Fuck the U.S. Department of Justice

Attorney Work Product / May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)

>Pink links = Internal links (choices)< 

Green links = PDFs at muellersecrets.com   

     Blue links = DOJ website (justice.gov)   

Yellow links = Wikipedia

Orange links = Buzzsprout Audio (Direct Download)  \

Red links = Other external links

Report On The Investigation Into The

Report On The Investigation Into

Russian Interference In The

2016 Presidential Election

(“The Report Report”)

Volume I of II

Ani Rider

(IG: @m.ani.c)

Submitted To The Public Record

Boston, MA

August 2020









the Bad Quarto

(first public release of the Mueller Report, 4/18/2019)

was a //scan_ ,


it was EITHER

a //scan_ of an _UNREDACTED.PDF_



THEN //scanned_ ,

OR ELSE it was


that was FIRST //scanned_,

THEN //_digitally_redacted_,

THEN //_printed//,

THEN ////re-scanned_ ,



_PRINT// and ////re-scan_

SOME (BUT//NOT//ALL)!!!!!!

pages of Quarto 2,

(latest public release of the Mueller Report, 6/19/2020)




then _PRINT// and //scan_ THAT?

For further questions, see >Question Time<






















(more exhibits to come)


Posted to Instagram 8/3/20

See Gonzo Journalism on Wikipedia

See also: The Mueller Report: a Radio Dramatization

See >Intro Highlight<_>FOIA Highlight<_>Metadata Highlight<_>Walton Highlight<

Or just click these four links.



Posted to the podcast feed of “The Mueller Report: a Radio Dramatization,” 8/9/20


Posted to the podcast feed of “The Mueller Report: a Radio Dramatization,” 9/27/20


Visual aid for “First Phase” (see above)

This is a choose-your-own-adventure >investigonzo journalism< piece. Listen to First Phase first and Second Phase second, and be sure to follow along in the Question Map.

NOTE: All instructions and activities in this document are OPTIONAL, and the story can be fully understood without participation by looking at the screenshots. You can play, or you can chill on the bench. Or both! Instructions are in bold, follow them if you’re feeling it, don’t if you’re not. Have fun. Go crazy. -A


So I’m sitting with “Law Man” on Saturday, July 18, 2020. And he flips from page 66 to 67 of the newer, less-redacted version of the Mueller Report (“Quarto 2”).

And he goes you know, the typeface gets completely different here. These two pages, they’re totally different.

That’s weird, I say.

Two weeks and twelve hours pass.


That IS weird, I think.

Maybe it’s a problem with LM’s printer? No, the PDF files look like that too. Page 66 is less blurry than Page 67, and the fonts look different. It’s almost - AAALmost - like someone printed out certain specific pages of the Mueller Report, re-scanned them in lower quality, and then put them back in hoping no one would notice. What, I think. The fuck, I continue. Is up with that, I conclude.

I eat 300mg worth of THC-infused gummies on July 31. They kick in on August 1.

The fonts look different.

Hold on, I say. Why would the fonts be different?, I continue. The blurriness I get because clearly some of these pages were born digital while others are scanned images of printed paper. The metadata says so (See First Phase, >Metadata Highlight<, and Johnson’s Assessment). It doesn’t make sense, but it’s an explanation, and it fits, I conclude.

But the fonts.

The fonts look different. To me, at least. Like sometimes I’ll look at a word on one page, and then look at the same word on the next page, and I’ll notice certain letters are closer together than they were in the same word on the previous page. It’s almost - AAAAAAALmost - like someone took certain specific pages out of the Mueller Report, re-typed them, re-scanned them in lower quality, and put them back in hoping no one would notice.

I eat some more edibles and hang out with my cats.

Bilbo lays on his back with his tummy out. Otto grumbles.

I flip to Instagram. My post pops up. I’d left it open. It has >instructions< on how to reveal hidden text within the Mueller Report. The last picture in the sequence is the Optical Character Recognition’s interpretation of >George Papadopoulos’s handwriting<. I laugh at how George Papadopoulos’s handwriting is so bad it drove the OCR computer program temporarily insane. No sane person, machine, or otherwise would ever use that many fonts. Is there a gag in there somewhere? I’ll mull it over. Muell it over? Is that anything?

I think about this.

Eventually the edibles wear off, and all becomes clear.


