleazy character and that is not what I want from the president, the Face of America to the rest of the world. Whether the Deep State went after Trump in an organized fashion is just noise in my ears. To me that is just normal political infighting the same as Trump and other Republicans went after Obama for being an illegitimate President as a non-citizen.

  17. turcopolier says:

    Sorry, but it IS NOT “normal political infighting” for the cabal to have sought and still to seek the overthrow of of the legitimate head of state and government.

  18. turcopolier says:

    IMO Wilkerson blotted his copybook beyond repair in pursuing his bromance with Powell. I have no interest in what he says.

  19. turcopolier says:

    Can we have Minorca as part of the divorce settlement? You had it once.

  20. turcopolier says:

    I would propose Biden with JB as his running mate so long as JB comes to the inaugural balls in a tasteful evening gown.

  21. edding says:

    If by that you mean that Mueller will show his full colors, maybe- but if you mean Mueller will be truthful, do you really believe that given his investigation and report- and his sullied history?

  22. Fred says:

    Which intelligence agencies were going after Obama with help from the UK and assorted other allies?

  23. Bill H says:

    Another comment that makes me wish we still had the “like” button.

  24. walrus says:

    How can an probably illegal operation like Russiagate spawn successful prosecutions of its targets? Surely the “poisoned fruit “ doctrine must apply otherwise no one is safe.
    The “‘chilling effect” is huge if it is perceived to be likely that exercising your democratic rights can potentially result in wide ranging investigations and prosecution on unrelated matters.
    To put that another way, would Manafort have been prosecuted if he had been chairman of Hilary Clinton’s campaign?

  25. Laura says:

    This is a test comment from Typepad Support.

  26. jdledell says:

    Fred – Whether it was the Intelligence agencies or not, the entire Republican campaign about Obama’s birth was designed to either to,at worst, neuter his Presidency, or at best, to drive him out of the Presidency for being a non-citizen. Whether it is called an illegal coup or political infighting is a matter of whose Ox is getting gored.

  27. Don’t be an idiot. Obama’s birth was an issue because he refused to release, initially,his birth records. Why? Because he was trying to cover up the fact that he had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia. That fact was reflected on the original birth certificate. I know for a fact that Obama’s team, with John Brennan in the lead, went to Indonesia and cleaned up his records.
    This was not a dirty trick by an opposition political party. It was not a dirty trick by the CIA and FBI. Your willful blindness on this is just sad. Deal with the damn facts.

  28. Please do, Colonel. If it’s OK we’d like to retain England though. We’re sort of attached to it. But you’d have to fight Brussels for it in any case, way things are going.
    On second thought not Minorca. If memory serves it’s where Aubrey met Maturin. And the early books were by far the best. Gibralter, perhaps? They seem a little unsettled over there at the moment.

  29. turcopolier says:

    I had “Master and Commander” in mind.

  30. turcopolier says:

    Laura – You are Muslim?

  31. turcopolier says:

    It remains to be seen whose ox will receive the worst goring.

  32. Thank you. Very generous.

  33. Atown says:

    What is the significance of the adoption of Barrack Obama by Lolo Soetoro? Does it effect his eligibility to serve as president? Is there any evidence that BO (or any of his relatives) was an agent or asset of an intelligence agency? Many thanks.

  34. The significance is that it would have been politically embarrassing. It would have given the Republicans and other Democrats proof to argue that Barack was a foreigner. The adoption did not change Obama’s status as an AMCIT. But it would have been a political image problem.

Comments are closed.