Durham: Perkins Coie Allies Connected to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Spied on Trump’s Internet Traffic While Trump Was President

[excalibur]

Exploit means to take advantage of. Someone exploits the resources of their land. The executive took advantage of the data he had access to.

Exploit does not mean illegal.

It does in this context.

 

[colfax_m]

Conspiracy is a 5-year SoL. But, the counting only begins once there is no more conspiring, and from what has been released we know they were still conspiring in 2017.

Thus the Durham filing at this time in order to get under any 5-year SoL.

I feel like if this was illegal, we'd have had an indictment about it by now.

Keep in mind, Joffe and Sussmann gave this information to the DoJ in 2016. I mean, if it were illegal they'd literally have handed evidence of their supposed crime over to investigators five years ago.

And yet we have not a hint that the DoJ considers this illegal. Only that Sussmann supposedly lied about representing Joffe when he handed the info over to Baker.

 

[colfax_m]

It does in this context.

How so?

 

[excalibur]

Could be the Espionage act...But we will have to wait to see.

We do know that Nellie Ohr was using a Ham radio setup. Who was she talking with on shortwave?

Did Fusion GPS’s Researcher Avoid Surveillance With A Ham Radio?

It seems Nellie Ohr was well aware the National Security Agency can intercept and store every communication on the Internet.

thefederalist.com

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You’re welcome. It’s good to be able to admit an error.

Now, where does the filing indicate anything that the tech executive did was illegal?

That is for the jury to decide. Whether to indict. But Durham believes there was something illegal?

 

[colfax_m]

That is for the jury to decide. Whether to indict. But Durham believes there was something illegal?

Durham believes that Sussmann lied. Other than that, he hasn't said anything else illegal occurred.

Prosecutors could indict a ham sandwich. Surely if it's as criminal as everyone says, that wouldn't be a barrier. After all, some are saying this demonstrates treason.

 

[imawhosure]

Durham believes that Sussmann lied. Other than that, he hasn't said anything else illegal occurred.

Prosecutors could indict a ham sandwich. Surely if it's as criminal as everyone says, that wouldn't be a barrier. After all, some are saying this demonstrates treason.

Indict a ham sandwich? I agree, so why couldn't they indict Trump, lol!

 

[ColonelAngus]

Look for lefties to change the definition of “spying” to claim it only exists when Republicans “spy” on Democrats…and insist it is not possible for Democrats to spy on Republicans.

 

[imawhosure]

Look for lefties to change the definition of “spying” to claim it only exists when Republicans “spy” on Democrats…and insist it is not possible for Democrats to spy on Republicans.

These a**holes are going to find out what happens when they overstep their bounds soon. The only question is---------->will it come out before November, or will it keep sealed until right before 2024. Either way, they are going to take a huge hit, and suffer for at least 3 cycles.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Durham believes that Sussmann lied. Other than that, he hasn't said anything else illegal occurred.

Prosecutors could indict a ham sandwich. Surely if it's as criminal as everyone says, that wouldn't be a barrier. After all, some are saying this demonstrates treason.

BS FALL GUY ALERT!

If one is claiming Sussman acted unilaterally and just decided to lie to CIA all by himself, that just seems stupid.

 

[colfax_m]

Look for lefties to change the definition of “spying” to claim it only exists when Republicans “spy” on Democrats…and insist it is not possible for Democrats to spy on Republicans.

Nixon spied on the DNC when he tried to put bugs in their office.

How did the Democrats spy on Republicans here?

 

[colfax_m]

BS FALL GUY ALERT!

If one is claiming Sussman acted unilaterally and just decided to lie to CIA all by himself, that just seems stupid.

Is this another one of those instances where you attack people for not believing your own baseless nonsense?

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[imawhosure]

BS FALL GUY ALERT!

If one is claiming Sussman acted unilaterally and just decided to lie to CIA all by himself, that just seems stupid.

You don't believe that? Silly you, lol. Why would Katherine Rummler be involved if it wasn't to protect Obama and Biden?

Oh wait, we are all stupid, so why even ask-)

 

[DBA]

Was the information gathered illegally?

Sussmann is in trouble because he supposedly didn’t tell the DoJ that he was working on behalf of Joffe, not the Clinton Campaign.

Most spying activities are illegal. Was the information that was gathered publicly available?

Sussmann knew exactly why they were investigating Trump.

 

[colfax_m]

Most spying activities are illegal. Was the information that was gathered publicly available?

Sussmann knew exactly why they were investigating Trump.

Just because it wasn’t public doesn’t mean it was obtained through spying.

For example, my bank could turn over my suspicious transactions to the police. No one would say that I was spied on but the information is not public.

 

[j-mac]

LOL

They're your claims. That makes it your homework you want to get out of.

But as you already indicated, you can't back up what you claimed.

Oh brother…do you not watch the news? Oh, never mind, none of the outlets you watch are reporting on this. Just Joe Rogan 24/7…

 

[DBA]

The one lie was about a single individual who was tangential to the investigation. Had there been no lie, the investigation would have gone on essentially unchanged.

They would not have gotten the FISA warrant without the lie. That lie was about the source of the information, which is essential to the credibility of the case they were trying to make. Why else would they lie and risk legal action other than knowing they had to in order to get the warrant? Doesn't make a lot of sense when you really think about it.

 

[imawhosure]

Conservatives, you got them, come ON! These people are paid DNC posters trying to make this thread as loooooooong as possible so as undecideds, or Independents won't read it. Paid posters do this when they are on the ropes, lol.

Tell them to pound sand! They got Durhams nose up their rearends, and they no lika dat stuff!

Let the regular people read your proof, without these Leftists trying to FORCE you to rehash it. The most important person in this forum, is the person on the fence. We are NEVER going to convince these Leftists, because 1/2 of them are PAID!

They fear your proof more than anything, which is why they string all of us out to make the thread unreadable for just regular folks. And notice, what kind of threads they choose! HINT---------->Ones that prove they are crooked as hell, and totalitarians!

 

[excalibur]

More Democrats want Clinton investigated for secret server scandal

More than two-thirds of Democrats believe Hillary Clinton should be questioned by Special Counsel John Durham over the Russia secret server scandal, a poll found last month

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[DBA]

Just because it wasn’t public doesn’t mean it was obtained through spying.

For example, my bank could turn over my suspicious transactions to the police. No one would say that I was spied on but the information is not public.

To make your analogy coincide with the Clinton situation, the bank would have been asked by your arch-business rival to investigate your transactions in hopes of finding anything that looked suspicious and to spin the results in such a way to the police to make you look potentially guilty and for the police to turn your world upside down based on this spin. Yeah, that is wrong on many levels.