Posted to Instagram 8/2/20

For instructions on finding hidden text in the Mueller Report, see also: Audio Introduction

To experience this moment of discovery along with the investigative team, see:

>The Invisible Glyphs<

To learn how this hidden text might indicate criminal behavior by the DOJ, see: >Fact Break<

To learn how to accomplish this “flipbook trick” on your computer, see: >The Flipbook Trick<

See for yourself: Quarto 1  (note that Instagram highlights refer to PDF page numbers, not the page numbers at the bottom of the page)

For more on the Bad Quarto, see: >Metadata Highlight<, Johnson’s Assessment

See for yourself: Quarto 2

To learn how to do the “flipbook trick” on your computer, see >The Flipbook Trick<

For more on the “scanned twice” theory, see Johnson and First Phase

See also:_>FOIA Highlight<_>Metadata Highlight<_>Walton Highlight<


DID Robert Mueller deliver his !!!!Unredacted!!!!Report!!!! to William Barr as //paper//document//(s)//, OR as a _digital.PDF_file_, OR //_both_//?

Probably both right? Let’s go with both. Maybe just a PDF, but it’s not like Barr ever only had a paper copy of the Mueller Report and didn’t have a digital version so… yeah. Both. (For Law Man’s slightly different perspective, see >The Handoff<)

WAS the Bad Quarto (first public release of the Mueller Report, 4/18/19) //scanned_ at any point?

Yes. You can tell by how blurry it is. Plus there’s a fucking yellow line on it. (see First Phase, >Metadata Highlight<, and Johnson’s assessment)

WAS the Bad Quarto a //scan_ of an _unredacted.PDF_, which was first _digitally_redacted, then _printed//, then //scanned_?

Probably? I don’t know, is there another option?

WAS the Bad Quarto a //scan_ of an //unredacted//paper//document//, which was first //scanned_, then //_digitally_redacted, then //_printed//, then ////re-scanned_?

That makes no sense. I’m going with the first one.

EITHER WAY, WHY WOULD Barr _print// and ////re-scan_ SOME (BUT//NOT//ALL) pages of Quarto 2 (latest public release of the Mueller Report, 6/19/20)?

Did he do that?

Metadata and Johnson’s Assessment show Quarto 2’s //scanned_ pages were NOT //scanned_ in the same scanner as the Bad Quarto’s. (see also: Exhibit A, >Metadata Highlight<)

Okay. Well. Maybe he was just more concerned about the redactions on those pages. Wanted an extra level of security. Printing and scanning is the only way to be absolutely sure nothing you’ve redacted ever, ever gets through. There’s no room for error, like there is with digital files.

INCORRECT. Page 92 of Quarto 2 (100 in the PDF) has 

//_no redactions, and that page was //scanned_.


So WHY WOULD Barr //print_ and ////re-scan_ SOME

(BUT NOT ALL REDACTED) pages of Quarto 2?

Uhhhh……….. I mean there’s gotta be a reason, right? It’s not that weird a thing to do. Is it?

WHY WOULDN’T he _digitally_redact the _ENTIRE.PDF_ then _print// and //scan_ that?

…………………………...I’ll get back to you. (see >Question Time #2<)


(may not work on older operating systems)

Download Quarto 2 and open it in Preview. If you’re on a Mac, this is probably your default PDF reader. If you’re not on a Mac, this won’t work. Either way, go to Page 66.

Because nothing can ever be fucking easy, Page 66 is actually the 74th page of the document when you count the extra 8 pages in the beginning that include the title and table of contents, so the PDF reader will say Page 66 is Page 74. When I direct you to a page number, unless otherwise stated, what I’m talking about is the number that’s on the bottom of the page.

Zoom in on the LAST PARAGRAPH on Page 66 (The one that begins “Outreach from individuals with ties to Russia…”).

The words “Trump Tower” appear about halfway down the paragraph, and are located all the way to the right side of the page. Zoom in on Trump Tower.

ALL the way in.

Open the “View” dropdown menu at the very top and click on “Thumbnails.”

A list of pages and their numbered thumbnail images will appear in a column on the left.

Center the words “Trump Tower,” THEN click on the thumbnail image above where it says “74.” (Again, Page 74 in the Thumbnails column on the left corresponds to Page 66 in the actual Mueller Report. Also, the trick you’re about to do may not work if you click on the thumbnail after zooming in. If you do, just click the thumbnail again before moving on.)

Now look at Trump Tower and press the down arrow. (Alternately, instead of opening the Quarto 2 PDF, you can do the “Flipbook Trick” by opening the Report Report in Preview, going to View > Thumbnails, clicking this page’s thumbnail, and pressing the down arrow.)

I know it’s like a vision test. The words stay pretty much in the same place, but they instantly get blurrier. Press the up arrow to return to what you just saw, then press the down arrow and up arrow alternately. (Alternately, if you’re reading this in Preview, you can press the up and down arrows to flip between this page and the one before it.)

