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

[Aldo Raine]

if the left didn't have "feelings" and "emotions" they wouldn't have nothin at all!!!!!

ROTFLMFAO, says people that believe "stolen election".
MAGA

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Well thanks for that. This thread is boring. Not one leftist is able to answer a simple question from me. You guys all enjoy.

 

[DBA]

Lotsa liars on this thread. Starting with the OP.

The Clinton campaign most certainly paid for information. I mean seriously, where do you people get your information?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well thanks for that. This thread is boring. Not one leftist is able to answer a simple question from me. You guys all enjoy.

I must have missed it

 

[DBA]

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.

So what is your point? There was no determination either way. You mean they wasted a bunch of time and money?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Clinton campaign most certainly paid for information. I mean seriously, where do you people get your information?

The Clinton campaign paid someone to spy on Trump, in this topic?

Suuuuure. Uh,no.

 

[BWK]

Read it, don't read it, who cares. But the Right, if they don't stop, will be the same idiots who got their asses kicked on all the other made up conspiracies;

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - ASSOCIATED PRESS
This 2018 portrait released by the U.S. Department of Justice shows Connecticut’s U.S. Attorney John Durham. The latest filing from special counsel John Durham in his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe has been seized on by the conservative media and Donald Trump himself as vindication of the former president’s oft-repeated claims that he was “spied” on.

TEXT SIZE
47
EMAIL

PRINT
MORE
WASHINGTON — When John Durham, the Trump-era special counsel investigating the inquiry into Russia's 2016 election interference, filed a pretrial motion Friday night, he slipped in a few extra sentences that set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald Trump.
But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news — the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Trump and his allies.
Upon close inspection, these narratives are often based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation. They also tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time — raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims. Yet Trump allies portray the news media as engaged in a cover-up if they don't.
The latest example began with the motion that Durham filed in a case he has brought against Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer with links to the Democratic Party. The prosecutor has accused Sussmann of lying during a September 2016 meeting with an FBI official about Trump's possible links to Russia.
The filing was ostensibly about potential conflicts of interest. But it also recounted a meeting at which Sussmann had presented other suspicions to the government. In February 2017, Sussmann told the CIA about odd internet data suggesting that someone using a Russian-made smartphone may have been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.
Sussmann had obtained that information from a client, a technology executive named Rodney Joffe. Another paragraph in the court filing said that Joffe's company, Neustar, had helped maintain internet-related servers for the White House, and that he and his associates "exploited this arrangement" by mining certain records to gather derogatory information about Trump.
Citing this filing, Fox News inaccurately declared that Durham had said he had evidence that Hillary Rodham 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 Trump's White House office. And when mainstream publications held back, Trump and his allies began shaming the news media.
"The press refuses to even mention the major crime that took place," Trump said in a statement Monday. "This in itself is a scandal, the fact that a story so big, so powerful and so important for the future of our nation is getting zero coverage from LameStream, is being talked about all over the world."
There were many problems with all this. For one, much of this was not new: The New York Times had reported in October what Sussmann had told the CIA 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, Durham's filing never used the word "infiltrate." And it never claimed that 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.
"What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong," said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, lawyers for Dagon. "The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge, all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office."
In a statement, a spokesperson for Joffe said that "contrary to the allegations in this recent filing," he was apolitical, did not work for any political party and had lawful access under a contract to work with others to analyze DNS data — including from the White House — for the purpose of hunting for security breaches or threats.
After Russians hacked networks for the White House and Democrats in 2015 and 2016, it went on, the cybersecurity researchers were "deeply concerned" to find data suggesting Russian-made YotaPhones were in proximity to the Trump campaign and the White House, so they "prepared a report of their findings, which was subsequently shared with the CIA."
A spokesperson for Durham did not respond to a request for comment.
Durham was assigned by the attorney general at the time, William Barr, to scour the Russia investigation for wrongdoing in May 2019 as Trump escalated his claims that he was the victim of a "deep state" conspiracy. But after nearly three years, he has not developed any cases against high-level government officials.
Instead, Durham has developed two cases against people associated with outside efforts to understand Russia's election interference that put forward unproven, and sometimes thin or subsequently disproved, suspicions about purported links to Trump or his campaign.
Both cases are narrow — accusations of making false statements. One of those cases is against Sussmann, whom Durham has accused of lying during a September 2016 meeting with an FBI official about Trump's possible links to Russia.
(Durham says Sussmann falsely said he had no clients, but was there on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and Joffe. Sussman denies ever saying that, while maintaining he was only there on behalf of Joffe — not the campaign.)
Both Sussmann's September 2016 meeting with the FBI and the February 2017 meeting with the CIA centered on suspicions developed by cybersecurity researchers who specialize in sifting DNS data in search of hacking, botnets and other threats.
A military research organization had asked Georgia Tech researchers to help scrutinize a 2015 Russian malware attack on the White House's network. After it emerged that Russia had hacked Democrats, they began hunting for signs of other Russian activity targeting people or organizations related to the election, using data provided by Neustar.
Sussmann's meeting with the FBI involved odd data the researchers said might indicate communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked institution. The FBI dismissed suspicions of a secret communications channel as unfounded. In the indictment of Sussmann, Durham insinuated that the researchers did not believe what they were saying. But lawyers for the researchers said that was false and that their clients believed their analysis.
The meeting with the CIA involved odd data the researchers said indicated there had been communications with Yota servers in Russia coming from networks serving the White House; Trump Tower; Trump's Central Park West apartment building; and Spectrum Health, a Michigan hospital company that also played a role in the Alfa Bank matter. The researchers also collaborated on that issue, according to Westby and Rasch, and Dagon had prepared a "white paper" explaining the analysis, which Sussmann later took to the CIA.
Durham's filing cast doubt on the researchers' suggestion that interactions between devices in the United States and Yota servers were inherently suspicious, saying that there were more than 3 million such DNS logs from 2014-17 — and that such logs from the White House dated back at least that long.
But Westby and Rasch reiterated that YotaPhones are extremely rare in the United States and portrayed 3 million DNS logs over three years as "paltry and small relative to the billions and billions" of logs associated with common devices such as iPhones.
"Yota lookups are extremely concerning if they emanate from sensitive networks that require protection, such as government networks or people running for federal office," they said.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

47
SHOW COMMENTS

At the end of the day, as always, coming from the Right, it was a whole lot of nothing. Time to get back to the real scandals over Trumps crimes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what is your point? There was no determination either way.

Yes, but Mueller said that, if he could determine Trump committed NO crime, he would have said so.

Oops.

Geez guys, do ya know ANYTHING about ANY of this?

 

[DBA]

The Clinton campaign paid someone to spy on Trump, in this topic?

Suuuuure. Uh,no.

Special Counsel John Durham released a new filing Friday that says the Clinton campaign paid a tech firm that “exploited” access to the servers at Trump Tower and later at the White House in an attempt to link former President Donald Trump to Russia.

Kash Patel, the former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee, said the filing “definitively shows the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia,”

Maybe you need to look up the definition of spying.

 

[Skylar]

That's obvious horseshit.

Says the guy that still refuses to read the Mueller report. Wallow in aggressively ignorance.

Meanwhile, Mueller made himself crystal clear as to why he didn't recommend indictments, or if any such indictments could be made:

"....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.”

-Robert Mueller

Mueller: 'A Sitting President Cannot Be Charged with a Crime'

In his first public comment on the conclusions of his report on Russia's meddling in the 2016 US presidential election, Special Counsel Robert Mueller explained how he arrived at the conclusion outlined in his 400-page report. "A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime," Mueller said...

www.voanews.com

And that it was Congress that had the authority to apply obstruction laws to the President's corrupt use of his authority:


" With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. "


-Mueller Report, Vol II

Remember bri.....you don't know shit about anything you're discussing. I do.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I must have missed it

All I asked is why didn't the attorney check for conflicts of interest. Every attorney, regardless of business or personal MUST check for conflicts of interest before taking on any case and or client. Why was this not done here with Sussman & Co.?

 

[Skylar]

The president is perfectly within his authority to have the special counsel removed. You put a quote mark on that statement, but it isn't in the report. I checked.

Muller didn't write the document you linked to. From this pseudo Mueller report:

​

Who am I and why did I make this version of the Mueller report?​

I am an academic scientist: a professor (now emerita) at a medical school. Part of my day job is to develop curricula that make complex scientific concepts accessible to high school students. One of the biggest barriers to understanding professional language is the ‘embedded concept’ that lurks in a statement and makes the whole thing inaccessible to the normal reader. So when I first saw the Mueller report I knew we were dealing with an obvious, but huge, problem: All the footnotes, examples and most of all the legal language construction might be critical to a professional appraisal of the material, but would make it impenetrable for most readers. I have to say I barely got through the executive summary, which I had understood to have been written for a lay person like me. No! Fail!!!. So I decided to do something about it to make it readable for normal human beings.​

Here's the link to the same report on the government site:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf

I'd warn you that it will be harder for you to read, but we both know you won't read it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Special Counsel John Durham released a new filing Friday that says the Clinton campaign paid a tech firm that “exploited” access to the servers at Trump Tower and later at the White House in an attempt to link former President Donald Trump to Russia.

Kash Patel, the former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee, said the filing “definitively shows the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia,”

Maybe you need to look up the definition of spying.

She didn't pay them to do that. It also says this was after they worked for the campaign.

So keep reading, my man. Kash Patel is a paid liar now, BTW. And he is lying.

