,
12 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
But @AlanDersh, you know as I do—as it's been widely reported—that there will be no release of a "Final Mueller Report" as your book falsely advertises, let alone by March 26 as it falsely advertises. AG Barr will offer a brief summary to Congress—possibly with redacted excerpts.
@AlanDersh I have no issue, @AlanDersh—as you know from my tweets—with anyone writing an intro to a public report. I'm saying that you're selling, for money, a product that doesn't and won't exist in the form it's being advertised—and has a fake release date attached to it to entice buyers.
And I'm saying, @AlanDersh, that your book uses the DOJ Seal in a way that misrepresents the book and may be illegal, and that the DOJ is falsely listed as a co-author. I'm saying you're selling—at best—a brief (short story-length) summary of the document you say you're selling.
Properly marketed, @AlanDersh, your book would be called "A Brief Summary of the Mueller Report" with the coauthor listed as Attorney General William Barr—and the date of release on Amazon would be listed as "sometime in 2019" with an asterisk and the word "maybe" attached to it.
When a man who's repeatedly said that Mueller should hurry up already is marketing a book that falsely claims it is the "Mueller Report" and falsely claims the report will be public by March 26, @AlanDersh, it's a deliberate attempt to influence public perception and expectation.
You know as I do, @AlanDersh, that the release of even *an excerpt* from Mueller's report will have to be preceded by months of legal wrangling between Trump and Congress over what's privileged—and between Congress and the DOJ over what's counterintel data and should be redacted.
Moreover, @AlanDersh, because 1998 preceded online commerce (or even the internet) being ubiquitous in our culture, we didn't have—at the time—the danger that unscrupulous authors and publishers would falsely market material online that they'd never be able to get their hands on.
What I know you'll do now, @AlanDersh, is either (a) raise a new topic of disagreement to deflect, (b) misquote what I've said, (c) answer a question I didn't ask, or (d) misstate the facts as we all know them to be. I know the bag of tricks you're working from—I practiced, too.
And you'll notice I *haven't* dinged you for the obvious stuff, @AlanDersh—like selling for $13 material that—if it existed—would be available for free online, or the fact that you've shown nothing like the expertise on the Russia probe that'd allow you to write a Mueller intro.
Moreover, @AlanDersh, if I were friends with some of Mueller's subjects, and had advised some of them, and stood to benefit personally from Trump escaping any further legal attention, I wouldn't *dream*—given attorneys' ethical obligations—of participating in a project like this.
I'm happy that consumers will be able to cancel their pre-orders when they realize they've been scammed, @AlanDersh, but I'm concerned about those who *won't* cancel and will get a thin volume of material—months later than promised—whose content is nothing like it was advertised.
I'm asking you to do the right thing, @AlanDersh, and withdraw from this project now. You are—or, at a minimum, were—better than this, and it's not too late to reflect on whether this project does any justice to the man and the attorney that you have (in prior decades) been. /end
