The Mueller Report: The First 100 Pages.

By Samuel M. Frost, Th. M.


The Mueller Report: The First 100 Pages.


“…the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

“ We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

“The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the IRA” (Definition: “The IRA was based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and received funding from Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin and companies he controlled. “).

“In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees, including campaign chairman John Podesta. In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. “  One wonders why, then, we do not allow – BY LAW – emails sent over unverified servers.  It’s simple: vulnerability of sensitive materials.  Duh.

They did find that the Trump Campaign was interested in the emails hacked by IRA and produced by WikiLeaks.  Again, another “duh” moment.  Every Campaign since Campaigns have been Campaigns have “looked for dirt”.  No crime there, just politics.  Second, the Wikileaks Documents came as a result – not from Julian Assange, but from Bradley Manning – now Chelsea Manning – a disgraced Army Intelligence Analyst.  Newsweek recently reported, “In the court filings, the U.S. alleges that intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning helped Assange through the process of attempting to breach the government’s database—even providing him a partial password—but Assange appeared to still get stumped” (Newsweek.com.  4-11-19).   Now, get this, President Obama commuted the sentence of Manning. “President Obama has commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the Army private serving a 35-year sentence for leaking classified military secrets to Wikileaks, the White House said Tuesday” (USA Today.com.  January 17, 2017).

But, after reading more, the conclusion finally comes: “The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  Yup.

“Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation.”  Not Sufficient.  If you were investigated and the result of the Agency’s conclusions were “not sufficient” and yet, your opponents still wanted further investigations – still wanted in the air the idea that you are guilty – we just can’t prove it – wouldn’t you be a little….pissed?  I would.  And, you, the reader, would be, too.

Keep in mind while reading this:During its investigation the Office issued more than 2,800 subpoenas under the auspices of a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia; executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants; obtained more than 230 orders for communications records under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d); obtained almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers; made 13 requests to foreign governments pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties; and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses, including almost 80 before a grand jury.”  That’s a load of resources on an investigation.  And – after all of this – found no sufficient evidence to convict or pursue.  Let that sink in.

After these first sections of Volume 1, the material becomes blacked out (redacted – a term I learned in Seminary concerning what Bible Scholars refer to as Bible Editing.  Bible Editing is the idea that some hokey Jewish Scribes slapped together materials to pass off what we now call the Bible – thinking that no one would notice until the brilliance of Enlightenment Scholars’ “discoveries”).  A lot of this Section is focused on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the like.  So, yes, since the Internet is, well, the Internet (it’s an open forum, silly), anyone can start a false account and “campaign” for their favorite subject and dole out misinformation on the subjects they hate.  It’s called, Facebook.  But, being an historian, it’s called, “Society and Culture”.  Read Proverbs.  Nothing new here.  And, it will not stop –unless the Government gets involved and begins to pass Bills that limit what you can and can’t say on the Internet…or in your neighborhood…or your home, or Church, or local meeting of the “We Hate American Capitalism Socialism Now Club”.  At the bottom of this, for me, is that the American people, by and large, are easily duped – at least that’s the fear and impression I get from certain sectors of our beloved Rulers.  And, I believe, to some extent, that is true.  People do not read anymore.  They “see” five minute segments on You Tube, hear drive by excerpts on the TV (sound bites), read loaded Headlines (instead of the actual article in full).  Second, they do not read any responses from “the other side”.  My professors taught me –hammered in me – that if I were to ever study Atheism in order to refute Atheism, then I must absorb Atheist works and sound like a convinced Atheist – empathizing with their arguments.  So, I started reading Lucretius, Voltaire, Nielsen, Dawkins, Sagan, Hitchens, Russell and the like.  Good stuff…if you like Atheism (Voltaire’s actual name was  Francois Marie Arouet – and yes, he was an atheist).

After reading through yet more pages what emerges from between the blacked out content is that IRA organizers attempted to dupe the public through a variety of means.  I have no need to write further on this than to say this: do not believe everything you see and hear and read.  Investigate, research and investigate and research again what you have investigated and researched,  And, when you are done with that, investigate it further.  The Mueller Report did just that.  It’s 400 pages long. 

Now, I stopped reading on page 95, where Carter Page is entered with lettered points and numbered sub points.  I stopped there and will continue tomorrow.

Response to Preston’s New You Tube Series

By Samuel M. Frost, Th.M.

The first five minutes of this new series of Preston’s on yours truly – on my book, The Parousia of the Son of Man – is a downright vicious attack.  Basically, according to Preston, I am not just a liar, but am a bald face liar.  I say things that I know are not true and say them anyway.  That’s the definition of a liar.  Preston spends almost five minutes in the opening of this new series basically telling his devoted followers (who take every word of his as Gospel) that I am a con, a cheat, a liar, and that I abuse every known tool of exegesis and research.  Folks, this is called “poisoning the well” before one even begins to get into the actual material.  It is deceptive.  But, then again, so is Full Preterism.

