Another look at Durham/Fox

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,400
6,112
1
As usual the Fox crowd just need to stretch the truth, ignore facts - all to sway their Unsuspecting/duped audience.

Fox News’s Durham narrative survives the emergence of inconvenient details​


On Friday, special counsel John Durham, tasked by former attorney general William P. Barr with evaluating the legitimacy of the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, filed a document as part of an indictment targeting attorney Michael Sussman. In it, Durham hinted at evidence related to a story that percolated briefly before Election Day that year: that a server affiliated with Donald Trump’s private company had been in regular contact with a server associated with a Russian bank.

That story was quickly debunked,
but now Durham hinted that it was a function of something broader, an effort by Sussman, whose firm had been retained by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, to use analysis of data from various computer networks to find connections between Trump and Russia. Among the data sets included in that analysis were ones from Trump Tower and, provocatively, “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.”

In short order, a narrative crystallized on the right pushed forward by a statement from former Trump staffer Kash Patel that was amplified by Fox News: Hillary Clinton’s campaign did something fishy with computers to spy on Trump’s campaign and his White House. Over the weekend, the cable channel and other right-wing outlets and voices echoed and amplified this idea.

Then reality finished getting its boots on. The Washington Post’s fact-checkers submerged the story in cold water as did the New York Times. A filing from Sussman’s legal team and statements from others involved in the situation like the researchers who analyzed the data state, for example, that the period in which the White House (to shorthand the “executive office” descriptor) was included in the analysis ended before Trump took office. Durham’s filing doesn’t suggest otherwise. What’s more, the data being evaluated were not a function of anything having been hacked or stolen; instead, it was an analysis of a particular, limited kind of data file that had been shared by both the White House and outside Internet service providers as part of standard practice for detecting illicit online activity. (In fact, this appears to be why the White House was sharing the data; it was a response to a Russian infiltration in 2015.)


What’s more, the question of whether Sussman was working for Clinton’s campaign is at the heart of the indictment against him. Here, again, Durham draws an inferred, not a direct line, one that Sussman contests. Regardless, the indication from Durham’s filing is not that Clinton’s team pushed downward for a probe into possible electronic links between Trump and Russia but, instead, that a technology executive who had retained Sussman independently raised the possibility to his attention and from there it moved up. Remember the timing here: this was just as material stolen from the Democratic Party by Russian hackers was being leaked and questions about Trump’s ties to Russia were being elevated (even before Clinton’s team did so publicly).

So this was the state of play as of Tuesday morning. The original storyline that Hillary Clinton’s team had overseen some sort of electronic spying on Trump including while he was president was badly undercut, leading conscientious observers to understandably want to pepper their assessments with qualifiers and caveats.

And then Fox News’s prime time programming began.

Host Sean Hannity dove into the story with both feet, running forward rapidly not with the new developments but the initial, undercut ones.

“As we first reported last night,” he said, “a bombshell filing from the Durham probe details how the Clinton campaign and their associates actively — according to, of course, John Durham — exploited Internet data mined from Trump Tower and even the Trump White House to smear Donald Trump.” This, he argued, was being suppressed by a “media mob” terrified of the implications — the go-to explanation from Fox hosts to transform cautious assessments of the allegations by other outlets into proof that they were trying to bury the truth.

He quoted several lines from Durham’s filing, offering none of the qualifications that had emerged since Friday. He also quoted from Sussman’s response — though only the part in which it describes the Durham filing as being “irrelevant to the charged offense and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool.”

To discuss the case, Hannity interviewed two guests: former California representative Devin Nunes (for whom Kash Patel had once worked) and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett. Jarrett, I will note, is not a dispassionate observer of the overlap of politics and the law; he’s written books titled, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump” and “Witch Hunt: The Plot to Destroy Trump and Undo His Election.”

It was also Jarrett who offered the more reality-detached assessment of Durham’s filing. He alleged that a number of laws had been broken, from defrauding the U.S. (perhaps Durham’s ultimate target) to racketeering to computer crimes.

Here is how he described what happened: “In this particular case, a tech company being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign is using cyber sleuths to penetrate in an unauthorized way the servers to collect data without permission, without knowledge of Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, the Trump transition and allegedly the Trump White House. I mean, it’s absolutely breathtaking and stunning.”

So the research was being conducted in part by a researcher at a university, not by a tech company, and the company at issue, Neustar, was not known to have been paid by Clinton’s campaign. It’s not clear that it was being paid at all for the research, in fact. The “cyber sleuths” — a phrase so cringe-inducing that it’s worth pointing out as cringe-inducing — are not understood to have “penetrated” any servers to collect data; instead, they analyzed log files that had been shared with them. Shared with them meaning “not collected without permission.” It did occur without Trump’s knowledge, certainly, but, again, lawyers for the research team that had possession of the White House data write that “to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate … data from before Trump took office.” Again, Durham’s filing does not conflict with this.

In other words, Jarrett’s claims were not only not supported by the Durham filing, he actively had to ignore a multitude of information undercutting the Fox News narrative about the filing to gin up his purported list of crimes.

Hannity’s response? “Unbelievable,” which is true, but not in the way he meant it.

Nunes’s contributions were similarly misinformed. “Clearly anyone able to get into the White House, no matter who the president is, is something that is unprecedented. Those should be the most guarded communications in this country,” he said, suggesting that the data had been obtained illicitly, which no one, including Durham, has alleged. He later wondered how contractors could have communications of Americans all over the country, including the sitting president. Beyond the apparent inaccuracy of the “in the White House” part, this is not any collection of “communications.” It is, instead, log files of domain-name lookups that contractors and researchers use to track bad behavior online. (I wrote more about this on Monday.)

Again, this is what Fox News is airing well after any responsible news outlet and responsible journalists should know better.

Part of what’s undergirding this is that the allegations are both complicated and rooted in obscure technology practices, a realm that’s both little understood and easy to misrepresent. The average American hears “exploited data” and thinks “hacked,” which isn’t the case. (Hannity himself admitted that he didn’t know much about technology, an admission meant to endear him to his audience, not to qualify his insistences.) Part of it, too, is Fox News’s ongoing interest in talking about Hillary Clinton to rile up its viewers.

But this situation illustrates the acute challenge of ensuring a well-informed public. The network, the most-watched news channel on cable television and a driver of right-wing commentary elsewhere, has no robust mechanism in place for self-correction. It’s hard to correct television in the first place, but Fox News’s hosts have no demonstrated track record of revising their false assertions. Hannity’s segment on Tuesday night was riddled with shorthand references to his misrepresentations of the Russia investigation itself, a good hint of how this Durham stuff will eventually be concreted. (This despite at least one prominent voice in the Russia-probe skepticism universe urging caution on the Durham storyline.)

What’s useful to remember, though, isn’t just that viewers are being misinformed about what’s happening. It’s that they’re being convinced that they’re more informed. That’s why Hannity began by insisting that other networks were afraid of covering the story. He wants to reinforce the sense among viewers that they are being given exclusive access to reality, that they stand as a collective counterweight to the deceptive elites who are undercutting the country. A storyline is created and propped up with all sorts of (often unfounded) claims, with no one around to offer a skeptical assessment. Those who buy in see themselves as having more insight into what’s happening, not less.

It’s been less than a week but it will now forever be the case that some portion of the public — some large portion — will eternally believe that the Clinton campaign paid hackers to infiltrate Trump Tower and the Trump White House. This belief will be reinforced when people like myself say this is not rooted in any available evidence, because of who I am and where I work but also because of the various things that narrative reinforces. Clinton bad; Trump victim; hacking insidious.

Fox News hosts and experts will not try hard to present some other story.
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,750
771
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
As usual the Fox crowd just need to stretch the truth, ignore facts - all to sway their Unsuspecting/duped audience.

Fox News’s Durham narrative survives the emergence of inconvenient details​


On Friday, special counsel John Durham, tasked by former attorney general William P. Barr with evaluating the legitimacy of the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, filed a document as part of an indictment targeting attorney Michael Sussman. In it, Durham hinted at evidence related to a story that percolated briefly before Election Day that year: that a server affiliated with Donald Trump’s private company had been in regular contact with a server associated with a Russian bank.

That story was quickly debunked,
but now Durham hinted that it was a function of something broader, an effort by Sussman, whose firm had been retained by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, to use analysis of data from various computer networks to find connections between Trump and Russia. Among the data sets included in that analysis were ones from Trump Tower and, provocatively, “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.”

In short order, a narrative crystallized on the right pushed forward by a statement from former Trump staffer Kash Patel that was amplified by Fox News: Hillary Clinton’s campaign did something fishy with computers to spy on Trump’s campaign and his White House. Over the weekend, the cable channel and other right-wing outlets and voices echoed and amplified this idea.

Then reality finished getting its boots on. The Washington Post’s fact-checkers submerged the story in cold water as did the New York Times. A filing from Sussman’s legal team and statements from others involved in the situation like the researchers who analyzed the data state, for example, that the period in which the White House (to shorthand the “executive office” descriptor) was included in the analysis ended before Trump took office. Durham’s filing doesn’t suggest otherwise. What’s more, the data being evaluated were not a function of anything having been hacked or stolen; instead, it was an analysis of a particular, limited kind of data file that had been shared by both the White House and outside Internet service providers as part of standard practice for detecting illicit online activity. (In fact, this appears to be why the White House was sharing the data; it was a response to a Russian infiltration in 2015.)


What’s more, the question of whether Sussman was working for Clinton’s campaign is at the heart of the indictment against him. Here, again, Durham draws an inferred, not a direct line, one that Sussman contests. Regardless, the indication from Durham’s filing is not that Clinton’s team pushed downward for a probe into possible electronic links between Trump and Russia but, instead, that a technology executive who had retained Sussman independently raised the possibility to his attention and from there it moved up. Remember the timing here: this was just as material stolen from the Democratic Party by Russian hackers was being leaked and questions about Trump’s ties to Russia were being elevated (even before Clinton’s team did so publicly).

So this was the state of play as of Tuesday morning. The original storyline that Hillary Clinton’s team had overseen some sort of electronic spying on Trump including while he was president was badly undercut, leading conscientious observers to understandably want to pepper their assessments with qualifiers and caveats.

And then Fox News’s prime time programming began.

Host Sean Hannity dove into the story with both feet, running forward rapidly not with the new developments but the initial, undercut ones.

“As we first reported last night,” he said, “a bombshell filing from the Durham probe details how the Clinton campaign and their associates actively — according to, of course, John Durham — exploited Internet data mined from Trump Tower and even the Trump White House to smear Donald Trump.” This, he argued, was being suppressed by a “media mob” terrified of the implications — the go-to explanation from Fox hosts to transform cautious assessments of the allegations by other outlets into proof that they were trying to bury the truth.

He quoted several lines from Durham’s filing, offering none of the qualifications that had emerged since Friday. He also quoted from Sussman’s response — though only the part in which it describes the Durham filing as being “irrelevant to the charged offense and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool.”

To discuss the case, Hannity interviewed two guests: former California representative Devin Nunes (for whom Kash Patel had once worked) and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett. Jarrett, I will note, is not a dispassionate observer of the overlap of politics and the law; he’s written books titled, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump” and “Witch Hunt: The Plot to Destroy Trump and Undo His Election.”

It was also Jarrett who offered the more reality-detached assessment of Durham’s filing. He alleged that a number of laws had been broken, from defrauding the U.S. (perhaps Durham’s ultimate target) to racketeering to computer crimes.

Here is how he described what happened: “In this particular case, a tech company being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign is using cyber sleuths to penetrate in an unauthorized way the servers to collect data without permission, without knowledge of Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, the Trump transition and allegedly the Trump White House. I mean, it’s absolutely breathtaking and stunning.”

So the research was being conducted in part by a researcher at a university, not by a tech company, and the company at issue, Neustar, was not known to have been paid by Clinton’s campaign. It’s not clear that it was being paid at all for the research, in fact. The “cyber sleuths” — a phrase so cringe-inducing that it’s worth pointing out as cringe-inducing — are not understood to have “penetrated” any servers to collect data; instead, they analyzed log files that had been shared with them. Shared with them meaning “not collected without permission.” It did occur without Trump’s knowledge, certainly, but, again, lawyers for the research team that had possession of the White House data write that “to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate … data from before Trump took office.” Again, Durham’s filing does not conflict with this.

In other words, Jarrett’s claims were not only not supported by the Durham filing, he actively had to ignore a multitude of information undercutting the Fox News narrative about the filing to gin up his purported list of crimes.

Hannity’s response? “Unbelievable,” which is true, but not in the way he meant it.

Nunes’s contributions were similarly misinformed. “Clearly anyone able to get into the White House, no matter who the president is, is something that is unprecedented. Those should be the most guarded communications in this country,” he said, suggesting that the data had been obtained illicitly, which no one, including Durham, has alleged. He later wondered how contractors could have communications of Americans all over the country, including the sitting president. Beyond the apparent inaccuracy of the “in the White House” part, this is not any collection of “communications.” It is, instead, log files of domain-name lookups that contractors and researchers use to track bad behavior online. (I wrote more about this on Monday.)

Again, this is what Fox News is airing well after any responsible news outlet and responsible journalists should know better.

Part of what’s undergirding this is that the allegations are both complicated and rooted in obscure technology practices, a realm that’s both little understood and easy to misrepresent. The average American hears “exploited data” and thinks “hacked,” which isn’t the case. (Hannity himself admitted that he didn’t know much about technology, an admission meant to endear him to his audience, not to qualify his insistences.) Part of it, too, is Fox News’s ongoing interest in talking about Hillary Clinton to rile up its viewers.

But this situation illustrates the acute challenge of ensuring a well-informed public. The network, the most-watched news channel on cable television and a driver of right-wing commentary elsewhere, has no robust mechanism in place for self-correction. It’s hard to correct television in the first place, but Fox News’s hosts have no demonstrated track record of revising their false assertions. Hannity’s segment on Tuesday night was riddled with shorthand references to his misrepresentations of the Russia investigation itself, a good hint of how this Durham stuff will eventually be concreted. (This despite at least one prominent voice in the Russia-probe skepticism universe urging caution on the Durham storyline.)

What’s useful to remember, though, isn’t just that viewers are being misinformed about what’s happening. It’s that they’re being convinced that they’re more informed. That’s why Hannity began by insisting that other networks were afraid of covering the story. He wants to reinforce the sense among viewers that they are being given exclusive access to reality, that they stand as a collective counterweight to the deceptive elites who are undercutting the country. A storyline is created and propped up with all sorts of (often unfounded) claims, with no one around to offer a skeptical assessment. Those who buy in see themselves as having more insight into what’s happening, not less.

It’s been less than a week but it will now forever be the case that some portion of the public — some large portion — will eternally believe that the Clinton campaign paid hackers to infiltrate Trump Tower and the Trump White House. This belief will be reinforced when people like myself say this is not rooted in any available evidence, because of who I am and where I work but also because of the various things that narrative reinforces. Clinton bad; Trump victim; hacking insidious.

Fox News hosts and experts will not try hard to present some other story.
Not surprising... Hannity is every bit as untrustworthy in his assertions as anyone is on Fox's rival networks.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
27,347
44,278
1
Like I said the other day. I'd caution anyone that believes they know what's going on. The two papers cited here were full in on the dossier. Y'all just knew it was true. I'll wait to see what actually happens.
 
Last edited:

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,400
6,112
1
Like I said the others day. I'd caution anyone that believes they know what's going on. The two papers cited here were full in on the dossier. Y'all just knew it was true. I'll wait to see what actually happens.
Just read what Durham actually has said. Compare that to what Fox and the con media is shouting. The facts are out there if you want to verify them for yourself. Or, you can swallow the swill being put out there by fools like Hannity and Carlson - both of whom have a real problem with the truth and facts.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,400
6,112
1

What you need to know about the John Durham filing that Trumpworld is fuming over​

  • Trumpworld erupted over a new court filing from the special counsel John Durham.
  • They said the filing contains definitive proof that Democrats illegally spied on Trump in 2016 and 2017.
  • The filing does not allege espionage but it does claim that a Clinton lawyer surreptitiously obtained non-public or proprietary data from the White House and Trump's servers.

The right-wing media sphere erupted this week over a legal filing from the special counsel John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the FBI's Russia probe, that former President Donald Trump and his allies said presented definitive proof that his political opponents illegally "spied" on him.

Trump declared in a statement that the filing provided "indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia," adding that such conduct "would have been punishable by death" in a "stronger period of time in this country."

Trump's claim that such activity would have at any time in American history been "punishable by death" is overblown, since the only crime Durham has accused anyone of committing is lying to the FBI. No one involved in the investigation has been charged with illegally spying on the Trump campaign or White House, or with a capital crime.

But the special counsel's investigation has in the past uncovered evidence of a connection between a lawyer with connections to the Clinton campaign named Michael Sussmann and a technology executive who Durham claims "exploited" internet data legally gathered from the White House and Trump Tower. Friday's filing also suggests that Sussman exaggerated evidence of a connection between Trump and Russia in meetings with law enforcement agencies, and lied about why he was doing it.

What the Durham filing actually says

The filing contains almost no new information. It's not an indictment, meaning that no new criminal conduct was alleged. Instead, it relates to a conflict-of-interest matter in Durham's ongoing case against Sussmann, who worked at the law firm Perkins Coie, which represents the Democratic National Committee.

Sussmann was charged last year with lying to the FBI while trying to get it to investigate an allegation that the Trump campaign used a secret email server to communicate with Russia's Alfa Bank during the 2016 campaign. The FBI has not uncovered any evidence of such a connection.

Durham's Friday filing said there's a potential conflict because the law firm representing Sussmann, Latham Watkins, previously represented Perkins Coie and the lawyer Marc Elias, who testified before Durham's grand jury.

It also details a February 2017 meeting in which Sussmann flagged to the CIA that internet data he had obtained suggested someone using a Russian-made smartphone was connecting to White House and Trump Tower networks. The New York Times reported on this meeting last year.

The filing says Sussmann got the data from an unnamed technology executive who Durham said "exploited" DNS traffic to gauge if there was a link between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives during the 2016 election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,400
6,112
1
No
Durham and Fox taking heavy flak from the elites. Must be directly over the target making impact.
, just showing how they lie constantly. Read the Durham filing for yourself - report back after you finish dealing with the facts. Fox and the con media have an agenda and it's not one with the best interest of the country at heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles

onetime1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 10, 2005
473
361
1
As usual the Fox crowd just need to stretch the truth, ignore facts - all to sway their Unsuspecting/duped audience.

Fox News’s Durham narrative survives the emergence of inconvenient details​


On Friday, special counsel John Durham, tasked by former attorney general William P. Barr with evaluating the legitimacy of the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, filed a document as part of an indictment targeting attorney Michael Sussman. In it, Durham hinted at evidence related to a story that percolated briefly before Election Day that year: that a server affiliated with Donald Trump’s private company had been in regular contact with a server associated with a Russian bank.

That story was quickly debunked,
but now Durham hinted that it was a function of something broader, an effort by Sussman, whose firm had been retained by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, to use analysis of data from various computer networks to find connections between Trump and Russia. Among the data sets included in that analysis were ones from Trump Tower and, provocatively, “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.”

In short order, a narrative crystallized on the right pushed forward by a statement from former Trump staffer Kash Patel that was amplified by Fox News: Hillary Clinton’s campaign did something fishy with computers to spy on Trump’s campaign and his White House. Over the weekend, the cable channel and other right-wing outlets and voices echoed and amplified this idea.

Then reality finished getting its boots on. The Washington Post’s fact-checkers submerged the story in cold water as did the New York Times. A filing from Sussman’s legal team and statements from others involved in the situation like the researchers who analyzed the data state, for example, that the period in which the White House (to shorthand the “executive office” descriptor) was included in the analysis ended before Trump took office. Durham’s filing doesn’t suggest otherwise. What’s more, the data being evaluated were not a function of anything having been hacked or stolen; instead, it was an analysis of a particular, limited kind of data file that had been shared by both the White House and outside Internet service providers as part of standard practice for detecting illicit online activity. (In fact, this appears to be why the White House was sharing the data; it was a response to a Russian infiltration in 2015.)


What’s more, the question of whether Sussman was working for Clinton’s campaign is at the heart of the indictment against him. Here, again, Durham draws an inferred, not a direct line, one that Sussman contests. Regardless, the indication from Durham’s filing is not that Clinton’s team pushed downward for a probe into possible electronic links between Trump and Russia but, instead, that a technology executive who had retained Sussman independently raised the possibility to his attention and from there it moved up. Remember the timing here: this was just as material stolen from the Democratic Party by Russian hackers was being leaked and questions about Trump’s ties to Russia were being elevated (even before Clinton’s team did so publicly).

So this was the state of play as of Tuesday morning. The original storyline that Hillary Clinton’s team had overseen some sort of electronic spying on Trump including while he was president was badly undercut, leading conscientious observers to understandably want to pepper their assessments with qualifiers and caveats.

And then Fox News’s prime time programming began.

Host Sean Hannity dove into the story with both feet, running forward rapidly not with the new developments but the initial, undercut ones.

“As we first reported last night,” he said, “a bombshell filing from the Durham probe details how the Clinton campaign and their associates actively — according to, of course, John Durham — exploited Internet data mined from Trump Tower and even the Trump White House to smear Donald Trump.” This, he argued, was being suppressed by a “media mob” terrified of the implications — the go-to explanation from Fox hosts to transform cautious assessments of the allegations by other outlets into proof that they were trying to bury the truth.

He quoted several lines from Durham’s filing, offering none of the qualifications that had emerged since Friday. He also quoted from Sussman’s response — though only the part in which it describes the Durham filing as being “irrelevant to the charged offense and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool.”

To discuss the case, Hannity interviewed two guests: former California representative Devin Nunes (for whom Kash Patel had once worked) and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett. Jarrett, I will note, is not a dispassionate observer of the overlap of politics and the law; he’s written books titled, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump” and “Witch Hunt: The Plot to Destroy Trump and Undo His Election.”

It was also Jarrett who offered the more reality-detached assessment of Durham’s filing. He alleged that a number of laws had been broken, from defrauding the U.S. (perhaps Durham’s ultimate target) to racketeering to computer crimes.

Here is how he described what happened: “In this particular case, a tech company being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign is using cyber sleuths to penetrate in an unauthorized way the servers to collect data without permission, without knowledge of Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, the Trump transition and allegedly the Trump White House. I mean, it’s absolutely breathtaking and stunning.”

So the research was being conducted in part by a researcher at a university, not by a tech company, and the company at issue, Neustar, was not known to have been paid by Clinton’s campaign. It’s not clear that it was being paid at all for the research, in fact. The “cyber sleuths” — a phrase so cringe-inducing that it’s worth pointing out as cringe-inducing — are not understood to have “penetrated” any servers to collect data; instead, they analyzed log files that had been shared with them. Shared with them meaning “not collected without permission.” It did occur without Trump’s knowledge, certainly, but, again, lawyers for the research team that had possession of the White House data write that “to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate … data from before Trump took office.” Again, Durham’s filing does not conflict with this.

In other words, Jarrett’s claims were not only not supported by the Durham filing, he actively had to ignore a multitude of information undercutting the Fox News narrative about the filing to gin up his purported list of crimes.

Hannity’s response? “Unbelievable,” which is true, but not in the way he meant it.

Nunes’s contributions were similarly misinformed. “Clearly anyone able to get into the White House, no matter who the president is, is something that is unprecedented. Those should be the most guarded communications in this country,” he said, suggesting that the data had been obtained illicitly, which no one, including Durham, has alleged. He later wondered how contractors could have communications of Americans all over the country, including the sitting president. Beyond the apparent inaccuracy of the “in the White House” part, this is not any collection of “communications.” It is, instead, log files of domain-name lookups that contractors and researchers use to track bad behavior online. (I wrote more about this on Monday.)

Again, this is what Fox News is airing well after any responsible news outlet and responsible journalists should know better.

Part of what’s undergirding this is that the allegations are both complicated and rooted in obscure technology practices, a realm that’s both little understood and easy to misrepresent. The average American hears “exploited data” and thinks “hacked,” which isn’t the case. (Hannity himself admitted that he didn’t know much about technology, an admission meant to endear him to his audience, not to qualify his insistences.) Part of it, too, is Fox News’s ongoing interest in talking about Hillary Clinton to rile up its viewers.

But this situation illustrates the acute challenge of ensuring a well-informed public. The network, the most-watched news channel on cable television and a driver of right-wing commentary elsewhere, has no robust mechanism in place for self-correction. It’s hard to correct television in the first place, but Fox News’s hosts have no demonstrated track record of revising their false assertions. Hannity’s segment on Tuesday night was riddled with shorthand references to his misrepresentations of the Russia investigation itself, a good hint of how this Durham stuff will eventually be concreted. (This despite at least one prominent voice in the Russia-probe skepticism universe urging caution on the Durham storyline.)

What’s useful to remember, though, isn’t just that viewers are being misinformed about what’s happening. It’s that they’re being convinced that they’re more informed. That’s why Hannity began by insisting that other networks were afraid of covering the story. He wants to reinforce the sense among viewers that they are being given exclusive access to reality, that they stand as a collective counterweight to the deceptive elites who are undercutting the country. A storyline is created and propped up with all sorts of (often unfounded) claims, with no one around to offer a skeptical assessment. Those who buy in see themselves as having more insight into what’s happening, not less.

It’s been less than a week but it will now forever be the case that some portion of the public — some large portion — will eternally believe that the Clinton campaign paid hackers to infiltrate Trump Tower and the Trump White House. This belief will be reinforced when people like myself say this is not rooted in any available evidence, because of who I am and where I work but also because of the various things that narrative reinforces. Clinton bad; Trump victim; hacking insidious.

Fox News hosts and experts will not try hard to present some other story.
How's CNN spinning things these days? Anything on Russia Russia or the Mueller report?
 

GSPMax

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
2,533
3,736
1
No

, just showing how they lie constantly. Read the Durham filing for yourself - report back after you finish dealing with the facts. Fox and the con media have an agenda and it's not one with the best interest of the country at heart.

Washington Post! One of the largest purveyors of lies going back 50 years. Give me a break.

The elitist agenda, as well as yours, is at risk. Realignment is underway. Less than 9 months to go.

Put this on your must read list.

https://brownstone.org/articles/patricians-vs-plebeians-the-realignment/
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,874
12,134
1
SE PA

What you need to know about the John Durham filing that Trumpworld is fuming over​

  • Trumpworld erupted over a new court filing from the special counsel John Durham.
  • They said the filing contains definitive proof that Democrats illegally spied on Trump in 2016 and 2017.
  • The filing does not allege espionage but it does claim that a Clinton lawyer surreptitiously obtained non-public or proprietary data from the White House and Trump's servers.
The right-wing media sphere erupted this week over a legal filing from the special counsel John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the FBI's Russia probe, that former President Donald Trump and his allies said presented definitive proof that his political opponents illegally "spied" on him.

Trump declared in a statement that the filing provided "indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia," adding that such conduct "would have been punishable by death" in a "stronger period of time in this country."

Trump's claim that such activity would have at any time in American history been "punishable by death" is overblown, since the only crime Durham has accused anyone of committing is lying to the FBI. No one involved in the investigation has been charged with illegally spying on the Trump campaign or White House, or with a capital crime.

But the special counsel's investigation has in the past uncovered evidence of a connection between a lawyer with connections to the Clinton campaign named Michael Sussmann and a technology executive who Durham claims "exploited" internet data legally gathered from the White House and Trump Tower. Friday's filing also suggests that Sussman exaggerated evidence of a connection between Trump and Russia in meetings with law enforcement agencies, and lied about why he was doing it.


What the Durham filing actually says

The filing contains almost no new information. It's not an indictment, meaning that no new criminal conduct was alleged. Instead, it relates to a conflict-of-interest matter in Durham's ongoing case against Sussmann, who worked at the law firm Perkins Coie, which represents the Democratic National Committee.

Sussmann was charged last year with lying to the FBI while trying to get it to investigate an allegation that the Trump campaign used a secret email server to communicate with Russia's Alfa Bank during the 2016 campaign. The FBI has not uncovered any evidence of such a connection.

Durham's Friday filing said there's a potential conflict because the law firm representing Sussmann, Latham Watkins, previously represented Perkins Coie and the lawyer Marc Elias, who testified before Durham's grand jury.

It also details a February 2017 meeting in which Sussmann flagged to the CIA that internet data he had obtained suggested someone using a Russian-made smartphone was connecting to White House and Trump Tower networks. The New York Times reported on this meeting last year.

The filing says Sussmann got the data from an unnamed technology executive who Durham said "exploited" DNS traffic to gauge if there was a link between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives during the 2016 election.

spy
[spī]

NOUN
  1. a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.
    synonyms:
    secret agent · undercover agent · enemy agent · foreign agent·
    [more]
VERB
  1. work for a government or other organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors.


I don't know about you, but those definitions seem to fit the activities of the Clinton campaign wrt Trump quite well.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,721
7,848
1
No

, just showing how they lie constantly. Read the Durham filing for yourself - report back after you finish dealing with the facts. Fox and the con media have an agenda and it's not one with the best interest of the country at heart.
There is more evidence that Trump was spied on (which you immediately try to ignore) than Trump inciting violence. More double standards as expected from the board leftists. Tell me how many different sets of rules do u have?
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,523
21,787
1
DFW, TX
As usual the Fox crowd just need to stretch the truth, ignore facts - all to sway their Unsuspecting/duped audience.

Fox News’s Durham narrative survives the emergence of inconvenient details​


On Friday, special counsel John Durham, tasked by former attorney general William P. Barr with evaluating the legitimacy of the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, filed a document as part of an indictment targeting attorney Michael Sussman. In it, Durham hinted at evidence related to a story that percolated briefly before Election Day that year: that a server affiliated with Donald Trump’s private company had been in regular contact with a server associated with a Russian bank.

That story was quickly debunked,
but now Durham hinted that it was a function of something broader, an effort by Sussman, whose firm had been retained by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, to use analysis of data from various computer networks to find connections between Trump and Russia. Among the data sets included in that analysis were ones from Trump Tower and, provocatively, “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.”

In short order, a narrative crystallized on the right pushed forward by a statement from former Trump staffer Kash Patel that was amplified by Fox News: Hillary Clinton’s campaign did something fishy with computers to spy on Trump’s campaign and his White House. Over the weekend, the cable channel and other right-wing outlets and voices echoed and amplified this idea.

Then reality finished getting its boots on. The Washington Post’s fact-checkers submerged the story in cold water as did the New York Times. A filing from Sussman’s legal team and statements from others involved in the situation like the researchers who analyzed the data state, for example, that the period in which the White House (to shorthand the “executive office” descriptor) was included in the analysis ended before Trump took office. Durham’s filing doesn’t suggest otherwise. What’s more, the data being evaluated were not a function of anything having been hacked or stolen; instead, it was an analysis of a particular, limited kind of data file that had been shared by both the White House and outside Internet service providers as part of standard practice for detecting illicit online activity. (In fact, this appears to be why the White House was sharing the data; it was a response to a Russian infiltration in 2015.)


What’s more, the question of whether Sussman was working for Clinton’s campaign is at the heart of the indictment against him. Here, again, Durham draws an inferred, not a direct line, one that Sussman contests. Regardless, the indication from Durham’s filing is not that Clinton’s team pushed downward for a probe into possible electronic links between Trump and Russia but, instead, that a technology executive who had retained Sussman independently raised the possibility to his attention and from there it moved up. Remember the timing here: this was just as material stolen from the Democratic Party by Russian hackers was being leaked and questions about Trump’s ties to Russia were being elevated (even before Clinton’s team did so publicly).

So this was the state of play as of Tuesday morning. The original storyline that Hillary Clinton’s team had overseen some sort of electronic spying on Trump including while he was president was badly undercut, leading conscientious observers to understandably want to pepper their assessments with qualifiers and caveats.

And then Fox News’s prime time programming began.

Host Sean Hannity dove into the story with both feet, running forward rapidly not with the new developments but the initial, undercut ones.

“As we first reported last night,” he said, “a bombshell filing from the Durham probe details how the Clinton campaign and their associates actively — according to, of course, John Durham — exploited Internet data mined from Trump Tower and even the Trump White House to smear Donald Trump.” This, he argued, was being suppressed by a “media mob” terrified of the implications — the go-to explanation from Fox hosts to transform cautious assessments of the allegations by other outlets into proof that they were trying to bury the truth.

He quoted several lines from Durham’s filing, offering none of the qualifications that had emerged since Friday. He also quoted from Sussman’s response — though only the part in which it describes the Durham filing as being “irrelevant to the charged offense and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool.”

To discuss the case, Hannity interviewed two guests: former California representative Devin Nunes (for whom Kash Patel had once worked) and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett. Jarrett, I will note, is not a dispassionate observer of the overlap of politics and the law; he’s written books titled, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump” and “Witch Hunt: The Plot to Destroy Trump and Undo His Election.”

It was also Jarrett who offered the more reality-detached assessment of Durham’s filing. He alleged that a number of laws had been broken, from defrauding the U.S. (perhaps Durham’s ultimate target) to racketeering to computer crimes.

Here is how he described what happened: “In this particular case, a tech company being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign is using cyber sleuths to penetrate in an unauthorized way the servers to collect data without permission, without knowledge of Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, the Trump transition and allegedly the Trump White House. I mean, it’s absolutely breathtaking and stunning.”

So the research was being conducted in part by a researcher at a university, not by a tech company, and the company at issue, Neustar, was not known to have been paid by Clinton’s campaign. It’s not clear that it was being paid at all for the research, in fact. The “cyber sleuths” — a phrase so cringe-inducing that it’s worth pointing out as cringe-inducing — are not understood to have “penetrated” any servers to collect data; instead, they analyzed log files that had been shared with them. Shared with them meaning “not collected without permission.” It did occur without Trump’s knowledge, certainly, but, again, lawyers for the research team that had possession of the White House data write that “to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate … data from before Trump took office.” Again, Durham’s filing does not conflict with this.

In other words, Jarrett’s claims were not only not supported by the Durham filing, he actively had to ignore a multitude of information undercutting the Fox News narrative about the filing to gin up his purported list of crimes.

Hannity’s response? “Unbelievable,” which is true, but not in the way he meant it.

Nunes’s contributions were similarly misinformed. “Clearly anyone able to get into the White House, no matter who the president is, is something that is unprecedented. Those should be the most guarded communications in this country,” he said, suggesting that the data had been obtained illicitly, which no one, including Durham, has alleged. He later wondered how contractors could have communications of Americans all over the country, including the sitting president. Beyond the apparent inaccuracy of the “in the White House” part, this is not any collection of “communications.” It is, instead, log files of domain-name lookups that contractors and researchers use to track bad behavior online. (I wrote more about this on Monday.)

Again, this is what Fox News is airing well after any responsible news outlet and responsible journalists should know better.

Part of what’s undergirding this is that the allegations are both complicated and rooted in obscure technology practices, a realm that’s both little understood and easy to misrepresent. The average American hears “exploited data” and thinks “hacked,” which isn’t the case. (Hannity himself admitted that he didn’t know much about technology, an admission meant to endear him to his audience, not to qualify his insistences.) Part of it, too, is Fox News’s ongoing interest in talking about Hillary Clinton to rile up its viewers.

But this situation illustrates the acute challenge of ensuring a well-informed public. The network, the most-watched news channel on cable television and a driver of right-wing commentary elsewhere, has no robust mechanism in place for self-correction. It’s hard to correct television in the first place, but Fox News’s hosts have no demonstrated track record of revising their false assertions. Hannity’s segment on Tuesday night was riddled with shorthand references to his misrepresentations of the Russia investigation itself, a good hint of how this Durham stuff will eventually be concreted. (This despite at least one prominent voice in the Russia-probe skepticism universe urging caution on the Durham storyline.)

What’s useful to remember, though, isn’t just that viewers are being misinformed about what’s happening. It’s that they’re being convinced that they’re more informed. That’s why Hannity began by insisting that other networks were afraid of covering the story. He wants to reinforce the sense among viewers that they are being given exclusive access to reality, that they stand as a collective counterweight to the deceptive elites who are undercutting the country. A storyline is created and propped up with all sorts of (often unfounded) claims, with no one around to offer a skeptical assessment. Those who buy in see themselves as having more insight into what’s happening, not less.

It’s been less than a week but it will now forever be the case that some portion of the public — some large portion — will eternally believe that the Clinton campaign paid hackers to infiltrate Trump Tower and the Trump White House. This belief will be reinforced when people like myself say this is not rooted in any available evidence, because of who I am and where I work but also because of the various things that narrative reinforces. Clinton bad; Trump victim; hacking insidious.

Fox News hosts and experts will not try hard to present some other story.

Wapo defending Clinton. Why am I not surprised.

LdN
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,518
28,797
1
No

, just showing how they lie constantly. Read the Durham filing for yourself - report back after you finish dealing with the facts. Fox and the con media have an agenda and it's not one with the best interest of the country at heart.
Your sources are trash, Russia gate, pee tapes, Sandman , Rittenhouse, the Ukrainian impeachment, all BS.
This is why I have no respect for you or your ilk.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
27,347
44,278
1
Just read what Durham actually has said. Compare that to what Fox and the con media is shouting. The facts are out there if you want to verify them for yourself. Or, you can swallow the swill being put out there by fools like Hannity and Carlson - both of whom have a real problem with the truth and facts.
Why would you bring up Fox? I never mentioned them. Fact is, like the dossier you just knew was true, you don't, no one knows what Durham has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted and Sullivan

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,400
6,112
1
Why would you bring up Fox? I never mentioned them. Fact is, like the dossier you just knew was true, you don't, no one knows what Durham has.
Durham posted his latest filing which you can see and read for yourself. Try it, you may learn not to believe what you hear/see on Fox or the other con media sites.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,400
6,112
1
Your sources are trash, Russia gate, pee tapes, Sandman , Rittenhouse, the Ukrainian impeachment, all BS.
This is why I have no respect for you or your ilk.
The Durham filing that has caused the most recent Clinton attacks is public - go read the damn thing. You're probably to lazy to actually look up the actual filing. Be a lemming and look to get the goods on HRC, again.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,400
6,112
1
There is more evidence that Trump was spied on (which you immediately try to ignore) than Trump inciting violence. More double standards as expected from the board leftists. Tell me how many different sets of rules do u have?
No there is no such proof that Trump was spied on. The period noted in all the records was during the Obama Admin - not ever during Trump years. Read the report/filing for yourself - it's out there for you to see for yourself.
 

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
109,037
18,693
1
Like I said the other day. I'd caution anyone that believes they know what's going on. The two papers cited here were full in on the dossier. Y'all just knew it was true. I'll wait to see what actually happens.
It is actually really quite simple to understand, if one desires to understand.......


TL;DR!

Rodney Joffe had legitimate access to the data that showed possible contacts between Trump and Russia at a time when he was publicly asking Vladimir Putin to go steal Hillary Clinton's emails. ("Russia, if you're listening ...")

The only campaign that was spied on was Hillary Clinton's, which got hacked and saw its internal communications weaponized by Trump surrogates like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon.

Trump's campaign met with a Russian agent promising dirt on Hillary Clinton ("If it's what you say, I love it!)

Clinton never paid Rodney Joffe — in fact Joffe paid Sussmann for his services. Literally no one in DC was ignorant of Sussmann or Perkins Coie's connection to the Clintons and the DNC. Jim Baker doesn't remember what happened in the meeting, and his deputy's notes are probably hearsay anyway.

And Durham is only airing this supposed "conflict" between Sussmann and his lawyers — a conflict the Special Counsel knew about five months ago when he indicted Sussmann and which Sussmann has anyway already waived — after the statute of limitations ran out, and its value exists solely in feeding a false narrative from his buddies on the right.

It's smoke and mirrors.

And PS, if you had trouble following this, ask yourself if the average mouth-breathing MAGA doofus is going to be able to make heads or tails of it.

[Slate / Empty Wheel / WashEx / US v. Sussmann, Docket via Court Listener]
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe and 2lion70

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,400
6,112
1
spy
[spī]

NOUN
  1. a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.
    synonyms:
    secret agent · undercover agent · enemy agent · foreign agent·
    [more]
VERB
  1. work for a government or other organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors.


I don't know about you, but those definitions seem to fit the activities of the Clinton campaign wrt Trump quite well.
You are wrong as usual. Durham has never said that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,523
21,787
1
DFW, TX
No one is defending HRC - they are merely stating the facts. Don't be so easily led, read the Durham filing for yourself then compare that to what is being shouted on Fox and in the con media.

I've never watched Fox News. At least not longer than a few minutes in passing,

I used to watch CNN before it started lying.

The FACT is that Hillary was spying on the Trump Campaign. That's on top of knowing the entire Russia event was due to several layers of illegal processes.

You seem proud of that. Which paints you as quite stupid.

LdN
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
46,523
21,787
1
DFW, TX
It is actually really quite simple to understand, if one desires to understand.......


TL;DR!

Rodney Joffe had legitimate access to the data that showed possible contacts between Trump and Russia at a time when he was publicly asking Vladimir Putin to go steal Hillary Clinton's emails. ("Russia, if you're listening ...")

The only campaign that was spied on was Hillary Clinton's, which got hacked and saw its internal communications weaponized by Trump surrogates like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon.

Trump's campaign met with a Russian agent promising dirt on Hillary Clinton ("If it's what you say, I love it!)

Clinton never paid Rodney Joffe — in fact Joffe paid Sussmann for his services. Literally no one in DC was ignorant of Sussmann or Perkins Coie's connection to the Clintons and the DNC. Jim Baker doesn't remember what happened in the meeting, and his deputy's notes are probably hearsay anyway.

And Durham is only airing this supposed "conflict" between Sussmann and his lawyers — a conflict the Special Counsel knew about five months ago when he indicted Sussmann and which Sussmann has anyway already waived — after the statute of limitations ran out, and its value exists solely in feeding a false narrative from his buddies on the right.

It's smoke and mirrors.


And PS, if you had trouble following this, ask yourself if the average mouth-breathing MAGA doofus is going to be able to make heads or tails of it.

[Slate / Empty Wheel / WashEx / US v. Sussmann, Docket via Court Listener]

Perhaps you forgot that this was investigated for TWO YEARS by Mueller

You're a moron Mumbles
 
  • Like
Reactions: richie83

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
109,037
18,693
1
Perhaps you forgot that this was investigated for TWO YEARS by Mueller

You're a moron Mumbles
LULZ

You have no mind at all.

What you are lowest on is character, tho. You know I am right.

If you had a mind, and some class, and some character, you would read the fcking links and learn something other than what you have been told to learn.
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,874
12,134
1
SE PA
You are wrong as usual. Durham has never said that.
Never claimed he did. You are making the claim that conservatives are making this out to more than it is. We are calling it spying, Trump has called it spying, the left, which includes you, wish it to all go away. Spying on the WH, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, is illegal and treasonous. Period.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,721
7,848
1
No there is no such proof that Trump was spied on. The period noted in all the records was during the Obama Admin - not ever during Trump years. Read the report/filing for yourself - it's out there for you to see for yourself.
In the filing, which was obtained by the Washington Examiner, Durham said he has evidence that “Technology Executive-1,” known to be former Neustar Senior Vice President Rodney Joffe, worked with indicted Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to exploit internet traffic data and access “dedicated servers for the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

Gnat91

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2016
3,964
5,263
1
Jacksonville FL.
As usual the Fox crowd just need to stretch the truth, ignore facts - all to sway their Unsuspecting/duped audience.

Fox News’s Durham narrative survives the emergence of inconvenient details​


On Friday, special counsel John Durham, tasked by former attorney general William P. Barr with evaluating the legitimacy of the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, filed a document as part of an indictment targeting attorney Michael Sussman. In it, Durham hinted at evidence related to a story that percolated briefly before Election Day that year: that a server affiliated with Donald Trump’s private company had been in regular contact with a server associated with a Russian bank.

That story was quickly debunked,
but now Durham hinted that it was a function of something broader, an effort by Sussman, whose firm had been retained by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, to use analysis of data from various computer networks to find connections between Trump and Russia. Among the data sets included in that analysis were ones from Trump Tower and, provocatively, “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.”

In short order, a narrative crystallized on the right pushed forward by a statement from former Trump staffer Kash Patel that was amplified by Fox News: Hillary Clinton’s campaign did something fishy with computers to spy on Trump’s campaign and his White House. Over the weekend, the cable channel and other right-wing outlets and voices echoed and amplified this idea.

Then reality finished getting its boots on. The Washington Post’s fact-checkers submerged the story in cold water as did the New York Times. A filing from Sussman’s legal team and statements from others involved in the situation like the researchers who analyzed the data state, for example, that the period in which the White House (to shorthand the “executive office” descriptor) was included in the analysis ended before Trump took office. Durham’s filing doesn’t suggest otherwise. What’s more, the data being evaluated were not a function of anything having been hacked or stolen; instead, it was an analysis of a particular, limited kind of data file that had been shared by both the White House and outside Internet service providers as part of standard practice for detecting illicit online activity. (In fact, this appears to be why the White House was sharing the data; it was a response to a Russian infiltration in 2015.)


What’s more, the question of whether Sussman was working for Clinton’s campaign is at the heart of the indictment against him. Here, again, Durham draws an inferred, not a direct line, one that Sussman contests. Regardless, the indication from Durham’s filing is not that Clinton’s team pushed downward for a probe into possible electronic links between Trump and Russia but, instead, that a technology executive who had retained Sussman independently raised the possibility to his attention and from there it moved up. Remember the timing here: this was just as material stolen from the Democratic Party by Russian hackers was being leaked and questions about Trump’s ties to Russia were being elevated (even before Clinton’s team did so publicly).

So this was the state of play as of Tuesday morning. The original storyline that Hillary Clinton’s team had overseen some sort of electronic spying on Trump including while he was president was badly undercut, leading conscientious observers to understandably want to pepper their assessments with qualifiers and caveats.

And then Fox News’s prime time programming began.

Host Sean Hannity dove into the story with both feet, running forward rapidly not with the new developments but the initial, undercut ones.

“As we first reported last night,” he said, “a bombshell filing from the Durham probe details how the Clinton campaign and their associates actively — according to, of course, John Durham — exploited Internet data mined from Trump Tower and even the Trump White House to smear Donald Trump.” This, he argued, was being suppressed by a “media mob” terrified of the implications — the go-to explanation from Fox hosts to transform cautious assessments of the allegations by other outlets into proof that they were trying to bury the truth.

He quoted several lines from Durham’s filing, offering none of the qualifications that had emerged since Friday. He also quoted from Sussman’s response — though only the part in which it describes the Durham filing as being “irrelevant to the charged offense and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool.”

To discuss the case, Hannity interviewed two guests: former California representative Devin Nunes (for whom Kash Patel had once worked) and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett. Jarrett, I will note, is not a dispassionate observer of the overlap of politics and the law; he’s written books titled, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump” and “Witch Hunt: The Plot to Destroy Trump and Undo His Election.”

It was also Jarrett who offered the more reality-detached assessment of Durham’s filing. He alleged that a number of laws had been broken, from defrauding the U.S. (perhaps Durham’s ultimate target) to racketeering to computer crimes.

Here is how he described what happened: “In this particular case, a tech company being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign is using cyber sleuths to penetrate in an unauthorized way the servers to collect data without permission, without knowledge of Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, the Trump transition and allegedly the Trump White House. I mean, it’s absolutely breathtaking and stunning.”

So the research was being conducted in part by a researcher at a university, not by a tech company, and the company at issue, Neustar, was not known to have been paid by Clinton’s campaign. It’s not clear that it was being paid at all for the research, in fact. The “cyber sleuths” — a phrase so cringe-inducing that it’s worth pointing out as cringe-inducing — are not understood to have “penetrated” any servers to collect data; instead, they analyzed log files that had been shared with them. Shared with them meaning “not collected without permission.” It did occur without Trump’s knowledge, certainly, but, again, lawyers for the research team that had possession of the White House data write that “to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate … data from before Trump took office.” Again, Durham’s filing does not conflict with this.

In other words, Jarrett’s claims were not only not supported by the Durham filing, he actively had to ignore a multitude of information undercutting the Fox News narrative about the filing to gin up his purported list of crimes.

Hannity’s response? “Unbelievable,” which is true, but not in the way he meant it.

Nunes’s contributions were similarly misinformed. “Clearly anyone able to get into the White House, no matter who the president is, is something that is unprecedented. Those should be the most guarded communications in this country,” he said, suggesting that the data had been obtained illicitly, which no one, including Durham, has alleged. He later wondered how contractors could have communications of Americans all over the country, including the sitting president. Beyond the apparent inaccuracy of the “in the White House” part, this is not any collection of “communications.” It is, instead, log files of domain-name lookups that contractors and researchers use to track bad behavior online. (I wrote more about this on Monday.)

Again, this is what Fox News is airing well after any responsible news outlet and responsible journalists should know better.

Part of what’s undergirding this is that the allegations are both complicated and rooted in obscure technology practices, a realm that’s both little understood and easy to misrepresent. The average American hears “exploited data” and thinks “hacked,” which isn’t the case. (Hannity himself admitted that he didn’t know much about technology, an admission meant to endear him to his audience, not to qualify his insistences.) Part of it, too, is Fox News’s ongoing interest in talking about Hillary Clinton to rile up its viewers.

But this situation illustrates the acute challenge of ensuring a well-informed public. The network, the most-watched news channel on cable television and a driver of right-wing commentary elsewhere, has no robust mechanism in place for self-correction. It’s hard to correct television in the first place, but Fox News’s hosts have no demonstrated track record of revising their false assertions. Hannity’s segment on Tuesday night was riddled with shorthand references to his misrepresentations of the Russia investigation itself, a good hint of how this Durham stuff will eventually be concreted. (This despite at least one prominent voice in the Russia-probe skepticism universe urging caution on the Durham storyline.)

What’s useful to remember, though, isn’t just that viewers are being misinformed about what’s happening. It’s that they’re being convinced that they’re more informed. That’s why Hannity began by insisting that other networks were afraid of covering the story. He wants to reinforce the sense among viewers that they are being given exclusive access to reality, that they stand as a collective counterweight to the deceptive elites who are undercutting the country. A storyline is created and propped up with all sorts of (often unfounded) claims, with no one around to offer a skeptical assessment. Those who buy in see themselves as having more insight into what’s happening, not less.

It’s been less than a week but it will now forever be the case that some portion of the public — some large portion — will eternally believe that the Clinton campaign paid hackers to infiltrate Trump Tower and the Trump White House. This belief will be reinforced when people like myself say this is not rooted in any available evidence, because of who I am and where I work but also because of the various things that narrative reinforces. Clinton bad; Trump victim; hacking insidious.

Fox News hosts and experts will not try hard to present some other story.
Could your post be any fvucking longer? Christ, we all know you hate Trump. Easily said in three words...." Fox news sucks"... Then you could have posted a paragraph of your nonsensical rambling that no one's going to pay attention to anyway..
 

Alphalion75

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 24, 2001
17,506
5,863
1
Alpharetta, GA
As usual the Fox crowd just need to stretch the truth, ignore facts - all to sway their Unsuspecting/duped audience.

Fox News’s Durham narrative survives the emergence of inconvenient details​


On Friday, special counsel John Durham, tasked by former attorney general William P. Barr with evaluating the legitimacy of the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, filed a document as part of an indictment targeting attorney Michael Sussman. In it, Durham hinted at evidence related to a story that percolated briefly before Election Day that year: that a server affiliated with Donald Trump’s private company had been in regular contact with a server associated with a Russian bank.

That story was quickly debunked,
but now Durham hinted that it was a function of something broader, an effort by Sussman, whose firm had been retained by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, to use analysis of data from various computer networks to find connections between Trump and Russia. Among the data sets included in that analysis were ones from Trump Tower and, provocatively, “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.”

In short order, a narrative crystallized on the right pushed forward by a statement from former Trump staffer Kash Patel that was amplified by Fox News: Hillary Clinton’s campaign did something fishy with computers to spy on Trump’s campaign and his White House. Over the weekend, the cable channel and other right-wing outlets and voices echoed and amplified this idea.

Then reality finished getting its boots on. The Washington Post’s fact-checkers submerged the story in cold water as did the New York Times. A filing from Sussman’s legal team and statements from others involved in the situation like the researchers who analyzed the data state, for example, that the period in which the White House (to shorthand the “executive office” descriptor) was included in the analysis ended before Trump took office. Durham’s filing doesn’t suggest otherwise. What’s more, the data being evaluated were not a function of anything having been hacked or stolen; instead, it was an analysis of a particular, limited kind of data file that had been shared by both the White House and outside Internet service providers as part of standard practice for detecting illicit online activity. (In fact, this appears to be why the White House was sharing the data; it was a response to a Russian infiltration in 2015.)


What’s more, the question of whether Sussman was working for Clinton’s campaign is at the heart of the indictment against him. Here, again, Durham draws an inferred, not a direct line, one that Sussman contests. Regardless, the indication from Durham’s filing is not that Clinton’s team pushed downward for a probe into possible electronic links between Trump and Russia but, instead, that a technology executive who had retained Sussman independently raised the possibility to his attention and from there it moved up. Remember the timing here: this was just as material stolen from the Democratic Party by Russian hackers was being leaked and questions about Trump’s ties to Russia were being elevated (even before Clinton’s team did so publicly).

So this was the state of play as of Tuesday morning. The original storyline that Hillary Clinton’s team had overseen some sort of electronic spying on Trump including while he was president was badly undercut, leading conscientious observers to understandably want to pepper their assessments with qualifiers and caveats.

And then Fox News’s prime time programming began.

Host Sean Hannity dove into the story with both feet, running forward rapidly not with the new developments but the initial, undercut ones.

“As we first reported last night,” he said, “a bombshell filing from the Durham probe details how the Clinton campaign and their associates actively — according to, of course, John Durham — exploited Internet data mined from Trump Tower and even the Trump White House to smear Donald Trump.” This, he argued, was being suppressed by a “media mob” terrified of the implications — the go-to explanation from Fox hosts to transform cautious assessments of the allegations by other outlets into proof that they were trying to bury the truth.

He quoted several lines from Durham’s filing, offering none of the qualifications that had emerged since Friday. He also quoted from Sussman’s response — though only the part in which it describes the Durham filing as being “irrelevant to the charged offense and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool.”

To discuss the case, Hannity interviewed two guests: former California representative Devin Nunes (for whom Kash Patel had once worked) and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett. Jarrett, I will note, is not a dispassionate observer of the overlap of politics and the law; he’s written books titled, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump” and “Witch Hunt: The Plot to Destroy Trump and Undo His Election.”

It was also Jarrett who offered the more reality-detached assessment of Durham’s filing. He alleged that a number of laws had been broken, from defrauding the U.S. (perhaps Durham’s ultimate target) to racketeering to computer crimes.

Here is how he described what happened: “In this particular case, a tech company being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign is using cyber sleuths to penetrate in an unauthorized way the servers to collect data without permission, without knowledge of Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, the Trump transition and allegedly the Trump White House. I mean, it’s absolutely breathtaking and stunning.”

So the research was being conducted in part by a researcher at a university, not by a tech company, and the company at issue, Neustar, was not known to have been paid by Clinton’s campaign. It’s not clear that it was being paid at all for the research, in fact. The “cyber sleuths” — a phrase so cringe-inducing that it’s worth pointing out as cringe-inducing — are not understood to have “penetrated” any servers to collect data; instead, they analyzed log files that had been shared with them. Shared with them meaning “not collected without permission.” It did occur without Trump’s knowledge, certainly, but, again, lawyers for the research team that had possession of the White House data write that “to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate … data from before Trump took office.” Again, Durham’s filing does not conflict with this.

In other words, Jarrett’s claims were not only not supported by the Durham filing, he actively had to ignore a multitude of information undercutting the Fox News narrative about the filing to gin up his purported list of crimes.

Hannity’s response? “Unbelievable,” which is true, but not in the way he meant it.

Nunes’s contributions were similarly misinformed. “Clearly anyone able to get into the White House, no matter who the president is, is something that is unprecedented. Those should be the most guarded communications in this country,” he said, suggesting that the data had been obtained illicitly, which no one, including Durham, has alleged. He later wondered how contractors could have communications of Americans all over the country, including the sitting president. Beyond the apparent inaccuracy of the “in the White House” part, this is not any collection of “communications.” It is, instead, log files of domain-name lookups that contractors and researchers use to track bad behavior online. (I wrote more about this on Monday.)

Again, this is what Fox News is airing well after any responsible news outlet and responsible journalists should know better.

Part of what’s undergirding this is that the allegations are both complicated and rooted in obscure technology practices, a realm that’s both little understood and easy to misrepresent. The average American hears “exploited data” and thinks “hacked,” which isn’t the case. (Hannity himself admitted that he didn’t know much about technology, an admission meant to endear him to his audience, not to qualify his insistences.) Part of it, too, is Fox News’s ongoing interest in talking about Hillary Clinton to rile up its viewers.

But this situation illustrates the acute challenge of ensuring a well-informed public. The network, the most-watched news channel on cable television and a driver of right-wing commentary elsewhere, has no robust mechanism in place for self-correction. It’s hard to correct television in the first place, but Fox News’s hosts have no demonstrated track record of revising their false assertions. Hannity’s segment on Tuesday night was riddled with shorthand references to his misrepresentations of the Russia investigation itself, a good hint of how this Durham stuff will eventually be concreted. (This despite at least one prominent voice in the Russia-probe skepticism universe urging caution on the Durham storyline.)

What’s useful to remember, though, isn’t just that viewers are being misinformed about what’s happening. It’s that they’re being convinced that they’re more informed. That’s why Hannity began by insisting that other networks were afraid of covering the story. He wants to reinforce the sense among viewers that they are being given exclusive access to reality, that they stand as a collective counterweight to the deceptive elites who are undercutting the country. A storyline is created and propped up with all sorts of (often unfounded) claims, with no one around to offer a skeptical assessment. Those who buy in see themselves as having more insight into what’s happening, not less.

It’s been less than a week but it will now forever be the case that some portion of the public — some large portion — will eternally believe that the Clinton campaign paid hackers to infiltrate Trump Tower and the Trump White House. This belief will be reinforced when people like myself say this is not rooted in any available evidence, because of who I am and where I work but also because of the various things that narrative reinforces. Clinton bad; Trump victim; hacking insidious.

Fox News hosts and experts will not try hard to present some other story.
Bottom line here, my friend, is to allow the Special Prosecutor to complete his investigation before coming to conclusions. What you are accusing Fox and Hannity of doing, was done over and over by many news outlets before the Mueller investigation was completed. In fact, there were politicians who even made public statements the they had evidence of Trump/Russian collusion. So...it's politics here. Let's wait and see where Durham's investigation leads us.
 
Last edited:

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,318
2,332
1
In the filing, which was obtained by the Washington Examiner, Durham said he has evidence that “Technology Executive-1,” known to be former Neustar Senior Vice President Rodney Joffe, worked with indicted Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to exploit internet traffic data and access “dedicated servers for the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).”
The moment tech guy went outside his chain of command to Sussman he was in trouble. Maybe Edward Snowden has an extra bedroom in Moscow. Trump or Obama administration is irrelevant for tech guy, he is in deep crap.

With that said, the relevant period includes the transition period I believe which would be ”spying” on the president elect. Tech guy was trying to build a narrative that Trump or his people were communicating with Russia for nefarious reasons such as Hillary emails or Alfa Bank. He then gave that info to Sussman. I believe that to be Durham’s allegations, or at least the direction of his investigation. Sussman then to both the FBI and CIA. FISA warrants were obtained possibly based on this info.

Tech guy was using non public access to build his narrative. It is difficult to understate the seriousness of these allegations.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,721
7,848
1
The moment tech guy went outside his chain of command to Sussman he was in trouble. Maybe Edward Snowden has an extra bedroom in Moscow. Trump or Obama administration is irrelevant for tech guy, he is in deep crap.

With that said, the relevant period includes the transition period I believe which would be ”spying” on the president elect. Tech guy was trying to build a narrative that Trump or his people were communicating with Russia for nefarious reasons such as Hillary emails or Alfa Bank. He then gave that info to Sussman. I believe that to be Durham’s allegations, or at least the direction of his investigation. Sussman then to both the FBI and CIA. FISA warrants were obtained possibly based on this info.

Tech guy was using non public access to build his narrative. It is difficult to understate the seriousness of these allegations.
To your garden variety liberal this isn't serious at all....to them the ends justify the means.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,518
28,797
1
I've never watched Fox News. At least not longer than a few minutes in passing,

I used to watch CNN before it started lying.

The FACT is that Hillary was spying on the Trump Campaign. That's on top of knowing the entire Russia event was due to several layers of illegal processes.

You seem proud of that. Which paints you as quite stupid.

LdN
Well he is stupid and dishonest.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
24,518
28,797
1
The moment tech guy went outside his chain of command to Sussman he was in trouble. Maybe Edward Snowden has an extra bedroom in Moscow. Trump or Obama administration is irrelevant for tech guy, he is in deep crap.

With that said, the relevant period includes the transition period I believe which would be ”spying” on the president elect. Tech guy was trying to build a narrative that Trump or his people were communicating with Russia for nefarious reasons such as Hillary emails or Alfa Bank. He then gave that info to Sussman. I believe that to be Durham’s allegations, or at least the direction of his investigation. Sussman then to both the FBI and CIA. FISA warrants were obtained possibly based on this info.

Tech guy was using non public access to build his narrative. It is difficult to understate the seriousness of these allegations.
It's really F ing bad and extremely serious .
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
27,347
44,278
1
Durham posted his latest filing which you can see and read for yourself. Try it, you may learn not to believe what you hear/see on Fox or the other con media sites.
That's a single filing. Defending this hill you're on is as ignorant as your gas prices post. $3.30/gal today in NC. Up 20 cents in the last week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,756
7,442
1
Just read what Durham actually has said. Compare that to what Fox and the con media is shouting. The facts are out there if you want to verify them for yourself. Or, you can swallow the swill being put out there by fools like Hannity and Carlson - both of whom have a real problem with the truth and facts.
well if we're talking about folks who seem to have a real problem with truth and facts, don't forget all those who constantly spewed false information (according to Mueller) about Trump's collusion with Russia.
In our country today it's pretty hard to believe what any of the media or our elected representatives say on any topic any day. That's on both sides by the way.
The only thing that might equate with the difficulty in finding truth or facts are folks, like some on message boards, who so definitively repeat these "facts" and act like they really know what is fact vs false. Again, that's on both sides.
Seems as if some of those who are totally convinced that the current Hillary spy story are false are the same ones who were so positive about the trump collusion story being true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
27,347
44,278
1
Never claimed he did. You are making the claim that conservatives are making this out to more than it is. We are calling it spying, Trump has called it spying, the left, which includes you, wish it to all go away. Spying on the WH, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, is illegal and treasonous. Period.
You know what's funny? He throws Fox at me, yet never takes it back. I never mentioned them. I've also never said a word regarding spying. If what Durham has is a bombshell, if it's the tip of the iceberg, or if this is it. I do know this, Sol Wisenberg thought this filing was important. He also went on to say, he didn't know if there was more, and that Durham's special council was very good at preventing leaks. 20 just knows. Fact is, like everyone, we don't know sh&t.
 
Last edited:

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
27,347
44,278
1
Bottom line here, my friend, is to allow the Special Prosecutor to complete his investigation before coming to conclusions. What you are accusing Fox and Hannity of doing, was done over and over by many news outlets before the Mueller investigation was completed. In fact, there were politicians who even made public statements the thet had evidence of Trump/Russian collusion. So...it's politics here. Let's wait and see where Durham's investigation leads us.
You would think, anyone with any attachment to Penn State, would have learned to wait and see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues