Another look at Durham/Fox

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
26,396
42,773
1
Who let @TenThousan Marbles out of the Cambria County woods?

Did he see his own shadow?,
These are the same morons that don't get, nor understand, Virginia. They don't get that, San Francisco just recalled and fired 3 school board members because of their idiotic political agendas. The same morons that removed Washington and Lincoln. They are the lowest of the low.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,830
25,458
1
These are the same morons that don't get, nor understand, Virginia. They don't get that, San Francisco just recalled and fired 3 school board members because of their idiotic political agendas. The same morons that removed Washington and Lincoln. They are the lowest of the low.
So many on the left have no standards so they do whatever it takes to gain and hold onto power.
 

onetime1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 10, 2005
452
316
1
My IQ is well above 145. That doesn't really mean much when discussing issues with idiots like you.
Try this; see Dick run. See Jane follow Dick. See Fox make shit up. See local cons repeat without thinking.
Do you need a hug? Or maybe a safe place to cry because Hillary got caught?
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

GogglesPaizano

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
3,334
5,127
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.

Wow bold red text. I am impressed! I think you need to increase the font size next. Compelling.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,738
23,263
1
Bragging about being stupid and lazy doesn't help make you look like a rational thinking person. Again the brain trust of our local cons are too lazy to read. The con media drivel.
When any one of the cons can produce facts I will listen, they can only follow like stupid sheep going to slaughter. I really don't care what they are saying because they have no facts just anger and repeat nonsense .

Hey 2Lying, just take a deep breath and clam down. Your past track record of being gullible, being right, and exercising good judgement has been quite dismal. Stop setting yourself up to be a fool once again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,088
6,402
1
Bragging about being stupid and lazy doesn't help make you look like a rational thinking person. Again the brain trust of our local cons are too lazy to read. The con media drivel.
When any one of the cons can produce facts I will listen, they can only follow like stupid sheep going to slaughter. I really don't care what they are saying because they have no facts just anger and repeat nonsense .
I'll try with a fact that some on here disputed for years. Robert Mueller testified, under oath, before a congressional committee that his investigation found no evidence of collusion between trump and russia.
Second fact...democratic representatives and senators stated that there was, or they had evidence of collusion. They were wrong or lied outright.
Third fact...trump said that he was being spied upon.
Fourth fact, some people believe trump was right, some disagree.
Fifth fact....some people still push concept of trump brushes collusion.
Final (from me) fact....nobody on this board has any firm idea if Hillary's campaign spied on trump or not. So taming a definitive position one way on another is premature and nonsensical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted and Hotshoe

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
26,396
42,773
1
I'll try with a fact that some on here disputed for years. Robert Mueller testified, under oath, before a congressional committee that his investigation found no evidence of collusion between trump and russia.
Second fact...democratic representatives and senators stated that there was, or they had evidence of collusion. They were wrong or lied outright.
Third fact...trump said that he was being spied upon.
Fourth fact, some people believe trump was right, some disagree.
Fifth fact....some people still push concept of trump brushes collusion.
Final (from me) fact....nobody on this board has any firm idea if Hillary's campaign spied on trump or not. So taming a definitive position one way on another is premature and nonsensical.
Except, her campaign definitely made payments to Perkins Coie through Fusion GPS to continue investigating the Trump campaign. That is a fact.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,830
25,458
1
Except, her campaign definitely made payments to Perkins Coie through Fusion GPS to continue investigating the Trump campaign. That is a fact.
I agree with both of you because you're right lol. But if I had to guess someone who did what she did with those emails would spy on his campaign.
 

RoyalT12

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2020
5,823
4,452
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.
They would literally hang Hilary and blow Trump for the same behavior. These idiots are looking for anything to divert from Trumps legal exposure/ their what aboutism will be on overdrive as Trump the mobster is further and further exposed- dumb and no moral compass- they are the reason our country is fuvked.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
26,396
42,773
1
They would literally hang Hilary and blow Trump for the same behavior. These idiots are looking for anything to divert from Trumps legal exposure/ their what aboutism will be on overdrive as Trump the mobster is further and further exposed- dumb and no moral compass- they are the reason our country is fuvked.
You idiot. Hillary paid for the Russian dossier which was a complete lie.
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,207
2,115
1
You idiot. Hillary paid for the Russian dossier which was a complete lie.
In other words, Hillary fired the first shot in an illegal attempt to make people forget about her email scandal. If Trump did what you may claim, then let the chips fall where they may.

Please note however, Hillary did what she did within the public sphere in order to get power in the government, and in turn make money from that power. That sentence is too complicated, so just call it corruption. Trump has never had any of his public acts proven to be illegal or corrupt. The current investigations are about his private businesses when he was not president.
 

We_Are

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,397
2,829
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.
You're posting an article by Philip Bump arguing that Fox news stretches the truth and panders to their base...

I'll take the pot...you can have the Black Kettle Sunshine...lulz.
 
Last edited:

onetime1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 10, 2005
452
316
1
You idiot. Hillary paid for the Russian dossier which was a complete lie.
He has to be on here to spin shit and be a dum ass. No one can be that clueless! Or if I’m wrong I feel sorry for him
 

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
106,239
18,606
1




FL1wqXdXMAMLcte
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2lion70

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,825
5,811
1
In other words, Hillary fired the first shot in an illegal attempt to make people forget about her email scandal. If Trump did what you may claim, then let the chips fall where they may.

Please note however, Hillary did what she did within the public sphere in order to get power in the government, and in turn make money from that power. That sentence is too complicated, so just call it corruption. Trump has never had any of his public acts proven to be illegal or corrupt. The current investigations are about his private businesses when he was not president.
Don't forget the investigation of his innauguration cmte
How about 1/6 and all that insurrection stuff - civil cases against him personally approved today
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,825
5,811
1
You're posting an article by Philip Bump arguing that Fox news stretches the truth and panders to their base...

I'll take the pot...you can have the Black Kettle Sunshine...lulz.
My source had facts not conspiracy crap.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,825
5,811
1
I agree with both of you because you're right lol. But if I had to guess someone who did what she did with those emails would spy on his campaign.
And now they find some of those docs that went to Mar A Lago were Classified and Top Secret -
 

jrs1024

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 10, 2005
10,042
15,612
1
West Palm Beach
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.
When you post something in rainbow format, I immediate dismiss it as propaganda.
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,726
730
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
When you post something in rainbow format, I immediate dismiss it as propaganda.

John Durham says 'members of the media' may have 'misinterpreted' claims he made in a recent court filing​

Sonam Sheth
Feb 18, 2022, 3:32 PM

John Durham Donald Trump

John Durham and Donald Trump. Associated Press; Getty Images
  • John Durham said he's not to blame if members of the media "misinterpreted" details he included in a court filing last week.
  • The statement comes as Trump and right-wing outlets falsely claim that the Clinton campaign illegally spied on him.
  • The allegations rely on last week's Durham filing, which does not accuse anyone of breaking the law by spying or hacking.

The special counsel John Durham said in a new court filing that "members of the media" may have "misinterpreted" claims that he made in a previous filing.
The acknowledgment in Thursday's filing came as former President Donald Trump and the right-wing media falsely claim that an earlier filing from Durham definitively proves that the Hillary Clinton campaign "illegally spied" on Trump in 2016 and 2017.
That filing related to a conflict-of-interest matter in Durham's ongoing case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who was charged last year with lying to the FBI. It did not allege that anyone associated with the Clinton campaign illegally spied on Trump or his White House.
But Trump and right-wing media outlets including Fox News, the New York Post, and Breitbart claimed that the details in the filing proved Trump was the victim of a Democratic-led conspiracy to illegally surveil him and fabricate a link to Russia.

Sussmann's lawyers cited some of those articles and accused Durham of purposely including misleading details in his filing, alleging that their inclusion was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool."
But Durham rejected that accusation, saying on Thursday that he's not at fault if anyone misunderstood the details in the filing.
"[D]efense counsel has presumed the Government's bad faith and asserts that the Special Counsel's Office intentionally sought to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool," Thursday's filing said. "That is simply not true."
"If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government's Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government's inclusion of this information," it continued.

Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI during a conversation with then FBI general counsel James Baker in 2016. Durham's indictment said that Sussmann "lied about the capacity in which he was providing" allegations to the FBI about what he claimed was a "secret communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank. The bureau has not uncovered sufficient evidence of such a connection.
The indictment said Sussmann lied to the FBI when he told Baker he wasn't working on behalf of any client. In fact, the indictment said, Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign, an unnamed tech executive, and an internet company.
Multiple media outlets have reported that the executive is Rodney Joffe, who works at the cybersecurity firm Neustar. According to court documents, Sussmann worked with Joffe to put together the materials and data that Sussmann ultimately provided to the FBI when conveying his concerns about Trump's ties to Russia.
Sussmann also flagged to the CIA in 2017 that internet data he had obtained suggested someone using a Russian-made smartphone was connecting to White House and Trump Tower networks, court documents and media reports say.


