Profile picture
, 21 tweets, 7 min read Read on Twitter
The Mueller Report, 448 pages

At DOJ, 139 MB (not searchable, not handling the traffic too well) justice.gov/storage/report…

Google Drive (140 MB, searchable, OCR'd & uploaded by me just now) drive.google.com/open?id=12RQ-c…
A few preliminary notes on the Mueller report. Specifically: what are the new details on GRU hacking-and-leaking, and on IRA disinformation efforts in the run-up to the 2016 election? (that is Vol I, Part I, II, and III)
Background: the first round of edits of my book manuscript, ACTIVE MEASURES, is due in 12 days back to @fsgbooks. So good timing here — tinyletter.com/ridt
So what’s new in the Mueller report and are we looking at any major adjustments (to the active measures story)? —

The short answer is: not that much is new, no major adjustments. In some important ways, the report is a disappointment. Bear with me.
First, the Mueller report appears to confirm a major, hugely significant assessment: there was, I would say with medium to high confidence today, no operational coordination between GRU and the Internet Research Agency. That is a very important detail.
Secondly, Mueller’s presentation is odd. The report covers the IRA first, then moves on to GRU (so did the indictments). That's backwards. Of all the Russian activity we saw in 2016, the by far most effective and impactful operations were GRU’s hacking-and-leaking, not trolling.
We discussed the Mueller report today in class @SAISHopkins. The IRA-then-GRU sequencing came up. One of my best students mentioned that the presentation is chronological. But this only begs the follow-on question: why leave out GRU active measures v the US starting in 2014?
@SAISHopkins A few specifics: disappointingly the Mueller report only cites publicly available Facebook (and Twitter) data. Is Facebook's granular visibility into what happened in 2016 really so limited? Hard to believe.
@SAISHopkins Also noteworthy that the IRA section, unexpectedly, is one of the most heavily redacted parts of the entire Mueller report. The full story isn't out yet. Still, I would not expect game-changing revelations at this stage.
@SAISHopkins The Mueller report systematically overstates the follower-counts of IRA accounts. Pamela Moore, for example, did not have "70,000" followers before the election ("she" had around 25K). A bit sloppy, really.
Source btw
Not new, but a friendly reminder that on 15 August 2016 a hostile intelligence agency delivered opposition research to a "candidate for the US Congress" — and we still don't know who that potential member of Congress is.
Important new detail (unless I missed it): DCLeaks reached out to Wikileaks on 14 June 2016, before the Guccifer 2 front even existed, and potentially before the DNC hack became public that same day. (Unclear if Wikileaks responded immediately).
We learn, once more, that Wikileaks has very bad OPSEC
🤔hmm I wonder if said investigative technique has anything to with the WiFi at the Ecuadorian embassy in London ...
Re: the Mueller report is a bit disappointing: this paragraph, for instance, has a good amount of imprecise language and unarticulated assumptions, and not enough hard evidence. Certainly not the precise, authoritative language I would expect in such a high-profile document.
One more: these two paragraphs insinuate that there is some sort of link between a public Trump statement and GRU targeting. Again unarticulated assumptions, but no evidence. This is not the language I expect to see in a high-profile, hard-nosed, no-nonsense investigative report.
One fresh detail raises an interesting question: why would Guccifer 2 direct-message with DCLeaks to inform them about Wikileaks approaches? Aren't these two fronts run by the same GRU unit? Why not get up and walk down the hallway?
H1: lazy operators using DM, don't care about OPSEC
H2: shrewd operators using DM to confuse the adversary, knowing by mid-September that a counterintelligence investigation is under way
H3: a bit of H1 and H2.
H4: ?
Two noteworthy absences:

First, the Mueller report does not mention Cambridge Analytica. No surprise, really. The Cambridge Analytica story was and is perhaps the single most vacuous and over-hyped tech-story I can recall. At least one of them.
Second, the Mueller report does not mention the Shadow Brokers saga. Can we infer from this absence that TSB was not part of the 2016 campaign? — Not quite. But likelihoods shift: less likely TSB was related; and/or more likely the USG really does not have high-confidence answers
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Thomas Rid
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!