Barr's Book Report On The Mueller Report Is In

Mother Jones and Politico have been given the mainstream media label when it suits a commenter’s purpose. Why not Barr and Mueller?


DaveSchmidt said:


ridski said:

The entire thing is attributed in the original article Jamie posted. It begins with the list of 14 counts, and then goes on to list out where in the report those counts are mentioned alongside caveats AND supplementary documentation.
It was a reflex I have trouble shaking. Nevertheless, if Paul does read the article, he’ll notice that the citations don’t include anything from the report that calls Kilimnik a spy
I’m 100 percent certain, however, that he’ll accept “the FBI assesses” as equivalent to “Mueller says” and “ties to Russian intelligence” as synonymous with “spy.”

 It appears that Mueller lied. State Department documents reveal that Kilimnik was a spy for the United States -- and Mueller knew it:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department


Dangling a pardon. Hinting that providing any damaging information about Trump to "the government" would be against our national security interests. Forget about Trump, how about his lawyer, is the legal or even ethical behavior considering Flynn was a co-operating witness?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-lawyer-voicemail-michael-flynn-cooperation


It's official. Contrary to the thousands of false reports by the mainstream media, the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election.

So half of the narrative that the Russian government attacked our democracy is down the tubes.  The other half (hacking the DNC has been debunked here)

Mueller attorney Jonathan Kravis in Federal District Court on May 28, 2019:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf


paulsurovell said:
It's official. Contrary to the thousands of false reports by the mainstream media, the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election.
So half of the narrative that the Russian government attacked our democracy is down the tubes.  The other half (hacking the DNC has been debunked here)

Mueller attorney Jonathan Kravis in Federal District Court on May 28, 2019:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf

You are quoting from a legal document about a lawsuit against the government related to the Mueller report. So let's go to the source, the Mueller report itself, and see what is official:


basil said:


paulsurovell said:
It's official. Contrary to the thousands of false reports by the mainstream media, the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election.
So half of the narrative that the Russian government attacked our democracy is down the tubes.  The other half (hacking the DNC has been debunked here)

Mueller attorney Jonathan Kravis in Federal District Court on May 28, 2019:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf
You are quoting from a legal document about a lawsuit against the government related to the Mueller report. So let's go to the source, the Mueller report itself, and see what is official:

The statement is from one of Mueller's attorneys who says under oath that the Mueller Report never claimed that the Internet Research Agency was directed by the Russian government and he goes further to say that Mueller's indictment never made that claim.

The section from the Report that you posted confirms that.

The IRA is a private Russian troll-farm. Not Putin, not the Russian government. A private Russian troll-farm.

Read the link and read this if you want to know what's going on.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html


"Not Putin, not the Russian government. A private Russian troll-farm."

So Hillary Clinton hired a foreign agent to conspire with Russians to obtain dirt to win the election,  but the IRA is has nothing to do with the Russian government. Got it.


paulsurovell said:
It's official. Contrary to the thousands of false reports by the mainstream media, the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election.
So half of the narrative that the Russian government attacked our democracy is down the tubes.  The other half (hacking the DNC has been debunked here)

Mueller attorney Jonathan Kravis in Federal District Court on May 28, 2019:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf

 So I actually read this, and the context is that Concord is complaining that by tying them to the Russian government DOJ has unfairly prejudiced their upcoming trial, and DOJ is very carefully noting that they did not make that claim. And just as carefully, they also are NOT claiming that the opposite either, because the whole point of this is that DOJ is claiming that they avoided making a claim around this at all.

No doubt you'll try to argue otherwise, but there's a very simple way to cut that short -- quote the part in this document where the DOJ says that "the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election." 

You can't because it's not in there -- all the DOJ says here is that they don't make the claim one way or another, as is appropriate in this pre-trial context.

Of course, those of us who aren't lawyers involved in trying a defendant with alleged ties to the Russian government are under no obligation to refrain from drawing the obvious links between the IRA and the Russian state (though I suppose those of us who do feel called to act as unofficial ancillaries to the defense would, naturally, do all they can do resist such conclusions).


ridski said:
"Not Putin, not the Russian government. A private Russian troll-farm."
So Hillary Clinton hired a foreign agent to conspire with Russians to obtain dirt to win the election,  but the IRA is has nothing to do with the Russian government. Got it.
.

I wonder why Mueller is so definitive that the IRA was not directed by the Russian government. Putin has kompromat on him?


