5 stars is somewhat misleading. I mean, it’s a government report. It isn’t riveting.
Edition: I am using the Brown Books Publishing Group Edition because it was cheap. It has a foreword by Lt. Col. Allen B. West (Ret.), and an introduction by Hon. Dan Boren. One is Republican, one a Democrat. Neither one seems very happy about the current state of politics. Because this kindle edition does not use page numbers, I will use location numbers. ALl typos are my mistakes.
Cool, Brown Books including a link so we can compare the original document with your transcription. Well done.
So “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion” (307). FBI started investigating in July 2016 – “whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities” (315).
“The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” but “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” (330). – This seems to be a bit different than what Barr reported.
The report goes on to note that the investigators used the framework of conspiracy law as opposed to the “concept of collusion” (338). Collusion wasn’t used because it is not a term in Federal law, apparently (338). Investigators using the term coordinated. The report notes:
“We understood coordination to require an agreement -tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. 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 inference activities” (344-46).
This is an important difference in terms. Not only because Trump’s “no collusion” claim is a bit wrong, but there does seem to be a grayish area here. It may not legally be bad fish, but it is bad fish.
Apparently Russian contacts included business connections, invitations for Trump to meet Putin, offers of assistance, and for representatives to meet and discussion pro-Russian policy (389). This seems to have started in 2015 with Trump Tower Moscow (397). This finding should at the very least count as conflict of interest in terms of the Trump presidency.
Right after the election, Russian officials reached out to the new administration (437), this included Kirill Dmitriev, who is executive of Russian Sovereign Wealth fund (437). He was introduced to Erik Prince, associate of Bannon (437). Dmitriev worked a friend of Kushner (not on the transition team) and came up with a “reconciliation” plan to bring Russia and US together (444). Supposedly cleared by Putin (444), Kushner than passed it on to Bannon and Tillerson (444). So it isn’t just the family, it is friends of the family making policy. I feel so safe now.
When the Obama administration-imposed sanctions on Russia because of the election inference, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn asked the Russia via the Russian ambassador to not hit back (444). This was passed up to the highest levels and Flynn’s words carried the weight for it to go into effect (452). See – bad fish.
Report then notes the standards that are being used in terms of finding a crime (i.e. the ability to win a case). Has concluded that the Russian actions were illegal (478). Then something is redacted for personal privacy. The report says that about Trump/Russians “while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges” (486). This includes charging someone has an unregistered agent for Russia (486). Then notes that individuals lied to investigators (494). More importantly, it is noted that important information was deleted or communicated using a program that would not save it.
The next person that mentions Clinton’s emails will be shot. This is worse than bad fish. Basically couldn’t find anything because it had been deleted. Barr left that out.
Mueller ends this section with “the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in new light) the events described in the report” (519).
This is hardly a sterling endorsement of innocence.
IRA’s (Internet Research Agency) U.S. operations part of Project Lakhta (649). IN 2016, IRA employees recruited people in the US by claiming to be US activists. People were recruited to hold up happy birthday signs on Prigozhin’s birthday (662). IRA employees entered the US after lying about reasons for visit (687). Accounts were created that were pretended to be accounts of US citizens or social activist groups (697). By Feb 2016, documents in IRA written to ordering support of Trump and attacks on Clinton (709). IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements on Facebook (733). Also, IRA operated the Russian bots (758).
Tweets and posts from these IRA controlled accounts were quoted and like by various media works and Trump officials (768-781). IRA also organized rallies (781). Barr’s redactions seem to be less sereve when talking about the IRA trying to gain support and aid of black social justice groups. Funny that. I think you could figure it out quite easily.
Notes that Wikileaks had expressed opposition to Clinton (1248), this includes calling Clinton a “sadistic sociopath” (qtd on 1247). Which shows that Assange is not a reporter, doesn’t it? Also notes that Wikileaks wanted to influence the election “because we want to be seen to be a resource/player in the US election” (qtd on 1256).
Notes that Wikileaks tried to hide where the emails and information came from. This is where the Seth Rich comes from (1326). This denial continued even after the US intelligence community report (1335).
1. Mueller is fair.
2. You find out it wasn’t collusion that they were looking for.
3. Perhaps there wasn’t coordination but the campaign was really chummy with the Russians.
4. How the Russians and WikiLeaks manipulated the election.
5. While there are quite a few redactions, it is very interesting where they occur and what isn’t said.
6. Barr is a liar.
7. Kushner and Trump lied more than we knew
Even if you are a Trump supporter, the close ties that Russia made with the Trumps should give you pause.
Mueller’s report is not what Barr would have you believe, the redactions are somewhat interesting because of who doesn’t get mentioned.
Look, read it