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

[WEATHER53]

Liberals blubbering about what the Feel Muller Should have concluded and even though the hired gun did not they present the situation as if he did

 

[colfax_m]

Mueller didn't know who Fusion GPS was. He knew nothing at all about the Steele Dossier.

Because it was irrelevant to their investigation. Why would he need to know anything about the Steele Dossier? It wasn't legitimate.

 

[WEATHER53]

Mueller also stated that there wasn't "sufficient evidence". Do you know what that means to the legal community?

It means it’s not as valid as feelings of suspicions
Lib 101

 

[Skylar]

If you support the Democrats in general, you have no credibility. That was MY point.

Case in point, you likely bought the Trump/Russian collusion narrative. If you didn't, then I apologize in advance.

I'm not the one clinging to debunked conspiracies....that's your ilk. Your 'BIg Lie' that Trump continues to cling to like a blankey to soothe is fragile ego doesn't bode well for the credibility of your kind.

Conservatives ooze entitlement and fragility. They demand positions of power they didn't win, power they didn't earn. They insist that the only legitimate election is when they win. And when you refuse to give them the offices they lost........they attack the capitol.

No thank you.

 

[woodwork201]

Prosecutors decide all the time NOT to pursue charges due to lack of evidence. Mueller himself indicated that no crime had been committed by Don Jr. when he used stolen passwords for unauthorized access to websites.....in the Mueller report.

"While investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, US special counsel Robert Mueller declined to charge Roger Stone and Donald Trump Jr. with specific federal computer crimes, according to a BuzzFeed report published Friday. "

Mueller reportedly declined to charge Stone, Trump Jr. with hacking crimes

The special counsel ruled out charging Roger Stone with crimes related to the DNC hack.

www.cnet.com

The thing that you insist Mueller could never do, he did in the very report you refuse to read.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Choosing to not charge is not exoneration. Choosing not to charge for lack of evidence means the charge cannot be proven. That means it's speculation or wishful thinking to say the person committed a crime. Stone and Trump Jr. must not have hacked any computers. If the government had charged them with insufficient evidence they would have been found not guilty.

Trump was innocent of collusion and innocent of obstruction. The goons on the Mueller team knew it or they would have said that they had the proof but chose not to indict the sitting president. Or they could have indicted him. But they said they had no proof.

 

[DBA]

The truckers are being treated with kid gloves. They're obstructing an entire city center. These kids were obstructing a single sidewalk.

That was a decade ago. You can do better than that.

I just want to get this straight, freezing the bank accounts of peaceful protesters should become the norm? Be careful as it is your side that is much more prone to "peaceful" protests.

 

[DBA]

I'm not the one clinging to debunked conspiracies....that's your ilk. Your 'BIg Lie' that Trump continues to cling to like a blankey to soothe is fragile ego doesn't bode well for the credibility of your kind.

Conservatives ooze entitlement and fragility. They demand positions of power they didn't win, power they didn't earn. They insist that the only legitimate election is when they win. And when you refuse to give them the offices they lost........they attack the capitol.

No thank you.

Wow, this is dripping with irony. Conservatives are most certainly NOT the part of entitlement. That is you losers. Voting demographics don't lie.

Are you clinging to the FULLY debunked theory of Trump/Russian collusion? I don't mean debunked by some heavily pierced and tattooed basement dweller on a fact-checking blog, I mean by a team of prosecutors spending over 1 3/4 years investigating and tens of millions of dollars.

 

[woodwork201]

Sure. It's true because it was on the internet and no one would lie on the internet.

Well, that's just silly since you lie on the Internet all the time.

 

[Skylar]

Choosing not to charge for lack of evidence means the charge cannot be proven. That means it's speculation or wishful thinking to say the person committed a crime.

Wishful thinking? The point of a counsel is to determine if crimes had been commited. Determining that there's insufficient evidence of a crime and charges will not be filed is *absolutely* within the special counsel's job.

All your babble about 'wishful thinking', I'll leave to you.

You're 'you can't prove someone didn't commit a crime' nonsense is demonstratably false. You've clearly never heard of an alibi. Which severely undermines your assertion that Mueller doesn't understand how investigations work....but somehow, you do.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Dragonlady]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The evidence has been uncovered in AZ, PA, GA, and WI....Refusal to look at it doesn't mean it's not there.

Courts refusing to hear the evidence on flimsy procedural grounds IS NOT hearing and adjudicating the evidence.

Forensic audits are "checks and balances" and your side fights them tooth and nail, right up to the point of threatening people participating in recanvassing.

Those facts don't change just because you continue to go....

Democrats participated in all of the genuine recounts and audits that went on. But the privately financed "fraudits" only confirmed that Biden won, and found no evidence of any wrong doing, but did manage to spawn an array of even more bizarre and unbelievable conspiracy theories, all of which you seem to enthusiastically support.

There has been absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing other than a handful of Dead Republicans voting. You're the one going "lalalalal I can't hear you". The evidence and the facts say that you've been lied to by Donald Trump and all of the people making money off the lies.

Courts looked at the evidence and found there was none. YouTube videos with a voice over telling you something nefarious is going on is not evidence of anything. The lawyers who filed the cases have been disbarred for misleading the courts.

And still you say "lalalalal I can't hear you".

 

[imawhosure]

Lets all learn something!

 

[woodwork201]

Mueller did produce it. He has an entire volume dedicated to the evidence of obstruction of justice commited by Trump. You simply refuse to look at any of it. And then demand that since you won't look at it, it doesn't exist.

Alas, that's not how reality works. The evidence for obstruction of justice indeed exists and was presented in detail by Mueller in his report.

• In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice;[12] months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue – all of which McGahn refused to do.[13]
• After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go;” he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true.[14]
• In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”[15]
• In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.”[16]
• The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort, and an unnamed person with law enforcement.[17]

You ignore it all.

Not a bit of evidence in any of that. There's speculation about intent and what was in the President's mind but no evidence to back up any of it. Since the President knew he had not broken any campaign laws, knew he had not colluded with the Russians, it is neither supported or reasonable to assume he had any intent to cover up anything. What he wanted to do was get these unwarranted distractions out of the way so he could get on with the business of running the nation as he was elected to do.

 

[DBA]

Wishful thinking? The point of a counsel is to determine if crimes had been commited. Determining that there's insufficient evidence of a crime and charges will not be filed is *absolutely* within the special counsel's job.

What are you talking about? Insufficient evidence means that the charges in question would not be enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a rational person. That would make those that believe that their is sufficient evidence, despite the prosecuting attorney's assertion that there wasn't, irrational.

 

[ClaireH]

she'll just say she didn't do it.

Either that or nobody told her she shouldn’t do it that was also a “good one” it wasn’t in the training manual lol

 

[Skylar]

Wow, this is dripping with irony. Conservatives are most certainly NOT the part of entitlement. That is you losers. Voting demographics don't lie.

Nonsense. Conservatives ooze entitlement.

Trump didn't earn the votes of enough people and electors to win the election. Yet as is so typical of conservatives, he still felt entitled to the office. Your ilk still tried to seize power, overturn the election results and had his people arrange fraudulent docs be delivered to the National Archive from fake electors.

And then when that didn't work, your ilk attacked the capitol to stop the peaceful transition of power (and of course, blamed everyone else for your own violence - Antifa, the Media, even the FBI)

With Trump sniveling and whining about what a victim he is......as recently as last month.

"I love Arizona. We had a tremendous victory in Arizona that was taken away .....

....Last year we had a rigged election and the proof is all over the place. We have a lot of proof and they know it’s proof. "

Winners win. Losers snivel about why they lost. And your ilk are just clinging to their sniveling.

 

[woodwork201]

gatewaypundit.com/2022/02/hillary-health-exclusive-witness-reveals-2016-presidential-campaign-hillary-used-wheelchair-couldnt-walk-block-med-bag-times/

Yeah...we knew that.

thegatewaypundit.com instead of gatewaypundit.com

 

[eddiew37]

What's wrong in spying on a president like Trump who would sell America down the river for the right price ? With no banks lending him money I'll bet our secrets will soon be in the high bidders hands

 

[berg80]

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

Durham: Perkins Coie Allies Connected to Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign Spied on Trump's Internet Traffic While Trump Was President | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A new filing from Special Counsel John Durham reveals Perkins Coie allies connected to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign spied on Trump’s internet traffic – WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

12 Feb 2022 ~~ By Cristina Laila
A new filing from Special Counsel John Durham reveals Perkins Coie allies connected to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign spied on Trump’s internet traffic – WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT.
As previously reported, Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was indicted last September for lying to the FBI.

​

More from Techno Fog on Durham’s new filing:

​

Commentary:
There is substantial evidence that Perkins Coie has been used by Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats to fix and obfuscate DNC illegal actions dating back decades.
Is anybody actually shocked by this? This is what lying, corruption, seditious and traitorous actors do when they know they rarely face any consequences.
The entire federal system has been subverted to work exclusively for the PM/DSA Democrat Commie minions.
Our judiciary has become a coin toss- tails they win and heads we lose
Identifying Perkins Coie LLC as a den of Democrat Socialist Marxist activists is an understatement. It's common knowledge that Soros has given the group millions.
Sussman and Elias are not the only members of Perkins Coie that has been involved in the corrupt actions of Perkins Coie. It's the whole group of attorneys.
Simply, all the proof and documentation in the world exposing PMS/DSA Democrat Leftist scheming, lying, cheating, just does not matter. Democrats are above the law...it's been proven over and over.

PERKINS COIE: The Most Corrupt Law Firm Inside the Beltway | SOTN: Alternative News, Analysis & Commentary

**********​

Law Firm Running Corrupt DNC-Clinton Show Intimately Tied to George Soros - www.independentsentinel.com

The Democratic law firm tied to Fusion GPS, the infamous dossier, and the Clinton campaign, is also tied to George Soros as is Fusion GPS. Law firm Perkins Coie is employed by Soros for day-to-day work attacking Republican initiatives affecting the vote in the United States. The Perkins Coie...

www.independentsentinel.com

Rarely is there a more illustrative example of how a RWM lie spreads among the faithful.

 

[berg80]

What's wrong in spying on a president like Trump

Citing this filing, Fox News inaccurately declared that Mr. Durham had said he had evidence that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had paid a technology company to “infiltrate” a White House server. The Washington Examiner claimed that this all meant there had been spying on Mr. Trump’s White House office. “The press refuses to even mention the major crime that took place,” Mr. Trump said in a statement on Monday.

There were many problems with all this. For one, much of this was not new: The New York Times had reported in October what Mr. Sussmann had told the C.I.A. about data suggesting that Russian-made smartphones, called YotaPhones, had been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places. The conservative media also skewed what the filing said. For example, Mr. Durham’s filing never used the word “infiltrate.” And it never claimed that Mr. Joffe’s company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Most important, contrary to the reporting, the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. According to lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped develop the Yota analysis, the data — so-called DNS logs, which are records of when computers or smartphones have prepared to communicate with servers over the internet — came from Barack Obama’s presidency.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/...rump-russia.html?referringSource=articleShare

Fearful? Of what? It's just more RWM schlock. You fell for it again.

 

[Skylar]

Not a bit of evidence in any of that.

Says you, citing yourself. McGahn testified that yes, Trump told him to have the special counsel removed. Exactly as was laid out in the Mueller report.

Ex-White House Counsel Describes Pressure He Felt From Trump During The Russia Probe

The House Judiciary Committee released testimony from the former president's White House counsel, Don McGahn, who said Trump's repeated phone calls made him feel "frustrated, perturbed, trapped."

www.npr.org

And yes, the White House Chief Counsel testifyingn to what he personally witnessed is ABSOLUTELY evidence.

Remember, you don't know what you're talking about. You're not an expert on investigations, you don't know how an investigation is 'supposed' to be conducted, you don't know who the 'key players' were. Nor do you understand what evidence is, or what an alibi is.

Mueller, on the other hand.....is an expert investigator with decades of experience. He's a lawyer, former Director of the FBI, and an assistant Attorney General. He's an expert in both of the areas you are not: investigations and the law.

Why would I ignore him on investigations and the law..... and instead believe you, Dunning-Kruger?