 

[DBA]

Says the guy that still refuses to read the Mueller report. Wallow in aggressively ignorance.

Meanwhile, Mueller made himself crystal clear as to why he didn't recommend indictments, or if any such indictments could be made:

"....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.”

-Robert Mueller

Mueller: 'A Sitting President Cannot Be Charged with a Crime'

In his first public comment on the conclusions of his report on Russia's meddling in the 2016 US presidential election, Special Counsel Robert Mueller explained how he arrived at the conclusion outlined in his 400-page report. "A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime," Mueller said...

www.voanews.com

And that it was Congress that had the authority to apply obstruction laws to the President's corrupt use of his authority:

"Our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no-one is above the law indicates that in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice Congress has the authority to prohibit the President's corrupt use of his authority. We therefore concluded that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to a President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office."

-Mueller Report, Vol II

Remember bri.....you don't know shit about anything you're discussing. I do.

Who cares if they could consider charging Trump with a crime or not? Nothing prevented Mueller from saying "we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed the following crimes but it is not within our purview to bring charges."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing prevented Mueller from saying "we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed the following crimes but it is not within our purview to bring charges."

Uh, Mueller's mandate prevented that. He literally spelled it out in language a child could understand.

So, wrong again.

You keep just making shit up on the spot. And they are all lies.. have you considered reading up before opening your mouth again? Might be a good idea.

 

[BWK]

All I asked is why didn't the attorney check for conflicts of interest. Every attorney, regardless of business or personal MUST check for conflicts of interest before taking on any case and or client. Why was this not done here with Sussman & Co.?

There was no conflict of interest. It was Durham who was doing his best to invent a conflict of interest;
Both Sussmann's September 2016 meeting with the FBI and the February 2017 meeting with the CIA centered on suspicions developed by cybersecurity researchers who specialize in sifting DNS data in search of hacking, botnets and other threats.
A military research organization had asked Georgia Tech researchers to help scrutinize a 2015 Russian malware attack on the White House's network. After it emerged that Russia had hacked Democrats, they began hunting for signs of other Russian activity targeting people or organizations related to the election, using data provided by Neustar.
Sussmann's meeting with the FBI involved odd data the researchers said might indicate communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked institution. The FBI dismissed suspicions of a secret communications channel as unfounded. In the indictment of Sussmann, Durham insinuated that the researchers did not believe what they were saying. But lawyers for the researchers said that was false and that their clients believed their analysis.
The meeting with the CIA involved odd data the researchers said indicated there had been communications with Yota servers in Russia coming from networks serving the White House; Trump Tower; Trump's Central Park West apartment building; and Spectrum Health, a Michigan hospital company that also played a role in the Alfa Bank matter. The researchers also collaborated on that issue, according to Westby and Rasch, and Dagon had prepared a "white paper" explaining the analysis, which Sussmann later took to the CIA. Durham's filing is bull shit;
Durham's filing cast doubt on the researchers' suggestion that interactions between devices in the United States and Yota servers were inherently suspicious, saying that there were more than 3 million such DNS logs from 2014-17 — and that such logs from the White House dated back at least that long.
But Westby and Rasch reiterated that YotaPhones are extremely rare in the United States and portrayed 3 million DNS logs over three years as "paltry and small relative to the billions and billions" of logs associated with common devices such as iPhones.
"Yota lookups are extremely concerning if they emanate from sensitive networks that require protection, such as government networks or people running for federal office," they said.

 

[BWK]

Who cares if they could consider charging Trump with a crime or not? Nothing prevented Mueller from saying "we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed the following crimes but it is not within our purview to bring charges."

Many times in that hearing, that is exactly what he was saying. When asked if Trump could be charged, the answer was yes.

 

[DBA]

She didn't pay them to do that. It also says this was after they worked for the campaign.

So keep reading, my man. Kash Patel is a paid liar now, BTW. And he is lying.

Durham also revealed how Sussman’s own billing records show he “repeatedly” billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the “Russian Bank-1” allegations.

Those allegations were "investigated" by a tech executive who was promised a high profile position in the new Clinton administration if he could help to provide dirt which he mined from surveilling Trump tower. God you guys are hopelessly ignorant.

 

[BWK]

Who cares if they could consider charging Trump with a crime or not? Nothing prevented Mueller from saying "we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed the following crimes but it is not within our purview to bring charges."

You know, "who cares" tell us everything about Trump's cult.

 

[Skylar]

Who cares if they could consider charging Trump with a crime or not? Nothing prevented Mueller from saying "we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed the following crimes but it is not within our purview to bring charges."

Simple: those who insist that Mueller didn't indict Trump because Trump committed no crimes are laughably ignorant.

Mueller didn't indict Trump.....because "Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

Just demolishing the "lack of indictments is exoneration" claims.