Did Mueller's report provide new evidence for the claim of Russian govt election interference via social...












18















Over the past several years, many in the US (government and mainstream media) have argued that the Russian government ("The Russians") interfered with the 2016 US elections through the "Internet Research Agency" - a sort of a social media campaigning company / troll farm. It ran some some small-scale campaigns before, during and after the US 2016 elections, with some content supportive of Trump (although to be honest some of those pro-Trump images seem ridiculous enough to have the opposite effect), some critical of Trump, content in support of or against other causes, including the promotion of events or rallies, etc. Some of this happened before the elections, some after; I've even heard the claim that most effort or money was spent after the elections but I may be wrong on this. At least once they even organized opposing rallies. (see this piece for some examples of IRA-originated memes). The total amount of money they spent in 2016 on promoting such content is said to have been $100,000.



When I initially heard about this, I was unconvinced that this a Russian government effort to destabilize the US or to swing the US elections. The amount of money is minuscule (relative to campaigns' media budget), the timing of its spending is off, and subjectively it didn't even seem to me to be a serious effort to get people to support Trump (sometimes more like the opposite). As a lay user, I found this looked more like glorified trolling than international political interference. Several critics (in alternative media mostly) have also expressed such skepticism.



Now that the (redacted version of) Mueller report is out - is there any newly-revealed evidence to support the characterization of these IRA activities as Russian government interference in the US elections? And - what is the new evidence?



Notes:




  • I mean evidence - not estimates, conclusions, non-testimony assertions ("XYZ happened") etc.

  • On that note - statements of fact in the report which have no source, or whose source supposedly exists but is redacted - are not evidence revealed by the redacted report. My question is about evidence revealed in this release.

  • Circumstantial evidence counts as evidence.

  • There is this annoying use of the term "The Russians" to conflate people living in Russia, Russian companies, Russian business owners and the Russian government, all together. I'm specifically asking about the Russian government.










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Anyway, is old evidence of Russian governmental involvement or goals acceptable for an answer? Or are you only asking about information specific to Mueller's report?

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 19 at 9:24






  • 9





    This release specifically does not include the underlying evidence. Given that, why do you assume a footnote listing a source is "better" than a redacted footnote listing a source? Either way, we cannot see the source in most instances. I guess I just don't understand what you're looking for if you want to discount anything the report actually says.

    – Geobits
    Apr 19 at 13:59






  • 4





    @Geobits: 1. Are you sure this release does not include any underlying evidence? If so, could you make that into an answer? 2. If the footnote says "Secret document no 1234 that I won't show you", then - indeed, as a non-US-citizen I would tend to discount the report by the US government, which is on the whole an interested party on this matter. With publicly-available evidence I would give it more credence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 15:01






  • 1





    You can follow the IRA/Concord pretrial proceedings here. The prosecution is trying to keep the evidence secret.

    – Keith McClary
    Apr 20 at 19:09











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sam I am
    Apr 22 at 5:31
















18















Over the past several years, many in the US (government and mainstream media) have argued that the Russian government ("The Russians") interfered with the 2016 US elections through the "Internet Research Agency" - a sort of a social media campaigning company / troll farm. It ran some some small-scale campaigns before, during and after the US 2016 elections, with some content supportive of Trump (although to be honest some of those pro-Trump images seem ridiculous enough to have the opposite effect), some critical of Trump, content in support of or against other causes, including the promotion of events or rallies, etc. Some of this happened before the elections, some after; I've even heard the claim that most effort or money was spent after the elections but I may be wrong on this. At least once they even organized opposing rallies. (see this piece for some examples of IRA-originated memes). The total amount of money they spent in 2016 on promoting such content is said to have been $100,000.



When I initially heard about this, I was unconvinced that this a Russian government effort to destabilize the US or to swing the US elections. The amount of money is minuscule (relative to campaigns' media budget), the timing of its spending is off, and subjectively it didn't even seem to me to be a serious effort to get people to support Trump (sometimes more like the opposite). As a lay user, I found this looked more like glorified trolling than international political interference. Several critics (in alternative media mostly) have also expressed such skepticism.



Now that the (redacted version of) Mueller report is out - is there any newly-revealed evidence to support the characterization of these IRA activities as Russian government interference in the US elections? And - what is the new evidence?



Notes:




  • I mean evidence - not estimates, conclusions, non-testimony assertions ("XYZ happened") etc.

  • On that note - statements of fact in the report which have no source, or whose source supposedly exists but is redacted - are not evidence revealed by the redacted report. My question is about evidence revealed in this release.

  • Circumstantial evidence counts as evidence.

  • There is this annoying use of the term "The Russians" to conflate people living in Russia, Russian companies, Russian business owners and the Russian government, all together. I'm specifically asking about the Russian government.










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Anyway, is old evidence of Russian governmental involvement or goals acceptable for an answer? Or are you only asking about information specific to Mueller's report?

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 19 at 9:24






  • 9





    This release specifically does not include the underlying evidence. Given that, why do you assume a footnote listing a source is "better" than a redacted footnote listing a source? Either way, we cannot see the source in most instances. I guess I just don't understand what you're looking for if you want to discount anything the report actually says.

    – Geobits
    Apr 19 at 13:59






  • 4





    @Geobits: 1. Are you sure this release does not include any underlying evidence? If so, could you make that into an answer? 2. If the footnote says "Secret document no 1234 that I won't show you", then - indeed, as a non-US-citizen I would tend to discount the report by the US government, which is on the whole an interested party on this matter. With publicly-available evidence I would give it more credence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 15:01






  • 1





    You can follow the IRA/Concord pretrial proceedings here. The prosecution is trying to keep the evidence secret.

    – Keith McClary
    Apr 20 at 19:09











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sam I am
    Apr 22 at 5:31














18












18








18


0






Over the past several years, many in the US (government and mainstream media) have argued that the Russian government ("The Russians") interfered with the 2016 US elections through the "Internet Research Agency" - a sort of a social media campaigning company / troll farm. It ran some some small-scale campaigns before, during and after the US 2016 elections, with some content supportive of Trump (although to be honest some of those pro-Trump images seem ridiculous enough to have the opposite effect), some critical of Trump, content in support of or against other causes, including the promotion of events or rallies, etc. Some of this happened before the elections, some after; I've even heard the claim that most effort or money was spent after the elections but I may be wrong on this. At least once they even organized opposing rallies. (see this piece for some examples of IRA-originated memes). The total amount of money they spent in 2016 on promoting such content is said to have been $100,000.



