Pediatricians call it “breath-holding spells.” It was when children hold their breath when upset until they experience syncope, or passing out. The media in Washington appears close to a collective faint over the recent filings of Special Counsel John Durham. While the media has largely buried or downplayed the disclosures by Durham on the origins of the Russian conspiracy claims, Durham keeps adding new details implicating top Democratic figures in what he describes as an ongoing investigation. You can only hold your breath so long and Durham shows no signs that he is done by a long shot.
The latest disclosures by Durham are difficult for many in the media to cover because they directly refute years of prior coverage. Many in the media lampooned Donald Trump for claiming that the FBI and the Clinton campaign spied on Trump Tower and his campaign. Yet, we later learned that the FBI did spy on the campaign. In 2020, the media largely ignored that finding.
That is when the first stage of syncope began: the “prodrome” with signs of media “discomfort, extreme fatigue, weakness, yawning, nausea, dizziness, and vertigo.”
Now, Durham has told a court that he has evidence that Clinton operatives “exploited” access to systems at the Trump Tower, Trump’s apartment building, and “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.” While Durham does not use the term “spying,” he states that the operation allegedly targeted the campaign and the Trump Tower as well as the Executive Office in acquiring Domain Name System (DNS) data that can reveal server contacts and searches.
We are now in the second syncopal phrase: loss of media consciousness.
There is no way to cover this story without many admitting that it facilitated a false narrative created by the Clinton campaign, including attacking those who suggested that the Clinton campaign would ever engage in such disreputable conduct.
The case itself remains a single false statement (much like some of the charges brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller). It is not an easy case to prove. However, the details emerging in the case are filling in gaps on how the Clinton Campaign’s funded and directed the development of the now debunked narrative of a conspiracy between Russian and the Trump campaign. What is also notable in the filing is the extent to which the Clinton campaign used lawyers to carry out this work, including hiding its funding while denying connections to the work of figures like Christopher Steele.
The new information was revealed in a filing raising conflicts of interest in the law firm of Latham Watkins, which is representing indicted former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann. The firm has represented other Clinton related figures. It was a fitting objection in a case where a circle of Democratic lawyers and law firms have featured prominently as well as the liberal think tank, Brookings Institution. The cross pollination of these law firms is one of the least discussed elements in the scandal.
The Durham filings repeatedly return to the work of Perkins Coie, a firm with a long and deep connection to the Democratic Party. The Clinton campaign reportedly used a screen of lawyers to hide that it was behind the Russian conspiracy claims.
The key to many of these operations is someone referred to by Durham as “Campaign Lawyer-1,” who is widely believed to the then Perkins partner and Clinton Campaign General Counsel Marc Elias. Elias was called before the grand jury. It was Elias who made the key funding available to Fusion GPS, which in turn enlisted Steele to produce his now discredited dossier on Trump and his campaign. The firm listed the payouts as “legal fees.”
During the campaign, a few reporters did ask how the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. It was only weeks after the election that journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign allegedly hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Elias also reportedly sat next to campaign chair John Podesta when he also reportedly denied the connection.
Sussmann was indicted for allegedly hiding his representation of the Clinton Campaign as he spread a different Russian collusion allegation involving the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank. (Elias is also referenced in meetings on that operation). Sussmann filed a response this week and asked the Court to strike the entirety of the factual section of the Durham filing as unsubstantiated and sensational. (That could open the door for Durham in response to substantiate these claims even further).
Durham added details showing how Perkins Coie used its attorney-client relationships to further the Russian conspiracy operation for the campaign. He alleges that Elias and Sussmann enlisted an Internet executive, Rodney Joffe, to help build the foundation for the claims. Joffe alerted Sussmann about the Alfa Bank claims by July 2016, and “over the ensuing weeks, and as part of their lawyer-client relationship,” Sussmann and Joffe “engaged in efforts with Campaign Lawyer-1 .”
The use of lawyers to shield such work is nothing new in Washington. During the Nixon Administration, lawyers were used extensively to maintain slush funds and enable “dirty trick” operations.
What is striking about the Durham filings is the audacity of the Perkins Coie operation. While the funding was buried away, the lawyers were seemingly unconcerned about approving such efforts or personally reaching out to sympathetic government and media figures. They were, to some degree, justified in their sense of immunity.
Indeed, to this day, many refuse to cover extensive evidence of how the Clinton campaign manufactured this story that largely occupied the entire term of President Donald Trump. Before the Steele dossier was given to the FBI and the press, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” That operation appears to have been launched through Elias and Perkins Coie.
After the 2020 election, Democratic members and legal experts demanded the disbarring of a host of Republican attorneys for their spreading disinformation of a widespread election fraud. These same figures, however, are entirely silent about the role of Clinton lawyers in secretly funding the debunked Russian collusion claims. There is no interest in whether, as alleged by reporters, figures like Elias lied about the involvement of the Clinton campaign.
Sussmann is now facing a trial on his allegedly false statement. Elias remains unindicted. With little sense of irony, he has established a law firm to deal with ethics and campaign disclosures.
Durham’s continued investigation may be pushing the media to the final stage called “postsyncope,” which involves “protracted confusion, disorientation, nausea, dizziness, and a general sense of poor health.” That has reflected in the flailing effort by some to deflect from the alarming disclosures. New York Times reporter Mike McIntire seemed to express alarm that the Durham story was “trending.” However, McIntire offered “a periodic reminder that Trump’s campaign chairman secretly met and shared info with a Russian intelligence agent.” The “info” was polling data on the campaign that Paul Manafort gave a person with Russian intelligence ties.
That, of course, has no relevance to the question of whether the Clinton Campaign spied on the Trump Tower, campaign, or the White House itself. The “periodic reminder” seemed to be to other media that they needed to continue to hold their breath and not recognize a major story. Such “protracted confusion” is natural, but it will not dissipate any time soon. Durham apparently is calling more people into the grand jury.
[Note: the original column said that Sussman “hired” Joffe. It was changed to “enlisted” because there is no confirmation that he was actually paid for this work. Joffe reportedly said that he was promised a top job in a Clinton Administration and he was previously a client at Perkins Coie.]
‘The latest disclosures by Durham are difficult for many in the media to cover because they directly refute years of prior coverage.’
Gee, ya think? And yet many liberals, including the Professor, were still on the side of: Biden’s inaugural speech was the most moving thing I’d ever since in my life, since the end of Apartheid or JFK’ (and you can look that up on this blog). Give us a break. There were so many warning messages over the past 15+ (plus, plus) years that voting liberals literally just ignored it would be impossible to count them. Welcome to a future that could have been avoided, and quite easily. And STILL no admissions of: ‘We were wrong, the dems are pretty much Mussolini or Hitler now.’ . That is some DAMN fine brainwashing the left has pulled off over decades. Dang. The Spanish Inquisition, from their graves, are *jealous* at this point.
Just how many times do you watch reruns of “NCIS” anyway?
“Evidence” has become such a big word among the “Anonymous” persons on this site, e.g., “show me your evidence,” “you have no evidence,” or, amusingly, “there is no evidence.” I would suggest that NONE of us knows what evidence is out there. We STILL have conflicting information on Kennedy’s assassination, for God’s sake! I am going to start referring to “Anonymous” as “Anomaly” if/when I respond.
“I would suggest that NONE of us knows what evidence is out there.”
I’m flabbergasted that you’d suggest that.
Do you truly believe that absolutely no evidence has been presented in Durham’s filings? Just what do you think is the basis for the Sussman indictment if it’s not evidence?!?
Anomaly: Neither you nor I know what evidence is out there that is not revealed in the Sussman indictment. Neither exculpatory nor impeachment evidence, among other, need be disclosed at this stage. See 18 USC 3500 et al.
“Neither you nor I know what evidence is out there that is not revealed in the Sussman indictment.”
That’s very clearly false.
We can read additional evidence in Sussman’s responses, and we can also read additional evidence in factual analyses of both Durham’s and Sussman’s filings. It is truly bizarre to suggest that the only relevant evidence is in the Sussman indictment.
We do not know ALL of the evidence, but we do know SOME of the evidence, and in a legal blog, we should be concerned with the already-known evidence on both sides. If you’re not here to discuss the already-known evidence, why are you here?
Instead of admitting error, instead, you respond, “we should be concerned with the already-known evidence on both sides. If you’re not here to discuss the already-known evidence, why are you here?” I won’t waste any more time on this….Don’t you want to talk about what evidence you don’t know about yet?
I won’t waste any more time on this….
Attaboy!
“Instead of admitting error”
If I said something false, I’d like to correct it: just quote it and provide evidence that it’s false, and I’ll have no problem saying “I was wrong.” So far, you haven’t done that.
“I won’t waste any more time on this”
Indeed, you’ve wasted a lot of time not discussing any of the evidence that’s already publicly known.
BTW, lin, do you want me to adopt a childish nickname for you too?
Please do, if you wish. It will call more attention to your comments and other posts—-and my responses.
Is that why *you* are using a childish nickname: to call more attention to your own comments?