PVW said:


paulsurovell said:
It's official. Contrary to the thousands of false reports by the mainstream media, the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election.
So half of the narrative that the Russian government attacked our democracy is down the tubes.  The other half (hacking the DNC has been debunked here)

Mueller attorney Jonathan Kravis in Federal District Court on May 28, 2019:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf
 So I actually read this, and the context is that Concord is complaining that by tying them to the Russian government DOJ has unfairly prejudiced their upcoming trial, and DOJ is very carefully noting that they did not make that claim. And just as carefully, they also are NOT claiming that the opposite either, because the whole point of this is that DOJ is claiming that they avoided making a claim around this at all.
No doubt you'll try to argue otherwise, but there's a very simple way to cut that short -- quote the part in this document where the DOJ says that "the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election." 
You can't because it's not in there -- all the DOJ says here is that they don't make the claim one way or another, as is appropriate in this pre-trial context.
Of course, those of us who aren't lawyers involved in trying a defendant with alleged ties to the Russian government are under no obligation to refrain from drawing the obvious links between the IRA and the Russian state (though I suppose those of us who do feel called to act as unofficial ancillaries to the defense would, naturally, do all they can do resist such conclusions).

 Kravis is one of Mueller's attorneys and he's educating you that Mueller never claimed that the IRA was directed by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. But you don't want to be educated.


PVW said:

So I actually read this, and the context is that Concord is complaining that by tying them to the Russian government DOJ has unfairly prejudiced their upcoming trial, and DOJ is very carefully noting that they did not make that claim. And just as carefully, they also are NOT claiming that the opposite either, because the whole point of this is that DOJ is claiming that they avoided making a claim around this at all.
No doubt you'll try to argue otherwise, but there's a very simple way to cut that short -- quote the part in this document where the DOJ says that "the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election." 
You can't because it's not in there -- all the DOJ says here is that they don't make the claim one way or another, as is appropriate in this pre-trial context.

It’s actually interesting reading — not unlike an MOL subforum thread.

The “didn’t say didn’t” argument doesn’t strike me as a strong defense for claiming that the Internet Research Agency was taking orders from the Russian government, which is what Paul objects to. But it’s also beside the point, I believe, because most reporting I read didn’t claim that. Most reporting I read (Paul will have his own exceptions) said the IRA had ties to the Russian government. 

“Ties”? So what? Well ...

paulsurovell said:

Kravis is one of Mueller's attorneys and he's educating you that Mueller never claimed that the IRA was directed by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

And super PACs are not directed by the campaigns with which they share ties. So they must be completely independent, right?


Anyway, I don't understand why Mueller is ducking. He was supposed to be the last honorable republican, and now he doesn't even want to testify for more than 10 minutes about a job we paid him well to do?


DaveSchmidt said:


PVW said:

So I actually read this, and the context is that Concord is complaining that by tying them to the Russian government DOJ has unfairly prejudiced their upcoming trial, and DOJ is very carefully noting that they did not make that claim. And just as carefully, they also are NOT claiming that the opposite either, because the whole point of this is that DOJ is claiming that they avoided making a claim around this at all.
No doubt you'll try to argue otherwise, but there's a very simple way to cut that short -- quote the part in this document where the DOJ says that "the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election." 
You can't because it's not in there -- all the DOJ says here is that they don't make the claim one way or another, as is appropriate in this pre-trial context.
It’s actually interesting reading — not unlike an MOL subforum thread.
The “didn’t say didn’t” argument doesn’t strike me as a strong defense for claiming that the Internet Research Agency was taking orders from the Russian government, which is what Paul objects to. But it’s also beside the point, I believe, because most reporting I read didn’t claim that. Most reporting I read (Paul will have his own exceptions) said the IRA had ties to the Russian government. 
“Ties”? So what? Well ...
paulsurovell said:

Kravis is one of Mueller's attorneys and he's educating you that Mueller never claimed that the IRA was directed by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
And super PACs are not directed by the campaigns with which they share ties. So they must be completely independent, right?

The dispute in the court transcript is between Concord Management (owner of the IRA) and the DOJ over Concord's claim that suggestions and innuendos by Mueller and the DOJ that the IRA acted under the direction of the Russian government are prejudicial to Concord in Mueller's prosecution of Concord for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election.

The DOJ answers simply neither the DOJ nor the Mueller Report ever claimed that the IRA was acting under the direction of the Russian government, with the exception of a few unintentional poor word choices.

So the "Russian interference" mantra that the Russian government is responsible for the (laughable) IRA social media campaign to support Trump turns out to be based not on any facts or evidence, but on what we somehow "know."

A thorough discussion of the Mueller Report's claim of "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 election versus the absence of evidence in the Report to support that claim can be found here:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html


paulsurovell said:


DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

So I actually read this, and the context is that Concord is complaining that by tying them to the Russian government DOJ has unfairly prejudiced their upcoming trial, and DOJ is very carefully noting that they did not make that claim. And just as carefully, they also are NOT claiming that the opposite either, because the whole point of this is that DOJ is claiming that they avoided making a claim around this at all.
No doubt you'll try to argue otherwise, but there's a very simple way to cut that short -- quote the part in this document where the DOJ says that "the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election." 
You can't because it's not in there -- all the DOJ says here is that they don't make the claim one way or another, as is appropriate in this pre-trial context.
It’s actually interesting reading — not unlike an MOL subforum thread.
The “didn’t say didn’t” argument doesn’t strike me as a strong defense for claiming that the Internet Research Agency was taking orders from the Russian government, which is what Paul objects to. But it’s also beside the point, I believe, because most reporting I read didn’t claim that. Most reporting I read (Paul will have his own exceptions) said the IRA had ties to the Russian government. 
“Ties”? So what? Well ...
paulsurovell said:

Kravis is one of Mueller's attorneys and he's educating you that Mueller never claimed that the IRA was directed by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
And super PACs are not directed by the campaigns with which they share ties. So they must be completely independent, right?
The dispute in the court transcript is between Concord Management (owner of the IRA) and the DOJ over Concord's claim that suggestions and innuendos by Mueller and the DOJ that the IRA acted under the direction of the Russian government are prejudicial to Concord in Mueller's prosecution of Concord for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election.

The DOJ answers simply neither the DOJ nor the Mueller Report ever claimed that the IRA was acting under the direction of the Russian government, with the exception of a few unintentional poor word choices.
So the "Russian interference" mantra that the Russian government is responsible for the (laughable) IRA social media campaign to support Trump turns out to be based not on any facts or evidence, but on what we somehow "know."

A thorough discussion of the Mueller Report's claim of "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 election versus the absence of evidence in the Report to support that claim can be found here:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html


DaveSchmidt said:



It’s actually interesting reading — not unlike an MOL subforum thread.
The “didn’t say didn’t” argument doesn’t strike me as a strong defense for claiming that the Internet Research Agency was taking orders from the Russian government, which is what Paul objects to.

 Well, Paul went beyond this, saying " the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election," then linked to this transcript (which, I agree, was very interesting reading."

Had he contented himself with pointing out that the Mueller report did not directly accuse the Russian government of directing the IRA, he'd be on factually correct ground. In going beyond this, he goes beyond his own cited evidence.

Beyond this, there remains the fact that he's taking what is a very narrow and legalistic context and attempting to apply that to a much broader one. Whether DOJ directly tied IRA to the Russian government might very well be germane to questions of prejudicing of 

Concord Management and Consulting, but that hardly means the rest of us should ignore all the reporting beyond the Mueller report that tie IRA to Russian oligarchs with deep ties to Putin. I think your analogy to Super PACs is a good one, though even that I think downplays the closeness between Putin and the oligarchs he's partitioned the Russian economy out to.


PVW said:

 Well, Paul went beyond this, saying " the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election," then linked to this transcript (which, I agree, was very interesting reading."
Had he contented himself with pointing out that the Mueller report did not directly accuse the Russian government of directing the IRA, he'd be on factually correct ground. In going beyond this, he goes beyond his own cited evidence.

 Ah, I see. Yes, in that comment, Paul turned a “didn’t say didn’t” into a “said didn’t.”

(Though the International Research Agency sounds interventionist, so who knows what it was up to?)


DaveSchmidt said:


PVW said:

 Well, Paul went beyond this, saying " the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election," then linked to this transcript (which, I agree, was very interesting reading."
Had he contented himself with pointing out that the Mueller report did not directly accuse the Russian government of directing the IRA, he'd be on factually correct ground. In going beyond this, he goes beyond his own cited evidence.
 Ah, I see. Yes, in that comment, Paul turned a “didn’t say didn’t” into a “said didn’t.”
(Though the International Research Agency sounds interventionist, so who knows what it was up to?)

 Refresh my memory -- if it wasn't Mueller*, who said the Russian government directed the IRA to meddle in the 2016 election?

Rachel Maddow?

*I thought his Report was what we were "waiting to see"


paulsurovell said:


 Refresh my memory -- if it wasn't Mueller*, who said the Russian government directed the IRA to meddle in the 2016 election?
Rachel Maddow?

*I thought his Report was what we were "waiting to see"


 Oh, this is all ground that's been well plowed and so of zero interest to me. Your claim that DOJ said that "the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency" was a new one, and, as it turned out, incorrect. Unless and until there's something else new, I doubt I'll have much occasion to be back in this thread.


DaveSchmidt said:



(Though the International Research Agency sounds interventionist, so who knows what it was up to?)

 Ha, yes, funny typo grin


PVW said:


DaveSchmidt said:

It’s actually interesting reading — not unlike an MOL subforum thread.
The “didn’t say didn’t” argument doesn’t strike me as a strong defense for claiming that the Internet Research Agency was taking orders from the Russian government, which is what Paul objects to.

Had he contented himself with pointing out that the Mueller report did not directly accuse the Russian government of directing the IRA, he'd be on factually correct ground. In going beyond this, he goes beyond his own cited evidence.