When I initially heard about this, I was unconvinced that this a Russian government effort to destabilize the US or to swing the US elections. The amount of money is minuscule (relative to campaigns' media budget), the timing of its spending is off, and subjectively it didn't even seem to me to be a serious effort to get people to support Trump (sometimes more like the opposite). As a lay user, I found this looked more like glorified trolling than international political interference. Several critics (in alternative media mostly) have also expressed such skepticism.



Now that the (redacted version of) Mueller report is out - is there any newly-revealed evidence to support the characterization of these IRA activities as Russian government interference in the US elections? And - what is the new evidence?



Notes:




  • I mean evidence - not estimates, conclusions, non-testimony assertions ("XYZ happened") etc.

  • On that note - statements of fact in the report which have no source, or whose source supposedly exists but is redacted - are not evidence revealed by the redacted report. My question is about evidence revealed in this release.

  • Circumstantial evidence counts as evidence.

  • There is this annoying use of the term "The Russians" to conflate people living in Russia, Russian companies, Russian business owners and the Russian government, all together. I'm specifically asking about the Russian government.










share|improve this question
















Over the past several years, many in the US (government and mainstream media) have argued that the Russian government ("The Russians") interfered with the 2016 US elections through the "Internet Research Agency" - a sort of a social media campaigning company / troll farm. It ran some some small-scale campaigns before, during and after the US 2016 elections, with some content supportive of Trump (although to be honest some of those pro-Trump images seem ridiculous enough to have the opposite effect), some critical of Trump, content in support of or against other causes, including the promotion of events or rallies, etc. Some of this happened before the elections, some after; I've even heard the claim that most effort or money was spent after the elections but I may be wrong on this. At least once they even organized opposing rallies. (see this piece for some examples of IRA-originated memes). The total amount of money they spent in 2016 on promoting such content is said to have been $100,000.



When I initially heard about this, I was unconvinced that this a Russian government effort to destabilize the US or to swing the US elections. The amount of money is minuscule (relative to campaigns' media budget), the timing of its spending is off, and subjectively it didn't even seem to me to be a serious effort to get people to support Trump (sometimes more like the opposite). As a lay user, I found this looked more like glorified trolling than international political interference. Several critics (in alternative media mostly) have also expressed such skepticism.



Now that the (redacted version of) Mueller report is out - is there any newly-revealed evidence to support the characterization of these IRA activities as Russian government interference in the US elections? And - what is the new evidence?



Notes:




  • I mean evidence - not estimates, conclusions, non-testimony assertions ("XYZ happened") etc.

  • On that note - statements of fact in the report which have no source, or whose source supposedly exists but is redacted - are not evidence revealed by the redacted report. My question is about evidence revealed in this release.

  • Circumstantial evidence counts as evidence.

  • There is this annoying use of the term "The Russians" to conflate people living in Russia, Russian companies, Russian business owners and the Russian government, all together. I'm specifically asking about the Russian government.







united-states russian-federation mueller-investigation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 21 at 18:58







einpoklum

















asked Apr 19 at 8:59









einpoklumeinpoklum

2,2651034




2,2651034








  • 1





    Anyway, is old evidence of Russian governmental involvement or goals acceptable for an answer? Or are you only asking about information specific to Mueller's report?

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 19 at 9:24






  • 9





    This release specifically does not include the underlying evidence. Given that, why do you assume a footnote listing a source is "better" than a redacted footnote listing a source? Either way, we cannot see the source in most instances. I guess I just don't understand what you're looking for if you want to discount anything the report actually says.

    – Geobits
    Apr 19 at 13:59






  • 4





    @Geobits: 1. Are you sure this release does not include any underlying evidence? If so, could you make that into an answer? 2. If the footnote says "Secret document no 1234 that I won't show you", then - indeed, as a non-US-citizen I would tend to discount the report by the US government, which is on the whole an interested party on this matter. With publicly-available evidence I would give it more credence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 15:01






  • 1





    You can follow the IRA/Concord pretrial proceedings here. The prosecution is trying to keep the evidence secret.

    – Keith McClary
    Apr 20 at 19:09











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sam I am
    Apr 22 at 5:31














  • 1





    Anyway, is old evidence of Russian governmental involvement or goals acceptable for an answer? Or are you only asking about information specific to Mueller's report?

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 19 at 9:24






  • 9





    This release specifically does not include the underlying evidence. Given that, why do you assume a footnote listing a source is "better" than a redacted footnote listing a source? Either way, we cannot see the source in most instances. I guess I just don't understand what you're looking for if you want to discount anything the report actually says.

    – Geobits
    Apr 19 at 13:59






  • 4





    @Geobits: 1. Are you sure this release does not include any underlying evidence? If so, could you make that into an answer? 2. If the footnote says "Secret document no 1234 that I won't show you", then - indeed, as a non-US-citizen I would tend to discount the report by the US government, which is on the whole an interested party on this matter. With publicly-available evidence I would give it more credence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 15:01






  • 1





    You can follow the IRA/Concord pretrial proceedings here. The prosecution is trying to keep the evidence secret.

    – Keith McClary
    Apr 20 at 19:09











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Sam I am
    Apr 22 at 5:31








1




1





Anyway, is old evidence of Russian governmental involvement or goals acceptable for an answer? Or are you only asking about information specific to Mueller's report?

– Obie 2.0
Apr 19 at 9:24





Anyway, is old evidence of Russian governmental involvement or goals acceptable for an answer? Or are you only asking about information specific to Mueller's report?

– Obie 2.0
Apr 19 at 9:24




9




9





This release specifically does not include the underlying evidence. Given that, why do you assume a footnote listing a source is "better" than a redacted footnote listing a source? Either way, we cannot see the source in most instances. I guess I just don't understand what you're looking for if you want to discount anything the report actually says.

– Geobits
Apr 19 at 13:59





This release specifically does not include the underlying evidence. Given that, why do you assume a footnote listing a source is "better" than a redacted footnote listing a source? Either way, we cannot see the source in most instances. I guess I just don't understand what you're looking for if you want to discount anything the report actually says.

– Geobits
Apr 19 at 13:59




4




4





@Geobits: 1. Are you sure this release does not include any underlying evidence? If so, could you make that into an answer? 2. If the footnote says "Secret document no 1234 that I won't show you", then - indeed, as a non-US-citizen I would tend to discount the report by the US government, which is on the whole an interested party on this matter. With publicly-available evidence I would give it more credence.

– einpoklum
Apr 19 at 15:01





@Geobits: 1. Are you sure this release does not include any underlying evidence? If so, could you make that into an answer? 2. If the footnote says "Secret document no 1234 that I won't show you", then - indeed, as a non-US-citizen I would tend to discount the report by the US government, which is on the whole an interested party on this matter. With publicly-available evidence I would give it more credence.

– einpoklum
Apr 19 at 15:01




1




1





You can follow the IRA/Concord pretrial proceedings here. The prosecution is trying to keep the evidence secret.

– Keith McClary
Apr 20 at 19:09





You can follow the IRA/Concord pretrial proceedings here. The prosecution is trying to keep the evidence secret.

– Keith McClary
Apr 20 at 19:09













Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Sam I am
Apr 22 at 5:31





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Sam I am
Apr 22 at 5:31










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















42














Probably



First, the report was heavily redacted. As such, some information is missing. Further, much of the information available in the Mueller report was previously available, so I won't try to determine which information is new, but rather summarize the evidence in the report.





  • Was there a group based in Russia conducting social media operations?



    Yes. As mentioned in the question, that group is the IRA, the Internet Research Agency. From the report:




    The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the
    Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by
    Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including
    Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering
    (collectively "Concord"). The IRA conducted social media operations
    targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in
    the U.S. political system. These operations constituted "active
    measures" (aKTMBHbie Meporrprumu), a term that typically refers to
    operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing
    the course of international affairs.





  • Was this group trying to influence elections in the US?



    Yes. Seemingly they said that explicitly:




    IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing
    the US presidential election.




    Although the section surrounding this is entirely redacted, I presume that it includes a quote from internal IRA documents admitting this.



    They also focused on US users:




    To reach larger U.S. audiences, the IRA purchased advertisements from
    Facebook that promoted the IRA groups on the newsfeeds of U.S.
    audience members. According to Facebook the IRA purchased over 3,500
    advertisements , and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.




    And common sense simply suggests that when a group spends large amounts of money and labor on political advertisements, they're hoping to influence elections, and not simply trolling.




  • Did this group favor Trump?



    Yes, kind of. Their internal documents explicitly said not to criticize Trump:




    By 2016, internal IRA documents referred to support for the Trump campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton. For example, [redacted] directions to IRA operators [redacted] “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest
    (except Sanders and Trump – we support them.”




    This may have been more out of opposition to Clinton than positive views of Trump, though. This is supported by the inclusion of Sanders, as well as other internal information:




    the author criticized the "lower number of posts dedicated to
    criticizing Hillary Clinton" and reminded the Facebook specialist "it
    is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton."




    That said, they seem to have warmed to Trump later:




    IRA-purchased advertisements referencing candidate Trump largely
    supported his campaign. The first known IRA advertisement explicitly
    endorsing the Trump Campaign was purchased on April 19, 2016.





  • Was the Russian government behind this?



    Probably. I doubt it can be proven for certain, but the circumstantial evidence is strong.



    First, some of the leadership had close ties to the Russian government.




    Two individuals headed the IRA's general management: its general
    director, Mikhail Bystrov, and its executive director, Mikhail
    Burchik.




    Bystrov was the head of a Russian national police organization before starting at the IRA.



    As mentioned, the funding came from Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, who has close ties to Putin.



    None of this proves that the Russian government controlled or influenced the IRA. It is certainly possible that someone close to Putin would have views that aligned well with Putin's goals, and that they'd, and that they'd hire former top-level governmental employees because that's who they knew.



    But I think it provides a strong suggestion. A group run by strong Putin allies engaging in clandestine operations favorable to Putin, operating in a state where Putin has a great deal of authority and knowledge? It's like super PACs in the United States: when they're run by close friends or allies of a candidate and very much in line with that candidate, there's very likely to be collusion going on.




Do note that there more explicit statements in the report about the purpose and funding of the IRA. Often they were backed up with redacted references, such as to FBI cases.



Finally, a sanity check. Is it implausible that the Russian government would try to influence politics in other countries? Probably not: many other countries have engaged in similar operations, including the United States, Israel, China etc. It is very common for these groups to be NGOs with the approval of the government, not a government group. This gives the government plausible deniability. As such, the idea that the IRA would conduct political influence campaigns for Putin isn't unsual, but rather quite typical.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Please add references for your quotes. Specifically - Did Mueller's team interview IRA employees? As for the sanity check - it is implausible that the Russian government would choose to influence US elections with a small budget for buying mixed-message troll memes and posts.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:28








  • 9





    I thought it was obvious. All of those are from the report.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 19 at 10:31






  • 1





    I looked for "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the US presidential election" - couldn't find it. That sounds like new evidence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:33








  • 1





    You did mark the "also acknowledged" part as a quotation.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:34






  • 5





    @einpoklum It can be found on page 24 here: "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the U.S. presidential election."

    – tim
    Apr 19 at 10:35



















15














According to CNET, Mueller did find that Russia used a social media campaign to influence the US election in favor of Donald Trump. The campaign cost $35 million (the $100K the question is referring to is just the cost of ads):




Mueller's investigation also found that Russia was backing a $35 million operation to meddle with US politics through social media.



The money was spent between January 2016 and June 2018 and dedicated to spreading disinformation on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The operation ran like a professional social media marketing campaign, with specific departments in search engine optimization and graphic design, along with a staff of hundreds who posted on social networks.



The group behind the effort, the Internet Research Agency, was directed to support Trump's campaign and attack Clinton, according to the investigation.



The operation also spent $60,000 on Facebook ads, $6,000 on Instagram ads and $18,000 on Twitter.




The details can be seen in the Mueller Report starting at page 14. A lot of specifics are redacted, but the report refers to and cites internal IRA documents as evidence, as well as statements by Facebook.






share|improve this answer



















  • 4





    I didn't ask what Mueller found. I asked whether any evidence has been presented. You're telling me "read the report to see".

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:27






  • 24





    @einpoklum you want evidence but you're not interested in the report, which presents the evidence?

    – David Rice
    Apr 19 at 13:04






  • 4





    @DavidRice As far as I can make out, einpoklum wants the evidence that's in the report to be part of the answer. "Yes, read the report" isn't much of an answer.

    – sgf
    Apr 19 at 15:02











  • @DavidRice; The report is 448 pages, most of which is not evidence. In fact, @Geobits suggested the redacted report may have no new evidence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 20:34






  • 8





    @einpoklum The part about the IRA is only 21 pages (much of which are (redacted) citations, redacted content, images, whitespaces, etc). And I guess it depends on how you define evidence; your bar seems to be unreasonably high; given the nature of counter intelligence, it will probably never be met. But that doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable conclusions based on the given information. And "A Russian company spent 35 million for the lulz" or "Mueller is making everything up" wouldn't really be reasonable conclusions.

    – tim
    Apr 19 at 21:03



















-1














This is the best POLYGRAPH.info can do:




Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded the next day, dismissing allegations of Russian interference.




"The report contains no proven evidence that Russia allegedly interfered in the election process in the United States,” the Russian news agency TASS quoted Peskov as saying.“As before, we do not accept such charges."




Peskov’s statement is misleading for several reasons. ... We find the claim, on its whole, to be “misleading,” due to the volume of evidence presented not only in special counsel filings, but also official reports that his report cites.







share|improve this answer
























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40768%2fdid-muellers-report-provide-new-evidence-for-the-claim-of-russian-govt-election%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    42














    Probably



    First, the report was heavily redacted. As such, some information is missing. Further, much of the information available in the Mueller report was previously available, so I won't try to determine which information is new, but rather summarize the evidence in the report.





    • Was there a group based in Russia conducting social media operations?



      Yes. As mentioned in the question, that group is the IRA, the Internet Research Agency. From the report:




      The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the
      Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by
      Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including
      Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering
      (collectively "Concord"). The IRA conducted social media operations
      targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in
      the U.S. political system. These operations constituted "active
      measures" (aKTMBHbie Meporrprumu), a term that typically refers to
      operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing
      the course of international affairs.





    • Was this group trying to influence elections in the US?



      Yes. Seemingly they said that explicitly:




      IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing
      the US presidential election.




      Although the section surrounding this is entirely redacted, I presume that it includes a quote from internal IRA documents admitting this.



      They also focused on US users:




      To reach larger U.S. audiences, the IRA purchased advertisements from
      Facebook that promoted the IRA groups on the newsfeeds of U.S.
      audience members. According to Facebook the IRA purchased over 3,500
      advertisements , and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.




      And common sense simply suggests that when a group spends large amounts of money and labor on political advertisements, they're hoping to influence elections, and not simply trolling.




    • Did this group favor Trump?



      Yes, kind of. Their internal documents explicitly said not to criticize Trump:




      By 2016, internal IRA documents referred to support for the Trump campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton. For example, [redacted] directions to IRA operators [redacted] “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest
      (except Sanders and Trump – we support them.”




      This may have been more out of opposition to Clinton than positive views of Trump, though. This is supported by the inclusion of Sanders, as well as other internal information:




      the author criticized the "lower number of posts dedicated to
      criticizing Hillary Clinton" and reminded the Facebook specialist "it
      is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton."




      That said, they seem to have warmed to Trump later:




      IRA-purchased advertisements referencing candidate Trump largely
      supported his campaign. The first known IRA advertisement explicitly
      endorsing the Trump Campaign was purchased on April 19, 2016.





    • Was the Russian government behind this?



      Probably. I doubt it can be proven for certain, but the circumstantial evidence is strong.



      First, some of the leadership had close ties to the Russian government.




      Two individuals headed the IRA's general management: its general
      director, Mikhail Bystrov, and its executive director, Mikhail
      Burchik.




      Bystrov was the head of a Russian national police organization before starting at the IRA.



      As mentioned, the funding came from Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, who has close ties to Putin.



      None of this proves that the Russian government controlled or influenced the IRA. It is certainly possible that someone close to Putin would have views that aligned well with Putin's goals, and that they'd, and that they'd hire former top-level governmental employees because that's who they knew.



      But I think it provides a strong suggestion. A group run by strong Putin allies engaging in clandestine operations favorable to Putin, operating in a state where Putin has a great deal of authority and knowledge? It's like super PACs in the United States: when they're run by close friends or allies of a candidate and very much in line with that candidate, there's very likely to be collusion going on.




    Do note that there more explicit statements in the report about the purpose and funding of the IRA. Often they were backed up with redacted references, such as to FBI cases.



    Finally, a sanity check. Is it implausible that the Russian government would try to influence politics in other countries? Probably not: many other countries have engaged in similar operations, including the United States, Israel, China etc. It is very common for these groups to be NGOs with the approval of the government, not a government group. This gives the government plausible deniability. As such, the idea that the IRA would conduct political influence campaigns for Putin isn't unsual, but rather quite typical.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      Please add references for your quotes. Specifically - Did Mueller's team interview IRA employees? As for the sanity check - it is implausible that the Russian government would choose to influence US elections with a small budget for buying mixed-message troll memes and posts.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:28








    • 9





      I thought it was obvious. All of those are from the report.

      – Obie 2.0
      Apr 19 at 10:31






    • 1





      I looked for "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the US presidential election" - couldn't find it. That sounds like new evidence.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:33








    • 1





      You did mark the "also acknowledged" part as a quotation.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:34






    • 5





      @einpoklum It can be found on page 24 here: "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the U.S. presidential election."

      – tim
      Apr 19 at 10:35
















    42














    Probably



    First, the report was heavily redacted. As such, some information is missing. Further, much of the information available in the Mueller report was previously available, so I won't try to determine which information is new, but rather summarize the evidence in the report.





    • Was there a group based in Russia conducting social media operations?



      Yes. As mentioned in the question, that group is the IRA, the Internet Research Agency. From the report:




      The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the
      Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by
      Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including
      Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering
      (collectively "Concord"). The IRA conducted social media operations
      targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in
      the U.S. political system. These operations constituted "active
      measures" (aKTMBHbie Meporrprumu), a term that typically refers to
      operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing
      the course of international affairs.





    • Was this group trying to influence elections in the US?



      Yes. Seemingly they said that explicitly:




      IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing
      the US presidential election.




      Although the section surrounding this is entirely redacted, I presume that it includes a quote from internal IRA documents admitting this.



      They also focused on US users:




      To reach larger U.S. audiences, the IRA purchased advertisements from
      Facebook that promoted the IRA groups on the newsfeeds of U.S.
      audience members. According to Facebook the IRA purchased over 3,500
      advertisements , and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.




      And common sense simply suggests that when a group spends large amounts of money and labor on political advertisements, they're hoping to influence elections, and not simply trolling.




    • Did this group favor Trump?



      Yes, kind of. Their internal documents explicitly said not to criticize Trump:




      By 2016, internal IRA documents referred to support for the Trump campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton. For example, [redacted] directions to IRA operators [redacted] “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest
      (except Sanders and Trump – we support them.”




      This may have been more out of opposition to Clinton than positive views of Trump, though. This is supported by the inclusion of Sanders, as well as other internal information:




      the author criticized the "lower number of posts dedicated to
      criticizing Hillary Clinton" and reminded the Facebook specialist "it
      is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton."




      That said, they seem to have warmed to Trump later:




      IRA-purchased advertisements referencing candidate Trump largely
      supported his campaign. The first known IRA advertisement explicitly
      endorsing the Trump Campaign was purchased on April 19, 2016.





    • Was the Russian government behind this?



      Probably. I doubt it can be proven for certain, but the circumstantial evidence is strong.



      First, some of the leadership had close ties to the Russian government.




      Two individuals headed the IRA's general management: its general
      director, Mikhail Bystrov, and its executive director, Mikhail
      Burchik.




      Bystrov was the head of a Russian national police organization before starting at the IRA.



      As mentioned, the funding came from Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, who has close ties to Putin.



      None of this proves that the Russian government controlled or influenced the IRA. It is certainly possible that someone close to Putin would have views that aligned well with Putin's goals, and that they'd, and that they'd hire former top-level governmental employees because that's who they knew.



      But I think it provides a strong suggestion. A group run by strong Putin allies engaging in clandestine operations favorable to Putin, operating in a state where Putin has a great deal of authority and knowledge? It's like super PACs in the United States: when they're run by close friends or allies of a candidate and very much in line with that candidate, there's very likely to be collusion going on.




    Do note that there more explicit statements in the report about the purpose and funding of the IRA. Often they were backed up with redacted references, such as to FBI cases.



    Finally, a sanity check. Is it implausible that the Russian government would try to influence politics in other countries? Probably not: many other countries have engaged in similar operations, including the United States, Israel, China etc. It is very common for these groups to be NGOs with the approval of the government, not a government group. This gives the government plausible deniability. As such, the idea that the IRA would conduct political influence campaigns for Putin isn't unsual, but rather quite typical.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      Please add references for your quotes. Specifically - Did Mueller's team interview IRA employees? As for the sanity check - it is implausible that the Russian government would choose to influence US elections with a small budget for buying mixed-message troll memes and posts.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:28








    • 9





      I thought it was obvious. All of those are from the report.

      – Obie 2.0
      Apr 19 at 10:31






    • 1





      I looked for "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the US presidential election" - couldn't find it. That sounds like new evidence.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:33








    • 1





      You did mark the "also acknowledged" part as a quotation.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:34






    • 5





      @einpoklum It can be found on page 24 here: "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the U.S. presidential election."

      – tim
      Apr 19 at 10:35














    42












    42








    42







    Probably



    First, the report was heavily redacted. As such, some information is missing. Further, much of the information available in the Mueller report was previously available, so I won't try to determine which information is new, but rather summarize the evidence in the report.





    • Was there a group based in Russia conducting social media operations?



      Yes. As mentioned in the question, that group is the IRA, the Internet Research Agency. From the report:




      The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the
      Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by
      Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including
      Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering
      (collectively "Concord"). The IRA conducted social media operations
      targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in
      the U.S. political system. These operations constituted "active
      measures" (aKTMBHbie Meporrprumu), a term that typically refers to
      operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing
      the course of international affairs.





    • Was this group trying to influence elections in the US?



      Yes. Seemingly they said that explicitly:




      IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing
      the US presidential election.




      Although the section surrounding this is entirely redacted, I presume that it includes a quote from internal IRA documents admitting this.



      They also focused on US users:




      To reach larger U.S. audiences, the IRA purchased advertisements from
      Facebook that promoted the IRA groups on the newsfeeds of U.S.
      audience members. According to Facebook the IRA purchased over 3,500
      advertisements , and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.




      And common sense simply suggests that when a group spends large amounts of money and labor on political advertisements, they're hoping to influence elections, and not simply trolling.




    • Did this group favor Trump?



      Yes, kind of. Their internal documents explicitly said not to criticize Trump:




      By 2016, internal IRA documents referred to support for the Trump campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton. For example, [redacted] directions to IRA operators [redacted] “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest
      (except Sanders and Trump – we support them.”




      This may have been more out of opposition to Clinton than positive views of Trump, though. This is supported by the inclusion of Sanders, as well as other internal information:




      the author criticized the "lower number of posts dedicated to
      criticizing Hillary Clinton" and reminded the Facebook specialist "it
      is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton."




      That said, they seem to have warmed to Trump later:




      IRA-purchased advertisements referencing candidate Trump largely
      supported his campaign. The first known IRA advertisement explicitly
      endorsing the Trump Campaign was purchased on April 19, 2016.





    • Was the Russian government behind this?



      Probably. I doubt it can be proven for certain, but the circumstantial evidence is strong.



      First, some of the leadership had close ties to the Russian government.




      Two individuals headed the IRA's general management: its general
      director, Mikhail Bystrov, and its executive director, Mikhail
      Burchik.




      Bystrov was the head of a Russian national police organization before starting at the IRA.



      As mentioned, the funding came from Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, who has close ties to Putin.



      None of this proves that the Russian government controlled or influenced the IRA. It is certainly possible that someone close to Putin would have views that aligned well with Putin's goals, and that they'd, and that they'd hire former top-level governmental employees because that's who they knew.



      But I think it provides a strong suggestion. A group run by strong Putin allies engaging in clandestine operations favorable to Putin, operating in a state where Putin has a great deal of authority and knowledge? It's like super PACs in the United States: when they're run by close friends or allies of a candidate and very much in line with that candidate, there's very likely to be collusion going on.




    Do note that there more explicit statements in the report about the purpose and funding of the IRA. Often they were backed up with redacted references, such as to FBI cases.



    Finally, a sanity check. Is it implausible that the Russian government would try to influence politics in other countries? Probably not: many other countries have engaged in similar operations, including the United States, Israel, China etc. It is very common for these groups to be NGOs with the approval of the government, not a government group. This gives the government plausible deniability. As such, the idea that the IRA would conduct political influence campaigns for Putin isn't unsual, but rather quite typical.






    share|improve this answer













    Probably



    First, the report was heavily redacted. As such, some information is missing. Further, much of the information available in the Mueller report was previously available, so I won't try to determine which information is new, but rather summarize the evidence in the report.





    • Was there a group based in Russia conducting social media operations?



      Yes. As mentioned in the question, that group is the IRA, the Internet Research Agency. From the report:




      The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the
      Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by
      Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including
      Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering
      (collectively "Concord"). The IRA conducted social media operations
      targeted at large U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in
      the U.S. political system. These operations constituted "active
      measures" (aKTMBHbie Meporrprumu), a term that typically refers to
      operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing
      the course of international affairs.





    • Was this group trying to influence elections in the US?



      Yes. Seemingly they said that explicitly:




      IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing
      the US presidential election.




      Although the section surrounding this is entirely redacted, I presume that it includes a quote from internal IRA documents admitting this.



      They also focused on US users:




      To reach larger U.S. audiences, the IRA purchased advertisements from
      Facebook that promoted the IRA groups on the newsfeeds of U.S.
      audience members. According to Facebook the IRA purchased over 3,500
      advertisements , and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.




      And common sense simply suggests that when a group spends large amounts of money and labor on political advertisements, they're hoping to influence elections, and not simply trolling.




    • Did this group favor Trump?



      Yes, kind of. Their internal documents explicitly said not to criticize Trump:




      By 2016, internal IRA documents referred to support for the Trump campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton. For example, [redacted] directions to IRA operators [redacted] “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest
      (except Sanders and Trump – we support them.”




      This may have been more out of opposition to Clinton than positive views of Trump, though. This is supported by the inclusion of Sanders, as well as other internal information:




      the author criticized the "lower number of posts dedicated to
      criticizing Hillary Clinton" and reminded the Facebook specialist "it
      is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton."




      That said, they seem to have warmed to Trump later:




      IRA-purchased advertisements referencing candidate Trump largely
      supported his campaign. The first known IRA advertisement explicitly
      endorsing the Trump Campaign was purchased on April 19, 2016.





    • Was the Russian government behind this?



      Probably. I doubt it can be proven for certain, but the circumstantial evidence is strong.



      First, some of the leadership had close ties to the Russian government.




      Two individuals headed the IRA's general management: its general
      director, Mikhail Bystrov, and its executive director, Mikhail
      Burchik.




      Bystrov was the head of a Russian national police organization before starting at the IRA.



      As mentioned, the funding came from Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, who has close ties to Putin.



      None of this proves that the Russian government controlled or influenced the IRA. It is certainly possible that someone close to Putin would have views that aligned well with Putin's goals, and that they'd, and that they'd hire former top-level governmental employees because that's who they knew.



      But I think it provides a strong suggestion. A group run by strong Putin allies engaging in clandestine operations favorable to Putin, operating in a state where Putin has a great deal of authority and knowledge? It's like super PACs in the United States: when they're run by close friends or allies of a candidate and very much in line with that candidate, there's very likely to be collusion going on.




    Do note that there more explicit statements in the report about the purpose and funding of the IRA. Often they were backed up with redacted references, such as to FBI cases.



    Finally, a sanity check. Is it implausible that the Russian government would try to influence politics in other countries? Probably not: many other countries have engaged in similar operations, including the United States, Israel, China etc. It is very common for these groups to be NGOs with the approval of the government, not a government group. This gives the government plausible deniability. As such, the idea that the IRA would conduct political influence campaigns for Putin isn't unsual, but rather quite typical.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Apr 19 at 10:19









    Obie 2.0Obie 2.0

    3,1331027




    3,1331027








    • 1





      Please add references for your quotes. Specifically - Did Mueller's team interview IRA employees? As for the sanity check - it is implausible that the Russian government would choose to influence US elections with a small budget for buying mixed-message troll memes and posts.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:28








    • 9





      I thought it was obvious. All of those are from the report.

      – Obie 2.0
      Apr 19 at 10:31






    • 1





      I looked for "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the US presidential election" - couldn't find it. That sounds like new evidence.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:33








    • 1





      You did mark the "also acknowledged" part as a quotation.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:34






    • 5





      @einpoklum It can be found on page 24 here: "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the U.S. presidential election."

      – tim
      Apr 19 at 10:35














    • 1





      Please add references for your quotes. Specifically - Did Mueller's team interview IRA employees? As for the sanity check - it is implausible that the Russian government would choose to influence US elections with a small budget for buying mixed-message troll memes and posts.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:28








    • 9





      I thought it was obvious. All of those are from the report.

      – Obie 2.0
      Apr 19 at 10:31






    • 1





      I looked for "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the US presidential election" - couldn't find it. That sounds like new evidence.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:33








    • 1





      You did mark the "also acknowledged" part as a quotation.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:34






    • 5





      @einpoklum It can be found on page 24 here: "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the U.S. presidential election."

      – tim
      Apr 19 at 10:35








    1




    1





    Please add references for your quotes. Specifically - Did Mueller's team interview IRA employees? As for the sanity check - it is implausible that the Russian government would choose to influence US elections with a small budget for buying mixed-message troll memes and posts.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:28







    Please add references for your quotes. Specifically - Did Mueller's team interview IRA employees? As for the sanity check - it is implausible that the Russian government would choose to influence US elections with a small budget for buying mixed-message troll memes and posts.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:28






    9




    9





    I thought it was obvious. All of those are from the report.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 19 at 10:31





    I thought it was obvious. All of those are from the report.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 19 at 10:31




    1




    1





    I looked for "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the US presidential election" - couldn't find it. That sounds like new evidence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:33







    I looked for "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the US presidential election" - couldn't find it. That sounds like new evidence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:33






    1




    1





    You did mark the "also acknowledged" part as a quotation.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:34





    You did mark the "also acknowledged" part as a quotation.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:34




    5




    5





    @einpoklum It can be found on page 24 here: "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the U.S. presidential election."

    – tim
    Apr 19 at 10:35





    @einpoklum It can be found on page 24 here: "IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the U.S. presidential election."

    – tim
    Apr 19 at 10:35











    15














    According to CNET, Mueller did find that Russia used a social media campaign to influence the US election in favor of Donald Trump. The campaign cost $35 million (the $100K the question is referring to is just the cost of ads):




    Mueller's investigation also found that Russia was backing a $35 million operation to meddle with US politics through social media.



    The money was spent between January 2016 and June 2018 and dedicated to spreading disinformation on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The operation ran like a professional social media marketing campaign, with specific departments in search engine optimization and graphic design, along with a staff of hundreds who posted on social networks.



    The group behind the effort, the Internet Research Agency, was directed to support Trump's campaign and attack Clinton, according to the investigation.



    The operation also spent $60,000 on Facebook ads, $6,000 on Instagram ads and $18,000 on Twitter.




    The details can be seen in the Mueller Report starting at page 14. A lot of specifics are redacted, but the report refers to and cites internal IRA documents as evidence, as well as statements by Facebook.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 4





      I didn't ask what Mueller found. I asked whether any evidence has been presented. You're telling me "read the report to see".

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:27






    • 24





      @einpoklum you want evidence but you're not interested in the report, which presents the evidence?

      – David Rice
      Apr 19 at 13:04






    • 4





      @DavidRice As far as I can make out, einpoklum wants the evidence that's in the report to be part of the answer. "Yes, read the report" isn't much of an answer.

      – sgf
      Apr 19 at 15:02











    • @DavidRice; The report is 448 pages, most of which is not evidence. In fact, @Geobits suggested the redacted report may have no new evidence.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 20:34






    • 8





      @einpoklum The part about the IRA is only 21 pages (much of which are (redacted) citations, redacted content, images, whitespaces, etc). And I guess it depends on how you define evidence; your bar seems to be unreasonably high; given the nature of counter intelligence, it will probably never be met. But that doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable conclusions based on the given information. And "A Russian company spent 35 million for the lulz" or "Mueller is making everything up" wouldn't really be reasonable conclusions.

      – tim
      Apr 19 at 21:03
















    15














    According to CNET, Mueller did find that Russia used a social media campaign to influence the US election in favor of Donald Trump. The campaign cost $35 million (the $100K the question is referring to is just the cost of ads):




    Mueller's investigation also found that Russia was backing a $35 million operation to meddle with US politics through social media.



    The money was spent between January 2016 and June 2018 and dedicated to spreading disinformation on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The operation ran like a professional social media marketing campaign, with specific departments in search engine optimization and graphic design, along with a staff of hundreds who posted on social networks.



    The group behind the effort, the Internet Research Agency, was directed to support Trump's campaign and attack Clinton, according to the investigation.



    The operation also spent $60,000 on Facebook ads, $6,000 on Instagram ads and $18,000 on Twitter.




    The details can be seen in the Mueller Report starting at page 14. A lot of specifics are redacted, but the report refers to and cites internal IRA documents as evidence, as well as statements by Facebook.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 4





      I didn't ask what Mueller found. I asked whether any evidence has been presented. You're telling me "read the report to see".

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:27






    • 24





      @einpoklum you want evidence but you're not interested in the report, which presents the evidence?

      – David Rice
      Apr 19 at 13:04






    • 4





      @DavidRice As far as I can make out, einpoklum wants the evidence that's in the report to be part of the answer. "Yes, read the report" isn't much of an answer.

      – sgf
      Apr 19 at 15:02











    • @DavidRice; The report is 448 pages, most of which is not evidence. In fact, @Geobits suggested the redacted report may have no new evidence.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 20:34






    • 8





      @einpoklum The part about the IRA is only 21 pages (much of which are (redacted) citations, redacted content, images, whitespaces, etc). And I guess it depends on how you define evidence; your bar seems to be unreasonably high; given the nature of counter intelligence, it will probably never be met. But that doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable conclusions based on the given information. And "A Russian company spent 35 million for the lulz" or "Mueller is making everything up" wouldn't really be reasonable conclusions.

      – tim
      Apr 19 at 21:03














    15












    15








    15







    According to CNET, Mueller did find that Russia used a social media campaign to influence the US election in favor of Donald Trump. The campaign cost $35 million (the $100K the question is referring to is just the cost of ads):




    Mueller's investigation also found that Russia was backing a $35 million operation to meddle with US politics through social media.



    The money was spent between January 2016 and June 2018 and dedicated to spreading disinformation on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The operation ran like a professional social media marketing campaign, with specific departments in search engine optimization and graphic design, along with a staff of hundreds who posted on social networks.



    The group behind the effort, the Internet Research Agency, was directed to support Trump's campaign and attack Clinton, according to the investigation.



    The operation also spent $60,000 on Facebook ads, $6,000 on Instagram ads and $18,000 on Twitter.




    The details can be seen in the Mueller Report starting at page 14. A lot of specifics are redacted, but the report refers to and cites internal IRA documents as evidence, as well as statements by Facebook.






    share|improve this answer













    According to CNET, Mueller did find that Russia used a social media campaign to influence the US election in favor of Donald Trump. The campaign cost $35 million (the $100K the question is referring to is just the cost of ads):




    Mueller's investigation also found that Russia was backing a $35 million operation to meddle with US politics through social media.



    The money was spent between January 2016 and June 2018 and dedicated to spreading disinformation on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The operation ran like a professional social media marketing campaign, with specific departments in search engine optimization and graphic design, along with a staff of hundreds who posted on social networks.



    The group behind the effort, the Internet Research Agency, was directed to support Trump's campaign and attack Clinton, according to the investigation.



    The operation also spent $60,000 on Facebook ads, $6,000 on Instagram ads and $18,000 on Twitter.




    The details can be seen in the Mueller Report starting at page 14. A lot of specifics are redacted, but the report refers to and cites internal IRA documents as evidence, as well as statements by Facebook.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Apr 19 at 9:51









    timtim

    19.4k115185




    19.4k115185








    • 4





      I didn't ask what Mueller found. I asked whether any evidence has been presented. You're telling me "read the report to see".

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:27






    • 24





      @einpoklum you want evidence but you're not interested in the report, which presents the evidence?

      – David Rice
      Apr 19 at 13:04






    • 4





      @DavidRice As far as I can make out, einpoklum wants the evidence that's in the report to be part of the answer. "Yes, read the report" isn't much of an answer.

      – sgf
      Apr 19 at 15:02











    • @DavidRice; The report is 448 pages, most of which is not evidence. In fact, @Geobits suggested the redacted report may have no new evidence.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 20:34






    • 8





      @einpoklum The part about the IRA is only 21 pages (much of which are (redacted) citations, redacted content, images, whitespaces, etc). And I guess it depends on how you define evidence; your bar seems to be unreasonably high; given the nature of counter intelligence, it will probably never be met. But that doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable conclusions based on the given information. And "A Russian company spent 35 million for the lulz" or "Mueller is making everything up" wouldn't really be reasonable conclusions.

      – tim
      Apr 19 at 21:03














    • 4





      I didn't ask what Mueller found. I asked whether any evidence has been presented. You're telling me "read the report to see".

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 10:27






    • 24





      @einpoklum you want evidence but you're not interested in the report, which presents the evidence?

      – David Rice
      Apr 19 at 13:04






    • 4





      @DavidRice As far as I can make out, einpoklum wants the evidence that's in the report to be part of the answer. "Yes, read the report" isn't much of an answer.

      – sgf
      Apr 19 at 15:02











    • @DavidRice; The report is 448 pages, most of which is not evidence. In fact, @Geobits suggested the redacted report may have no new evidence.

      – einpoklum
      Apr 19 at 20:34






    • 8





      @einpoklum The part about the IRA is only 21 pages (much of which are (redacted) citations, redacted content, images, whitespaces, etc). And I guess it depends on how you define evidence; your bar seems to be unreasonably high; given the nature of counter intelligence, it will probably never be met. But that doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable conclusions based on the given information. And "A Russian company spent 35 million for the lulz" or "Mueller is making everything up" wouldn't really be reasonable conclusions.

      – tim
      Apr 19 at 21:03








    4




    4





    I didn't ask what Mueller found. I asked whether any evidence has been presented. You're telling me "read the report to see".

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:27





    I didn't ask what Mueller found. I asked whether any evidence has been presented. You're telling me "read the report to see".

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 10:27




    24




    24





    @einpoklum you want evidence but you're not interested in the report, which presents the evidence?

    – David Rice
    Apr 19 at 13:04





    @einpoklum you want evidence but you're not interested in the report, which presents the evidence?

    – David Rice
    Apr 19 at 13:04




    4




    4





    @DavidRice As far as I can make out, einpoklum wants the evidence that's in the report to be part of the answer. "Yes, read the report" isn't much of an answer.

    – sgf
    Apr 19 at 15:02





    @DavidRice As far as I can make out, einpoklum wants the evidence that's in the report to be part of the answer. "Yes, read the report" isn't much of an answer.

    – sgf
    Apr 19 at 15:02













    @DavidRice; The report is 448 pages, most of which is not evidence. In fact, @Geobits suggested the redacted report may have no new evidence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 20:34





    @DavidRice; The report is 448 pages, most of which is not evidence. In fact, @Geobits suggested the redacted report may have no new evidence.

    – einpoklum
    Apr 19 at 20:34




    8




    8





    @einpoklum The part about the IRA is only 21 pages (much of which are (redacted) citations, redacted content, images, whitespaces, etc). And I guess it depends on how you define evidence; your bar seems to be unreasonably high; given the nature of counter intelligence, it will probably never be met. But that doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable conclusions based on the given information. And "A Russian company spent 35 million for the lulz" or "Mueller is making everything up" wouldn't really be reasonable conclusions.

    – tim
    Apr 19 at 21:03





    @einpoklum The part about the IRA is only 21 pages (much of which are (redacted) citations, redacted content, images, whitespaces, etc). And I guess it depends on how you define evidence; your bar seems to be unreasonably high; given the nature of counter intelligence, it will probably never be met. But that doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable conclusions based on the given information. And "A Russian company spent 35 million for the lulz" or "Mueller is making everything up" wouldn't really be reasonable conclusions.

    – tim
    Apr 19 at 21:03











    -1














    This is the best POLYGRAPH.info can do:




    Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded the next day, dismissing allegations of Russian interference.




    "The report contains no proven evidence that Russia allegedly interfered in the election process in the United States,” the Russian news agency TASS quoted Peskov as saying.“As before, we do not accept such charges."




    Peskov’s statement is misleading for several reasons. ... We find the claim, on its whole, to be “misleading,” due to the volume of evidence presented not only in special counsel filings, but also official reports that his report cites.







    share|improve this answer




























      -1














      This is the best POLYGRAPH.info can do:




      Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded the next day, dismissing allegations of Russian interference.




      "The report contains no proven evidence that Russia allegedly interfered in the election process in the United States,” the Russian news agency TASS quoted Peskov as saying.“As before, we do not accept such charges."




      Peskov’s statement is misleading for several reasons. ... We find the claim, on its whole, to be “misleading,” due to the volume of evidence presented not only in special counsel filings, but also official reports that his report cites.







      share|improve this answer


























        -1












        -1








        -1







        This is the best POLYGRAPH.info can do:




        Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded the next day, dismissing allegations of Russian interference.




        "The report contains no proven evidence that Russia allegedly interfered in the election process in the United States,” the Russian news agency TASS quoted Peskov as saying.“As before, we do not accept such charges."




        Peskov’s statement is misleading for several reasons. ... We find the claim, on its whole, to be “misleading,” due to the volume of evidence presented not only in special counsel filings, but also official reports that his report cites.







        share|improve this answer













        This is the best POLYGRAPH.info can do:




        Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded the next day, dismissing allegations of Russian interference.




        "The report contains no proven evidence that Russia allegedly interfered in the election process in the United States,” the Russian news agency TASS quoted Peskov as saying.“As before, we do not accept such charges."




        Peskov’s statement is misleading for several reasons. ... We find the claim, on its whole, to be “misleading,” due to the volume of evidence presented not only in special counsel filings, but also official reports that his report cites.








        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Apr 22 at 22:24









        Keith McClaryKeith McClary

        512210




        512210






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40768%2fdid-muellers-report-provide-new-evidence-for-the-claim-of-russian-govt-election%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029