P.s.as an expert, you should know that “what evidence” refers to the whole/corpus- the entire body of evidence that exists-whether currently known to parties/counsel (and known OR not known to us), or discovered in the future. Your attempted extraction of SOME of that evidence “outside of the Sussman indictment” does NOT make my statement false. You are truly anomaly.
lin,
I’m not an expert, and this isn’t the first time that you’ve pretended that I’ve presented myself as one. An odd choice on your end, especially after I corrected you the last time you did it.
And no, I don’t “know that ‘what evidence’ refers to the whole/corpus- the entire body of evidence that exists-whether currently known to parties/counsel (and known OR not known to us), or discovered in the future.”
As best I can tell, the phrase “what evidence” is simply a phrase you introduced in a claim you made (“Neither you nor I know what evidence is out there”), not a phrase with some agreed-on meaning.
In fact, my impression is that although you *believe* that the phrase what evidence “refers to the whole/corpus- the entire body of evidence that exists-whether currently known to parties/counsel (and known OR not known to us), or discovered in the future,” your belief is not *knowledge*, and therefore I couldn’t possibly “know” this.
Personally, I use the term “evidence” consistent with dictionary definitions, such as these from the Oxford English Dictionary:
… II. Law.
3. A document by means of which a fact is established in a legal investigation, or which is presented in support of a legal right or claim, esp. a title deed. [Now historical and rare.]
4. a. Information (in the form of personal or documented testimony or the production of material objects), tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation. Also in to bear evidence, to give in evidence, to give evidence. Also in figurative contexts.
b. As a count noun: a piece of information used to establish facts in a legal investigation.
c. With the. The testimony which has been received by a law court and entered on its records in any particular case.
d. As predicate. Statements or proofs admissible as testimony in a court of law.
Notice that these definitions don’t imply that the sole legitimate use of “evidence” is the extremely sweeping one you’ve just presented. According to these definitions, your claim “Neither you nor I know what evidence is out there that is not revealed in the Sussman indictment” was clearly false, since there’s plenty of OTHER information out there that has already been “used to establish facts in a legal investigation,” including evidence in Sussman’s responses.
But since you’re now clarifying that YOU meant “the whole/corpus- the entire body of evidence that exists-whether currently known to parties/counsel (and known OR not known to us), or discovered in the future,” my response is:
OK, that’s what you mean, but I’m going to use “evidence” in its standard sense, which includes all off the individual pieces of information that have already been introduced both in the filings and in analyses of those filings. So you and I will simply have to keep track of the fact that you and I are using the word “evidence” to refer to different things.
Anomaly: You just said, “Do you truly believe that absolutely no evidence has been presented in Durham’s filings? Just what do you think is the basis for the Sussman indictment if it’s not evidence?!?”
As you just said to me, “The more I think about your bizarre comment, the more it amazes me.”
Hmm… should I follow your lead and use a childish name for you?
If I do that, what name should I choose?
There are so many “lin-” words to choose from. Better not to follow your lead though.
How did I know that when I came back home, you would again attempt to get the last word in….However, your attempt to define “evidence” has nothing to do with the argument you made. THIS is the simple statement by which I stand and said: You do NOT know what evidence is out there. Neither do I. Nor will I stoop to your nonsense. Give it up, thanks anyway
And this is among the simple statements by which *I* stand: anyone who is paying attention knows **some** of the evidence that is out there.
That’s because there is considerable evidence that is already publicly known: in Durham’s multiple filings, in Sussman’s multiple responses, in documents they quote from (e.g., Sussman’s interview under oath by the HPSCI in 2017), in analyses of the case that introduce other relevant evidence.
I’ve been trying to discuss that evidence. You seem more interested in making this about me than focusing on the publicly known evidence.
You falsely claimed “NONE of us knows what evidence is out there.” You later corrected yourself and correctly said “THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT YOU AND I DO NOT KNOW OF THAT IS NOT REVEALED IN THE SUSSMAN INDICTMENT.” Duh.
But we are not limited to the evidence in the Sussman indictment.
Can you agree that we are not limited to the evidence in the Sussman indictment?
Do you want to discuss any of the considerable evidence that is already publicly known? (So far, your answer has been “no,” since you’ve avoided discussing the evidence. But, perhaps you’ll change your mind.)
The more I think about your bizarre comment, the more it amazes me.
This is a legal blog. Everyone here should be concerned with what there is and isn’t evidence of.
I seem to recall your having said that you’re a lawyer. Can you agree that the strength of Durham’s and Sussman’s cases for and against the alleged crime hinges on the evidence they present?? Why do you consider it difficult to focus on evidence in a legal blog?
Anomaly: You’re right-This is a legal blog. This is the statement that I made:”Neither you nor I know what evidence is out there that is not revealed in the Sussman indictment.” .Statement of fact: THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT YOU AND I DO NOT KNOW OF THAT IS NOT REVEALED IN THE SUSSMAN INDICTMENT.
The fact that you or I may know of SOME additional “evidence” not in the indictment does NOT make this statement false. I seem to recall you presenting yourself as an expert in logic. Anomaly you are.
“THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT YOU AND I DO NOT KNOW OF THAT IS NOT REVEALED IN THE SUSSMAN INDICTMENT.”
Duh.
But in the meantime we can discuss evidence that we do know of: from the indictment, from other Durham filings, from Sussman’s responses, and from analyses presented by others.
“The fact that you or I may know of SOME additional “evidence” not in the indictment does NOT make this statement false.”
I didn’t say that your sentence in caps is false. I agree that it isn’t. It’s very obviously true.
But your sentence in caps is not equivalent to what you wrote earlier — “Neither you nor I know what evidence is out there that is not revealed in the Sussman indictment” — and THAT is the claim I said was false. Apparently your original claim didn’t properly capture what you were trying to communicate. Thanks for clarifying that you only meant “There is evidence that you and I do not know of that is not revealed in the Sussman indictment.” We agree on the latter.
Should I start refering to you as “lin who uses childish names”? Grow up.
Lin, here’s the actual filing. Decide for yourself if Turley is being honest.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.35.0_3.pdf
This is Sussman’s response,
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.36.0_3.pdf
Keep posting things you have neither read nor understand.
It might be surprising to you but no one is listening. Reread this response again and you may understand why.
Lin, I was also frustrated by all the Anonomyi on this site until I figured out it is a problem with the software being used here as a commenting engine. It is very difficult to leave a comment easily unless a person is a wordpress customer
Dennis: thanks, yes, yes. I am referring to certain repetitive ones who intentionally resort to “Anonymous” postings for specific reasons.
Mr Turley not only has press been triggered by Durham. It seems you have triggered a few posters here. Seems they think BO still in the WH well into 17 when folks were doing the work on Trump servers. No wonder Trump did such a good job with both hands tied behind his back He had BO in the next office over. Who knew. Now the guy running the WH for landslide Joe
JT I am amazed that your article describes that the Executive Office of the President was spied on and yet you make no mention of the implications of a rival campaign spying on the Office of the President! Isn’t that in and of itself worth discussing?
Durham hasn’t alleged that the Executive Office of the President was spied on.
Also, if you and Turley mistakenly interpret the DNS traffic involving the Executive Office of the President as spying, then your conclusion would be that Obama’s WH was spied on, since the dates of this traffic precede Trump taking office.
Anon,
It makes no sense whatsoever that Sussmann would provide data from the Obama white house to support allegations that Trump was communicating with Russia.
Durhams latest filing states that Sussmann approached a second federal agency in February 2017 and provided DNS data from the EOP.
“The Indictment further details that on February 9, 2017, the defendant provided an updated set of allegations – including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating to Trump – to a second agency of the U.S. government (“Agency-2”). The Government’s evidence at trial will establish that these additional allegations relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic that Tech Executive-1 and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider.”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.35.0_1.pdf
Ray,
“Durhams latest filing states that Sussmann approached a second federal agency in February 2017 and provided DNS data from the EOP. ”
Yes, that apparently was a meeting with someone at the CIA. But Sussman has already testified under oath that his Feb. 9, 2017 meeting was about data from 2016, and he’d been trying to schedule that meeting since Dec. of 2016:
Sussman: I remember what | was going to say. It was — it was, in large part, in response to President Obama’s post-election IC review of potential Russian involvement in the election. And in that regard, I had made outreach prior to the change in administration, in 2016. And for reasons known and unknown to me, it took a long time to — or it took — you know, it took a while to have a meeting, and so it ended up being after the change in administration. But —
Kash Patel: When did you first reach out to [redacted agency] in this regard?
Sussman: Probably early December, or sometime in December.
Patel: 2016?
Sussman: 2016.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ms53.pdf, p. 30
The indictment also says that Sussman provided the CIA with “multiple data files containing purported DNS data, ranging from 2016 through early 2017.” So Durham has confirmed that this includes data from Obama’s term. We don’t know whether “early 2017” and prior to 2/9/2017 includes anything after Trump was inaugurated, but Joffe’s contract was under the Obama Admin, so unless there’s explicit evidence that it continued under Trump, there’s no reason to think that it continued under Trump.
As for “It makes no sense whatsoever that Sussmann would provide data from the Obama white house to support allegations that Trump was communicating with Russia,” I don’t assume that that is solely or primarily what Sussman was providing data about.
In sum: It was as suspected, a Fascist coup.
Does anyone truly believe that the people who did this spying, and the media who lied about it, wouldn’t also steal a presidential election?
Verify before trusting government pronouncements and never trust the corporate media.
Durham doesn’t allege any spying.
And to the extent that Durham comments on DNS traffic involving the Executive Office of the President, it was while Obama was still in office.
But don’t let facts get in the way of your preferred fiction.
Young says, “ Verify before trusting government pronouncements and never trust the corporate media.”
Fox News is corporate media. Did you verify the accuracy of Fox News claims against the actual filing or just took their claims at face value because they are …Fox News, aka corporate media.
Svelaz,
I cut the cable years ago. I don’t watch any cable or broadcast news. My initial reason was because bundling sent some of my money to CNN and MSNBC. Then I realized most of the entertainment shows on television were tainted with varying degrees of wokeness that ranged from being tiresome to being disgusting. Then SNIP. I don’t miss it. I do read a lot. Always have a book with me and pull it out if I am standing in a line somewhere and sometimes when in a fast-food drive-thru lane if someone in front of me has trouble remembering what he wanted to order. Honking never seems to speed them up.
Young says:
“Always have a book with me and pull it out if I am standing in a line somewhere and sometimes when in a fast-food drive-thru lane if someone in front of me has trouble remembering what he wanted to order. Honking never seems to speed them up.”
Probably a stoner in front of you! What part of the country do you live? We have our stoners here in Marin.
A coup? Lol no. There was zero effort from anyone on the D side to install an unelected president. But Jan 6 was a coup attempt.
Many consumers have already moved on, getting sick and tired of this topic and having already made up their minds about Trump. The damage is mostly done.The media has counted on this…
(I add that certain trolls here will dismiss anyone who defends Trump’s rights as a “Trumpster” or (humorously) “a disciple.”)
I am neither. Trump is no saint. Neither was Obama or either one of the Clintons. Rather, I simply state that, thanks to left-wing mainstream media control (NBC and NPR being particular anathemas of mine), a hostile and vindictive Democrat party, and paid online trolls/social media, it’s a different world out there… I’m all for revisiting NYT v. Sullivan and progeny.
Are you sure revisiting NYT vs Sullivan is a good idea? I just read Sarah palin’s case against NYT was just dismissed for inability to prove NYT acted with malicious intent.
Revisiting Sullivan would create a big vulnerability to Fox News or other right leaning news organizations for defamatory stories too. I doubt Fox News would be on board for that.
Yup, I’m sure. Why are you always so combative and negative? I didn’t say or imply overruling Sullivan, nor did I mention actual malice. And I think Sarah Palin is a bimbo. My focus would be on the class of potential “defendants,” inter alia. Please try to have a nice day.
Lin, not being combative or negative. Just posing an opposing view of your suggestion. A possible consequence. That’s all.
If you were not being combative and negative, why did you choose to only mention “Fox” and other “right-leaning news organizations?” Why didn’t you mention the vulnerability of MSNBC and CNN, which have less credibility for balanced news that FOX? (look it up). You keep exposing your flaws even more. (Go ahead, get the last word in.)
Lin says:
“paid online trolls”
Yeah? How much do you think Soros pays me? Go on! Guess!
Lin says:
“Trump is no saint.”
Really? List his sins; this I gotta hear!
Every President needs a paper shredder. Trump needs one now. Clinton needs one.
Trump needs an outhouse and not a flush toilet.
Turley can try to spread the right-wing talking points all he wants, it won’t change the facts that Durham has nothing. And Turley knows better.
But, Turley’s assignment is to try to breathe credibility into Fox News talking points, like the “Hunter Biden Scandal”, and now the “Durham Investigation”, and, as an added bonus, attack non-Trump media for failing to report these “big stories”. Yeah, I agree: Turley does know better.
Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 35 Filed 02/11/22
United States District Court For The District of Columbia
United States of America v. Michael A. Sussmann Defendant
Professor Turley’s analysis is accurate.
MSM has been largely silent on Durham’s for the past three days, only now to address it, and even then with obvious bias or omissions.
The fact they attempted to continue their spying, in an attempt to link Trump with Russia after the election, I would put that on the same level as Watergate.
The real question is will the law be applied or another case of two sets of laws, one where the rich and powerful and laws for the rest of us.
“Professor Turley’s analysis is accurate.”
No, it isn’t.
“The fact they attempted to continue their spying …”
Durham doesn’t allege spying. Durham hasn’t presented evidence of spying. Can you quote anything Durham wrote that you interpret as spying? Let’s see if you’re correct. Here’s the docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
Anonymous, we remember that you told us with overwhelming certainty CRT was not being taught to elementary school children. A position taken in the past lends itself to a lack of credibility in the present. A common pattern is prevalent. First comes denial of it happening and when found out a declaration of conspiracy theory. Same BS different day. As Bart Simpson said. “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove a thing.” Common response from the immature.
Aw, you want to change the topic. Perhaps because you recognize that you’ll lose any factual discussion of this topic?
Anonymous, my purpose was not to change the subject but just to point out how many times that you have been wrong in the past so that we can evaluate your credibility in the present. We know that you don’t want anyone pointing out your failings in the past but they are what they are and we should take them into account when assessing what you have to say now. Let the reader beware.
Thanks for responding with more ad hom. If you could make a factual argument, you would.
Anonymous, as much as you don’t like it the Durham investigation continues. I have read your complaint concerning not all of the facts are in on Trumps illegal actions. Now you express no such concern of all the facts not being in in the Durham investigation in order to line things up with your fantasy about what the facts are. Even when The New York Times, Salon, Politico, and The Washington Post, admit that they got it wrong on Russia Gate you still continue banging your TDS cymbal. I understand, no matter what new evidence comes out you are psychologically committed to never allowing yourself to see any other scenario than your own. Sad.
I again invite you to join me in a factual discussion of the Sussman docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
Or you can continue with your ad hom and be called out for it.
Fed, Fed, Fed…
UpstateFarmer says:
“MSM has been largely silent on Durham’s for the past three days, only now to address it, and even then with obvious bias or omissions.”
I watched Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham last night. Guess what?
Not one second of coverage about Trump’s accounting firm Mazars dumping him as a client because they no longer trust the information that the Trump Organization presented to them.
I am not defending the slight coverage of the Durham investigation by the MSM. I am just pointing out Turley’s hypocrisy in not mentioning the fact that Fox ignores stories that counter its preferred narratives.
Both sides do it, BUT has Turley EVER complained about Fox’s prime time hosts ignoring a story, e.g., Trump ripping up White House documents which Turley himself mentioned?
Never….
Congratulations JeffS, you have watched more MSM, Fox never the less, more than I have in about 10 years.
As an Independent, I do not care about Trump or his taxes. A rich person using the system/loopholes to their advantage, shocker. I bet if there was a serious investigation into the wealthiest Congress members, either party, they would have some questionable practices too. Why else, until recently, Pelosi was against bringing a bipartisan law against Congress members and their family members from profiting off insider trading?
I am more interested in how this will play out and if we will see a set of laws for the rich and powerful, and another for the rest of us.
Farmer says:
“I am more interested in how this will play out and if we will see a set of laws for the rich and powerful, and another for the rest of us.”
The rich can afford crafty lawyers. They can exploit the laws. The rich will always be different from us. They have a lot more money. When I was young, I used to think that money was everything; now that I am older, I KNOW it is!
Jeff, thanks for rooting for me in the SB. Unfortunately Iost with the minus 4 bet. But Sunday morning I read a post by a contributor to this site who is wrong about nearly everything. Won’t mention the name but DM predicted a Bengals win. Tripled my bet on the money line( no points given). And won for the day.
Now to the problem at hand.
Don’t know what Durham has. But you are comparing a story about spying on a Presidential candidate, then a sitting President in the White House vs. a story about an accounting firm dropping a client?
Do you really think that the MSM and cnn and msnbc would have ignored the story for basically 3 days if you replaced the word Trump with Obama or Biden? Would have been wall to wall. Again if you want to go cable, Fox , Newsmax, vs. Cnn and msnbc you have a point. But for the Big 3 to ignore the story is ridiculous.
Paul,
Here are the facts:
1. I don’t know what Durham has either nor do I have the time to delve into these complicated matters. It’s too Byzantine.
2. It is an ineluctable fact today that both sides of our media pander to their respective audiences. Because news is big business and no longer a public service, we will never return to the days of old when we could trust the same news source. It’s a fierce competition for market share with both sides disparaging the legitimacy of the other. I am not making a moral or journalistic equivalence between Fox News/Newsmax/OAN/Infowars and CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WAPO. I am simply acknowledging that we will forever be faced with sorting through contradictory news.
3. Obviously, I do NOT trust Fox News. I AM satisfied that its prime time hosts are liars, and it grieves me to witness Turley sullying his reputation by his appearing with liars.
4. I PRESUME that CNN and MSNBC are reliable, but my faith IS rebuttable- meaning that I am prepared and WIlLL accept being wrong if their reporting PROVES deceptive or misleading.