 What is important about the court transcript is that when forced to answer under oath in the presence of a judge and a defense attorney, Mueller's attorney says unambiguously:

the report does not state anywhere that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency activity

So what is left is the uncomfortable realization that the mainstream media's daily message --  that the IRA's (laughable) social media campaign was half of the Russian government (Putin's) Pearl-Harbor-like attack on our democracy -- is and has been a scam.


basil said:


paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

So I actually read this, and the context is that Concord is complaining that by tying them to the Russian government DOJ has unfairly prejudiced their upcoming trial, and DOJ is very carefully noting that they did not make that claim. And just as carefully, they also are NOT claiming that the opposite either, because the whole point of this is that DOJ is claiming that they avoided making a claim around this at all.
No doubt you'll try to argue otherwise, but there's a very simple way to cut that short -- quote the part in this document where the DOJ says that "the Russian government did not direct the International Research Agency to "meddle" in the 2016 election." 
You can't because it's not in there -- all the DOJ says here is that they don't make the claim one way or another, as is appropriate in this pre-trial context.
It’s actually interesting reading — not unlike an MOL subforum thread.
The “didn’t say didn’t” argument doesn’t strike me as a strong defense for claiming that the Internet Research Agency was taking orders from the Russian government, which is what Paul objects to. But it’s also beside the point, I believe, because most reporting I read didn’t claim that. Most reporting I read (Paul will have his own exceptions) said the IRA had ties to the Russian government. 
“Ties”? So what? Well ...
paulsurovell said:

Kravis is one of Mueller's attorneys and he's educating you that Mueller never claimed that the IRA was directed by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
And super PACs are not directed by the campaigns with which they share ties. So they must be completely independent, right?
The dispute in the court transcript is between Concord Management (owner of the IRA) and the DOJ over Concord's claim that suggestions and innuendos by Mueller and the DOJ that the IRA acted under the direction of the Russian government are prejudicial to Concord in Mueller's prosecution of Concord for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election.

The DOJ answers simply neither the DOJ nor the Mueller Report ever claimed that the IRA was acting under the direction of the Russian government, with the exception of a few unintentional poor word choices.
So the "Russian interference" mantra that the Russian government is responsible for the (laughable) IRA social media campaign to support Trump turns out to be based not on any facts or evidence, but on what we somehow "know."

A thorough discussion of the Mueller Report's claim of "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 election versus the absence of evidence in the Report to support that claim can be found here:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

It is 8am in Moscow, you should really be focusing on breakfast right now

Let me ask you a question: do you think Trump undermines (or is threatening to undermine) our democracy? (not asking for a legal document, just for your personal opinion)


(comment removed due to coding bug. We're looking into figuring out why this happens.)

paulsurovell said:

If the FBI had hard information that Kilimnik was a spy, they would have said so. But they opted to create an appearance to make the most they can out of nothing.

 In 2020, the new report claims, Kilimnik and others used “prominent US persons and media conduits to launder their narratives” and “met with and provided materials to Trump administration-linked US persons,” among other efforts. They were also behind a “documentary that aired on a US television network in late January 2020,” the report reads. This is an apparent reference an OAN segment titled “The Ukraine Hoax: Impeachment, Biden Cash, and Mass Murder,” which was hosted by Michael Caputo, a right-wing operative who Trump later made the top spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department.

And where is he - why is he hiding?  ($250,000 reward)  I'm sure we'll find out much more of what the T**** administration has been hiding in the coming days.  I wonder if the defenders will return?


paulsurovell said:

A thorough discussion of the Mueller Report's claim of "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference in the 2016 election versus the absence of evidence in the Report to support that claim can be found here:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

Yeah, about that ...

The Intelligence on Russia Was Clear. It Was Not Always Presented That Way.

A newly declassified intelligence report made clear that government agencies long knew of Russia’s work to aid Donald Trump, but he and allies muddied the waters.

The report laid out how the Russian strategy of attacking Mr. Biden goes back to 2014, before Mr. Trump was a serious candidate for office. While some senior intelligence officials have suggested that intelligence on Russia was in flux at various points in 2020, the new report made clear that the intelligence community’s view on President Vladimir V. Putin’s support for Mr. Trump was little changed from 2016 to 2020.

[Edited to add] But the useful idiots have their new talking points. 


While I disagree with posting people's tweets here when they no longer participate here to discuss them, this is a classic example of...


Paul has been easy to engage on Twitter when I’ve had comments or questions about his tweets.


I've stayed off the twitterverse.  It's a scary place every time I've tried.  Does he still talk about VIPS?


jamie said:

Does he still talk about VIPS?

Every once in a while, yes.


Given my frustrating experiences with him on MOL, it wouldn't even occur to me to read Paul's tweets. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.