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.]
Except the filing said none of that.
Some of our posters here point out that no indictment has been made concerning the hacking of the Whitehouse servers. They are correct. However, Durham has indeed said that it happened. Let’s take a wild guess who the hackers could have been. What Party or parties would have benefited the most by spying on the Trump administration? My oh my, I just can’t imagine what Party it would be. Can you?
“Some of our posters here point out that no indictment has been made concerning the hacking of the Whitehouse servers. They are correct. However, Durham has indeed said that it happened.”
No, Durham absolutely did NOT say that anyone “hacked” the Whitehouse servers.
Shall we look at what Durham actually said?
Perhaps you’re referring to “The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”). Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided resolution services to the EOP. DNS Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.”
Notice that the President that Durham is referring to there is Obama, not Trump, because all of this occurred before Trump was inaugurated.
Also notice that Joffe (the unnamed Tech Executive) was hired by the Obama Admin “to access and maintain dedicated servers for the [Obama] EOP.”
No hacking.
Durham does allege — without presenting any evidence — that Joffe and associates “exploited this arrangement by mining the [Obama] EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.” All of us should wait to see Durham’s evidence.
Now, you and I both know that you don’t care what Durham actually said. But when you lie about what Durham said, expect to be called out on it.
Fed, Fed, Fed…
Anonymous:
Another word for this is espionage.
Durham doesn’t allege espionage either.
Have you bothered to read his motion, in order to see what he did say? If not, you should, and then you should read Sussman’s response.
Because right now you’re spouting garbage.
Yes, I did read it.
He summarized activities that define espionage. He did not say what those activities define.
Thought exercise.
You read a report that states that a man killed a woman who was sitting in a chair, reading. You say, “That’s murder!” Someone named Anonymous says you’re lying because the report did not use the word “murder.”
If I get a job at your work as an IT specialist, use that access in order to review all of your correspondence, and then report that information to a third party who is obsessed with you, hates you, and wants to ruin your life, did I spy upon you? Do I need to steal your password for you to consider me spying?
Or, let’s say that third party wants to find out who you’re dating so, again, I pose as an IT specialist, abuse my access to copy all of your emails, and then give personal information of your lover to your obsessed stalker, would you think I spied upon you, even if I did not steal your password?
No, Karen, he did NOT “summarize activities that define espionage.”
Go ahead, quote what he wrote that you believe constitutes espionage, and let’s see what you’ve misunderstood.
If he refers to the Office of the President, also say which President you belief he’s referring to.
Stop using pretend analogies and deal with the actual text in the indictment.
Anonymous the Stupid, you ask a lot of people but refuse to answer the basic question.You deal and can only see pixels. You are blind to the whole picture.
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?
The chihuahua continues barking from his rabbit hole.
The Clinton Campaign used political operatives to spy on Trump as a candidate, and later as a sitting president.
That’s espionage. Stealing information for political purposes.
Did they access and remove top secret information?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-really-was-spied-on-2016-clinton-campaign-john-durham-court-filing-11644878973
“According to a Friday court filing, the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign effort to compile dirt on Donald Trump reached into protected White House communications.”
“Mr. Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI at a September 2016 meeting when he presented documents claiming to show secret internet communications between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank. The indictment says Mr. Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was presenting this information solely as a good citizen—failing to disclose his ties to the Clinton campaign. (He has pleaded not guilty.)
The indictment revealed that Mr. Sussmann worked with “Tech Executive-1,” who has been identified as Rodney Joffe, formerly of Neustar Inc. The indictment says Mr. Joffe used his companies, as well as researchers at a U.S. university, to access internet data, which he used to gather information about Mr. Trump’s communications.
Mr. Durham says Mr. Joffe’s “goal” was to create an “inference” and “narrative” about Mr. Trump that would “please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at [Perkins Coie] and the Clinton Campaign.”
The new shocker relates to the data Mr. Joffe and friends were mining. According to Friday’s filing, as early as July 2016 Mr. Joffe was “exploit[ing]” his “access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” including “Internet traffic pertaining to . . . the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”).”