Page 66

Page 67

By using the up and down arrows, we can now rapidly switch between the words “Trump Tower” on Page 66 and the words “Trump Tower” on Page 67 without zooming out. This allows us to do a “flipbook”-like comparison between similar text on both pages.

NOTE: If the flipbook trick isn’t working, it either means you’re running an older operating system (in which case I can’t help you), OR you’ve clicked somewhere within the actual page AFTER clicking the thumbnail image. To fix it, click a page’s thumbnail and then, WITHOUT clicking on the page, press the up and down arrows. You can use Command-Plus and Command-Minus to zoom in and out without clicking, and the scroll wheel to move up and down. (Apple’s “Magic Mouse” will also allow you to move left and right without clicking because the scroll wheel works like a tiny trackpad.)

The blurriness makes it hard to see, but I promise you, the fonts are indeed different. At least, I think so. I’m pretty sure. I don’t know. Decide for yourself.

Take a look at the word (ugh) Trump as it appears on Page 66.

Now look at the same (disgusting) word on Page 67.

At first glance they look the same, right? But if you just look at the “rump” part of the word, you can see (or at least, I can see) that the letters u, m, and p are slightly closer together on Page 67.

Page 66

Page 67

I’m already sick looking at Trump. Let’s switch to “Tower.” If you still haven’t nailed the flipbook thing, it’s cool, you can just follow along with the screenshots. I promise I’ll have more fun fun activities for you later on, so keep an eye out for bolded instructions.

Page 66

Page 67

The letters are clearly (to me) farther apart on Page 66, especially the T and o. The letters e and r, though, provide my best visual evidence of the difference in fonts. Again, I could be crazy.

Anyway, font difference (or sameness) aside, the reason Page 66 looks less blurry than Page 67 is because Page 67 is a scanned version of a printed page, while Page 66 was born digital and stayed digital.

You’ll notice that no matter how far in or out you zoom on page 66, the sharpness of the letters remains the same. This is because the image you’re looking at is not an image at all, but a series of strings of 1’s and 0’s. Those strings are being interpreted by Preview as tiny symbols called glyphs.

Sometimes glyphs can be invisible. This is why, when you copy-and-paste redactions from Quarto 2...

… You’ll occasionally get shit like this:

Posted to Instagram 4/4/20

Generally, invisible glyphs are placed on the page UNDERNEATH scanned image by a computer program called Optical Character Recognition (OCR).

For more on glyphs and OCR, see >The Invisible Glyphs<

For more on the difference between scanned and digital pages, see >Metadata Highlight<


Posted to Instagram 8/4/20

See also: >Intro Highlight<

For an answer to the second question, see >Fact Break<

See also: FOIA wiki

For more on the (b)(5)-2/Investigative Technique overlap, see: >Fact Break<

See also: >Metadata Highlight<_>Walton Highlight<


So I’m confused about something.

There’s invisible text on the right side of page 92 (page 100 in the PDF file). It looks like this:

Preview image generated using Adobe Acrobat DC’s “Protect” tool’s “Remove hidden information” feature. Note that using this feature does not instantly remove the hidden information, but instead generates a list of hidden information for your perusal, some of which can be seen by generating a preview image of the page.

But I don’t see any of that text in Preview. It can’t be seen in Preview, or in most other PDF reading apps. All I see on the actual page is George Papadopoulos’s crazy fucking chickenscratch handwriting and Mueller’s
very loose translation of it.

Of course you can’t see the invisible text, doofus, says Whiz Kid, the investigative team’s tech expert. It’s invisible. But if you copy and paste it from Preview into Google Docs (or any other text editor), it’ll show up. Like so.

Then you can just paste it into another document. I’ll paste it on the next page:






7ef¥--1~ ~






-#f(- h /k<J.0 >~ {t'7 l.<..:f/ 6l•"f/- ,#r. 1rvv•{






,t{ ~

{o X , . fi'[ >efkAW- ,,.., T{- ,-. (,,r__,,_/












~ t..,-j,.. k f'N<~




w.,.cI Set~ ~






~Jc-/ ~ J ht; f'\\1(4~







1=t t1.({.;r,~1 l-er!.,v/






















~ 1~''





Are you a wizard, I say.

No, I’m a fictionalization, Whiz Kid replies. You wanna continue?

Back to Trump Tower.

Page 66

Page 67

The reason Page 66 is sharper and Page 67 is blurrier is: When you look at Page 67 in Preview, you’re not actually seeing text. What you’re seeing is a picture of text. It’s an image file, which was (according to the metadata) generated by Adobe Acrobat DC’s Paper Capture plugin. It was created in a scanner, meaning it is a picture of a printed-out paper document.