Now, Preston does actually quote a line from the book, page 3, wherein I wrote, “It is a bodily presence, an arrival of somebody that is present and accounted for”.  And, Preston admits that this is a meaning of the term (he cannot escape that).  In fact, at the 4.11 mark in the video he states that if this is the meaning of the term, then I “might have a case”.  Interesting.  Let that sink in.

Preston then goes into creating a smokescreen by “quoting” from several works of scholars (Colin Brown, Deismann, Kittel’s Dictionary, Dunn).  What I never tire of pointing out is that none of these scholars would come close to affirming Full Preterism as Preston defines it!  Preston goes on to say that “presence” is used of God – who is without a body – by Josephus (Antiquities) – giving the impression that I do not source Josephus (I do, page 9).  However, I only quote where that first century historian used the term in reference to actual people.  Preston’s point – what he wants his devotees to “get” – is that I am being misleading.  I’m not.  I, too, have the sources (and have read them) that he quotes.  Josephus does indeed use the term “parousia” for God’s “manifestation.”  God is without a body.  Therefore, so Preston’s presupposition wants you to think, Jesus’ parousia in 70 AD is invisible.  Preston, however, fails to note that the use of parousia for God’s presence highlights my point. 

God is omnipresent – everywhere always at all times.  This presence of Him is sometimes visibly manifested – noting the fact of His presence (which always is).  When we speak of God “coming down” or “going up” we scholars know – and even have invented a term – that this is speaking anthropomorphically – speaking of God – who has no shape, no form, no eyes, and is not an old man “up there” in heaven.  Now, Preston knows all of this (or he should).  Thus, when Paul speaks of Jesus as being “in the form (morphe in Greek) of God” – every NT scholar notes the meaning of the word morphe cannot mean that God has a form in terms of a shape.  The other meaning of morphe is nature, essence – and hence, Paul’s assertion is that the Son – the Divine Logos – is of the essence of God prior to his becoming human schema (Philippians 2.7).  Now, this word, schema, speak of the actual outer form of the man, Christ Jesus.  Schema is not used of God – who has no schema.  Keep this in mind because it is devastating to Preston’s admission.

Preston also states that I nowhere include references or mention that parousia is used for “gods” and “dignitaries” – which is simply false (or he did not read the fine print).  On page 8 I wrote, “Many other examples can be shown designating the arrival of a King, dignitary, a god, and such.  The point of this part of the study is to demonstrate that parousia and its verbal cognate pareimi are in reference to an advent of a person, or that a person is now present (wherever they are).”  Preston merely takes one slice of a several page study on the word, parousia, and that is all.  Deceptive.

Now, Preston’s view admits that Jesus returned in 70 AD, that is, the son of man came on the clouds of judgment to Jerusalem in 70 AD.  However, Preston does not believe Jesus ascended as a son of man in heaven.  Jesus, upon his ascension, “divested and destroyed” his schema  as a man!  He is no longer a man as we think of being a man.  Rather, the Logos is God who “retains the memory of” of once being a man when he was a man “in the days of his flesh.”  So, I ask (and have asked), if Jesus is no longer a man – a son of man – then how can the son of man appear in 70 AD without being a full man?  One of those “duh” moments.

Hopefully, Preston, in this series, will actually deal with the material in the book, which is having great success by the accounts I receive.  Preston says this book is a “response to Full Preterism” – it’s not.  I never mention any Full Preterist arguments, never quote a Full Preterist, nor had any intention of defeating Full Preterism in terms of writing this book.  It’s a study based on Lexical entries, semantics, and the usage of the term and idea concerning the parousia of the son of man.

Aside from Preston’s admitting that parousia is used of God’s specific manifestation of His Omnipresence – did anyone in the examples of Josephus, flee?  Did God manifest himself to Moses and the 70 elders?  When God showed up to Elijah, did Elijah flee?  If Jesus was going to appear “in the glory of his Father” (Preston’s strange twist on what that meant), why would Jesus tell them to flee where he was to appear?  In fact, Paul spoke of Jesus’ parousia in terms of believers being right there when he descends!  Was Paul telling the Thessalonians to flee?  If Jesus appeared in Jerusalem invisibly, locally, in terms of a manifestation (phanoo – Greek) in 70 AD, then when did he descend and appear to the Thessalonians located hundreds of miles in Asia Minor?

I greatly look forward to Preston’s new series about my book, which can be found here