“The filing explains that Mr. Joffe’s employer “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided [internet services]” to the White House. Mr. Joffe’s team also was monitoring internet traffic related to Trump Tower, and Mr. Trump’s apartment on Central Park West.”
“The filing says the new allegations Mr. Sussmann provided—claiming suspicious ties between a Russian mobile phone operator and the White House—were also bogus, and that Mr. Sussmann again made the false claim that he wasn’t working on behalf of a client.”
“Along the way the Clinton campaign fed these bogus claims to a willing and gullible media. And now we know its operatives used private tech researchers to monitor White House communications.”
You’re not quoting from any court documents Karen. You’re quoting from an opinion piece.
And unfortunately, your op-ed seems not to understand that Joffe’s firm was hired by the Obama Admin — that’s the “EOP” referred to in your quote. Joffe wasn’t working for the Clinton Campaign.
Just imagine what it would be like to live in a stable and functioning America
Imagine…
An America of self-governance under the dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, bereft of the heinous tyranny of the Swamp and the communist Deep Deep State.
The singular American failure has been, and continues to be, the derelict and negligent judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court and its sworn Justices, beginning with Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“You can’t handle the truth.”
– Colonel Jessup
_____________
You really are free – really.
The Big Lie of the Russia hoax is bigger than Watergate.
This was not just breaking into a campaign headquarters to rifle. This was active espionage against a sitting US President.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/durham-investigation-questions-kt-mcfarland
No, Karen, it was NOT “active espionage against a sitting US President.”
And the reason that you link to an OPINION piece instead of quoting from DURHAM himself is that Durham’s own statements don’t support your wildly false claim, and apparently you’d rather believe something false than focus on facts.
That’s why you’re anonymous
The referent of “That” is unclear.
Tell us all, again, about President Trump’s toilet habits
Fed, Fed, Fed…
That’s typical Karen S. She looks for op ed pieces to support the opinions she heard on Fox, and then cites it as “fact”. She’s never heard of confirmation bias. And, it’s no coincidence that she is citing her place of worship: Fox News.
Natacha:
In the past few days, you have admitted to serious insurance fraud of thousands of dollars, and admitted you are one of the 36% of Americans who support racial and gender discrimination in Supreme Court nominees.
You pushed the Russia Hoax for years after it was disproven.
You bring emotional arguments and engage in frantic ad hominem.
You don’t know me, but you are obsessed with me and set yourself as an expert on what I think. That’s irrational.
Improve yourself.
And she likes to copy-cat big words like “confirmation bias” that someone else used earlier
Anonymous:
Yes. It absolutely was espionage.
Gaining access to the computer system of the White House, in order to glean data for your political cause, is espionage. This was spying to obtain political information, which is quite literally the definition of espionage.
It began under Obama to spy on Trump, and then continued when Trump took office.
Are you defending this?
Karen,
You appear not to have read any of the legal documents in this case.
Per Durham, Joffe’s firm was *hired* by the Obama WH to monitor DNS traffic: “Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP [Executive Office of the President of the United States] as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS [domain name system] resolution services to the EOP.”
Doing work that the Obama WH hired you to do is not “espionage.”
“Gaining access to the computer system of the White House, in order to glean data for your political cause, is espionage.”
But that’s not what occurred. FFS, can’t you bother to read the documents on file about this? He had legal access. Durham alleges that “[Joffe] and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” but Durham provides ZERO evidence for it in the filing. He simply asserts that he’ll provide evidence about this at trial. Will his evidence actually show what he alleges? We have no way to know that, and no one should pretend to know it.
“It began under Obama to spy on Trump, and then continued when Trump took office.”
Go ahead and quote from the legal filings to back up your nonsense. Here’s the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
Karen+S,
I have to agree, the Big Lie of the Russiagate was bigger than Watergate, as it was pushed so hard, by so many in MSM, and so many actually believed it.
You are a Trumpster, so how would you even know what MSM puts out, since, based on your faith, you don’t watch mainstream media? Oh, I know, you got this from Fox and believe it, and Turley, per his assignment to try to validate Fox stories and the theme that MSM lies and can’t be trusted, it therefore must be true. BTW: there was no “Russiagate”. Trump did cheat with Russia’s help. Even a Republican Senate Committee concluded this, along with Dan Coats, head of US intelligence, appointed by Trump.