By contrast, Page 66 contains no image file at all. It’s just a string of data which is being interpreted by Preview as glyphs.

A font is a series of glyphs that correspond to specific strings of code. Preview reads one specific string of 0’s and 1’s  as the capital letter A. It reads another string as the lowercase letter a. There are strings of binary code that represent every single glyph, from capital B to lowercase b to lowercase f to uppercase Q to 7 to & to @ to ~ to [ to ¶ to ¢ and every other symbol besides.

You don’t have to be as savvy a coder as Whiz Kid to understand this concept. All you really need to know, she tells me, is that you can highlight a glyph, but you can’t highlight text in an image file because the computer doesn’t necessarily know that an image file contains text at all. It just sees a bunch of pixels.

Aha! That’s wrong though! I say, feeling smart for the first time since the beginning of this fucking thing. If that were true, I continue, I wouldn’t be able to highlight anything on Page 67, which you yourself said was an image file. But look. I can highlight “Trump Tower” on Page 67 just as easily as on Page 66!

Admittedly yeah, it doesn’t highlight the whole word. But, you know, enough of it. And I can copy and paste it too. I’ll paste it right on this page:





Tmmp Tower




Wait that’s not right. It doesn’t say Tmmp Tower on the page, it says Trump Tower. Obviously. How come when I copied “Trump Tower,” I pasted “Tmmp Tower.”

The image says Trump Tower, Whiz Kid says, reveling in my wrongness. The glyphs say Tmmp Tower.

But I don’t see the glyphs, I shout, now convinced I’m actually going insane.

Exactly! Whiz Kid says. BECAUSE THEY’RE INVISIBLE!!!

But who made them invisible!? Did some kind of fairy godparent wave a magic wand and, poof, the glyphs vanished but the image stayed?

Basically, Whiz Kid tells me, yeah. That’s exactly right. Except the fairy godparent in this scenario is the Preview app, and the magic wand is a computer program called Optical Character Recognition (OCR). Remember? From the >beginning<? You said the OCR program was driven temporarily insane by how bad George Papadopoulos’s handwriting was.

Oh yeah. What was that about?

It works like this, Whiz Kid tells me.

The OCR program is insane. Not by computer brain standards, of course, but computer brains don’t work like human brains, and when a computer brain tries to work like a human brain it can absolutely lose its fucking mind. A computer can’t just look at a picture, because to a computer it’s not a picture, it’s an image file.

And that image file generated by a scanner.

In this case, yeah, specifically Adobe Acrobat DC’s Paper Capture plug-in. Your computer can display that image, obviously, but it doesn’t automatically know there’s text in that image. The computer just sees just a ton of pixels, and it knows from its programming how to arrange those pixels within a specific rectangle so you and I, with our presumably sane human brains, see a picture of text.

That’s all an image file is - a bunch of pixels in a rectangle. And we as sane humans can easily look at a bunch of pixels in a rectangle and determine whether or not they contain letters, or cars or bikes or traffic lights or whatever. You know those annoying CAPTCHA tests they make you go through when you log into things? “Click all the images that contain motorcycles?”

A computer can’t pass a CAPTCHA test for exactly this reason - because it doesn’t even understand the idea of a motorcycle. It doesn’t understand the ideas of ideas. It’s insane. And it couldn’t pass a CAPTCHA test that said “Click all the images that contain letters” either, because “letters” and “motorcycles” are human concepts, and computers are reeeeally bad at human concepts. To work out the concept of letters, your computer needs to enlist the help of the OCR program.

So it is like George Papadopoulos’s handwriting.

How’s that?

Go to Page 92.

What am I looking at here?

So George Papadopoulos is a fucking dick. As it says in the second footnote on Page 92, he “declined to assist in deciphering his notes, telling investigators that he could not read his own handwriting in the journal.”


There’s some crazy shit in the Mueller Report. So because Papadopoulos proved to be absolutely no help, Mueller had to do what the OCR program is programmed to do. He had to look at a page, recognize the concept that that page contains text, then do his best to work out what that text says.

He obviously had limited success.

And that’s my point. It was impossible for a human to work out what George Papadopoulos’s notes say, even the human who wrote those notes.

So he says.

I mean yeah, there’s the possibility that Papadopoulos totally knew what was written there and lied about it. He’s a proven fucking liar, so that’s definitely a scenario. But also, even a human as brilliant as Robert S. Mueller, III couldn’t figure out what the fuck Papadopoulos had written. How could we expect a computer to figure it out?

EXACTLY! Whiz Kid says. Oh thank God, you actually get it.

And the thing is, Mueller is a human with a human brain, so when he looks at Papadopoulos’s writing he sees this:

But when the OCR program looks at the same writing, it goes insane and spits out this insanity:

I’m still confused.

This shocks me.

If the OCR program is insane, why let it look at the picture at all? Why let it put a bunch of crazy invisible glyphs over Papadopoulos’s crazy fucking chickenscratch handwriting?

Because most of the writing the OCR program looks at isn’t George Papadopoulos’s crazy fucking chickenscratch handwriting. OCR is actually really helpful because it can make a scanned image word-searchable. 

If you’re reading a document as long and boring as the Mueller Report, you want to be able to hit Command-F and search for “Guccifer 2.0” or “Konstantin Kilimnik” or whatever and instantly find what you’re looking for. That doesn’t work if the page you’re looking at is just an image file, because the computer doesn’t know that that image file contains text. So the computer brings in the OCR program, which tries its level best to read whatever text is in the image file, generates glyphs -

What are glyphs again?

Symbols. Then it overlays those glyphs on top of the image file.

But where are the glyphs!?


I pause.


So first, the OCR program looks at the scanned image of a paper document and reads the text in that image. Second, the OCR program generates a bunch of glyphs that it thinks best represent what it’s seeing. Third, the OCR program turns those glyphs invisible. And fourth, the OCR program lays those invisible glyphs directly on top of the words in the image. This makes an image file word-searchable, which makes it easier to read. This is the point of the OCR program.

But the OCR program is insane, I say. So sometimes when it looks at an image like the image of the words “Trump Tower” on Page 67…

It mistakes the words “Trump Tower” for “Tmmp Tower.”

Right. That’s why you can highlight the words but if you copy-and-paste them, they come out wrong. The text is there, it’s just insane.

Okay, I say. So what.

The fuck.

Is up.

With this.

Open Quarto 1 in Preview and go to Page v. It’s the fifth page of the table of contents. (NOTE: This trick can be a little finicky. It’s much easier to accomplish on your phone - you can find instructions on how to do that in the >Intro highlight<. It is definitely doable on your computer, however, so give it a try!)

Highlight the phrase “Harm to Ongoing Matter” next to where it says “Questions Over”

Note that you’re actually trying to select text directly underneath the phrase “Harm to Ongoing Matter.” If you only select the phrase itself, it will look like this:

See how in the top, it’s a darker blue? How that light blue color is still visible in the tops of the letters H, O, and M? That means you’ve done it right.

Performing this trick can be… well, tricky. You’re not supposed to be highlighting what you’re highlighting, because it has been hidden from you. Keep at it, and once you’ve got it, Copy and Paste the Text Into a New Document.

That! I go. What the fuck is that!

I don’t know. Paste it and see.                                                   







“IHnavremsttiogaOtinvgeoTinecghMnaiqttueer” I say.

“IHnavremsttiogaOtinvgeoTinecghMnaiqttueer” says Whiz Kid.

What in the everloving fuck is “IHnavremsttiogaOtinvgeoTinecghMnaiqttueer”!? I get that the OCR program is insane, but there’s no way it could’ve made a mistake that big, that’s like twice as many letters as the thing I copy and pasted!

Hmmmm, says Whiz Kid.

Hmmm, I respond.

We look at the text.                                                                   


























Hold on.

Fucking what dude!? What are you doing!?

I’m highlighting letters, give me a sec.                                                   








You get it now?

Whiz, for real, you can’t fucking do this to me, I’m freaking out over here. Do you know what it means or not?

The pink-highlighted letters spell out “Harm to Ongoing Matter.” Which is exactly what you copied. But if you delete them...                                            








Investigative technique,” Whiz Kid says. For once she’s the one who’s confused. The OCR program didn’t put those letters there. It doesn’t even know what letters are, much less how to use them to spell “Investigative Technique.” And no sane human brain would read the words “Investigative Technique” anywhere on that page. So what the hell’s “Investigative Technique?”

It dawns on me. “Investigative Technique” I go slowly. “Is our smoking gun.”

To learn why the gun is smoking, see >Fact Break<
To learn how to find this hidden text for yourself, see >Intro Highlight<

To learn more about (b)(5)-2 and “Investigative Technique,” see >FOIA Highlight<


Written on August 4, 2020


FACT 1: There is hidden and invisible information in the Mueller Report.

