Barr's Book Report On The Mueller Report Is In

terp said:

PVW said:
 In that case, they could have followed up after the campaign. But, as you say, who knows why they didn't pursue it. All we can do is observe their actions, which certainly don't indicate that they though access to the physical servers were critical. Given that, it seems a pretty slim reed to support the heavy doubts you and Paul have levied.

 My guess is they figured outsourcing this investigation was "good enough for government work".  They had a conspiracy to look into!

 So we've gone from the FBI not having access to the physical servers being an important point to it now just being something you have some guesses about.

I don't think I ever claimed it was such an important point.  You seemed to be questioning Paul's knowledge based on the claim that there's literally no reason to have the physical servers.  I was taking issue with your line of reasoning.  

PVW, did you claim there's literally no reason to have the physical servers?

DaveSchmidt said:
PVW, did you claim there's literally no reason to have the physical servers?

 I can see how one could have taken it that way, but that's not quite what I meant. Rather, my point was that it didn't seem especially important to have access to the physical servers, and therefore as an argument to discredit the FBI investigation it falls short.

I couldn't say why the FBI originally requested access to the physical servers, but seeing as an image of the servers gives them the same data I don't find it surprising they didn't continue to insist.

If Terp also doesn't find this significant then great, we're in agreement.

I think that just leave's Paul claiming this is important -- "Actually, the FBI never had access to the DNC server, yet it rendered an 'assassement' about who 'hacked' it. So your doctor analogy doesn't really apply here."

Perhaps he could take a stab at explaining why he thinks access to the physical servers significant?

PVW said:

DaveSchmidt said:
PVW, did you claim there's literally no reason to have the physical servers?

 I can see how one could have taken it that way, but that's not quite what I meant. Rather, my point was that it didn't seem especially important to have access to the physical servers, and therefore as an argument to discredit the FBI investigation it falls short.

I couldn't say why the FBI originally requested access to the physical servers, but seeing as an image of the servers gives them the same data I don't find it surprising they didn't continue to insist.

If Terp also doesn't find this significant then great, we're in agreement.
I think that just leave's Paul claiming this is important -- "Actually, the FBI never had access to the DNC server, yet it rendered an 'assassement' about who 'hacked' it. So your doctor analogy doesn't really apply here."

Perhaps he could take a stab at explaining why he thinks access to the physical servers significant?

I'll take a stab at it.

Because "physical access" was one of the talking points promulgated by the anti "Russia-hysteria" movement. Probably started with the VIPS is my guess. But I'll also stab at the fact that paul has just about zero of the requisite knowledge of computer forensics to render an informed opinion on the subject, so simply accepts the VIPS position as golden, as he does the rest of their positions.

Did I put enough words in paul's mouth?

drummerboy said:

But I'll also stab at the fact that paul has just about zero of the requisite knowledge of computer forensics to render an informed opinion on the subject, so simply accepts the VIPS position as golden, as he does the rest of their positions.

There are many, many topics on which I have zero of the requisite knowledge to render an informed opinion, which often leads me to seek guidance from others who purport to have some authority. One way or another, I eventually have to decide for myself how golden their position is. Maybe, if they previously earned my trust, I simply accept it. (Until convinced otherwise. No guarantees I will be, though.)

What do you do?

I haven't seen any reasons given as to why the metal boxes (i.e. the servers) had to be examined vs. the just the electronic files on those servers.  The "hacking" didn't involve a screwdriver, and modifying computer files isn't done by opening the box and writing on the drive.

In light of that, and in light of the detailed descriptions in, inter alia, the Mueller Report itself, of what the computer files revealed, I'd go with the expertise which was used by Mueller.

terp said:
I don't know that I subscribe to the "conspiracy theory" that the deep state is after Trump, but it's at least as plausible as a conspiracy between Trump and Putin.  A couple of things to keep in mind about this deep state business. 
Here are some things we know:

• This conspiracy theory really went into overdrive after the election. I wonder if we'd even would have been talking about it after the election if Clinton won
• Because EVERYONE expected HRC to win.  And there was shock that Trump won.  
• We know that the CIA embeds stories with the press since the 60's
• We know that the Corporate Media tends to be very agreeable to the bi-partisan consensus on Foreign Policy and is hostile to anyone who challenges it(See Ron Paul, Tulsi Gabbert, Chelsea Manning, etc)
• We know that many in the intelligence community that were floating rumors are well established liars that will lie if they feel it is their best interests.  Clapper, Brennan, etc
• We know that there were prominent people in the Intelligence Community  hostile to Donald Trump who seemed to be feeding stories to the press.
• The Corporate media fed us a constant drumbeat of sensational stories for 2 years about Trump that inevitably turned out to be false(Russian Hackers penetrated the US electric grid via a Vermont utility, Putin admits he has compromising information on Trump ,etc) to give the impression that Russia was evil and Trump was their puppet and that the administration was on the brink of coming apart.
• Most corporate media outlets were not friendly to anyone who questioned the conspiracy theory and did not tend to provide air time and/or would deride them as Russian apologists
• The Corporate media tried to label Alternative Media outlets tools of Russian propoganda(bogus PropOrNot report)
• Schumer warned early on that the Intelligence Community "Has 6 ways til Sunday to get back at you" early in the presidency as Trump was critical of them
• A good percentage of the populace believed that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Putin for 2 years when there was literally not 1 shred of evidence that points to it
• Trump has actually been quite hostile to Russia as has been previously documented on this thread

Now, if I didn't know better, I'd think that this could be a psyop by our intelligence community.  But that seems unlikely in this great open society with our transparent brand of government. 
BTW:  Scott Horton interviewed Matt Taibbi recently.  Scott Horton is a great pacifist and skeptic of the US empire.  He runs AntiWar.com and has a radio show in Los Angeles focused on the folly of our military adventures and is the author of "Fools Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan" which is a great(yet very detailed) read of the situation there.  Matt Taibbi is, of course, Matt Taibbi.   

 This is a great compilation. I'll look at it more thoroughly later when I've got the time. I'll be offline for a while.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

But I'll also stab at the fact that paul has just about zero of the requisite knowledge of computer forensics to render an informed opinion on the subject, so simply accepts the VIPS position as golden, as he does the rest of their positions.

There are many, many topics on which I have zero of the requisite knowledge to render an informed opinion, which often leads me to seek guidance from others who purport to have some authority. One way or another, I eventually have to decide for myself how golden their position is. Maybe, if they previously earned my trust, I simply accept it. (Until convinced otherwise. No guarantees I will be, though.)
What do you do?

Usually I try to find dissenting opinions from the "experts" , and then decide which one seems more plausible. (which I did in this case) Even if you don't have the requisite background knowledge, you can usually determine who is getting closer to the truth.

However, I'll admit that it was a bit unfair of me to get on paul for not having the requisite background knowledge.

Interesting take on the Mueller Report:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

jamie said:
Interesting take on the Mueller Report:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Very good article, making a point that people need to appreciate.  First:

The report’s very high standard for legal conclusions for criminal charges was explicitly proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So the report did not establish crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. But it did show a preponderance of conspiracy and coordination.

But, that's for prosecution.  Impeachment is different:

By the preponderance of evidence standard, the report contains ample evidence to establish conspiracy and coordination with the Russian government, sometimes through intermediaries, other times through a Russian spy.

That should be enough for removal from office.  

[Edited to add] Another passage, only because Barr's conclusion in his letter will no doubt be raised:

Mr. Barr had the analysis backward in his summary letter. The failure to prove an underlying crime does not mean there was no obstruction. The obstruction meant that it became impossible to know whether there was a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt — and it impeded the Russian investigation. Mr. Barr then used that doubt to question whether there was the corrupt intent required by obstruction statutes. To the contrary, the preponderance of conspiracy evidence confirms the corrupt intent.

drummerboy said:

PVW said:

DaveSchmidt said:
PVW, did you claim there's literally no reason to have the physical servers?

 I can see how one could have taken it that way, but that's not quite what I meant. Rather, my point was that it didn't seem especially important to have access to the physical servers, and therefore as an argument to discredit the FBI investigation it falls short.

I couldn't say why the FBI originally requested access to the physical servers, but seeing as an image of the servers gives them the same data I don't find it surprising they didn't continue to insist.

If Terp also doesn't find this significant then great, we're in agreement.
I think that just leave's Paul claiming this is important -- "Actually, the FBI never had access to the DNC server, yet it rendered an 'assassement' about who 'hacked' it. So your doctor analogy doesn't really apply here."

Perhaps he could take a stab at explaining why he thinks access to the physical servers significant?

I'll take a stab at it.
Because "physical access" was one of the talking points promulgated by the anti "Russia-hysteria" movement. Probably started with the VIPS is my guess. But I'll also stab at the fact that paul has just about zero of the requisite knowledge of computer forensics to render an informed opinion on the subject, so simply accepts the VIPS position as golden, as he does the rest of their positions.

Did I put enough words in paul's mouth?

At least you're admitting that you're "guessing" about all of this.

If you actually wanted to understand my position, you could have read the analysis that I cited by cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr who cites the DNC's refusal to give the FBI access to its servers as one reason to be skeptical that the Russian government hacked the DNC.

I reminded you of the link, but you plowed ahead with your guesses and assumptions.

Since you have an aversion to reading the sources that I cite, I'll quote Carr's references to the inaccessible servers as a factor in his analysis:

https://medium.com/@jeffreyscarr/the-dnc-swimming-in-malware-but-never-once-targeted-50cfd0ccf484

Crowdstrike Principal Consultant Robert Johnston who did the bulk of the investigative work at the DNC also worked the Joint Staff attack and put two and two together; i.e., “that the DNC had been compromised by the same blast of phishing emails that had breached the computers of the Joint Chiefs.”

Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry acknowledged (with much less detail) the same finding:

"CrowdStrike’s threat intelligence indicates that the DNC breach could be the residual result (emphasis added) of a large-scale phishing campaign orchestrated by this threat actor in Summer 2015. (Crowdstrike Cyber Intrusion Services Casebook 2016)."

Note the word “residual”; i.e., not targeted and the phrase “might be”. That’s because no one found the original email, although it seems like a copy should exist on a server somewhere.

and

Alternatively, malware developers employed by a Russian government research lab may be doing some moonlighting on the side, which still would make the DNC breach something other than a deliberate act by the Russian government.

Too bad there’s no way to tell for sure what the initial infection vector was for Cozy Bear or Fancy Bear because the emails were never found.

Or that the DNC refused to let the FBI examine their servers first-hand.

So it appears that a "digital copy" is not sufficient for a real forensic analysis.

https://www.axios.com/why-trumps-wheres-the-server-is-the-wrong-question-30a4c97c-2822-47b3-b939-1fc2a7490d99.html

nohero said:

jamie said:
Interesting take on the Mueller Report:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Very good article, making a point that people need to appreciate.  First:

The report’s very high standard for legal conclusions for criminal charges was explicitly proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So the report did not establish crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. But it did show a preponderance of conspiracy and coordination.

But, that's for prosecution.  Impeachment is different:

By the preponderance of evidence standard, the report contains ample evidence to establish conspiracy and coordination with the Russian government, sometimes through intermediaries, other times through a Russian spy.

That should be enough for removal from office.  
[Edited to add] Another passage, only because Barr's conclusion in his letter will no doubt be raised:

Mr. Barr had the analysis backward in his summary letter. The failure to prove an underlying crime does not mean there was no obstruction. The obstruction meant that it became impossible to know whether there was a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt — and it impeded the Russian investigation. Mr. Barr then used that doubt to question whether there was the corrupt intent required by obstruction statutes. To the contrary, the preponderance of conspiracy evidence confirms the corrupt intent.

 It's not "an article" it's an opinion piece. And to support his sweeping generalization, the author cites one example. Note the word "likely".

The report states that Rick Gates, a campaign deputy, suspected that Mr. Manafort’s Russian associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, was a “spy,” a view that he shared with Mr. Manafort (and others). For months, Mr. Manafort informed Mr. Kilimnik about the campaign through internal polling data, even pointing out that Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota were target states. The Mueller report did not conclude their motives were criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance in context, the motives were clearly campaign related and likely a coordination with Russia.

But Mueller didn't say he couldn't prove coordination "beyond a reasonable doubt" he said:

The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and
Russia's interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the
time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise
coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.

ridski said:
https://www.axios.com/why-trumps-wheres-the-server-is-the-wrong-question-30a4c97c-2822-47b3-b939-1fc2a7490d99.html

 "The server is now just a small part of the evidence"

For argument's sake, I'll stipulate to that.

Friday's indictments show that the FBI has now pieced together a factual account that renders the whole argument moot.

Another MSM writer who pushes the notion that FBI allegations (indictments are allegations) are infallible can be trusted unconditionally.

PVW said:

DaveSchmidt said:
PVW, did you claim there's literally no reason to have the physical servers?

 I can see how one could have taken it that way, but that's not quite what I meant. Rather, my point was that it didn't seem especially important to have access to the physical servers, and therefore as an argument to discredit the FBI investigation it falls short.

I couldn't say why the FBI originally requested access to the physical servers, but seeing as an image of the servers gives them the same data I don't find it surprising they didn't continue to insist.

If Terp also doesn't find this significant then great, we're in agreement.
I think that just leave's Paul claiming this is important -- "Actually, the FBI never had access to the DNC server, yet it rendered an 'assassement' about who 'hacked' it. So your doctor analogy doesn't really apply here."

Perhaps he could take a stab at explaining why he thinks access to the physical servers significant?

 I gave you the link. See response to drummerboy above.

This should be interesting.

http://time.com/5578267/florida-election-interference-russia-clinton/

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
https://www.axios.com/why-trumps-wheres-the-server-is-the-wrong-question-30a4c97c-2822-47b3-b939-1fc2a7490d99.html

 "The server is now just a small part of the evidence"

For argument's sake, I'll stipulate to that.

Friday's indictments show that the FBI has now pieced together a factual account that renders the whole argument moot.

Another MSM writer who pushes the notion that FBI allegations (indictments are allegations) are infallible can be trusted unconditionally.

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-us-hobbled-its-hacking-case-against-russia-and-enabled-truthers?ref=scroll

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
https://www.axios.com/why-trumps-wheres-the-server-is-the-wrong-question-30a4c97c-2822-47b3-b939-1fc2a7490d99.html

 "The server is now just a small part of the evidence"

For argument's sake, I'll stipulate to that.

Friday's indictments show that the FBI has now pieced together a factual account that renders the whole argument moot.

Another MSM writer who pushes the notion that FBI allegations (indictments are allegations) are infallible can be trusted unconditionally.

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-us-hobbled-its-hacking-case-against-russia-and-enabled-truthers?ref=scroll

 When the IC "assessment" came out, there was still skepticism within the media, even in the NY Times initial coverage:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hacking-election-intelligence.html

What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission . . .

Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to “trust us.” There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery.

The allegation morphed into fact through constant repetition. The term "alleged hacking" became "hacking." The same thing happened with "alleged Iraq WMDS" that morphed into "Iraq WMDs."

"Russian hacking of the DNC" remains an allegation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Poulsen

paulsurovell said:

...

"Russian hacking of the DNC" remains an allegation.

This reminds me of discussions about vaccinations.  People disagree on issues regarding the responsibility of parents, or whether and how much the government should require vaccinations, or religious/cultural objections to putting those substances into the body.  There can be sincere and intelligent debate on these issues.

And sometimes there's the person insisting that the vaccine causes autism. That person adds nothing to the conversation.

paulsurovell said:

Click to Read More

nohero said:

jamie said:
Interesting take on the Mueller Report:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Very good article, making a point that people need to appreciate. 
...

 It's not "an article" it's an opinion piece. And to support his sweeping generalization, the author cites one example. ...

No, the author cites several examples, and presumes some familiarity with what Mueller recounted instead of re-listing everything.  Did you read it, or just read someone's attempt to criticize it?

paulsurovell said:

I gave you the link. See response to drummerboy above.

 From your linked article:

"Neither the Joint Staff nor the DNC were specifically targeted. They were victims purely by chance; part of a massive spear phishing attack against an unidentified west coast university that had more in common with ransomware and crimeware attacks (in the words of F-Secure) than an espionage operation run by a foreign intelligence service."

This is a significant change in position for you. Are you officially dropping the claim that the DNC emails were leaked rather than hacked?

(If so then we can discuss this article. If not, then there's not really a point discussing an article whose premise you disagree with, though it'd then be confusing why you cited it in the first place.)

Maybe I am missing something, but what does the DNC server attack have to do with the Mueller report?

basil said:
Maybe I am missing something, but what does the DNC server attack have to do with the Mueller report?

Pages 36 to 50 of the report are specifically about it: “GRU Hacking Directed at the Clinton Campaign.”

basil said:
Maybe I am missing something, but what does the DNC server attack have to do with the Mueller report?

 Paul's position has been that there was no Russian hacking, hence the Mueller investigation was a hoax. One of his arguments has been that because the FBI had no access to the servers, they couldn't possibly conclude that the DNC had been hacked by the Russians, and so must be lying. He's also been arguing that the DNC was not hacked, but was that an insider leaked materials, which I suppose he believes physical access to the servers would somehow prove? (it's not clear to me exactly why he thinks access to the servers matters).

His most recent post seems to have rather dramatically shifted his position in that he appears to be accepting there was a hack after all, though not by the Russians.

DaveSchmidt said:

basil said:
Maybe I am missing something, but what does the DNC server attack have to do with the Mueller report?

Pages 36 to 50 of the report are specifically about it.

 Thanks -- and btw, think this was posted earlier, but the report is accessible here:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Those who have been complaining about media coverage around the report can just skip the middleman.

PVW said:

basil said:
Maybe I am missing something, but what does the DNC server attack have to do with the Mueller report?

 Paul's position has been that there was no Russian hacking, hence the Mueller investigation was a hoax. One of his arguments has been that because the FBI had no access to the servers, they couldn't possibly conclude that the DNC had been hacked by the Russians, and so must be lying. He's also been arguing that the DNC was not hacked, but was that an insider leaked materials, which I suppose he believes physical access to the servers would somehow prove? (it's not clear to me exactly why he thinks access to the servers matters).
His most recent post seems to have rather dramatically shifted his position in that he appears to be accepting there was a hack after all, though not by the Russians.

First of all, nobody has access to physical servers nowadays anymore. Everything is in the Cloud, which means everything is virtual. So why is that even relevant here?

Second, didn't the whole top of the Trump campaign eagerly go to a meeting with the Russians because they promised dirt on Hillary? What more proof do we need? And by the way, the first person who suggested that it was Russia who stole DNC's emails was Trump himself (remember his "Russia, if you are listening" speech?).

Paul is always very sensitive about Russia I noticed. If we wouldn't know better one would almost assume there is a common interest there.

basil said:

First of all, nobody has access to physical servers nowadays anymore. Everything is in the Cloud, which means everything is virtual. So why is that even relevant here?

 That's basically my question to Paul. He finds it relevant and I don't understand why. 

Paul is always very sensitive about Russia I noticed. If we wouldn't know better one would almost assume there is a common interest there.

Is that really necessary? Surely people can have different opinions without us having to impute dark motives to them.

PVW said:

basil said:
First of all, nobody has access to physical servers nowadays anymore. Everything is in the Cloud, which means everything is virtual. So why is that even relevant here?

 That's basically my question to Paul. He finds it relevant and I don't understand why. 

Paul is always very sensitive about Russia I noticed. If we wouldn't know better one would almost assume there is a common interest there.

Is that really necessary? Surely people can have different opinions without us having to impute dark motives to them.

Yes it is. The Russians (and probably all our other enemies as well) have used social media to sow discord and division to influence the 2016 Election. According to our Intelligence Chiefs they have grown even more sophisticated and are doubling down on 2020. We always had a few lunatics in this country that thought Russia wasn't so bad, but we sure seem to have a lot more of them today.