I thought this might be of interest. I'm sure that a lot of Trump lovers will claim that it is not true, etc... but I thought it was worth posting.

Joffe has not been charged with a crime. But Durham's office said he "exploited" his access to DNS traffic that his company had lawful access to from 2014-2017 as part of a government contract to monitor for cyberattacks and malware, and which was later provided to researchers at Georgia Tech. Investigators said Joffe tasked the researchers with going through the data to establish an "inference" and "narrative" tying then candidate Trump to Russia.
While the details in the filing raised questions about the ethics of their conduct, Durham did not accuse Sussmann or Joffe of spying or hacking. And cybersecurity experts also say the details do not support the claim that the Clinton campaign unlawfully surveilled Trump.
DNS services like the one offered by Neustar essentially "monitor your traffic in the event that you might be sent to a malicious site," Karim Hijazi, the CEO of the cybersecurity firm Prevailion and a former intelligence community contractor, told Insider earlier this week. "They'll stop the traffic, limit it, or redirect it to somewhere safe. So by definition, if you're using a service like Neustar's, your activity is being monitored because that's what you're buying."
Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute focusing on technology, privacy, and civil liberties, echoed that view.

"Neither Joffe nor the GA Tech researchers were being paid by the Clinton campaign," he wrote on Twitter. "Nobody 'hacked' or 'intercepted' anything. They were analyzing data they had lawful access to, in order to look for suspicious patterns that might suggest foreign cyberattacks."

Interesting article yesterday. It will probably create more outrage from the Trump lovers that want to believe they have proof of Clinton spying on Trump. This article suggests not.... another unsubstantiated claim from the Donald...
 

royboy

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2001
46,610
31,708
1
Lewisville, NC
Sonam Sheth?
A view from the Left?

Sonam is a political correspondent who covers national security, foreign policy, and elections. She has interviewed former national security adviser John Bolton, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, California Rep. Adam Schiff, the special counsel Robert Mueller's top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, Mueller's star witness Rick Gates, and former CIA director John Brennan.

Sonam's work has been cited in The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, and others. She frequently appears on MSNBC and has also made appearances on NBC News, BBC World News, BBC News radio, WNYC, and more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,750
1
My IQ is well above 145. That doesn't really mean much when discussing issues with idiots like you.
Try this; see Dick run. See Jane follow Dick. See Fox make shit up. See local cons repeat without thinking.

Funny I don't see anything you post that remotely resembles an IQ of 145.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,927
15,375
1
Haven't read this whole thread, so I apologize. However, the lawyer Margot Cleveland deals with the Left's campaign against Durham.

Pt. No. 3 deals with the Left's deflection on the fact that Durham didn't say that Clinton technology people "infiltrated" Trump Tower servers. However, it said they were "exploited" which is a distinction without a purpose. Exact quote from Cleveland: "Durham said the data Sussmann provided to the CIA came from data tech executive Rodney Joffe obtained when he “exploited” his access to sensitive data from the Executive Office of the President (EOP)." https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/18/5-media-lies-about-the-latest-special-counsel-revelations/

Second, the idea that Obama spied on Trump not Clinton is silly. Obviously, Obama and Clinton were working together to defeat Trump. The salient point as explained by Cleveland in Point No. 4 is:

"This counter is nothing but lawyerly wordsmithing, however, and anyone who read the actual court filing—,,. As the motion explained, in providing the DNS data to the CIA, Sussmann told the government agents “these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” [Showing that Clinton and/or Obama were spying on Trump. Doesn't matter whether he was a candidate or President, the spying was unjustified]

Also, important to note that the suspicions/allegations about special Russian phones and DNS data were not true. https://www.wmbfnews.com/2022/02/17...mputers-look-dirt-trump-says-special-counsel/
 
Last edited:

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,726
730
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
Sonam Sheth?
A view from the Left?

Sonam is a political correspondent who covers national security, foreign policy, and elections. She has interviewed former national security adviser John Bolton, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, California Rep. Adam Schiff, the special counsel Robert Mueller's top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, Mueller's star witness Rick Gates, and former CIA director John Brennan.