FACT 1A: The phrase “Investigative Technique” can be found beneath the redaction labeled “Harm to Ongoing Matter” on Page 7 of Quarto 1 (fifth page of the table of contents) next to where it says “Charging Decision As to…”

Posted to Instagram on 8/2/20 (@m.ani.c, see Intro Highlight)

FACT 1B: This trick can also be accomplished by copy-and-pasting the redaction next to “Questions Over…”

Posted to Instagram on 8/2/20 (@m.ani.c, see Intro Highlight)

FACT 1C: The words “Investigative Technique” were covered up (though not actually deleted) and replaced with “Harm to Ongoing Matter” on the following pages of Quarto 1, Volume 1: 7, 73, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, and 199 (NOTE: Page number refers to PDF page, not the page number written on the bottom of the actual page.)

Posted to Instagram on 8/2/20 (@m.ani.c, see Intro Highlight)

FACT 2: In Quarto 2, the phrase “Investigative Technique” can be found beneath the redaction labeled (b)(5)-2. (see FOIA highlight)

This evidence supports (but does not prove) the claim the DOJ violated the Freedom of Information Act, thus breaking the law of the United States.

Posted to Instagram on 8/2/20 (@m.ani.c

FACT 1A: FOIA exemption (b)(5)-2 refers to “Deliberative Process Privilege,” NOT “Investigative Technique.”

Posted to Instagram on 8/2/20 (@m.ani.c

FACT 1B: At some point in the process of editing Quarto 2, the DOJ covered up the phrase “Investigative Technique” and replaced it with FOIA exemption (b)(5)-2.

FACT 3: In EVERY location in Quarto 1 (with two exceptions) where a redaction labeled “Investigative Technique” was covered up and changed to “Harm to Ongoing Matter”, Quarto 2 cites FOIA exemption (b)(5)-2.

I have screenshotted images of each of this pages, which were generated by Adobe Acrobat DC’s “Protect” tool’s “Remove Hidden Information” tool. These images display both the hidden text (in red) and the visible text (in blue).

Note that the phrase “Harm to Ongoing Matter” (blue, visible) can very clearly be seen to be overlapping “Investigative Technique” (red, hidden, displayed as plain text on the right side.)

Also note that both of these redactions are labeled as (b)(5)-2 in Quarto 2.

The same is true on page 73.

The same is also true on page 182.

And page 184.

And so on. (See Exhibit A for all screenshots)

CONCLUSION: Based on these three facts, it appears highly likely that the DOJ ultimately changed “Investigative Technique” to FOIA exemption (b)(5)-2 at least 30 times across 14 pages in the Mueller Report. This suggests (but does not prove) that the DOJ’s redactions of the Mueller Report may have violated the Freedom of Information Act.

For more about FOIA see >FOIA Highlight<

For instructions on how to find hidden text in the Mueller Report PDFs for yourself, see >Intro Highlight< and >The Invisible Glyphs<.


Posted to Instagram 8/4/20

See also: >Intro Highlight<, >FOIA Highlight<

See also: Johnson’s Assessment, Bad Quarto.

To follow along, download the Bad Quarto and open it in Preview (or any PDF reader)

For more on this fucking garbage yellow line, see First Phase.

For more on the “scanned twice” theory, see >Question Time<

For more on Optical Character Recognition, see >The Invisible Glyphs<

See also: >Walton Highlight<

See >Question Time #1<


DID Robert Mueller deliver his !!!!Unredacted!!!!Report!!!! to William Barr as //paper//document//(s)//, OR as a _digital.PDF_file_, OR //_both_//?

You asked me this before. How the hell am I supposed to know? (Law Man says he knows - see >The Handoff<)

WAS the Bad Quarto (first public release of the Mueller Report, 4/18/19) //scanned_ at any point?

Yes. And if Johnson’s “scanned twice” theory holds up, it means that Mueller must have given Barr at least one paper copy of the unredacted Mueller Report.

WAS the Bad Quarto a scan of an _unredacted.PDF_, which was first _digitally_redacted, then _printed//, then //scanned_?

If Mueller did not give Barr a paper copy of the unredacted Mueller Report, Johnson’s “scanned twice” theory doesn’t hold up. There’s no reason to scan an unredacted document that you already possess in unredacted PDF form. Redaction happens digitally first, then printing and scanning comes after, as a last, extra, impenetrable layer of redaction security.

WAS the Bad Quarto a scan of an //unredacted//paper//document//, which was first //scanned_, then //_digitally_redacted, then //_printed//, then ////re-scanned_?

If Mueller did give Barr a paper copy of the unredacted Report, Johnson’s “scanned twice” theory makes sense. However, it only makes sense if there was a period of time during which Barr only had a paper copy and no PDFs, because again, you wouldn’t print and scan an unredacted paper document if you already had it in digital form as a PDF.

