Media Vapors: How Special Counsel John Durham Has Triggered a Media Meltdown

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.]

496 thoughts on “Media Vapors: How Special Counsel John Durham Has Triggered a Media Meltdown”

  1. There are 196 nations in the world. 30 of them are NATO members. 1 is Russia.

    196-31 = 165

    Apparently, Russia is free to invade all of the non-NATO nations that it wants to invade.
    This means there are 165 non-NATO nations that Russia is at liberty to invade.
    This would include all of the nations in Africa and South America, none of which are NATO members.
    If Russia wants to invade the non-NATO members of South America, such as Brazil, Russia is free to do so.
    It would not be in America’s interest, in terms of blood and treasure, to stop Russia from invading all of the non-NATO nations of South America, according to some.
    Yes, I can plainly see how it is in America’s interest not to get involved in Ukraine and let Putin help himself to 165 non-NATO nations across the globe.

  2. This is very serious, and it’s not just lawyers, it’s simpatico government actors in concert within a political exploit that penetrates the EOP.
    Combined this is up there with Aaron Burr.

    1. What nonsense. You do understand that you’re claiming that the Obama EOP was “penetrated” by a company that was hired by the Obama EOP to analyze DNS traffic, and that the DNS data isn’t sensitive EOP data, right?

      1. You don’t seem to understand. It does not matter who hired the company. Are you saying Obama would have approved? Apparently he did approve through inaction after being briefed by Brennen on Hillay’s shenaigans. And ANY and ALL data coming out of the EOP is sensitive, no matter who is President. Even lists of numbers called and received are sensitive. A lot of information can be gleaned from it. Enemies would love to have it, that makes it sensitive, for your information. And about that data. It is classified info, who calls who from the EOP, and just because the list of numbers was obtained outside the EOP, THE CALLS WERE INITIATED INSIDE THE EOP AND THAT MAKES IT SPYING. No different than if they had planted a camera in the EOP and gained the same info by watching the numbers being dialed. You can twist it any way you want to, it was spying on the EOP.

        1. “Are you saying Obama would have approved?”

          Approved of WHAT?

          “Even lists of numbers called and received are sensitive. … who calls who from the EOP … THE CALLS … the numbers being dialed.”

          You clearly do not understand this case. The data were DNS lookups, not phone calls. The lookup data were unencrypted and owned by the server companies, not by the EOP. Joffe’s company simply had a contract with the EOP to analyze the data.

        2. It was Illegal and treasonous! Period. And the communist media were complicit in the entire scheme linking to the communists that pulled it off!

  3. Don’t leave out the shamelessness of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton either also sanctimoniously lied about the funding of the hoax or she should be tweeting how angry she is at her lawyers and staff for making her look like a lying fool for the last 5 years. But we all know the truth. Hillary was the ringleader of this crime and is a horrible human being.

    1. Durham doesn’t allege that “Hillary was the ringleader of this crime,” and the case hasn’t even gone to trial yet to prove that a crime occurred. In fact, Durham didn’t mention Hillary Clinton at all.

      Sussman’s lawyers have moved for the case to be dismissed for lack of materiality, and we’re waiting to see whether the case even goes to trial.

      1. ATS, you are like a dumb gold panner. You pan gold from the stream, barely making ends meet and frequently dying in the process. The smart one recognizes the gold flows downhill from above. This Democrat stream of gold starts somewhere in the Clinton campaign, likely directly from the Clintons and works its way through many law firms, the media and elsewhere.

        ATS likes to start at the bottom of the stream where it crosses with several others so that he can blame every stream but the right one.

  4. I was bigger and stronger than the rapist, so I could have run in to save that powerless girl from being raped by the rapist, one much larger than she, but she wasn’t a member of my family, so I just stood back and watched. All I was willing to do was to condemn the rapist, but my condemnations had little effect in stopping the rape. Plus, I didn’t want to get hurt.

    1. “I was bigger and stronger . . .”

      Anyone else notice that the Biden administration is desperate for a distraction from its abject failures at home? (“Inflation? What inflation? Look, Russia!”) And that the D’s are desperate for an issue to run on in the midterms? (Covid panic is wearing thin, so they need a new, manufactured “emergency.”) “Let’s gin up a war. Americans always rally around a war-time president.”

      So what if America is bled dry financially, and a few American soldiers are crippled or killed — eggs and omletes.

      If this administration is so concerned about a government that violates the rights of innocent citizens, it can start by condemning the jack-booted thugs in Ottawa.

      1. “the jack-booted thugs in Ottawa.”

        Wow, He mandates that truckers get a life saving vaccine proven safe by its administration to well over a billion people and he is a “Jack-booted thug”.
        90% of truckers have been vaccinated. It is safe, it keeps you out of the hospital, it lessens your transmissibility of the disease, if you get Covid, you have it for a shorter period of time. The vaccine is doing exactly what it was supposed to do, keep the spread down and keep people out of the hospital. So a few Jack-booted thugs didn’t like that idea and they (less than 10% of the truckers) decided they knew better and wanted to shut down the economy to prove their point.

        And don’t through the VAERS data at me, read the disclaimer… Understand what that data is and more importantly is not.

        Sorry, the jack-booted thugs moniker belongs to the truckers that are refusing the vaccine and making everyone else pay for their decisions.

        1. Life saving vaccine? Has your head been in the sand for 2 years? Appears so. And evidently you only have watched CNN lie daily and yet believed like a good obedient puppet. Those “vaccines” are not officially vaccines and are killing and maiming people worldwide. Turn off your tv and radio owned by the communist thug Bolsheviks and learn some truth.

  5. The truth is slowing oozing out like the puss filled sore this whole russia russia hoax is, This whole operation dwarfs Watergate’s corruption. It pleases me well to see the squirming and denial of diehard leftists that refuse to acknowledge the deceit and totally corrupted politics of their “gods”, their political religion. It’s out there in the sun like a dug up corpse. Own it as you were it’s putrid corruption well. Durham has a long reputation of being thorough and qualitative in his work. It shows on this DC dem party of lawyers willing to dance with the devil their souls be damned to get to the catbird seat.
    The midterms will bring their lambs of the left to slaughter , and short of firing Durham this investigation will expose the truth of the corrupt leftist machine in charge of the democrat party. Denile is not just a river in Egypt.

  6. I’m more inclined to believe Emerald Robinson on this one – Durham probe is a way to let the Clintons off the hook

  7. Mr. Turley seems not to be aware that there is evidence that the person Manafort was sharing poling data with (Konstantin Kilimnik) has “Russian intelligence ties” only if the word “ties” is kept so vague as to be meaningless. No one has ever produced any evidence that Kontantin Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence agent and no one ever seemed to be concerned that that might be the case when Kalimnik was working with the Obama administration.

    1. You libs are so obtuse, and so evil to the core. If you bothered too look it up, the polling information was Public information. Just because you guts chose to try and make Russia a boogy man, don ‘t mean they ever were, meanwhile you the clown show that is te Dem party are in bed with China, funding the Wuhan lab which has given us 800k dead Americans !! But Manafort gave some Russian info that was publicly know, Woooo hooo hoo, big deal !! You have told so many lies you make yourself believe there is something wrong with that because of course Russia bad, except, that was all a lie you clowns created !! The facts are we know what really happened to Seth Rich, The fact is we know that Wiki leaks was given info by someone who downloaded the info from, the DNC Headquarters, and we know under oath, Crowdstrike said they had ZERO PROOFF that Russia hacked the e-mails. You guys are clowns.

      1. Wow, you’re quite the conspiracy theorist. You’re also wrong on a bunch of factual issues.

      2. And Hillary still needs to answer for the Weiner laptop massive info on the Pedogate. That bombshell of info was why she lost her rigged communist election. NYPD had the goods on her and only thru intense negotiations was she and her Obama people going to escape prison. (True Pundit had the story) And now this Russia spy story of treason! If she could be executed at least twice that would be useful in getting justice for this witch.

  8. Foolish Svalezisms:

    In response to a discussion of free speech, Svelaz writes, “God is a moron.”

    This look-back on the blog is in response to multiple comments made by Svelaz. Those comments are nearly unintelligible or meaningless, so I decided to entertain with this dunderhead’s past statements.

    Education failed Svelaz, so when he grew a beard, the authorities said they would permit him to graduate from first grade.

    1. S. Meyer, LOL!!! You must have been triggered big time. It’s hilarious that you made an effort to do some “research” on past comments on a blog dedicated to….free speech. Meaning any opinion no matter how outlandish or offensive or even…silly are welcome.

      S. Meyer is just butt hurt because nobody is going to answer his asinine question so he can drag the unsuspecting dope into his deep dark rabbit hole of endless, useless arguments. It’s pretty sad actually.

      1. Said who? Exactly which or what evidence, evaluated by whom? Is this where Rachel maddow comes in? The NYT? Who was that, in the prestigious, esteemed, plop john of a company called the New York Times, that reported the WMDs of Iraq? For years. They lie, people Die. That is how you know them, by their fruit.
        “We came”
        “We saw”
        “He died”
        “What difference does it make?

  9. A point I often see on social media is that the United States has violated the natioanal sovereignty of other countries in the past. Do people enjoy advertising what idiots they are by making such stupid points? Evil countries don’t have the same right to national sovereignty that good countries have. If this were the case, then Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Patton violated the national sovereignty of Nazi Germany. For the love of God, please stop making the same stupid points as if they are clever. They might sound clever to you as you mindlessly make them, but upon closer scrutiny, they are just really, really stupid. Thank you.

    1. Most of the authors dance around the ‘too hot to touch’ parts like the British part in all of this.
      The activities of the British intelligence agencies in these fiascos.The Pilgrims Society on both sides of the Atlantic.The Queen’s Privy Council
      Lord Mark Malloch Brown,George Soros’ associate who now runs the Open Society Foundation.
      Smartmatic & Dominion voting machines
      What’s left to talk about isn’t much!

  10. Why do you consider Ukraine to be an authoritarian government? Why not offer supporting arguments? Why not consider Russia the same, or even more so?

    1. “Why do you consider Ukraine to be an authoritarian government?”

      Because it is.

      “Why not offer supporting arguments?”

      I already did. And the evidence is readily available.

      “Why not consider Russia the same, or even more so?’

      Blood brothers of the same tribe.

      Why not offer an argument for how Russia invading Ukraine poses an imminent threat to America’s sovereignty?

      1. Good question, and one repeatedly asked by Tucker Carlson.
        Eastern Ukraine has a heavy Russian population, maybe even a majority, who isn’t being well treated by the Nazi government.
        For hundreds of years Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia.
        The People of Crimea VOTED 90% to, once again, be part of Russia. “Democracy,” anyone?
        The only “danger” is to the Chinese Communist Democrat Baby Butchers in the midterm election if they can’t start a war with Russia.

  11. I am someone who is well-read about the affairs and histories of other nations. I am someone with the freedom of conscience enough to draw comparisons and conclusions, and form opinions about things.

    1. I am someone who is well-read about the affairs and histories of other nations. I am someone with the freedom of conscience enough to draw comparisons and conclusions, and form opinions about things. I have served in the Army and been overseas…Desert Storm to name my biggest military “accomplishment” if I may add that with a twist of humor. So what makes you such an expert that you can wag the dog , beat the jingling johnnie’s so loudly and yet ignore the absolute dereliction of OUR BORDERS by this insane admin clown show ?. This whole russia russia,Ukraine media event is a pure distraction whipped up into a frenzy to distract the American people from the purposely bad and destructive “work” by this admin ship of fools. Sending Kamala the braindead to that hot mess when as ‘border czar’ amongst everything else she has been tasked with has been a complete failure by her being a complete intellectual lightweight is just more proof of the pudding being a weak distraction of desperation. No thinking person is buying this “sh*t sammich”. Putin and the Germans have their pipeline…. and Joey biden did that.

  12. Putin cannot keep his troops there indefinitely, threatening and intimidating Ukraine. That’s no way for the Ukrainians to live, in constant fear. Sooner or later, NATO will need to issue an ultimatum to Russia. As for the traitorous Russophiles who claim that it’s no one’s else business where Putin puts his forces on his own territory: was it Poland’s business when Hitler amassed forces on his own territory along the border with Poland? History says YES.

    1. “That’s no way for the Ukrainians to live, in constant fear” — of their own, *authoritarian* government.

      If you’re going to keep agitating for Americans to die in a foreign war, at least be honest enough to tell them what they’re dying for.

  13. “For those trying to understand the allegations in Durham’s motion,” here’s the upshot:

    Hillary and her cronies got caught.

    1. No, that’s not the upshot. If you think that’s the upshot, then you don’t actually understand the allegations and the public evidence.

      1. Sam provided you with an opinion that was his conclusion. You immediately accused him of lack of comprehension. I don’t always agree with Sam, but he seems to understand most things fine. Since you were so direct in your response, I wonder why you can’t answer the following question asked many times. The ideas reside in the center of the argument. Here is the 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?

        1. S. Meyer, has officially become…Indigo Montoya.

          “Do you recognize something very bad….Do you recognize something very bad…Do you recognize something very bad……D..D…Do you? Do you recognize it? …… please recognize it. I need someone in my rabbit hole…,pleeeese?


          1. ATS, I am responding with my alias because many responses have come from another Anonymous poster. I don’t disagree with him or her. I just don’t want credit for someone else’s response.

            In what way is it a loaded question? Hillary’s campaign is central to the investigation. You chose to pick out self-selected quotes, so you can respond to them while the picture demonstrates an entirely different story.

            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?

            1. You want to focus on the Clinton Campaign? Fine, go for it. Find someone who wants to discuss that with you.

              But get it through your head that I consider you a troll and a bad faith discussant. You insult people and lie about people day in and day out, and then you turn around and want the people you’re insulting and lying about to treat you as a good faith discussant. You aren’t a good faith discussant, and I’m not going to join you in pretending that you are. IDGAF what your opinion is of me and my comments, and IDGAF that you want me to answer your question. You’re free to continuing whining that I won’t indulge you, but you brought that on yourself. Grow up and move on.

              1. ATS, something bad happened, but you wish to hide from that fact. The flow of money appears to be coming from the Clinton campaign. The entire discussion you have been involved with revolves around those ideas.

                This discussion is not a discussion of the Clinton campaign. It discusses potential criminality where the money starts at the Clinton campaign and is filtered through multiple lawyers to hide wrongdoing.

                Most of your quotes deal with tiny portions of this, but you haven’t figured out yet that it likely involves top people involved with the Clinton campaign. Actually, you did figure it out, but you wish to deflect because you are not interested in discussion. You are interested in deflection and denying the truth. You are willing to lie and do so frequently to accomplish those things.

                You can call me a troll if you wish, but I provide my opinion and the truth the way I say it. You don’t. You lie and deflect. Do you really believe Elias had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, and the law firms mentioned had nothing to do with the Clintons? You cannot possibly be that dumb.

                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?

    2. Mr. Durham tried on Thursday 2/17/22 to reign in the Jonatan Turley’s of the world when he filed again with the court:
      “If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information,” Durham wrote in the filing.

      I wonder if FOX and Turley will retract their misstatements.

      1. I doubt they will.

        Just like I doubt that Durham will retract the mistatements in his own motions.

        For example, he says “more complete DNS data that the Special Counsel’s Office obtained from a company that assisted Tech Executive-1 in assembling these allegations reflects that such DNS lookups were far from rare in the United States. For example, … between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Provider-1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses.”

        He either doesn’t understand that 3 million lookups over 3-4 years IS quite rare, given that there are tens of billions of DNS lookups every single day in the US, or he is choosing to dishonestly say that’s “far from rare.”

        1. It’s great that you understand DNS. This is just one excerpt from the filing. I recommend you read the entire filing before making statements that display your confirmation bias.

          “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 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.)”

          1. I did read the entire filing. I also read a bunch of other documents on the docket and analyses of some of them.

            Maybe Durham will prove those things at trial, maybe he won’t. We have no way to know. What we do know is that he hasn’t presented this evidence in any of the filings to date, and right now, we’re waiting for a ruling from the judge whether the case will even proceed to trial or if it will instead be dismissed for lack of evidence that Sussman made a materially false statement, if indeed he made a false statement at all.

            1. According to former reports, John Durham has the “Congressional video” where Sussman appeared before the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and admitted that he worked for the Clinton Campaign during the Trump/Russia investigations. This was a year BEFORE he told the FBI that he was working for NO “clients” when he went to the FBI with information on Trump and the Alfa Bank. That’s PROOF Sussman LIED to FBI Counsel James Baker—-James Baker already had the proof from that video, when he asked Sussman who his “client” was that wanted the FBI to have this Trump/Alfa Bank info!

              1. You and Durham claim that Sussman said he wasn’t working on behalf of a client. But the person he spoke with, Jim Baker, said under oath he doesn’t remember what Sussman said about this. For the record, Sussman had multiple clients during this period of time. Joffe was a different client than the Clinton Campaign.

                1. “But the person he spoke with, Jim Baker, said under oath he doesn’t remember what Sussman said about this.”

                  So what? Why should Baker’s lack of recall be believed?

                  “Joffe was a different client”

                  Each person is a different client, and each lawyer is different. They are all different leaves on a tree, so he sees no relationship until he is forced to see that they all come from the same roots, the Hillary campaign.

                  How has ATS scored on earlier claims?

                  Spying: ATS was wrong
                  Russia: ATS was wrong
                  Alfa-Bank: ATS was wrong
                  Impeachment #1 ATS was wrong
                  Ukraine: ATS was wrong
                  Steele Dossier ATS was wrong
                  Biden laptop ATS was wrong

                  ATS has been wrong about almost everything of importance. His words don’t match the truth. Deceit and deceit through word parsing is his game. Empty links and lies are his game.

      2. What Durham was stating was: No matter if his filings were understated or overstated by others, Durham’s Motion (the Government’s motion) is not undermined in any way—-because facts are facts.

        1. And if the case isn’t dismissed, then we’ll see in the trial whether Durham’s “facts” are actually facts.

    1. “There are a few companies specializing in managing incredibly large amounts of DNS data.”

      Do you understand the business models of those companies providing the service? My assumption is they can do other things and collate information. The article seemed to skip over the necessary details of the business model.

      1. If you have questions for the author, you can ask him there. Unlike here, the authors at that site periodically respond to comments. You can see that the author has already responded to some.

  14. How the corporate media covers or does not cover this story speaks volumes about why they have lost virtually all credibility.

    “A partial truth taken as whole truth is untruth.”

    If there is nothing to hide then there is nothing to fear. Let the spotlight shine on all those in positions of power. Hold their feet to the furnace. Never back down. Remain truthful. Give them no slack; both sides of the political spectrum. Let the chips fall where they may.

    Report the truth, dig deep, research and get out the fact based story and let the reader decide. It is good business. It is good for the health of our nation.

  15. There has been much ado on this blog about Durham’s allegations that the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, ‘EEOB, and the Executive Office of the President, ‘EOP’ (located in the ‘EEOB’) were data mined by Sussman’s team. The logical question is; ‘what does this have to do withTrump since Obama was president during the time in question’.

    The answer is that the GSA, also located in the EEOB, handles all communications for the President-Elect and the incoming administration. If you want to data-mine the incoming administration the EEOB is where the servers are located.

    In addition, I suspect that the offices of the President-Elect and his team would technically be considered to be a part of the EOP during the transition period so this may be the reason for the allegation that the EOB was data mined.

    1. There is “speculation” that it was the GSA who possibly had a “sensitive agreement” with Tech-1 (Rodney Joffe) and his employer Internet Company-1. Durham called it a “sensitive agreement” in his filing.

  16. Did you know that the email server that was the target of the investigation into Russian contact attempts wasn’t owned by the Trump Organization, at all? Rather, it was a mass marketing email company that sent advertising for Trump hotels. It wasn’t Trump’s server. Got it? Hillary Clinton pretended that bots attempting to contact a mass mailer email server was a smoking gun that Trump was a Russian agent. She lied, because she was desperately trying to deflect public scrutiny from the fact that she kept illegal servers in her basement, mishandled classified information, and allowed bad foreign actors access to classified information. She pretended that Trump did what she was guilty of.

    And she got away with it. The entire country was embroiled in controversy for years. There are STILL voters who think there was at least something fishy going on between Trump and Russia. Lies.

    Here is a direct link to public documents released by Durham’s office:

    “It is alleged that beginning in July 2016, Sussmann worked with the aforementioned U.S. technology executive, other cyber researchers, and a U.S.-based investigative firm to assemble the data and white papers that Sussmann ultimately provided to the FBI and the media. The technology executive, for his part, exploited his access to non-public data at multiple internet companies and enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract designed to identify the perpetrators of malicious cyber-attacks and protect U.S. national security. The indictment further alleges that researchers were tasked to mine this internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” that would tie then-presidential candidate Donald Trump to Russia, and which the executive believed would please certain “VIPs.” The indictment also alleges that Sussmann, his law firm, and the technology executive coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign in these efforts.

    It is further alleged that Sussmann’s false statement misled FBI personnel and deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and analysis, including the identities and motivations of Sussmann’s clients.

    The FBI ultimately determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and the Russia-based bank.

    This case is being prosecuted by Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis and Assistant Special Counsel Michael T. Keilty, with the support and assistance of other members of Special Counsel Durham’s team. The Special Counsel’s investigation is ongoing.”

    The Indictment of Sussmann:

    “During the meeting, SUSSMANN lied about the capacity m which he was providing the allegations to the FBI.”

    “in assembling and conveying these allegations, SUSSMANN acted on behalf of specific clients, namely, (i) a U.S. technology industry executive (“Tech Executive-I”) at a U.S. Internet company (“Internet Company-I”), and (ii) the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign (the “Clinton Campaign”).”

    SUSSMANN’s lie was material because, among other reasons, SUSSMANN’s false statement misled the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel concerning the political nature of his work and deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and technical analysis, including the identities and motivations of SUSSMANN’s clients.

    Had the FBI uncovered the origins of the relevant data and analysis, and as alleged below, it might have learned, among other things, that (i) in compiling and analyzing the Russian Bank-I allegations, Tech Executive-I had exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump; (ii) in furtherance of these efforts, Tech Executive- I had enlisted, and was continuing to enlist, the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract; and (iii) SUSSMANN, Tech Executive-I, and Law Firm-1 had coordinated, and were continuing to coordinate, with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign with regard to the data and written materials that SUSSMANN gave to the FBI and the media.

    The FBI’s investigation of these allegations nevertheless concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1. In particular, and among other things, the FBI’s investigation revealed that the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization but, rather, had been administered by a mass marketing email company that sent advertisements for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients.

    1. “Here is a direct link to public documents released by Durham’s office:

      No. That page fails to include multiple documents released by Durham’s office. More importantly, it does not include any of the responses to his legal filings. Anyone who wants to understand the case reads *both* sides. Here is the docket for the case again:
      That has many documents not included in your link and also includes responses from Sussman’s lawyers and opinions by the judge.

      “During the meeting, SUSSMANN lied about the capacity m which he was providing the allegations to the FBI.”

      That’s what’s alleged. Sussman has been indicted for a statement he allegedly made to then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker on Sept. 19, 2016. The thing is: Baker didn’t take any notes, didn’t record the meeting, and said under oath that he doesn’t remember what Sussman told him about this:

      Q: So when Mr. Sussman came to you to provide some evidence, you were not specifically aware that he was representing the DNC or the Hillary Clinton campaign at the time?

      A. I don’t recall, I don’t recall him specifically saying that at the time.

      So Durham’s evidence for Sussman having made a materially false statement to the FBI is pretty weak.

      But if you’re only reading Durham’s documents, you’re not going to know that Baker already said under oath that he doesn’t recall. Because Durham ignores this fact.

      1. Anomaly,

        Do you have a link for the Baker quote? Context is everything so it would be good to read everything that he said under oath about this matter, not just a single exchange that I suspect is being taken out of context.

        Also, if you were to check your vaunted docket, you would see that Durham alleges that Sussmann also told the same lie to the CIA, that he was simply a ‘concerned citizen’ and was not representing the Clinton campaign.

        1. Ray,

          I encourage you not to indulge in name-calling.

          Here’s a good discussion of what Baker has said under oath on several different occasions:

          That discussion has links to the multiple primary sources, which is helpful because we’re limited to 2 links per comment here, and there are more than 2 primary sources. To help you find these links: in the paragraph that begins “Jim Baker doesn’t agree with Jim Baker about what happened in the meeting,” there’s hyperlinked text — “October 3, 2018 interview,” “October 10, 2018 interview,” “July 15, 2019 interview with DOJ IG” — to the full transcripts that she quotes from, and there’s another hyperlink to a 302 (where it says “a June 2020 interview with Durham’s team”), which is not a transcript.

          As for “Durham alleges that Sussmann also told the same lie to the CIA” –
          Yes, I saw that in his motion last week, Durham alleges that “In his meeting with Agency-2 employees [on February 9, 2017], the defendant also made a substantially similar false statement as he had made to the FBI General Counsel.” I’ve previously quoted from this motion, which might have been a heads up that I’d read it. Oddly, despite alleging that Sussman made another materially false statement to the CIA, Durham did not charge Sussman with another false statements count. Instead, he let the statute of limitations for that meeting expire on 2/9/2022 without any charges.

          Since you touch on the docket, did you choose to read Sussman’s lawyers’ response? Some of what they noted:
          “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). … And the Special Counsel persists in alleging that Mr. Sussmann billed the Clinton Campaign for his meeting with the FBI in September 2016, when that is false as well.”
          “the Special Counsel has alleged that Mr. Sussmann met with the FBI on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, but it was not until November 2021—two months after Mr. Sussmann was indicted—that the Special Counsel bothered to interview any individual who worked full-time for that Campaign to determine if that allegation was true. It is not.”

          1. When looking at the pixels, try to grasp what the picture looks like. It seems like you don’t know where you are.

            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?

            1. Do you recognize that you’ve asked the same loaded question about 20 times now? Talk to a therapist about your OCD.

              1. I’m waiting for an answer. We have seen you twist and turn. We have seen you link to spin and argue about pixels instead of pictures. The question remains and will never disappear.

                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?

                I don’t think Durham will be at the head of significant prosecutions. We saw how one criminal forged and misrepresented the facts to FISA, paid a small price, and got his law license back. If the rule of law had been cherished, his sentence would have been a lot more severe and longer. You don’t recognize these things because you are dishonest and proven so. You are a waste of time, but expect to see such comments repeated as long as you continue to deceive and lie.

                1. The chihuahua continues to bark plaintively when others won’t join him in his rabbit hole.

                2. Anonymous (S. Meyer). Good grief man. Your worthless question is not relevant to the issue at all. Asking it endlessly is not going to change that. You just want others to go into your rabbit hole of nonsense where you can safely make arguments that make you feel smart.

                  You keep accusing Anonymous of being dishonest and a liar and STILL can’t provide exactly what it is that the lies are. What are they S. Meyer? What has anonymous lied about? Go ahead and tell us. Use those critical thinking skills you say you have in abundance. Surely you can provide us with the lies anonymous made.

                  1. “Anonymous (S. Meyer). Good grief man. Your worthless question is not relevant to the issue at all. ”

                    Svelaz, I will place your stupidity followed by the unanswered question to ATS so that the few who don’t recognize you as an idiot have another chance at doing so.

                    Svelaz writes: “Anonymous (S. Meyer). Good grief man. Your worthless question is not relevant to the issue at all.”

                    Meyer’s question to ATS: 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?

                    Though we are discussing illegal campaign activities, spying, and the Durham report where questions arise regarding Hillary’s involvement, you think the question I ask of ATS has nothing to do with the subject matter. I think most people will agree that you are stupid.

                    1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

                      The question worthless, it is precisely why nobody is going to answer it.

                      “ Though we are discussing illegal campaign activities, spying, and the Durham report where questions arise regarding Hillary’s involvement, you think the question I ask of ATS has nothing to do with the subject matter. ”

                      LOL!!! S. Meyer, there is no *we* here, just you.

                      You haven’t discussed the Durham report at all. You’ve been avoiding it like the plague since anonymous and I have provided multiple times links to the actual documentation contradicting claims of spying and “illegal campaign activities”. Anonymous has been very forthcoming in wanting to discuss the Durham filing multiple times and you keep running away by repeating your irrelevant question leading into a worthless rabbit hole full of nonsensical arguments from you.

                      You have accused anonymous of lying and being a liar without ever presenting any of the lies you claim he’s told. What are they S. Meyer? Are you lying about those claims or not? You seem awfully quiet about it.

          2. you reckon people don’t lie when placed under oath? LOL! I know a few that have. notes have been found when certain people said there was no notes. under oath is no defense.

            1. Sometimes people lie under oath. But unless you present evidence that Jim Baker lied under oath, it’s irrelevant that some other people sometimes lie under oath.

          3. Sussman’s involvement goes much deeper than just ONE LIE to the FBI!!! Durham gave 80,000 pages of documents to Sussman’s Attorney, to substantiate Sussman’s “involvement” with this entire Trump/Russia Hoax!

            There are emails—lots of them—between Sussman and Marc Elias concerning what they were doing to try and find “an inference” and “a narrative” to substantiate a link between Trump and Alfa Bank. There are copies of Sussman’s “billing receipts” submitted to the Clinton Campaign, for reimbursement.

            Everyone on the left seems to be making it out to be “all Sussman did was tell one lie,” when actually he was so heavily involved in other areas of this “high-level scheme,” that some legal experts are now calling “espionage.”

      2. I believe James Baker and Durham have since spoken, because Baker is expected to be a “witness” against Sussman, at Sussman’s trial. Durham would not have him as a witness against Sussman, if James Baker did not have anything!!!

      3. “Durham’s indictment alleges that Sussmann told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016 that he was not doing work “for any client” when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented data and evidence of a purported secret communications channel between then-candidate Donald Trump and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.”

        “During a virtual status hearing Tuesday, government prosecutors on Durham’s team signaled their intention to call Baker to testify as part of the Sussmann case. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty to one count of making a false statement to a federal agent.”

        “During the hearing, government prosecutors said, at this point, that they had provided Sussmann’s attorneys with 6,000 documents – amounting to up to some 80,000 pages (pertaining to Sussman and his case).”

    2. I also believe this is connected to the FBI “allowing 4 outside contractors to access the NSA Database of “upstream” files” (the NSA’s database on U.S. citizens ONLY). Remember: then-FISA Chief Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote her 2017 scathing Report on the FBI (made public in 2018).

      Collyer said the FBI allowed 4 outside contractors to access the NSA upstream files (on American citizens), “when the FBI themselves did not have permission to access those files.” The FBI only had permission to access the “downstream” files on foreign nations/foreign citizens. What she didn’t mention was that the ONLY way FBI could get into the American citizens files was by “being given the permission by someone at the NSA.”

Comments are closed.