Sonam's work has been cited in The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, and others. She frequently appears on MSNBC and has also made appearances on NBC News, BBC World News, BBC News radio, WNYC, and more.
It certainly is funny how everyone on this board selectively chooses to believe the sources that support their own positions. If a journalist comes out with a position that is anti-Trump... there are several posters that immediately label the journalist as a leftist and the article is written off as not credible. Same thing seems to happen from the other perspective as well. How are we ever to know what the actual truth is if the only thing that anyone wants to believe has to be consistent with what they already believe? This country used to improve itself because people seemed to be more objective in their beliefs and were more willing to compromise. Today the hatred is so thick on both sides that it makes compromise almost impossible. Personally, I really don't care whether Clinton spied on Trump or she didn't. Both of them are total hypocrites. As far as I'm concerned neither Clinton or Trump deserve to be President so I will probably piss both sides off. I do believe that each of them have helped create a more toxic political environment that has resulted in the lack cooperation from both sides. As a registered republican, I am sickened by the fact that all my party wants to do is block any and all legislation that is proposed by the other side. We didn't even endorse an actual platform to guide us during last years election. I lived through the Vietnam era where the country was totally polarized. I think the time period that we are living in today is even worse. I hate to think about where this country may be headed if we can't even communicate in a civil manner with each other.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,214
8,509
1
It certainly is funny how everyone on this board selectively chooses to believe the sources that support their own positions. If a journalist comes out with a position that is anti-Trump... there are several posters that immediately label the journalist as a leftist and the article is written off as not credible. Same thing seems to happen from the other perspective as well. How are we ever to know what the actual truth is if the only thing that anyone wants to believe has to be consistent with what they already believe? This country used to improve itself because people seemed to be more objective in their beliefs and were more willing to compromise. Today the hatred is so thick on both sides that it makes compromise almost impossible. Personally, I really don't care whether Clinton spied on Trump or she didn't. Both of them are total hypocrites. As far as I'm concerned neither Clinton or Trump deserve to be President so I will probably piss both sides off. I do believe that each of them have helped create a more toxic political environment that has resulted in the lack cooperation from both sides. As a registered republican, I am sickened by the fact that all my party wants to do is block any and all legislation that is proposed by the other side. We didn't even endorse an actual platform to guide us during last years election. I lived through the Vietnam era where the country was totally polarized. I think the time period that we are living in today is even worse. I hate to think about where this country may be headed if we can't even communicate in a civil manner with each other.

Shocking that, now that it is clear there was no Trump/Russia collusion, and instead it was all an illegal DNC spying game, that your position as a democrat is simply “Neither should be president”, and that the illegal activity and media lying are water under the bridge.

That’s why we cannot communicate with each other - too much intellectual dishonesty, which causes a lack of respect.
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,726
730
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
Shocking that, now that it is clear there was no Trump/Russia collusion, and instead it was all an illegal DNC spying game, that your position as a democrat is simply “Neither should be president”, and that the illegal activity and media lying are water under the bridge.

That’s why we cannot communicate with each other - too much intellectual dishonesty, which causes a lack of respect.
There you go labeling me as a Democrat again. Why? because I don't agree with you. When you have little to add, you always do what you do best... label... or in this case miss-label. You have such tunnel vision you wouldn't know or recognize the truth if you fell over it. You won't even consider anything that opposes your preconceived beliefs. I don't believe that Trump should ever be considered to be president again... I must be a Democrat. That is exactly the problem I was referring to... tunnel vision.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,214
8,509
1
There you go labeling me as a Democrat again. Why? because I don't agree with you. When you have little to add, you always do what you do best... label... or in this case miss-label. You have such tunnel vision you wouldn't know or recognize the truth if you fell over it. You won't even consider anything that opposes your preconceived beliefs. I don't believe that Trump should ever be considered to be president again... I must be a Democrat. That is exactly the problem I was referring to... tunnel vision.
Well, I’ve been a life long democrat, and I know one of my former fellow democrat when I see one. Now do you believe that?

I simply think you are lying. I readily admit that.

I think, as with about 95% of professors, you are a democrat.

The whole “as a Republican who has seen the light” schtick fools no one”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,830
25,458
1
Shocking that, now that it is clear there was no Trump/Russia collusion, and instead it was all an illegal DNC spying game, that your position as a democrat is simply “Neither should be president”, and that the illegal activity and media lying are water under the bridge.

That’s why we cannot communicate with each other - too much intellectual dishonesty, which causes a lack of respect.
Very true, they have no set standards , they have emotions . Feeling ain't thinking.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,830
25,458
1
Well, I’ve been a life long democrat, and I know one of my former fellow democrat when I see one. Now do you believe that?