5. Turley DOES raise suspicions about the journalistic integrity of CNN and MSNBC, BUT as we know he has an UNDENIABLE conflict of interest by virtue of his allegiance to Fox News. Were he NOT an employee of Fox, I would NOT have my own doubts about his integrity.
6. I have no faith in the court of public opinion. I am content to ignore ALL the reporting on all these investigations until they reach a court of law where everyone is subject to perjury, overseen by an impartial judge enforcing time-honored rules of evidence and heard before an unbiased jury. All out-of-court statements are likely self-serving lies in order to groom a potential jury pool. They are totally unreliable.
7. I put my faith in our justice system to discern the truth. Is the justice system infallible? Of course not, but as Justice Robert Jackson famously quipped, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” Unless we can all agree with the final UNAPPEALABLE decisions of courts and juries, our country will forever be divided.
8. I WILL accept Trump’s complete innocence under the law if he is not indicted or should he be acquitted. Furthermore, I WILL accept all convictions, if any, pursuant to Durham’s investigation. I’m on the record. Hold me to it. HOWEVER, despite my persistent asking, NOT ONE Trumpist here will commit to accept a guilty verdict of Trump. They deflect, ignore my question or insist that the legal system is irredeemably corrupt.
9. When all these controversies ultimately end up in court, the jury will determine which of the two media bubbles- Fox or the MSM- was pushing a false narrative about the validity of Durham’s investigation and Trump’s criminal culpability. Turley WILL accept these verdicts as will I UNLIKE Trump and his Trumpists who will scream “Deep State” or “Rigged,” if courts do not rule in their favor. We’ll see if my prediction holds.
10. I don’t care if a Democrat or a Leftist is found guilty of a crime. I care only that no one violates the law with impunity. Unlike a Trumpist, however, I would NEVER chant, “Lock her Up,” BEFORE a guilty verdict nor howl, “Witch-hunt,” DURING the course of an investigation. These pre-judging protestations are the hallmarks of LIARS.
I hope this lays out my positions clear enough.
So your saying Trump is innocent since he hasn’t been indicted. Then ipso facto all the people saying he is a criminal are liars
Trump is *criminally* innocent but NOT morally so, for he IS a serial liar. Those people who call him a “criminal” are liars too.
Friendly amendment: so far Trump is criminally innocent. There are a slew of legal cases pending (many are civil cases, but some are criminal):
https://www.justsecurity.org/75032/litigation-tracker-pending-criminal-and-civil-cases-against-donald-trump/
https://trumpslegalproblems.webnode.com/
Of course, and I would be shocked if Trump avoids all criminal culpability and civil liability, but if he does, we must concede that he is presumed innocent. It would not change the fact, however, that he is a “carnival snake charmer;” in other words, a snake oil salesman.
Jeff, I totally agree with Points, 1,2,6,7, 8,9,10.
I somewhat agree with 5. He and/ or you and I would be monumentally stupid to bite the hand that feeds us. Just a couple of points that I have made before. Maybe Turley just happens to have the same values that Fox has. That does not in itself make him a hypocrite. And again, IT IS HIS BLOG! He can address or ignore any issue that he wishes. I would never go on a Donny Deutsch blog ( I have no idea if he has one) because he is an idiot. I would not waste my time and energy trying to refute everything that he said or subject matter that is put up. If I need to get my blood boiling all I have to do is drive in the city of Chicago. I used Deutsch because like Turley, he is a contributor, not a host. If you are waiting for Turley to condemn his employer you are in for a long wait. But if you see him as a hypocrite, rather than an employee, whose values line up with his employer, so be it. If Turley somehow got a monster contract from msnbc or cnn and started contributing there, then your hypocrite title would fit. Or maybe his stances would have ” evolved” like many of Dementia Joe’s.
3 and 4 are somewhat tied together. Do you really think that the hosts of cnn and msnbc are truth tellers and all of the Fox hosts are liars? You emphasis PRESUME. Why? Because their narrative more closely fits yours? C’mon man. Nicolle Wallace said that Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan ( not the decision to withdrawal) was a “tremendous success “. Would that qualify as deceptive or misleading? That is not only a lie, it is an insult to the intelligence of even the most feeble minded.
My main point was and I humbly request an answer, do you think the MSM not cable, would have totally ignored a story about a court submission by a Special Council if it implicated the Republicans ” spying” on a Democratic candidate then sitting President. That is the story at hand . Not guilt or innocence. A court filing by a Justice Department Special Council. I do recall numerous stories about the Mueller investigation before any official proceedings. What makes this different I wonder?
Again to me this is a simple yes or no.
Paul, if you don’t mind my interjecting:
There has been quite a bit of reporting about this in the MSM: AP News, NBC, the NYT, the Washington Post, The Hill, the Daily Beast, the Daily Mail, Fox, …
Why do you characterize it as having been “totally ignored”?
Also, the motion does not allege “spying,” and it was the Obama WH whose DNS traffic was analyzed (so if you consider that spying, then you’d have to conclude that Obama is the one who was spied on).
I don’t mind you interjecting. The story came out on Friday. When I was referring to MSM I meant the Big 3 networks. Maybe that was not specific enough. ABC,NBC and CBS did not devote ONE MINUTE to the story for approximately 60 hours. And in my opinion they only then gave it minimal coverage because they were shamed into it. I am including the Sunday morning talk shows which historically talk about political developments from the prior week. I believe a court filing by a Special Council falls into that category. I consider that as being totally ignored. Some might disagree. My point is that if the roles were reversed R’s ” spying” on D’s that 60 hour blackout would never have happened. Case and point, Mueller.
And it was not by accident that I put ” spying” in quotes. Like Jeff, I have no intention of reading the entire document. But would ” purported subterfuge” be an acceptable term? I am not assuming guilt by anyone. That will come out eventually. Or not. My problem is with the uneven coverage based on obvious bias. Some might disagree.
Paul,
Thanks for clarifying what you meant by MSM. I don’t have a TV, so I don’t much follow TV news unless there’s some particular video that I look up because I see it referenced in print news. I do sometimes watch C-Span online as well.
From what I can tell, Durham has been pretty dishonest and sloppy.
For example, he refers in the motion to DNS traffic involving the Executive Office of the President and he fails to make explicit that the President he’s referring to is Obama, not Trump. It’s hard for me to imagine that that’s simple sloppiness, as he identifies both Trump and Obama by name elsewhere, and it’s important to understand which President’s EOP he’s talking about. I think he’s purposefully omitting it, knowing that a lot of the news will assume that it was Trump and spread this story that Trump’s WH was spied on. There is no evidence in the document of spying on the WH, and if there was spying in 2016, it would mean spying on the Obama Admin, not the Trump Admin.
I’m curious what will happen with this case. Sussman’s lawyers have hinted that they’ll move to have the case dismissed, though of course that doesn’t guarantee it will be.
Anonymous, I envy the fact that you can live without T,V. I admit I can’t. But mostly because of sports.
I have not read the court filing so I will defer to you. I don’t think a Special Council would file a document that didn’t suggest some criminal activity. And Sussman has been indicted. That means something. Is he the first domino to fall? I don’t know, But a Grand Jury took the first legal step. It is the MO of most prosecutors of this kind of investigation to start low on the totem pole and try to get those to ” flip” on the higher ups. If the higher ups don’t exist, then so be it.
And I am sure that Sussman’s lawyers will move for dismissal.
I am curious also. But I must admit that I look upon cases involving ” elites” in a different way than those of common folk. The Ghislane Maxwell case comes to mind. The lead prosecutor just happened to be Maurene Comey? The daughter of James Comey? And in a case involving sex trafficking of multiple women to multiple men, none of the names of the men, many who were rumored to be prominent, come out? I know, I must be a conspiracy theorist.
I will be very interested in the Sussman case also .I don’t think it will be the only one that comes out of the Durham probe.
But just to reiterate my main point. It is not the actual substance of the filing. It is the propensity of some news organizations to ignore or downplay it’s possible ramifications.
Thank you for the respectful conversation.
Anonymous,
Just read about another ” coincidence”. This one just happens to involve one of our topics. The Sussman case. Wonder of wonders, the judge’s wife just happens to have worked for Eric Holder. What are the odds on an Obama appointed judge who’s wife worked for Obama’s Attorney General would just happen to get to preside over this particular trial? Evidently not too high.
Hi Paul,
I much prefer to have civil exchanges with people. If someone else starts insulting me, I will sometimes respond in kind, but I try not to initiate it.
Re: the case, I see that Sussman’s lawyers filed a dismissal motion today: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/39/united-states-v-sussmann/
Sussman was indicted for knowingly making a materially false statement to the FBI, which is a crime. (It’s the same crime that Michael Flynn was charged with — one difference being that Flynn spoke with 2 agents who took notes while he was being interviewed, whereas Sussman spoke with the FBI General Counsel, who apparently didn’t take notes and says he doesn’t recall the matter that led to the charge against Sussman.) In order for this to be a crime, all 3 features have to be there: that the statement was false, that the person knew it was false when he made it, and that it’s materially false rather than irrelevantly false.
I’ve only just started to read the motion yet, but the outline of the argument on p. 2 shows that their main argument is that whether or not Sussman’s statement was false (and they claim it wasn’t), the particular statement that resulted in the charge is legally immaterial.
An overview of their argument: “In the fall of 2016, Michael Sussmann … voluntarily met with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to pass along information that raised national security concerns. He met with the FBI, in other words, to provide a tip. There is no allegation in the Indictment that the tip he provided was false. And there is no allegation that he believed that the tip he provided was false. Rather, Mr. Sussmann has been charged with making a false statement about an entirely ancillary matter—about who his client may have been when he met with the FBI—which is a fact that even the Special Counsel’s own Indictment fails to allege had any effect on the FBI’s decision to open an investigation. Mr. Sussmann did not make any false statement to the FBI. But in any event, the false statement alleged in the Indictment is immaterial as a matter of law.”
I’ve also read this short discussion of DNS traffic, and it suggests that Durham’s team has misrepresented some technical issues, either knowingly or because they don’t understand them: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/15/guest-post-we-need-to-talk-about-dns/
Paul,
7/10 is not bad! I must not be the prick that every Trumpist here thinks I am!
Regarding #5, the fact that Turley does not bite the hand that feeds him is not to his credit. It just demonstrates that he has sold out his principles. He can say whatever he wants without financial repercussions as a tenured law professor; he cannot while on the Fox payroll. He must self-censor in order to keep his job, e.g., he has not and will not criticize the rage fomented by his Fox colleagues. He keeps bites his tongue at the cost to his integrity. He hardly ever mentions them in his articles. As far as Turley’s academic reputation is concerned, the less he is associated with hate mongers Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, Watters, and Mark Levin, the better!
Why you and many others persist in stating the obvious fact that this blog is Turley’s is confounding! Does not Turley criticize Fox’s cable competitors for ignoring the Hunter Biden scandal? Suppose I argued, “It’s CNN’s network. It can address or ignore any issue that it wishes!” Would that argument satisfy Turley? Of course not.
BTW, I would be surprised if Turley will ever be offered employment at MSNBC or CNN. I suspect that is why he resigned himself, as a liberal Democrat, to work for a network held in contempt by Liberals and Democrats. He knows that his future prospects lie with Fox unless he can’t stomach any longer its advocacy journalism. As I have predicted, Turley won’t remain loyal to Fox as Trump faces possible criminal prosecution because he will not join Fox’s crusade to defend Trump at all costs. He can’t because he believes in the rule of law unlike lying Trumpists who will claim that the prosecution was “rigged” not unlike Trump’s election (which Turley also rejects as stolen though sadly he is not outspoken about it).
As for 3 and 4, I can’t convince you that Fox’s prime time hosts are liars and propagandists. That realization you will have to come to yourself, if at all. But I do think it is telling that Turley does not subscribe to many of the false narratives heard on Fox. He is employed to appear on Fox in order to legitimate a few points of law which are not controversial. But his input is minuscule because most of the narratives go far beyond what he would endorse. For instance, while he criticizes CNN and MSNBC, has he ever called them “Fake News?” Of course not. While he endorsees the Durham investigation, does he use its revelations to prove there is a “Deep State” against Trump? Of course not. These narratives are lies, and Turley will have nothing to do with them.
I don’t deny that the mainstream media has its own biased narratives, e.g., 1/6 was an “insurrection,” which I dispute. The question is: which is more disingenuous- 1/6 was an “insurrection” of “legitimate political discourse.” Where you stand on that question largely depends upon where you sit. However, I am a looking forward to the 1/6 public hearings and the litigation of Smartmatic’s and Dominion’s defamation lawsuits against Fox. In the court of law, it will be decided by an impartial jury whether Fox acted with malice, that is, lied, in advocating and pushing the election was stolen narrative.
From what I have learned, Durham does not use the word “spying” in his filing. That is a spin word used by Trumpists Nd dutiful Fox News employees. To explain why the MSM has given short shrift to the news of Durham’s filing, I’ll rip a page out of your playbook since you are a sports fan:
IT IS THEIR NETWORKS! They can address or ignore any issue that they wish.
Jeff, in the spirit of expediency and keeping this post shorter, I am going to refer to your paragraphs rather than use quotation mark of entire statements ( Also I never learned how to type)
Paragraph 2,
I watch very little T.V. live with the exception of sports. I do watch DVR versions of some of the ” hate mongers” you refer to. Sometimes Carlson and Ingraham. A little bit of Watters. And in reference to your next post, never Hannity. I find him too hyper for me. And you might not believe this, too partisan. From your postings I think you watch Fox more than most conservatives like myself. Which I find ironic. The Fox hosts you mention are no more ” hate mongers ” than Maddow, Hayes, O’ Donnell and Lemon. And on the hate scale and I.Q level they pale in comparison to Joyless Reid. As for as ” hate mongering” No one will ever top former msnbc host Keith Olberman. The only show he should be on is one concerning mental health. I guess ” hate mongers” are in the eyes of the beholder.
Paragraph 3,
Comparing an individual’s blog to a cable network is a false equivalence. Although with 56 million subscribers Turley may have more daily ” visitors” than nsnbc and cnn combined. I state the ” obvious fact” that it is his blog because for the millionth time HE gets to choose the subject matter. Not the readers. I get that you want to call out his ” hypocrisy”. I think it gives you pleasure. Which is fine. And I don’t want this blog to be an echo chamber. I engage with you even though we are obviously on opposite sides of the aisle. I rarely engage with others on this blog on “your side” because unlike you and I their retorts are often disrespectful often with childlike name calling. Although you call out ” hypocrisy” you add many other components to your arguments. Some seem to be here solely to insult the owner of the blog. I just don’t get that. It is almost masochistic.
But arguing that a blog host and a cable news network have the same responsibility to even appear neutral is just wrong. And obviously cnn chose to ignore the Durham story for a lengthy period of time. Like more than 60 hours. I am not saying that cable networks on ‘both sides don’t cater to their demographics. That is probably their primary goal. But the BIG 3 have become far less neutral than ever. I think that is wrong. I know the days of Cronkite, Reynolds etc. are long gone. The Robins interview with Smollett should be used in every journalism class in the country on how NOT to conduct an interview.
Paragraph 4
Turley would NEVER be offered a job at cnn or msnbc. I was just using that as an example of what REAL hypocrisy would look like.
Paragraph 5,
My answer is the same as my answer to paragraph 3. The Fox hosts are no more liars and propagandists than the hosts on cnn and msnbc. However I find msnbc to be far worst. You asked me to give you an example of “deceptive or misleading”. I gave you the Wallace comment on the Afghanistan withdrawal. And I asked you if it met that criteria? Well, does it?
Paragraph 6
I too look forward to the public hearing on Jan 6. Should be interesting. And I look forward to the civil suits as well.
Paragraph 7,
I put the word ” spying ” in quotes for a reason. I know it was not specifically used. And like you I have no intention of reading the entire document. But from what I understand from what I have read and seen from both sides, and although the word “spying” seems to have different connotations depending on what side you are on, some kind of illicit surveillance has been alluded to. Durham didn’t file a court document to say nothing happened. We shall see.
Should be Robert’s interview with Smollett. Proofread too late. Sorry.
Paul,
I just want to add another point about why I distrust Fox’s narrative on the Durham investigation. Do you watch Hannity? If you do, you would have observed Donald, Jr and Eric appearing on different nights to argue in support of the Durham narrative. Obviously, they are not only biased but prejudiced in favor of their father. They have every incentive to exaggerate the Durham filing. Their testimony is simply not credible and yet there they were. Why wasn’t Turley on Hannity? It is because of this obvious partisan slanting of the Durham report I don’t trust Fox.
On the other hand, if there was absolutely nothing to the Durham filing, I don’t believe that Turley would have stick his neck out to write an article about it. So, I am willing to see what is made of the allegations in a COURT of LAW. But it seems that the filing is being exploited by Fox and Turley mainly to reproach the MSM for downplaying it in a bid to bolster their long-standing narrative of MSM bias.
If I were dictator for a day, I would pass a law putting a gag order on ALL reporting and commentary of any investigation until a trial began. Only then could the allegations be discovered, the testimony *under oath* reported and the evidence *admitted by the judge* revealed to the public. In this way, the jury pool would not be poisoned by out-of-court false narratives and outright lies.
It is a sad predicament that our courts of law which have been honed over centuries to get to the truth as best as humanly possible can be thwarted by irresponsible and deliberately manipulative commentary in the media.
Jeff, short reply, I agree with everything you said. I wish you were the dictator for 1 day. But only if I could be your chief consultant.
Paul,
Just a final note. The chyron under Don, Jr. reads:
CLINTON AND MEDIA LAUNCH DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO DISTRACT FROM EXPLOSIVE DURHAM DEVELOPMENTS
Is this a true narrative or a false one?
Media? All of the media?
Disinformation? What exactly?
Campaign? As opposed to just disputing it?
Explosive? That’s highly debatable from what I’ve read.
When I read such inflammatory accusations of their media rivals, can you not understand why I distrust Fox? It’s too bad Turley refuses to defend or deplore Fox’s advocacy journalism. He won’t be held accountable either way because he won’t tolerate questions.
Jeff, I do understand why you distrust Fox. I look at all advocacy journalism with a jaundiced eye. But as you stated before you PRESUME cnn and msnbc are reliable.
That is ridiculous. They are certainly more in line with your personal point of view. As I suspect Fox is with mine. Fox probably underplayed Jan. 6. I admit that. What I don’t understand is why cnn and msnbc can underplay, rampant inflation, disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, violent crime on the rise and the subject at hand, the Durham investigation and that is just OK? Durham is a Special Prosecutor. Just like Mueller. Are you telling me that at the same time in the investigations the coverage has been the same? I admit there have not been the almost daily leaks from Durham as from Mueller, but coverage is not even close. And when Mueller was actually testifying, he was almost as incoherent as Dementia Joe. This was not the Mueller inquiry. It was the discredited Weissman inquiry. Only he was not allowed to take center stage.
During the Afghanistan withdrawal, I made it a point to watch Fox, cnn and msnbc. Fox was obviously very critical. Cnn to my surprise was pretty even handed. Especially Tapper. And if cnn’s Clarissa Ward doesn’t get a Pulitzer for her reporting from Kabul, they should do away with the award. Msnbc did exactly what I thought they would do. First downplay it. Then obfuscate. Keep saying that most people were in favor of the withdrawal. Which is true. But that was not the story. The story was how the evacuation was a disaster. Then they outright lied and said it was a success. Then of course, and I wondered what took them so long, blame Trump. In his first hundred days Biden signed 60 EO’s.24 of them directly reversing a Trump policy. But he had to follow Trump’s supposed time lime for withdrawal? Give me a break!!
If Trump had gotten multiple soldiers killed and wounded during a withdrawal it would still be wall to wall. Then Biden vows retribution and kills innocent civilians, many of them children, not one of the terrorists responsible for American deaths, and if you listen to msnbc, and I did, virtually nothing. THAT is bad journalism at it’s highest level.
Then Biden, after telling Stephanopoulos that he ” would not leave militarily until every American was out”, another obfuscation. That narrative was then changed to ” every American who WANTED TO LEAVE”. As if there are still not Americans who wanted to leave still STRANDED there. As our State Department admits. Again crickets.
That in my mind is inexcusable.
It seems that we will never agree on who is worse. But I think we should agree that we tend to defend those that most fit our perspective. The thing that I think all of us should strive for is honesty above loyalty. I admit that Fox, Newsmax etc. show or ignore things to promote their preferred narrative. I don’t think their partisanship is any worse than cnn or msnbc.
My beef is with the Big 3. They are not supposed to be playing to a particular demographic. The demographic they should be appealing to is ALL Americans. But maybe I am being naive. In today’s divided America that might not be possible. And that makes me sad.
Dinner offer holds.
Jeff, one more thing,
If Putin does militarily invade Ukraine, somehow msnbc will blame Trump. That is my prediction. However I don’t think he will invade. He will get the guarantee, maybe not publicly, that Ukraine will not join N.A T. O. And probably some modification of our offensive missiles in eastern N.A.T.O. countries.
His navy is already choking off the major Ukraine ports. Kill their economy, maybe some cyber.
Paul,
It is fascinating that we in good faith see the world so differently. We both acknowledge that both Left and Right media are biased and slant their coverages to pander to their audiences, we just can’t agree which side is more flagrant!
It is fruitless to speak in generalities. The only way to prove our respective cases is to watch a broadcast of, say, Carlson and dissect every word he says and compare it to the facts. Then do the same with, say, Chris Hayes. In other words, put both of their broadcasts under the microscope. I tried to do a little of that when I cited that chyron headline on Hannity last night while Don, Jr. was spinning the Durham report. Do you not think it probative that Hayes hosts primarily journalists whereas Carlson hosts many talk show hosts? You don’t think that journalists who are obliged to observe an ethical code are more inclined to be truthful than non-journalists, especially radio talk show hosts who are prone to be sensational for ratings? That fact seems objectively undeniable to me.
The whole issue of what stories to cover and the EMPHASIS placed on the stories that are covered is a function of bias. Fox News and MSNBC will never align in that respect and that is to be expected. The most we can hope is that the reporting is accurate and honest despite the fact that both sides ignore news which is unflattering to their way of seeing things. It’s hypocritical, of course, but it’s good business, so we just have to get used to it.
I do hope that we see more defamation lawsuits being brought against the news media so that the truthfulness of journalists are litigated. The New York Times just won against Palin, but it is controversial owing to the judge’s granting a motion to dismiss prior to the jury’s verdict. We will have to wait for the appeals. I earnestly hope that the Smartmatic and Dominion defamation suits against Fox are not settled out of court. After hearing all the testimony UNDER OATH and presented with all the material evidence, I want to know whether an impartial jury will decide whether Fox’s talk show hosts lied or were recklessly indifferent to the facts. If the jury finds Fox guilty, will that verdict be persuasive to you? Trump and those who lie for him will declare the verdict rigged- the election was stolen in spite of the jury’s verdict. What about you? Will a jury’s finding convince you? Of course, if Fox settles out of court, it will not admit wrongdoing, but the large sum paid to the election companies would be an implicit admission of guilt.
As much as I criticize Turley for his joining Fox and his hypocrisy for ignoring at Fox that which he CORRECTLY criticizes at Fox’s media competitors on the LEFT (but NEVER on the RIGHT of Fox), I generally respect his opinions. Why? Because he does NOT endorse the extreme views of Fox!! How many times must I point out that Turley has NEVER employed the phrases “Fake News,” “Witch-hunt” and “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” all of which are standard false narratives on Fox. To me, these narratives expose the dishonesty of their broadcasters which is why you’ll never see Turley use them.
Turley will complain about “advocacy journalism,” but that is not tantamount to calling a news outlet “fake” as if that outlet is deliberately lying.
Turley will question the overreach of an investigation, but he will not call it a “witch-hunt” which implies that it is made in bad faith and illegitimate.
And Turley certainly complains about rage in our day and age, but have you ever read his accusing someone of TDS? Never. He does not pretend to know what lies in a man’s heart.
The fact that Turley NEVER succumbs to using these intellectually dishonest tactics is all the proof I need to convince me that Fox’s talk show hosts who do so are being dishonest. I can’t know the facts of a story which I hear or read about it, but as soon as I hear/read “fake news,” “witch-hunt,” or “TDS,” I immediately know that I cannot trust the speaker or writer. It’s called a BS detector.
I don’t follow any other blog. I came to this blog out of my long-standing respect for Turley’s opinion. I was dumbfounded to discover that 95% of his contributors were Trumpists! As I began to read his posts, his hypocrisy became apparent to me. Most people who criticize Turley nowadays point out how he has changed his tune over the years. Of course, his defenders will argue that his critics have moved Left not that he has moved Right. Be that as it may, there is no excuse for his joining Fox- as there wouldn’t be had he joined Infowars. I trust you WOULD agree that his appearing with Alex Jones as a legal analyst would be a stain on his reputation. Needless to say, Fox is not as dishonest as Infowars, but it does not have to be in order to be a disgrace to join it. At least I think so and so do many others.
I take it you have never watched One America Network. It is being removed from Direct TV’s satellite channels. Can there be any doubt that this removal is a case of “Little Brother” censorship? Did you read about Turley condemning it here? No you did not. Why? Because it competes with Fox.
I also take it that you have never watched Newsmax. All Fox flunkies typically end up on Newsmax when no other media outlet will have them. Newsmax constantly criticizes Fox for being too liberal! Newsmax continues to this very day to advocate that the election was stolen. It has become the darling of Trump. Turley had never criticized Newsmax for its all too obvious advocacy journalism. Why not?
I did a search of “Newsmax” on Turley’s archive and found only 2 recent articles neither of which criticized Newsmax. In one of the articles, Turley stated:
“As many on this blog know, I do not support censorship of such views or the banning of people like Lindell or his counterparts on the left. Sellers just showed how such statements can be addressed with counter statements. False statements can be rebutted by true statements. That is the beauty of free speech. As with the outrageous speech of some on the left, I believe that it is better to protect free speech for individuals like Lindell rather than slide down the slippery slope of censorship. We can all contest such statements through the use of free speech.”
Newsmax Meltdown: Host Leaves Set As “My Pillow” CEO Lindell Continues To Argue Election Fraud – JONATHAN TURLEY
Turley was referring to an appearance on Newsmax by Mike Lindell. Since I don’t regularly watch Newsmax, I don’t know if he continues to appear on that network. However, Giuliani recently appeared on Newsmax. Would you be surprised to learn that Lindell and EVERY Trump lawyer espousing the Big Lie is BANNED from Fox? Has Turley ever condemned Fox for ITS censorship of these Trumpists? Of course not in spite of his comment that he does “not support censorship of such views or the banning of people like Lindell…”
I fault Turley for his hypocritical SILENCE, not for what he does say (with rare exception). When long-time Conservative commentators Stephen Hayes and Jonah Goldberg quit Fox because of Carlson’s false flag conspiracy theory narrative in his “Patriot Purge” documentary, one could not help but wonder what Turley himself thought of this conspiracy narrative. Turley not only did not mention the documentary, he did not even comment upon the damning statement by these two Fox contributors explaining why they had resigned. How could he? What could he possibly have said? Turley certainly wasn’t going to defend the “Patriot Purge” nonsense; on the other hand, he didn’t want to explain why he did NOT agree with Hayes and Goldberg for leaving Fox on principle. He had no good argument to justify his not quitting for the same reason they had. So he kept his silence hoping no one would notice. I’m sure his close friends and relatives asked for an explanation. I would love to know what he said.
Similarly, Turley failed to comment about his Fox colleague Mark Levin’s odious book “American Marxism” despite his condemnation of those who foment rage in our civil society. The inescapable fact is that Turley ignores news and events which put him on the spot to make a comment which could jeopardize his good standing at Fox.
It’s sad but true.
“The only way to prove our respective cases is to watch a broadcast of, say, Carlson and dissect every word he says and compare it to the facts. Then do the same with, say, Chris Hayes. ”
I don’t want to interfere, but I have made that offer many times. Where were you? We probably all have some sort of recording ability. That would be an excellent way of learning a lot. Pick out a show a week in advance for both on the same day, and everyone can record the two shows and then compare what they said. With a video recording, one can return to the show as many times as necessary.
What date and times do you choose? Is Chris Hayes a news anchor or an opinion talk show host?
Jeff, are you all talk?
Where’s the beef?
This all seems like a distraction from Trump’s accounting firm saying that the last 10 years of financial statements cannot be relied upon; and that Trump routinely destroyed documents while in the White House.
As the walls close in on Trump, there is a lot of “look, over here, our boy Durham is pretending to find something about Hillary again” in the right wing media.
Really? The walls are closing in on Trump — again?
ROFLMAO
Hey squirrel, I enjoy seeing you flail about with your distraction conspiracy theory. Anything to avoid the reality of the Whitehouse servers being hacked by the Democrats. Your handle would be more appropriate if it was “look at me hamster”. Watch me forever “spin” the wheel in my cage to please my masters because they keep me fed and watered.
“the reality of the Whitehouse servers being hacked by the Democrats”
ROFL. Durham has not alleged that WH servers were hacked by anyone. Just what in Durham’s motions are you taking as evidence for your so-called “reality”? Here’s the docket, where anyone can read what Durham has actually alleged AND responses from Sussman’s lawyers: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
“Watch me forever “spin” the wheel in my cage to please my masters because they keep me fed and watered.”
Indeed, we are watching you do that.
The TDS is strong in this one.
This is starting to get interesting
Why did Durham dump this on Feb 11, Friday, Super Bowl weekend? Hillary Clinton colluded, planned and led a coup (with Obama, DOJ, CIA, et al), conspired, acted treasonous, funded and orchestrated an insurrection, and yet….this bomb shell news is released on a Friday. Why?
Estovir asks:
“Why did Durham dump this on Feb 11, Friday, Super Bowl weekend?”
Probably because he wanted to bury it.
Estovir,
Just a WAG on my part, but with the Super Bowl over, aside from some replay about the game, comments on the commercials, everyone turns on the news Monday morning to find Durham’s investigation/dump.
Well, the non-MSM news outlets, whom, more and more Americans are turning to for objective journalism and not a narrative spin of the DNC.
Except that the filing said nothing that you said.
Take the names out of the equation, look at was done, spying on a candidate, spying on a legitimate President in an attempt to disrupt and/or take him down. Now should people be prosecuted and go to the slammer?
CNN put 2 minutes 30 seconds regarding the “matter” all the rest zippo. Leslie Stahl should apologize and retire.
Durham hasn’t presented evidence of spying on a candidate or on a President. I bet you haven’t even read what Durham’s filings actually allege.
It appears you speak with forked tongue, and haven’t bothered to read the Durham filing.
Not only did I read it, I also read Sussman’s response, and I read analyses of both.
But don’t let little facts like that get in the way of your delusions George.
The problem with Sussman’s objections is that it will lead to more discovery from Durham. Not a smart move.
Can you elaborate? What discovery do you think Durham is going to carry out in response to Sussman’s objections that will be problematic?
Have you read Sussman’s reply? If not, here it is: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/36/united-states-v-sussmann/
In part: “For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Sussmann respectfully requests that the Court (i) allow him to proceed with his current counsel of choice, Latham & Watkins LLP, following his waiver of any potential conflicts of interest, and (ii) strike the Factual Background portion of the Motion.”
I don’t have any real way of assessing the first request, but assume that he made it because he believes that he’s well-served by his current lawyers. The second request makes a lot of sense in light of the reasons they set forth earlier.
The response also says “In addition, Mr. Sussmann reserves all rights to submit appropriate motions and seek appropriate relief concerning this conduct should the Indictment not be dismissed and should the case proceed to trial, including by seeking extensive voir dire about potential jurors’ exposure to prejudicial media resulting from the Special Counsel’s irresponsible actions.” That statement also makes sense to me on his end.
Sounds like they’ll soon be submitting a motion to dismiss.
I may have misread, but the 2/11 filing didn’t ask if Mr Sussman wished to waive his privilege it asked the Court to decide if the law firm itself had a conflict of interest beyond Mr Sussman’s interests.
Durham said “The United States of America, by and through its attorney, Special Counsel John H. Durham, respectfully moves this Court to inquire into potential conflicts of interest arising from the representation of the defendant by his current counsel, Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”). The Government has discussed these matters with the defense and believes that any potential conflicts likely could be addressed with a knowing and voluntary waiver by the defendant upon consultation with conflict-free counsel as appropriate. The Government believes that any such waiver should be put on the record prior to trial. … For the foregoing reasons, the Court should inquire regarding the potential conflicts of interest set forth above.”
ATS is dealing in minutia, trying to deflect from the devastating news that Democrats and Hillary were spying on Trump and creating false narratives about Trump and Russia. The MSM was complicit, as were portions of the deep state.
The essential question of ATS is, do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing? If he says yes, then one can debate the minutia. If he says no, then what he is doing is deflecting from the story trying to deny something that exists.
Howdy there chihuahua!
Hold on there, Pardner!
That was Indianist!
The big sin of the liberal media isn’t so much “misinformation,” as “no” information. When a story breaks that doesn’t fit the Dem-supplied narrative, the liberal media just ignores it. That’s why it’s so difficult to discuss or debate liberals — they’re just not informed, and they deny what they don’t see on CNN or MSNBC. One can debate facts and opinions, but one cannot debate thin air, unicorns or denial.
I don’t have a TV and don’t rely on TV shows for my news, but as I pointed out in my 11:48 AM comment (and linked to a Youtube of), MSNBC discussed it for ~5 minutes this morning. I know about this because Marcy Wheeler, the journalist who was interviewed by MSNBC, also wrote about it.
Would you like to debate the facts presented by Marcy Wheeler in that segment or in her blog columns about it? You can find her columns here: https://www.emptywheel.net
Selective facts serve no purpose other than confirmation bias. Neither you nor I know all the facts or “evidence.”
I haven’t claimed to “know all the facts or “evidence”” (emphasis added).
I do claim to know some of the facts and evidence.
I also claim to prefer discussing actual facts and evidence to fiction and opinions.
Anyone who is interested in the relevant facts and evidence can learn some of them by reading the docket filings and factual analyses of them.
If you’re not here to discuss any facts or evidence, then why are you here? It’s a legal blog. Shouldn’t a legal blog be concerned with facts and evidence?!?
Read the Senate Intel Report; the Mueller Report; The Big Lie; Insurrection; Domestic Terrorists; Systemic Racism; Serial Liar; But Trump; Climate Change; Disinformation; Misinformation; and on, and on. We have some people on this blog whose entire existence is rooted in preserving the criminal enterprise, AKA the Democratic Party.
They really can’t help themselves. To buy into the dem ideology is to enter a cult with very strict behavioral parameters.
They really are a psychotic lot. It’s truly sad to watch them attempt to deflect attention towards Trump regarding alleged illegal activity, as if that somehow absolves the entire Democratic party of any illegal activity. This is not a zero-sum game. It’s called the rule of law for a reason.
Given Durham’s revelations about how Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign operated, and the Democratic Party still operates (not to mention all the anecdotal video, data and eyewitness evidence from the swing states), is it completely outside the realm of possibility to think that Trump and his supporters might be right about vote fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election?
The 2020 election was the most scrutinized in history with many very partisan Republicans hunting for issues. There were also many audits. Even Cyber Ninjas gave Biden more votes. All came up without evidence to substantiate the Big Lie. So ya, it is very safe to say that Trump and his supporters are wrong.
That is the elephant in the room, now isn’t it
Given the totality of evidence to describe what Democratic governance has done to this country, the only thing they have been proven successful at is the fundamental transformation of the United States into a third world Marxist hellhole. At this point, a fraudulent 2020 election is well within the realm of possibility.
“Is the Biden Admin Trying to Hide a Report on Dominion Voting Systems?”
“The Biden administration doesn’t want a judge to release a report on Dominion Voting Systems equipment in Georgia, claiming that doing so would “threaten election security,” Just The News reports. The report was written by the Director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, J. Alex Halderman. Halderman was previously profiled in a video by the New York Times back in 2018 when he demonstrated to a group of students how easy it would be to rig a voting machine. In the 2018 video, Halderman demonstrated how voting machines are “dangerous” and “obsolete” by holding a mock election with University of Michigan students. Halderman had previously testified before Congress, warning that computerized voting is “vulnerable to sabotage” and “cyberattacks that could change votes.” “I’m here to tell you that the electronic voting machines Americans got to solve the problem of voting integrity, they turned out to be an awful idea,” Halderman said in the video. “That’s because people like me can hack them, all too easily.” Officials at the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) have already seen the unredacted report, which discusses “potential vulnerabilities in Dominion ImageCast X ballot marking devices,” and they say that it shouldn’t be released yet. Halderman has been criticized by both Dominion and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who insist that the election in Georgia was secure. “Dominion supports all efforts to bring real facts and evidence forward to defend the integrity of our machines and the credibility of Georgia’s elections,” an official from Dominion Voting Systems stated. Joe Biden’s state-certified victory in Georgia was by a margin of fewer than 12,000 votes.”
– Matt Margolis
“204 Legislators Call For 50-State Audit, Decertification Where Appropriate, and Possible Convening of the US House of Representatives”
“Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers’ historic movement to audit all 50 states and decertify fraudulent elections continues to grow.”
“A media outlet has reported on State Senator Rogers’ letter to the American People Calling for a 50-State Audit, decertification where appropriate, and possible convening of the U.S. House of Representatives to determine the rightful winner of the 2020 election.”
– Jordan Conradson
Turley once again is willfully ignorant and/or dishonest in describing this.
“The latest disclosures by Durham are difficult for many in the media to cover because they directly refute years of prior coverage.”
Actually, they aren’t. Here’s an example on MSNBC this morning:
https://youtu.be/KPxAZlB6lUo?t=2013
MSNBC ? Now there is a reliable source – not.
They interviewed Marcy Wheeler, and I consider her a very reliable (knowledgeable, fact-focused, truthful) source.
If you think she said something false, quote it, and let’s see if you’re right.
More to the point, I was demonstrating that TURLEY’s claim was false. Whether or not you trust MSNBC, it is false for him to claim that “The latest disclosures by Durham are difficult for many in the media to cover because they directly refute years of prior coverage.” I presented counterevidence, showing how easy it is for the media — such as MSNBC — to cover Durham’s error-filled filing.
Anonymous: Seriously? This is just more apologetic garbage from MSNBC. When Rachel Maddow makes a public and sincere apology for her years of getting rich on lies and insinuations about Russiagate, then we’ll know that MSNBC has a shred of integrity left.
I dare you to quote anything March Wheeler said that you assert is “garbage” and then provide evidence that it’s false.
(My guess: you won’t do this, and you also won’t admit that you cannot.)
Giocon says:
“When Rachel Maddow makes a public and sincere apology for her years of getting rich on lies and insinuations about Russiagate”
Just as soon as you lying Trumpists admit and apologize for the Big Lie.
Well as par for the course for Turley it seems he is either a victim of all the hype Fox News is pushing about the Durham filing or he is just doing his job as a a Fox News lackey.
It’s hard to believe Turley is simply parroting what Fox News is saying. Turley is quite the nitpicker when it comes to legal issues and independent journalist Marcy Wheeler seems way more knowledgeable about what Durham is doing than anyone else at Fox News. Wheeler states,
“ “One of the things [Durham] revealed in that, which I have heard from other people is this claim that Rodney Joffe was accessing data from the White House,” Wheeler said. “All of that data precedes Trump’s inauguration, so you have Trump out there calling for these people to be put to death when really what happened is Rodney Joffe was trying to keep [then-president] Barack Obama safe from hackers. That’s all it is. That’s why Trump wants these people killed, Durham knows that.”
https://www.rawstory.com/amp/marcy-wheeler-john-durham-2656673004
All the news that’s fit to:
1. Print?
2. Ignore?
3. Hide?
4. Shit.
Except that most of this info is old. And also the evidence shows that the “spying” of the White House was during the Obama administration and was over before Trump took office. The only media meltdown is the right wingers lying about it.
Are you actually questioning Mr. Durham’s findings? Really?
Alma Carman: Maybe Sammy and Anonymous did their own thorough investigation and will surprise the country with definitive answers. Or maybe they’re just two Democratic sycophants who are among what’s left of MSNBC’s teeny-tiny audience.
Alma,
Let’s just call Durham’s investigation- oh- I don’t know- how about- WITCH-HUNT!
How does that sound? Sound familiar?
Yeah, it was during the Obama administration when Clinton was running for president. What’s your point?
(I have always had a different view of the whole thing. I think anyone that thinks Obama and Rice were only spying on the GOP candidate with the least likely chance of winning should consider buying a bridge to Brooklyn that occasionally comes on the market.)
I can’t speak for Sammy, but I would think that the point is pretty obvious.
Trump is making claims such as “The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides 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,” and Durham’s motion doesn’t actually provide any evidence of spying, and to the extent that it addresses evidence about DNS traffic involving the Executive Office of the President, it does so while Obama was President, not while Trump was President. In other words, Trump is a bald-faced liar, and many Trumpists are totally happy to repeat his lies.
Do you remember what Nixon did despite every indication he was going to win by a landslide?
Yes. How is it relevant here? Obama wasn’t running for reelection and has not been charged with any crimes, despite Durham having already investigated for longer than Mueller did.
You are grasping at straws.
Apparently you cannot or will not answer: How is it relevant here?
Excellent commentary Professor Turley….very well said!
Denial is not a river in Egypt….as the Democrats are bound to finally learn when Durham completes his work.
His growing list of Indictments will soon lay out the real “truth” of what went on….and if Durham lives up to his well earned reputation for excellence……the Democrat Party is going to pay a very heavy price for their corrupt and illegal actions.
No doubt his Final Report shall come after the new Congress takes Office in January 2023…..and when it is Republicans in the majority of both Houses……there shall be a receptive audience in power to do their own investigation on related matters.
Should that Report come in January 25…..there shall be a Republican in the White House…a Republican Attorney General and yet more Republicans in Congress.
The old saying is “You can run….but you cannot hide!”.
Look no further than our resident Lefties.
Expect a deluge of whataboutism, pointing out Trump’s flaws, that Turley hasn’t met jeffsilberman’s expectations, and that Fox is partisan.
These responses show the moral bankruptcy of the left.
Actually, my response is that Durham and Turley are wrong on a bunch of facts.
It’s interesting that Turley links to Sussman’s response, but is unwilling to address any of what was said, such as the following:
although the Special Counsel implies that in Mr. Sussmann’s February 9, 2017 meeting, he provided Agency-2 with EOP data from after Mr. Trump took office, the Special Counsel is well aware that the data provided to Agency-2 pertained only to the period of time before Mr. Trump took office, when Barack Obama was President. Further—and contrary to the Special Counsel’s alleged theory that Mr. Sussmann was acting in concert with the Clinton Campaign—the Motion conveniently overlooks the fact that Mr. Sussmann’s meeting with Agency-2 happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the Clinton Campaign had effectively ceased to exist. Unsurprisingly, the Motion also omits any mention of the fact that Mr. Sussmann never billed the Clinton Campaign for the work associated with the February 9, 2017 meeting, nor could he have (because there was no Clinton Campaign).
These are factual issues. For example, was the so-called “spying” (a word that Durham never uses) on the Trump WH or only on the Obama WH? Because if the DNS traffic only involved the Obama WH, that would certainly undermine the storyline that this Feb. 2017 meeting involved information gleaned from spying on the Trump WH.
Turley says “Sussmann filed a response this week and asked the Court to strike the entirety of the factual section of the Durham filing as unsubstantiated and sensational. (That could open the door for Durham in response to substantiate these claims even further).” OR it could open the door to the judge doing what was requested by Sussman: striking the so-called “factual” section for being both factually wrong and introducing extraneous allegations that haven’t been charged.
For a lawyer, Turley is really sloppy on the legal and factual details.
I do think the left, in all its iterations, is engaged in what has been colloquially known as a “circle jerk”.
Agree. again.
Monument,
Here are my expectations in case you missed them:
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/15/media-vapors-how-special-counsel-john-durham-has-triggered-a-media-meltdown/comment-page-1/#comment-2159038
Most knew it was Hillary who shat in the punch bowl. Soon all will know. If the “media” plans to sit on their thumbs it will be a surprise to no one.
It’s all right there in Donna Brazile’s recounting of the 2016 campaign, “Hacked”. At the DNC Convention, embarrassed by the Wikileaks revelations of a Clinton-DNC plot to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination, Hillary blurted out to her fellow plotters (Brazile, Podesta, Abedein, Mook) “Trump has to be behind this!”. The wheels started turning at Perkins Coie almost immediately.