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

[DBA]

Does Seattle and Portland shake anything in your memory bank?

Come on, those were super peaceful protest. Those were just kids camping out on the 6 city blocks in Portland and using the police station as their fort. No harm done.

 

[bripat9643]

Entire downtowns were not burned down. Right wingers not only burn shit up, they blow it up. And for no reason.

What did right wingers burn up or blow up?

Here's what leftwingers do:

 

[Lesh]

Mueller's own words on the subject

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No his job was to see ifTrump had committed criminal acts and refer.

Silly little liar. He specifically said that was not his job. Damn dude, you know nothing about any of this, do you?

 

[BWK]

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

You really are a fucking idiot. Durhams filing says nothing about Clinton spying on Trump.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Says who? I haven't called for Trump to be put in prison NOW for say, threatening the Secretary of State of Georgia. Or to be put in prison NOW for tax evasion or fraud. I'm not saying that Trump should be put in prison NOW for sending insurrectionists to the Capitol and then sat and watched TV gleefully rather than act.

I'm content to let the grand juries and open investigations to run their course.

Nearly every Prog on this board.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nearly every Prog on this board.

Then quote one. See you soon!

 

[BWK]

But she knew what they were planning, it was a cover-up, and a distraction game the minute those Wiki-Leaks files hit the street. Her campaign was colluding with the Deep State and the press on damage control & spin by the time of the last debate . . . The wanted to create a bigger narrative to distract the public from the actual CONTENTS of what was in those files. . . and still, most folks don't even remember what was in them.

Durham's filing says nothing about Clinton paying anyone to spy on Trump. This is all made up. Just like Uranium 1.

 

[BWK]

it doesn't matter. she'll say it's a lie she did nothing wrong, and it ends.

no one is hekd responsible anymore

It is a lie that Clinton paid someone to spy on Trump. Show me in Durham
s filing where he said that.

 

[Skylar]

Nearly every Prog on this board.

If you say so. I'm not among them.

I have opinions on if Trump should be held legally accountable, but ultimately its in the hands of prosecutors, grand juries, judges and juries.

 

[DBA]

Mueller's own words on the subject

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

And if they had confidence that the President clearly had committed a crime, they would have said that, regardless of whether or not it was within their purview to bring charges. Anyone in this country is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. They are acting as if the fact that they cannot say with confidence that he did not commit a crime, that he is guilty. That is a 180 from the way our legal system is supposed to work.

See how that goes? It's spin and you guys lap it up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is a lie that Clinton paid someone to spy on Trump. Show me in Durham
s filing where he said that.

Lotsa liars on this thread. Starting with the OP.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And if they had confidence that the President clearly had committed a crime, they would have said that, regardless of whether or not it was within their purview to bring charges.

Nope. He literally laid that out and said he would not have made such a determination and was not tasked with doing so.

So another shameless lie. You guys are literally just making shit up as you go.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That isn't what he said. So really you just lied.

Link that he recommended an indictment.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're too eager. You're not reading. Try again. I'll even highlight the part you missed:

"Mueller said quite clearly that he didn't feel he had the authority to charge a sitting president and that it was Congress' duty to hold him accountable."

Now if Mueller didn't feel he had the authority to charge a president....why would he indict anyone?

Read first, then comment. When you do it the other way around, its embarrassing.

Recommending an indictment leaves it up to the jury. Did anyone recommend an indictment?

 

[WEATHER53]

Actually he did. He referred crimes to SDNY

If “crimes” had been referred then they would have been prosecuted. Didn’t happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Link that he recommended an indictment.

Uh, you're not following. I mean the poster did not say that.

Mueller specifically said he was not tasked with determining whether the president commtted a crime. Mueller may have believed 100% that Trump did commit a crime, and would not have recommended an indictment.

He literally spelled this out for everyone.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Uh, you're not following. I mean the poster did not say that.

Mueller specifically said he was not tasked with determining whether the president commtted a crime. Mueller may have believed 100% that Trump did commit a crime, and would not have recommended an indictment.

He literally spelled this out for everyone.

So you're butting in. I asked that same poster a question and he went down the gaslighting path because he could not answer it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you're butting in. I asked that same poster a question and he went down the gaslighting path because he could not answer it.

Yep, butting into save both of you 3 pages of an irrelevant tantrum.

 

[Lakhota]

FBI reviewed cybersecurity firm’s evidence in 2016 DNC election hack

Social media posts are wrongly claiming that the FBI failed to review evidence in the hack of the DNC’s computer network before concluding that Russia was responsible for the breach.

apnews.com

Indicted Clinton lawyer hired CrowdStrike, firm behind dubious Russian hacking claim​

The indictment of Michael Sussmann raises new questions about Russiagate’s foundational Russian hacking allegation. That claim originates with CrowdStrike -- a firm hired and overseen by Sussmann.​

Indicted Clinton lawyer hired CrowdStrike, firm behind dubious Russian hacking claim

Before he allegedly lied to the FBI while pushing a fake Trump-Russia link, Michael Sussmann hired CrowdStrike. The firm accused Russia of hacking the DNC, only to later admit it lacked evidence.

mate.substack.com

I remember when Ray McGovern. . . probably this nation's best independent investigative journalist. . when he called bullshit on this whole story. This will be his final redemption. RIP (And remember. . he's the lefty that uncovered Iran-Contra too! )

FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike Unredacted or Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking Because None was Produced​

FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike Unredacted or Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking Because None was Produced

The FBI relied on CrowdStrike's "conclusion" to blame Russia for hacking DNC servers, though the private firm never produced a final report and the FBI never asked them to, as Ray McGovern explains. By Ray McGovern Special to Consortium News CrowdStrike, the controversial cybersecurity firm that

consortiumnews.com

This article was from June 17, 2019.

". . . These drafts were “voluntarily” given to the FBI by DNC lawyers, the filing says. “No redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors,” the filing quotes DNC lawyers as saying.

In Stone’s motion his lawyers argued: “If the Russian state did not hack the DNC, DCCC, or [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta’s servers, then Roger Stone was prosecuted for obstructing a congressional investigation into an unproven Russian state hacking conspiracy … The issue of whether or not the DNC was hacked is central to the Defendant’s defense.”

<snip>

CrowdStrike’s Early Role


In a Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity referred prominently to this instructive time sequence:

VIPS does not believe the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.

Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPS member, filed an affidavit in Stone’s case. Binney said: “WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive.”​

<snip>

What Were They Thinking?

At the March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy heaped effusive praise on then-FBI Director Comey, calling him “incredibly respected.” At that early stage, no doubt Gowdy meant no double entendre. He might now.

As Russia-gate transmogrifies into Deep State-gate, the DOJ is launching a probe into the origins of Russia-gate and the intelligence agencies alleged role in it. It remains to be seen whether U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, who is leading the probe, will interview Assange, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who did not.

It is proving very difficult for some of my old FBI friends and others to believe that Comey and other justice, intelligence, and security officials at the very top could have played fast and loose with the Constitution and the law and lived a lie over the past few years.

“How did they ever think they could get away with it?” they ask. The answer is deceivingly simple. Comey himself has explained it in a moment of seemingly unintentional candor in his pretentious book, “A Higher Loyalty.” He wrote, “I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president.. . . ”

Fake news! These lies have all been thoroughly debunked.