EITHER WAY, WHY WOULD Barr _print// and ////re-scan_ SOME (BUT//NOT//ALL) pages of Quarto 2 (latest public release of the Mueller Report, 6/19/20)?

He didn’t.


You have it backwards. The >metadata< shows the document was created in a scanner. Barr first scanned a paper document, then copied in other pages from a digitally redacted PDF.

WHY WOULDN’T he _digitally_redact the _ENTIRE.PDF_ then _print// and //scan_ that?

Fuck. Thought I had you there.

For further questions, see >Question Time #3<


I know guys, goes Law Man.

You know guys? I say. What’s that supposed to mean?

He goes, it means I know guys. I work with guys, I came up among guys. Lawyer guys.

Republican lawyer guys?

Some of them, yeah. And trust me, Ani, I know guys. Mueller and Barr, I know them. And they’re... guys, you know? They’re just guys. Guys who work for the DOJ may be some of the most powerful guys on the planet, but a guy is a guy is a guy is a guy, and guys do stupid shit like this all the time.

I don’t know why I believe Law Man but I do. Until this moment I’d never have even imagined a scene like he just described to me happening in real life. There’s no way, I say. There’s no way they only delivered a paper copy and didn’t deliver a PDF.

We don’t have any evidence that they had a digital version before April 8, 2019. That’s when the first annotations were made to both documents. But that’s over two weeks after Mueller delivered his Report to Barr.

As a PDF.

Did he?

You’re telling me, I say, my incredulity growing with every word, that there was literally a moment - in real life - when Mueller printed out his 448 Report, walked it over to the Department of Justice, and dropped it on Bill Barr’s desk without sending him a digital copy?

No, obviously.

Oh. Good. ‘Cause I thought you were crazy.

Of course Mueller didn’t just drop it on Barr’s desk. There would’ve been some ceremony to the handoff.

Ceremony!? They’re transferring a document! Why not send an email? Who the fuck even prints things out anymore?

Guys do, Law Man says. That’s my point. Guys print things out.

Nobody prints things out.

I do. I printed the Report for you, that’s what started all this, remember?

Only because I don’t have a printer.

Right, he goes. Because you’re not a guy.

Look, I say. I appreciate the acknowledgment of my gender identity. I do.

That’s not what I’m saying. Most guys are men, but anyone can be a guy, even gals and... I don’t know, theys or whatever you kids say.

That’s not what we kids say.

Right because kids are not guys. Guys are baby boomers. Guys remember the Cold War. And when guys think of a document like the Mueller Report being handed off, they - we, I should say, because I’m a guy too, if ever a guy there was - can’t even imagine sending a document as monumentally important as the unredacted Mueller Report in an email. Guys imagine a room, with a table and two chairs, where Mueller’s sitting on one side of the table and Barr’s sitting on the other. Presumably there’s also some guys in suits standing around. Guys imagine Mueller pulling out his big, thick report in a very official-looking manila envelope, sliding it across the table to Barr, and going Mr. Attorney General, here is my report on the Special Counsel’s Office’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, thank you very much. Then all the guys shake hands, and the ceremony’s complete.

But why? Why even do a handoff, much less a ceremonial one?

Why? says Law Man. Because who in their right mind would send the unredacted Mueller Report in an email?

Me, for one.

Yeah but you’re -

Okay, right, but also anyone I know. The kids. You can redact a digital file completely securely without printing it out, every kid knows that.

Kids know that, yeah, of course kids know you can redact something just as securely in Adobe Acrobat as if you printed it out, redacted it, and scanned it back into the computer. But guys don’t know that. Guys suck at computers. And we’ve already established that the DOJ sucks at computers. They’re worse than me.

That’s true, I say. You’re the smartest guy I know and you suck at computers.

Right, but imagine a guy who’s like me but stupid. Imagine I was the stupidest guy you know. Imagine I was stupid enough not to even scrub the annotation histories from these documents before releasing them, imagine I was stupid enough to leave the words “Investigative Technique” underneath FOIA exemption (b)(5)-2. Would you trust me - a guy - to send the unredacted Mueller Report in an email? If I did that, honestly, would you trust that I did it 100% correctly and in a way nobody would ever be able to access? This is national security we’re talking about here, think carefully.

Are you seriously telling me, I cut in. That there was a point. At which the DOJ. Had exactly ONE copy of the Mueller Report. The one made of PAPER. The one that was literally HANDED OFF from Mueller to Barr around March 22, 2019. AND. That they didn’t even deliver a PDF!?

I’m not saying they only had one copy. What I’m saying is: however many copies they did have, it’s absolutely possible there was a period of time during which all of those documents were made of paper and none of those documents were PDF’s. That means the Bad Quarto could - I’m not saying it is, but it could - be a scan of the original paper copy of the Report and not a printed and re-scanned version of the PDF. It could be a scan of The Mueller Report, the original paper document transferred to the DOJ, the one he literally, in real life, passed across the table to Barr during the ceremonial handoff.

And your factual basis for all this, I say...... is that you know guys.

You said this is like gonzo journalism right? Doesn’t that mean we have a little room to speculate?


Then let’s speculate. Let’s assume for the moment that there was a Handoff. Let’s assume that there was a point that the DOJ only had a paper copy...

Or copies.

Or paper copies of the Mueller Report. That for a period of time, the only copies of the Mueller Report in the DOJ’s possession were paper ones, and that one of those original, unredacted, paper copies was marked for redaction, then scanned, then

Oh my fuck.

Marked for redaction.

Law Man you brilliant son of a bitch.

How dare you say that about your grandmother.

>Question Time<


Posted to Instagram 8/4/20

See also:  >Intro Highlight<_>FOIA Highlight<_>Metadata Highlight<

See also >Fact Break<

For more questions, see >Question Time<

See also: >Investigonzo Highlight<


See >Question Time #1< & >Question Time #2<

WHY WOULD Barr print and re-scan SOME (BUT NOT ALL) pages of Quarto 2 (latest public release of the Mueller Report, 6/19/20)?

The >metadata< of the newest public release of the Mueller Report (“Quarto 2”) indicates that the PDF was produced using Adobe Acrobat DC’s Paper Capture Plug-in, a software used to scan paper documents into digital images and place OCR-generated glyphs beneath them. (See >The Invisible Glyphs<) Quarto 2, however, is NOT an entirely scanned document. Some of its pages are clearly born digital. while others are clearly scanned, as can be confirmed by visual comparison. (see >Intro Highlight<). Also, the presence of OCR glyphs at all strongly indicates at least part of the document was scanned.

Duff Johnson’s assessment indicates the First public release of the Mueller Report (“Bad Quarto”) was “produced using Ricoh MP 6C502 software, probably a typical office network copier / printer” - a DIFFERENT SCANNER than the one Quarto 2 was created in. This means our first big question (which was actually two questions) was based on a premise that ran polar opposite to the truth.


All of which begs the question:


the Bad Quarto

(first public release of the Mueller Report, 4/18/2019)

was a //scan_ ,


it was EITHER

a //scan_ of an _UNREDACTED.PDF_



THEN //scanned_ ,

OR ELSE it was


that was FIRST //scanned_,

THEN //_digitally_redacted_,

THEN //_printed//,

THEN ////re-scanned_ ,



_PRINT// and ////re-scan_

SOME (BUT//NOT//ALL)!!!!!!

pages of Quarto 2,

(latest public release of the Mueller Report, 6/19/2020)




then _PRINT// and //scan_ THAT?

I can think of one explanation,

And for the life of me y’all,

I cannot think of another.

Stay safe out there.


Quarto 1, cannot have been publicly released before 9/3/19, all pages born digital

Quarto 2, publicly released 6/19/20, some pages digital, some scanned.

Bad Quarto, publicly released 4/18/19, most likely scanned twice according to Johnson.


This is an evolving document. New versions may be uploaded to muellersecrets.com at any time, and new material may appear (or not appear) anywhere.

Volume II will be posted on muellersecrets.com sometime in the near or distant future.

This investigation is ongoing.

If you think you’ve found all the hidden information in this document, you’re wrong.


But what about the fonts?

Jesus, Law Man, I can’t tell them everything at once. You want them to think I’m crazy?


This document has been submitted into the public domain.

Creative Commons Attribution License



Interested in learning the REAL secrets in life?

Check out psionesis.life, home of Peoples Church of Conceptualism, where you can read an excerpt from the boundary-pushing new book Psionesis by acclaimed author, neuroscientist, philosopher, and guru Calvin A Podwin, DNS. In this bestselling book, Cap. Calvin A. Podwin, DNS teaches you the secrets unlocked by lucid dreaming so that you too can attract wealth, success, love, and happiness into your life. Unlock your true spiritual potential using this applied philosophy of modern neuroscience and the Universe will be yours to command!!!!!!!!!!!




>Pink links = Internal links (choices)<  Green links = Other PDFs at muellersecrets.com   

     Blue links = DOJ website (justice.gov)   Yellow links = Wikipedia

Orange links = Buzzsprout Audio (Direct Download)  Red links = Other external links

Black links = Secret links

September 26, 2020                                                                            Version 1.2.1