I simply think you are lying. I readily admit that.

I think, as with about 95% of professors, you are a democrat.

The whole “as a Republican who has seen the light” schtick fools no one”.
The self certified " I was always a Republican " is almost certainly lying.
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,726
730
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
Well, I’ve been a life long democrat, and I know one of my former fellow democrat when I see one. Now do you believe that?

I simply think you are lying. I readily admit that.

I think, as with about 95% of professors, you are a democrat.

The whole “as a Republican who has seen the light” schtick fools no one”.
Tell you what. Let's arrange a wager. I'll bet you any amount of $'s you want to bet that I have been a registered republican since 1971. Not hard to prove, we can set up the manner of payment and I will be happy to provide proof... everything can be monitored by a neutral party... but I want to see how much you want to wager. Either put up or shut up. You act like you know so much. I would love to take your money.
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,726
730
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
The self certified " I was always a Republican " is almost certainly lying.
You want a piece of the wager also, you are more than welcome to join the proposed wager. Like I said to Engr.... put up or shut up. I have no reason to lie about being a republican, not something i am all that proud of recently.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,214
8,509
1
Well, I’ve been a life long democrat, and I know one of my former fellow democrat when I see one. Now do you believe that?

I simply think you are lying. I readily admit that.

I think, as with about 95% of professors, you are a democrat.

The whole “as a Republican who has seen the light” schtick fools no one”.

But let’s move past that.

What should be the principles?

What if Trump is on pace with one month to go to win in 2024? Should lying be permitted to stop that?

What if the majority of citizens want someone who will shrink the federal government by 70% and Trump actually takes action to do that?

Should the federal bureaucracy be able to stop him because they know better than the citizens?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

franklinman

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2011
25,995
5,870
1
79
Pa and Fl

John Durham says 'members of the media' may have 'misinterpreted' claims he made in a recent court filing​

Sonam Sheth
Feb 18, 2022, 3:32 PM

John Durham Donald Trump

John Durham and Donald Trump. Associated Press; Getty Images
  • John Durham said he's not to blame if members of the media "misinterpreted" details he included in a court filing last week.
  • The statement comes as Trump and right-wing outlets falsely claim that the Clinton campaign illegally spied on him.
  • The allegations rely on last week's Durham filing, which does not accuse anyone of breaking the law by spying or hacking.

The special counsel John Durham said in a new court filing that "members of the media" may have "misinterpreted" claims that he made in a previous filing.
The acknowledgment in Thursday's filing came as former President Donald Trump and the right-wing media falsely claim that an earlier filing from Durham definitively proves that the Hillary Clinton campaign "illegally spied" on Trump in 2016 and 2017.
That filing related to a conflict-of-interest matter in Durham's ongoing case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who was charged last year with lying to the FBI. It did not allege that anyone associated with the Clinton campaign illegally spied on Trump or his White House.
But Trump and right-wing media outlets including Fox News, the New York Post, and Breitbart claimed that the details in the filing proved Trump was the victim of a Democratic-led conspiracy to illegally surveil him and fabricate a link to Russia.

Sussmann's lawyers cited some of those articles and accused Durham of purposely including misleading details in his filing, alleging that their inclusion was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool."
But Durham rejected that accusation, saying on Thursday that he's not at fault if anyone misunderstood the details in the filing.
"[D]efense counsel has presumed the Government's bad faith and asserts that the Special Counsel's Office intentionally sought to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool," Thursday's filing said. "That is simply not true."
"If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government's Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government's inclusion of this information," it continued.

Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI during a conversation with then FBI general counsel James Baker in 2016. Durham's indictment said that Sussmann "lied about the capacity in which he was providing" allegations to the FBI about what he claimed was a "secret communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank. The bureau has not uncovered sufficient evidence of such a connection.
The indictment said Sussmann lied to the FBI when he told Baker he wasn't working on behalf of any client. In fact, the indictment said, Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign, an unnamed tech executive, and an internet company.
Multiple media outlets have reported that the executive is Rodney Joffe, who works at the cybersecurity firm Neustar. According to court documents, Sussmann worked with Joffe to put together the materials and data that Sussmann ultimately provided to the FBI when conveying his concerns about Trump's ties to Russia.
Sussmann also flagged to the CIA in 2017 that internet data he had obtained suggested someone using a Russian-made smartphone was connecting to White House and Trump Tower networks, court documents and media reports say.


I thought this might be of interest. I'm sure that a lot of Trump lovers will claim that it is not true, etc... but I thought it was worth posting.