This was active espionage against a sitting US President.
But of course! Mining data ….”purpose of gathering derogatory information of a US President”. Just stunning.
espionage
reconnaissance
infiltration
undercover work
Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)
18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
You wouldn’t know the media was freaking out over Durham uncovering Hillary Clinton committing espionage against a sitting US President. Because most of the television news stations have devoted zero minutes to the story.
Where is the apology Trump voters are owed?
Over and over again, the media promoted false allegations, and Republican voters were castigated over it. Lost family and friends over it.
Where is our apology?
Remember when conservatives kept warning of the totalitarianism and human rights abuses inherent in the Left?
Now we have mandates. Talk of putting conservatives in camps. Forcibly dragging out parents who don’t wear a mask at school board meetings, while the board goes to swanky gatherings without masks. There are toddlers forced to mask, crying because they can’t breathe and feel smothered, while the elitist glitterati partied at the Super Bowl without masks. The Left has promoted racial and gender discrimination. It regularly makes openly racist slurs against conservative blacks and whites. People are getting fired for not getting a vaccine when they already have naturally acquired immunity. Pregnant women are getting pressured to get vaccinated, even though the vaccine has known side effects for the heart, or risk getting impoverished.
Where is the accountability?
Karen,
Durham has NOT alleged that he “uncover[ed] Hillary Clinton committing espionage against a sitting US President” or anything close to that.
Instead of posting wildly false claims based on what you may have heard second- or third-hand, I encourage you to read what Durham has actually said and responses to that by Sussman’s lawyers: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
If you actually care about the truth, don’t make wildly false claims like “Durham uncover[ed] Hillary Clinton committing espionage against a sitting US President.”
BTW, if you’d bothered to actually read the filings, you’d know that the DNS traffic that Durham did refer to was gathered when Obama was in office. So if you think someone was “committing espionage against a sitting US President,” that President would be Obama.
Karen+S,
Well said.
I have enjoyed watching the COVID narrative pivot. Suddenly a number of state governors who were pushing mask mandates, suddenly dropping them like hot potatoes.
Interesting, is it not?
The answer to your question about accountability, unfortunately no one will be.
Did you read about the Army 2,000 page paper on the Afghanistan . . . charlie fox?
No one will be held accountable for that either.
First of all, Trumpsters like you aren’t “conservatives”. You are Trump disciples. Not the same thing at all. Not even close–read the writings of George F. Will, Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, Steve Schmidt and George Conway if you don’t believe me.. Trump’s campaign did collude with Russian hackers to spread lies about Hillary Clinton, calculated to tip the Electoral College in districts where she was vulnerable. That’s how he got into the White House despite losing the popular vote. It’s called cheating. Where’s the accountability? Durham has submitted no proof of anything, but Fox tells you Hillary Clinton was spying on him and you fall for it: hook, line and sinker. Where’s the accountability?
It is truly laughable when you speak of “totalitarianism and human rights abuses inherent in the Left”. After Trump cheated to get into office, he hid proof of what he was doing (i.e., circumvented the Presidential Records Act) by: shredding documents, demanding that aides not take notes, flushing papers down the toilet, stealing classified documents by removing them to Florida, and using the cell phones of Secret Service agents and aides to cover up the trail of what he was doing. When he lost in 2020, he did everything possible to try to stay in office: creating the Big Lie, going on “Stop the Steal” campaigns, riling up his fans into believing that they were cheated, filing frivolous lawsuits, attempted to get the DOJ and even the military to seize voting machines, calling for a rally in DC that he promised would be “wild”, and inciting an insurrection by telling the faithful to: “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, so they invaded the Capitol Building and temporarily stopped collection of the ballots. He still won’t stop lying about losing. Now, if Trump isn’t a totalitarian, then what qualifies? And, since you ask–where’s Trump’s accountability for lying, for causing a riot, for failing to comply with the Presidential Records Act and lying about losing in 2020?
Since you have no science degree or medical background, you need to stop spreading the Fox narrative that “naturally acquired immunity” is equal to or superior to immunization. There are no validated studies showing this, and what are schools, employers, restaurants, factories, etc supposed to do? Take the word of an anti-vaxxer? How would an anti-vaxxer know what strain of COVID they had, or even whether they DID have it? Recommendations on masks and immunization come from reputable scientists who advise the CDC and FDA, and vaccination is recommended even for well-documented cases of COVID infection. You get the crap you spew from Fox. There are no issues with vaccination that come anywhere close to the risks of getting an active COVID infection.
On the anniversary of his birthday, I was building a life-size sculpture of the composer, Bach, out of Legos. As I was working on the sculpture, a fan of Bach’s music passed by and gave me his opinion of my work. “It doesn’t even look like him!” he criticized. Leaving in a huff, he raised his fist in anger and demanded: “Build Bach better!”
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
I have wondered for quite a long time when someone is going to ‘flip’ on Barack Obama.
Have you considered that Obama didn’t do anything to “flip” on?
Fed, Fed, Fed…
Yes, but the million or so dollars paid to fusion GPS by Obama’s lawyer, who resigned and went back to the Brookings Institute is evidence. It doesn’t prove anything but in context should be enough for Durham use his power to investigate.
What Obama lawyer are you referring to?
The mainstream media must be sued for egregious national fraud…
or prosecuted for high treason.
The damage to America is manifest.
A proportional penalty for civil treason must be imposed with extreme prejudice.
When you treat a press conference as a court trial, where you get to plead your case, then you look weak and pathetic. Press conferences are not the proper venue for pleading your case. They are not courts of law. They don’t have jurisdiction. Tell it to the judge, Putin, not a gaggle of reporters.
I joined the Labor Party today. I gues you could say I went into Labor. Ha ha.
The task is great.
There are not enough guillotines in the realm, Your Hillaryness!
Not to worry.
All is well.
Just An “Crazy Abe Lincoln” True Dope
is on the case with an overwhelming dose of tyranny…just what the sheeple need, eh?
Thank God for tyrants, dictators and despots, eh, Abe?
America (and Canada) will return to the serenity of full blown, Deep Deep State, doublespeak communism straightaway.
A few questions Durham’s filing raises:
1. Did the CIA or FBI investigate how Sussman got his information about communications from the EOP and elsewhere, and if not why not? Obtaining that information and communicating it to Sussman, to generate a false narrative, may have been illegal in and of itself. In any event it suggests a serious breach of White House security.
2. What knowledge did Elias and Sullivan have of the disinformation operation? I believe Sullivan testified before Congress in December 2017 that he had no knowledge — was he lying?
3. The statutes of limitations are going to pose problems for early conduct, though perhaps less so if Durham is able to allege a conspiracy with more recent acts that reaches back further than five years. But in the absence of such a conspiracy that reaches back, everything in 2016 and the first 45 days of 2017 is now time-barred. Given the massive misconduct in that period this is potentially a huge screw-up by Durham. So what is his theory?
Daniel, re: (1), I encourage you to read this analysis, which includes excerpts of testimony under oath from Sussman when he was questioned about some of this by Kash Patel 4 years ago, when Patel was working for Devin Nunes:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/13/kash-patel-knew-and-did-nothing-about-the-latest-durham-related-frenzy/
As she provides evidence of, “Kash Patel knew about these allegations four years ago, at a time when he was one of the most powerful Congressional staffers on matters pertaining to intelligence. And he did nothing about them.” She also shows that Sussman told Patel about having met with the CIA and FBI on behalf of a client, Rodney Joffe, who’d had contracts with the FBI and NSA, and she notes that Durham has said that Joffe “maintain[ed] servers for the EOP.”
You also shouldn’t assume that Joffe “Obtain[ed] that information and communicating it to Sussman, to generate a false narrative…” If you have evidence that that was Joffe’s goal or that Sussman said something false on Joffe’s behalf, please do quote what info you believe was communicated “to generate a false narrative,” so that we can stay focused on things we have evidence for.
That’s what Durham says they did.
Durham alleges that “[Joffe] and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.” But he presents absolutely no evidence for it. He only says that “The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish” that. Since he presents no evidence for it, we shouldn’t assume it’s true. It’s currently an publicly-evidenceless allegation.
If you’re referring to some other statement made by Durham, just quote it, and let’s see if he presented evidence for it.
Notice how busy Anonymous (the Stupid) is regarding this story. It really does make one wonder if Anonymous (The Stupid) is a paid commenter. Notice how he keeps SCREECHING that Durham hasn’t alleged spying, which is against all common sense and plain reading of the documents. Notice how he does NOT say that Durham is still digging while he used to drool over the prospects of what would end up in Mueller’s report.
How can anyone absolve Clinton or the Democrats for this perfidy just goes to show how much politics can blind a person. Not once has Anonymous (The Stupid) or Sammy or Jeff or Svelaz actually uttered the words, “geez, this looks kind of bad and it may be a problem as more information comes out”. Whenever Trump pulled a boneheaded move me and many others, including Professor Turley, would point it out, criticize it and demand or at least ask for or hope for better going forward. But the Democrats can never admit when they do something wrong, or illegal or immoral or even plain old stupid. I think the reason is that they never, ever get tough questions from the media and therefore they have glass jaws and are spoiled little brats.
Hullbobby,
“ Notice how he keeps SCREECHING that Durham hasn’t alleged spying, which is against all common sense and plain reading of the documents. ”
Well…did you read the document?
Here it is.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
That’s not a document. That’s the entire docket for US v Sussman.
No, hullbobby, I point out the fact that Durham hasn’t alleged spying. If you hear “screeching,” that’s in your head.
You claim “which is against all common sense and plain reading of the documents,” but you cannot quote anything from Durham that alleges spying. Because Durham did not allege spying.
Perhaps the reason I point this out is because (a) I’ve spent more time looking at the evidence in the filings from both Durham and Sussman, along with factual analyses of them, and (b) I prefer to focus on claims that there are actually evidence for, not imaginings that aren’t based on the evidence presented in the docket filings.
Is there some statement in any of those filings that you’d like to discuss?
“I’ve spent more time looking at the evidence in the filings from both Durham and Sussman,”
Anonymous the Stupid, it sounds like you have wasted a lot of your time. Despite the time spent searching, did you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
Of course not. All that research told you absolutely nothing because you are an incompetent.
Hey Meyer, if you think my FACTUAL claim “I point out the fact that Durham hasn’t alleged spying” is wrong, then show it with evidence.
You prefer to post opinions about me than to talk about the factual evidence. Grow up.
I’ll ask you what I asked hullbobby: Is there some statement in any of those filings that you’d like to discuss?
Did 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 not you are pretty Stupid and wasted a lot of time researching.
Instead of debating the finer points I like to start with the basics. The question is right before your eyes. What is your answer?
I take it that you agree with the factual claim “Durham hasn’t alleged spying,” since you do not dispute it or provide any counterevidence.
Is there any statement in any of the Durham-Sussman filings that you’d like to discuss?
In other words you wasted your time researching and everyone else’s time as well.
You can’t even answer the most basic question. 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?
Apparently your answer to “Is there ANY statement in ANY of the Durham-Sussman filings that you’d like to discuss?” is “No.” OK.
No, there is nothing to discuss with a Stupid and deceitful person. First deal with the basic question.
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?
All your research is worth nothing unless that question can be answered.
IF you believe me to be “a Stupid and deceitful person,” and IF you also believe “there is nothing to discuss with a Stupid and deceitful person,” THEN the logical conclusion is: you have nothing to discuss with me. OK.
Now you are getting the point, Anonymous the Stupid. No one should have anything to discuss with you since you can’t answer the most basic question. People should isolate you from others and call you by a recognizable name like I have using Anonymous the Stupid and ATS. You need to be put out in the sun. Sunlight acts as a disinfectant.
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?
S. Meyer, anonymous is right. He’s directly referring to the actual documentation from Durham proving the claims being made by many commenters are clearly false.
You keep demanding he answer your question which is a poor attempt at deflection rather than engage on the true substance of the issue. Anonymous has linked directly to the document FROM Durham that clearly contradicts a lot of claims being made by commenters here including comments by Turley in his column. I took time to read the filing itself and anonymous IS correct. Durham is NOT alleging any spying went on and it is certainly true that the “spying” being falsely claimed would have occurred when Obama was still in office.
Instead of mindlessly throwing insults READ Durham’s court filing. There are multiple links to it on this whole discussion.
Svelaz, I guess you are too stupid to understand. The question that is really being discussed is as follows.
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?
Hullbobby impugns my tegridy:
“Not once has Anonymous (The Stupid) or Sammy or Jeff or Svelaz actually uttered the words, “geez, this looks kind of bad and it may be a problem as more information comes out”.
To reply to your assertion, follow this link to read where I stand in case you did not see it:
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/15/media-vapors-how-special-counsel-john-durham-has-triggered-a-media-meltdown/comment-page-1/#comments
HullBobby,
I oft have wondered if some of those who post here were not paid commenters to slant this blog as a conspiracy web site, or an attempt to discredit the professor.
But then some of the comments are so far out there or disconnected from reality, I can not imagine anyone willing to pay them for their rants from a obviously non-nonsensical delusional mind.
However, your observation to today’s OP does seem to have drawn more vehement comments than in the past.
Some seem down right desperate to deflect.
I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked hullbobby: Is there some statement in any of the filings that you’d like to discuss?
That’s not an attempt to deflect. Rather, it’s an attempt to focus your attention on what the documents say. You and hullbobby seem much more interested in talking about commenters than talking about the contents of the legal documents (what Durham has and hasn’t alleged, what Sussman’s lawyers have said in response) and fact-focused analyses of those documents.
Hello Upstate Farmer: Your observations are great-and likely correct. I think we are seeing more of it because more of us are calling them out and correcting their errors. I also believe there are some paid “plants” on this site because some of their combative arguments are so vapid, so circular. The repetitive tactic is to always get the last word in, usually so far-fetched and deflective from the original, that you have to laugh. By the way, the comments of you, Hullbobby, and Olly are much more observant and intuitive than many others…
Lin, there are no “paid plants”. Anonymous has indeed pointed out using Durham’s own filing of the facts current not in dispute. He’s not wrong when he provides evidence that a lot of claims about “spying” are just not true. Nobody has been able to refute his assertions based directly from the source.
He’s being repetitive because he’s using the facts directly from the source everyone else is claiming is the source of the “spying” claims. He’s providing direct proof contradicting a lot of the claims being made about the allegations that are supposedly in the filing.
The funny part is he’s absolutely right. Nobody can even bring themselves to acknowledge the basic facts contradicting the wild claims being made about what the Durham filing says.
Anonymous only seems “combative” because he’s pushing back against wildly false claims that are clearly contradicted by Durham’s own filing document. Why is that so hard to grasp? Is it actual willful denial?
Svelaz: No, its my “Opinion” -remember?
I would also suggest that, in addition to the majority of self-acting commenters here, law firms or individual actors may be retained/assigned to expressly respond to social messaging that is contrary to a desired agenda/political ideology. In fact, I have direct knowledge of this being done in the past.
And finally, I made NO comment or opinion about the truth/sufficiency of allegations–so why the multi-paragraph defense???? GO ahead and get the last word in, sir…..
Good morning Lin,
Thank you for the kind words.
Your comments, likewise!
I have found the secret to speed reading at this Blog….first you scroll past all “Anonymous” posts, then skip over any that respond to any previous post posted by “Anonymous”, then move right on past anything by Svelaz, Natcha, Fishwings, and Silberman.
Then one looks for keywords like “Trumpeter”, personal attacks on Professor Turley, and you can be done going through 75+ posts in about a minute flat….and enjoy some thought provoking offerings.
I don’t look for only posts that I agree with…..but do only look for those that are worth reading as they advance the debate and are not just wastes of bandwidth or time.
Now cue the responses……”Oh Yeah’s…”, “But whatabout’s”…..and the usual outright snarky replies……3-2-1!
Welcome aboard Ralph!
Ralph,
I did find the artistic and musical commentary that seemingly popped up refreshing.
I cannot keep up with the various “Anonymous” so just skip them.
Otherwise, well said!
Ralph, Congrats on “reading the room” correctly.
Svelaz / Sammy / Anonymous’ are like these dogs. In Spanish we say: “perro que ladra no muerde” (dog that barks never bites). No offense to the canines!
😉
Bonus Points for Estorvir’s dogs video.
Pro tip, if you think you need a vaccine, just play ball or throwing a stick with your dog will lead to you getting dog slobber on you thus your immune systems kicking in.
Hair of the Dog you know. lol
Ralph,
Anonymous is using the actual source to contradict the claims that others are falsely attributing to what Durham said.
He’s provided the link to the documentation itself. He’s the only one who is genuinely trying to get people into an actual discussion on the facts and evidence that is available right now.
Anonymous has shown a lot of patience pointing out false claims being made by using facts directly from the source. Clearly he’s not wrong. I’ve read the filings and Sussman’s response.
I suspect many won’t read the filing itself because it’s too complicated to follow for some.
“Anonymous has shown a lot of patience pointing out false claims being made by using facts directly from the source. Clearly he’s not wrong.” Is that because he is you?
Lock her up
When Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state, she was required to sign a document stating she would keep the State Department independent from the Clinton Foundation. She was also required to disclose the Clinton Foundation’s donors. Needless to say, Clinton did not follow this agreement, as is made clear below.
A newly unearthed memo reveals that the Clinton Foundation was nothing more than a vessel for the Clintons to get rich. The memo, written in 2011 by a Doug Band, a confidant of Bill Clinton, explained how Band used his consulting firm Teneo to encourage people to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
Numerous companies donated to the Clinton Foundation and then lobbied the State Department with lobbyists who were connected to the Clintons. A USA Today report poured through data from the Center for Responsive Politics and financial records to determine that “at least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.” These lobbyists even had a name if they raised at least $100,000 for the Clinton campaign–”Hillblazers.” There were at least four Hillblazers used as a lobbyists.
Hillary’s State Department emboldened Russia through Clinton Foundation quid pro quos. Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that as secretary of state, Clinton corralled U.S. tech companies — including those who were donors to the Clinton Foundation — to provide funding to Skolkovo, which was dubbed “Russia’s version of Silicon Valley.” Skolkovo returned their favor by having Russians connected to the “innovation city” donate to the Clinton Foundation and gathering together 28 “Key Partners,” 17 of which “made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.”
The Clintons scammed the people of Haiti after devastating natural disasters to enrich Clinton Foundation donors.
Yeah, but Trump. Russia!!!
It is always amazing whenever there is a legitimate investigation of Trump there is a lot more effort on the right wing blogosphere to “investigate the investigators” than to look into Trump’s crimes themselves. And it is easy to do with a cult-like following who does not understand what they are being told but they know the way Turley or the FoxNews hosts describe it it sounds nefarious.
There are all kinds of investigations going on into Trump now and they are finding real stuff. Like Trump’s entire business is built on fraudulent accounting, and even his accountants are admitting that at this point.
This is just more of that. It is amazing how many times this crowd can play some version of “Hillary’s emails again” and the cult eats it up.
It’s not about Trump.
It’s about Hillary, Elias, and the DNC.
Another song . . . .
Anybody old enough to remember Dylan’s The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll?
I am . . . and I remember trying replicate group three shots at an oblique angle within a few seconds using a bolt-action rifle and being unable to do it. Just saying . . . . Perhaps justice will be done, but I’m not holding my breath, even if the media hold theirs.
If people want Internet access but can’t afford it, they should get off their lazy butts and earn more money.
Yep, kids should definitely have to depend on their parents for internet access to school. While we’re at it, we should do away with public schools and public libraries.
public schools, yes eliminate them they serve no purpose at this time. public libraries, no, they are a public repository of information unfettered by a teaching plan.
American public schools – 28th in the world.
Teachers unions are toxic for America and American children.
Decertify teacher unions and throw the NEA and AFT presidents in prison for usurpation, subversion, treason et al.
“Freedom and Self-Reliance”