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

[DBA]

I’m well caught up. You substituted the subject of discussion for a different subject. Obstruction and collision are two separate issues and discussed separately in the report.

Some people believe that Trump’s campaign never met with Russians. We know that was a lie because of the investigation. Some people Russia didn’t hack the DNC based on a fake narrative. We know that was a lie too because of the same investigation.

And we also know this, which is the most pertinent quote from the Mueller investigation. As I pointed out before, in legal terms, "not sufficient" means not enough for a rational person to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense was committed, ergo, if you still believe it, you are not rational. A rational person would conclude that it is not reasonable to believe that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

 

[colfax_m]

And we also know this, which is the most pertinent quote from the Mueller investigation. As I pointed out before, in legal terms, "not sufficient" means not enough for a rational person to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense was committed, ergo, if you still believe it, you are not rational. A rational person would conclude that it is not reasonable to believe that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

The other poster was clearly talking about obstruction and you changed the topic to coordination. That was dishonest and you're still doing it.

It is reasonable to say that Trump committed obstruction which is what the other poster was attempting to claim.

 

[MisterBeale]

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

I'm am not going to entertain your equivocations.

You are a defender of the Deep State, and politicians that do the bidding of the consortium, so? Naturally, you will use lawyering and word parsing to make it appear that these corrupt politicians are innocent. . . when sane folks know they are not. It is connected to Clinton. . . but whether it is defined as. . "spying?" That is up in the air.


And I doubt whether they will define it as such.

The Words ‘Infiltrate’ and ‘Spy’ Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham’s Recent Court Filing. Here’s What It Actually Says — and What It Doesn’t.​

The Words 'Infiltrate' and 'Spy' Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham's Recent Court Filing. Here's What It Actually Says — and What It Doesn't.

The first missive, filed Friday by special counsel John H. Durham, led to claims by conservatives (such as Kash Patel on FOX News) and even by Donald Trump himself that liberal and Democratic figures were "infiltrating" or "spying" on his campaign. The Durham filing, however, does not directly...

lawandcrime.com

". . . While some might blur the line between “spying” and “exploit[ing] . . . access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the distinction is, based on what we know right now, critical. Durham has not alleged a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) — all of which are major sources of law as to the prosecutions of federal computer crimes.

Broadly speaking, the CFAA criminalizes “knowingly access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access.” That might be something akin to “infiltrating” a system, but Durham’s Friday filing hasn’t alleged that, and it is unclear whether level of “access” the alleged exploiter was legally allowed to have to the alleged “non-public and/or proprietary” data.

The SCA deals with the disclosure of online communications — but it has many exceptions. Plus, the nature of “communications” can be legally quite narrow. (Remember: the government can look at phone numbers but cannot tap actual telephone calls without a warrant, and the government’s mail carriers can read addresses but not open envelopes or read mail. Phone numbers, addresses, and data a user has transmitted or “communicated to the system in order to make it work for him” has long been legally deemed to have been voluntarily injected into the public sphere; in other words, it isn’t secret.) Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.. . "

 

[DBA]

The other poster was clearly talking about obstruction and you changed the topic to coordination. That was dishonest and you're still doing it.

It is reasonable to say that Trump committed obstruction which is what the other poster was attempting to claim.

That is arguable as well because he is a sitting President. Did Trump prevent Mueller's team from gaining access to some information? Yes, they did. Was that a reasonable thing to do considering his position and given the origins of the investigation? IMO, absolutely.

So we can disagree on the obstruction case, but clearly there was no Russian collusion based on the evidence at hand. We can drop that fake narrative now.

 

[Lesh]

Did Trump prevent Mueller's team from gaining access to some information? Yes, they did. Was that a reasonable thing to do considering his position and given the origins of the investigation? IMO, absolutely.

He was investigating conspiracy. You agree that Trump obstructed. That's Impeachable my friend

So we can disagree on the obstruction case,

Only in that you think obstruction is "reasonable".

 

[DBA]

He was investigating conspiracy. You agree that Trump obstructed. That's Impeachable my friend

Only in that you think obstruction is "reasonable".

I don't now that a sitting President can be charged with obstruction and there is a reason for that. Any partisan group can get together to start an investigation based on a false narrative and then request classified and personal information from the President. That is what happened here and that is exactly why a sitting President should be able to reserve his/her right to privacy.

 

[bripat9643]

SIXTY "corrupt judges"?

Republicans?

Judges Trump appointed?

Go crawl back under your rock

Half of them are corrupt, the other half are spineless.

 

[Dragonlady]

Facts and real life outcomes are far from “blithering nonsense.” Your emotional snow flaking about how you wish or feel it Should have turned out is irrelevant.

What "facts" and "real life outcomes" would those be?

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.

Now you're moving the goal posts. You claimed there was absolutely "no evidence" of collusion. Now that we've proven that there is definitely evidence of collusion, but not enough for a conviction for conspiracy that finds guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", you seem to think we should dismiss the evidence we do have - like the Trump Tower meeting, or Paul Manafort pleading guilty to handing over the entire Republican Party voter data base to the Russians, or the entire Roger Stone case of coordination with WikiLeaks you're prepared to dismiss.

With every post, you prove why you're a DumbButtheadAmerican.

 

[Dragonlady]

I don't now that a sitting President can be charged with obstruction and there is a reason for that. Any partisan group can get together to start an investigation based on a false narrative and then request classified and personal information from the President. That is what happened here and that is exactly why a sitting President should be able to reserve his/her right to privacy.

The President does have some right to privacy - in his personal life. But everything he does as President, is not private. Nor should it be. Only in a dictatorship are the leader's deliberations kept "private". If you want to be president of the USA, you are giving up your right to privacy. Transparency is necessary to democracy.

 

[WEATHER53]

What’s wrong with saying y’all? Don’t tell me you’re an elitist who makes fun of average Americans for the way they speak.

I don’t know is a perfectly acceptable answer to a question we don’t know. You do not have an absolute right to have an answer to every question. The world does not revolve around you.

The world does revolve around their feelings though and of that liberals are certain

 

[WEATHER53]

What "facts" and "real life outcomes" would those be?


Now you're moving the goal posts. You claimed there was absolutely "no evidence" of collusion. Now that we've proven that there is definitely evidence of collusion, but not enough for a conviction for conspiracy that finds guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", you seem to think we should dismiss the evidence we do have - like the Trump Tower meeting, or Paul Manafort pleading guilty to handing over the entire Republican Party voter data base to the Russians, or the entire Roger Stone case of coordination with WikiLeaks you're prepared to dismiss.

With every post, you prove why you're a DumbButtheadAmerican.

The well paid two year expert Mueller fact stated his findings but libbies don’t feel good about that so they reinvent his statements to find the guilt they feel is fair.

 

[Lesh]

The well paid two year expert Mueller fact stated his findings but libbies don’t feel good about that so they reinvent his statements to find the guilt they feel is fair.

Would you like me to post what Mueller himself had to say ?

I guarantee you won't.

 

[colfax_m]

The world does revolve around their feelings though and of that liberals are certain

The right loves to talk about how they love to disregard other peoples feelings even while demanding their feelings be protected above all others.

 

[WEATHER53]

Would you like me to post what Mueller himself had to say ?

I guarantee you won't.

You can fluff up your feelings all you want So go ahead. All you got is your interpretation based on your dismay. Mueller was so empowered and did not deliver what you wanted. You try to twist what he said into what you feel he could of/should of said or meant but the Man did not do what you feel he should so you live in your safe space fantasy that he did and have your own very special little phrases that “prove” he did. It’s how you all abandon reality for feelings.
Mueller did not bring charges and did not refer. Your opinions to the contrary is trolling and fact untruthful

 

[bripat9643]

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

Pretty much

 

[bripat9643]

The right loves to talk about how they love to disregard other peoples feelings even while demanding their feelings be protected above all others.

Nope. We want our rights protected, not our feelings.

 

[Lesh]

You can fluff up your feelings all you want So go ahead. All you got is your interpretation based on your dismay. Mueller was so empowered and did not deliver what you wanted. You try to twist what he said into what you feel he could of/should of said or meant but the Man did not do what you feel he should do you live in your safe space fantasy that’s he did and have your own very special little phrases that price he did. It’s how you all abandon reality for feelings.
Mueller did not bring charges and did not refer. Your opinions to the contrary is trolling and fact untruthful

This has nothing to do with feelings...mine or anyone else's

Mueller:

"And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

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.

 

[WEATHER53]

The right loves to talk about how they love to disregard other peoples feelings even while demanding their feelings be protected above all others.

We care not about feelings. Only facts

 

[Lesh]

We care not about feelings. Only facts

Well the facts...say Biden won and the election was fair

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. We want our rights protected, not our feelings.

Sure. Just don’t kneel during the anthem.