Joffe has not been charged with a crime. But Durham's office said he "exploited" his access to DNS traffic that his company had lawful access to from 2014-2017 as part of a government contract to monitor for cyberattacks and malware, and which was later provided to researchers at Georgia Tech. Investigators said Joffe tasked the researchers with going through the data to establish an "inference" and "narrative" tying then candidate Trump to Russia.
While the details in the filing raised questions about the ethics of their conduct, Durham did not accuse Sussmann or Joffe of spying or hacking. And cybersecurity experts also say the details do not support the claim that the Clinton campaign unlawfully surveilled Trump.
DNS services like the one offered by Neustar essentially "monitor your traffic in the event that you might be sent to a malicious site," Karim Hijazi, the CEO of the cybersecurity firm Prevailion and a former intelligence community contractor, told Insider earlier this week. "They'll stop the traffic, limit it, or redirect it to somewhere safe. So by definition, if you're using a service like Neustar's, your activity is being monitored because that's what you're buying."
Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute focusing on technology, privacy, and civil liberties, echoed that view.

"Neither Joffe nor the GA Tech researchers were being paid by the Clinton campaign," he wrote on Twitter. "Nobody 'hacked' or 'intercepted' anything. They were analyzing data they had lawful access to, in order to look for suspicious patterns that might suggest foreign cyberattacks."

Interesting article yesterday. It will probably create more outrage from the Trump lovers that want to believe they have proof of Clinton spying on Trump. This article suggests not.... another unsubstantiated claim from the Donald...
Still LMFAO. Its called having common sense. Some members of the media, were lying their asses off.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,830
25,458
1
But let’s move past that.

What should be the principles?

What if Trump is on pace with one month to go to win in 2024? Should lying be permitted to stop that?

What if the majority of citizens want someone who will shrink the federal government by 70% and Trump actually takes action to do that?

Should the federal bureaucracy be able to stop him because they know better than the citizens?
This is him. Funny thing how he ignores well, everything coming from his side .
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,214
8,509
1
Tell you what. Let's arrange a wager. I'll bet you any amount of $'s you want to bet that I have been a registered republican since 1971. Not hard to prove, we can set up the manner of payment and I will be happy to provide proof... everything can be monitored by a neutral party... but I want to see how much you want to wager. Either put up or shut up. You act like you know so much. I would love to take your money.

Let us concede that you could prove it. Now what?

What principle of being a Republican did Trump violate that disgusts you so much?

What made you an R in the first place?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
21,830
25,458
1
Let us concede that you could prove it. Now what?

What principle of being a Republican did Trump violate that disgusts you so much?

What made you an R in the first place?
Other red flags are when a person self certified as "kind", "thoughtful", "a good person", and such. Watch them closely.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,738
23,263
1
There you go labeling me as a Democrat again. Why? because I don't agree with you. When you have little to add, you always do what you do best... label... or in this case miss-label. You have such tunnel vision you wouldn't know or recognize the truth if you fell over it. You won't even consider anything that opposes your preconceived beliefs. I don't believe that Trump should ever be considered to be president again... I must be a Democrat. That is exactly the problem I was referring to... tunnel vision.

That’s because you just don’t get it and likely never will.

You don’t like Trump and wouldn’t vote for him, and that’s fine. But you continue to go after Trump with much more enthusiasm or zeal all the time as of somehow Trump represents the true character of Republican party, but yet you don’t go after anyone on the left with the same enthusiasm or zeal, even though they lie, distort the truth, act in a hypocritical and intellectually dishonest and self serving manner, have and have been every bit if not more divisive than Trump ever was. And most disturbing, and despite your denials, is that you give them a pass. Then you call yourself a Republican and portray yourself in a self righteous manner. Good grief, what the hell do you expect.

This isn’t about Trump and never was. It’s , about the policies and direction of the country as well as the breathtaking corruption in our government and abuse of the tax payers and citizens of this country. No matter how you slice it, you have two choices when determining the direction of this country. You can vote for Republicans or Democrats, as independent candidates are not going to be a factor other than to make you feel good that you didn’t vote for a person you don’t like.

If you actually believe that Biden, Harris, Clinton, or any Democrat is less of a liar, are more honest, or that they somehow possess a moral character that is better than Trump, then there is a bridge I want to sell you. In fact, in my view, they are even worse because the’re much more devious and self righteousness than Trump. At least with Trump, he doesn’t present himself as an angel and then stab you in the back.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts