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

[bendog]

~~~~~~
Your meltdown and denial of facts is well described by the statement of Jonathan Turley...

"Pediatricians call it “breath-holding spells.” It was when children hold their breath when upset until they experience syncope or passing out. The media in Washington appears close to a collective faint over the recent filings of Special Counsel John Durham. While the media has largely buried or downplayed the disclosures by Durham on the origins of the Russian conspiracy claims, Durham keeps adding new details implicating top Democratic figures in what he describes as an ongoing investigation. You can only hold your breath so long and Durham shows no signs that he is done by a long shot. ​

The latest disclosures by Durham are difficult for many in the media to cover because they directly refute years of prior coverage. Many in the media lampooned Donald Trump for claiming that the FBI and the Clinton campaign spied on Trump Tower and his campaign. Yet, we later learned that the FBI did spy on the campaign. In 2020, the media largely ignored that finding."​

Source:

Media Vapors: How Special Counsel John Durham Has Triggered a Media Meltdown

Pediatricians call it “breath-holding spells.” It was when children hold their breath when upset until they experience syncope, or passing out. The media in Washington appears close to …

jonathanturley.org

speaking of breath holding.

John Durham distances himself from right-wing furor

John Durham, the special counsel looking into the government's investigation of Russian election interference, distanced himself from reports in conservative media that a motion he filed last week implied Hillary Clinton's campaign paid to spy on Trump White House servers, according to the New...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Abatis]

It's going to take more to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussmann was working at the behest of the Clinton campaign other than to point out that they were both clients.

And again, Durham apparently has billing records showing Susamann billed the campaign for his time compiling and delivering the white papers.

In order to determine if that indeed did happen, we would need some kind of evidence. Durham needs to provide his accusation to Sussmann in order for Sussmann to prepare his defense, otherwise the prosecution is not behaving in a constitutional manner.

The charge pertains to Sussmann's role as the lawyer for Clinton and Fusion GPS when presenting the white papers to the FBI; that is an easily made point in fact. The case (at least this particular charge) hinges on if the government can prove Sussmann lied about his attachment to those parties. That's where Baker's notes (or non-existence of said notes) and Baker's already completed grand jury testimony and the grand jury testimony and questioning of others (of which we in the gen-pop have no substantive knowledge of) will be the focus.

Your statement above is not really applicable because you are talking about discovery, and a filing about conflict of interest of Sussmann's lawyer, is not discovery.

What was stated in Durham's filing is why Durham believes a conflict exists, what the interests may be of the firm who is representing multiple people involved who are exposed to being indicted (or who are already).

For example, Durham needs to say so and so asked Sussmann to do this for the Clinton campaign. Sussmann would like to ask so and so to take the witness stand and under oath tell us if if that is indeed the case. Durham has not done that and the most likely explanation is that Durham can't because he doesn't actually have evidence of any such thing occurring.

Durham doesn't need to say anything publicly. IIRC, there is a hearing today on Sussmann's motion to dismiss; perhaps Durham will be forced to present some new evidence / info in that proceeding.

.

 

[Doc7505]

speaking of breath holding.

John Durham distances himself from right-wing furor

John Durham, the special counsel looking into the government's investigation of Russian election interference, distanced himself from reports in conservative media that a motion he filed last week implied Hillary Clinton's campaign paid to spy on Trump White House servers, according to the New...

www.yahoo.com

~~~~~~
Indeed, Durham is a registered Democrat, but he's more honest than a Democrat and is doing the job he's been asked to do. That is finding the truth.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course that is different. Remember when a reporter enlarged a photo of Trump's notes? That is quite different than data mining. Plus you never complained about that. Dirty tricks are different than spying. Clinton was spying and paying for it.

Nah, somebody used new technology to try and make a profit and turn up some dirt on the Dirty One himself.

 

[colfax_m]

~~~~~~
Your meltdown and denial of facts is well described by the statement of Jonathan Turley...

"Pediatricians call it “breath-holding spells.” It was when children hold their breath when upset until they experience syncope or passing out. The media in Washington appears close to a collective faint over the recent filings of Special Counsel John Durham. While the media has largely buried or downplayed the disclosures by Durham on the origins of the Russian conspiracy claims, Durham keeps adding new details implicating top Democratic figures in what he describes as an ongoing investigation. You can only hold your breath so long and Durham shows no signs that he is done by a long shot. ​

The latest disclosures by Durham are difficult for many in the media to cover because they directly refute years of prior coverage. Many in the media lampooned Donald Trump for claiming that the FBI and the Clinton campaign spied on Trump Tower and his campaign. Yet, we later learned that the FBI did spy on the campaign. In 2020, the media largely ignored that finding."​

Source:

Media Vapors: How Special Counsel John Durham Has Triggered a Media Meltdown

Pediatricians call it “breath-holding spells.” It was when children hold their breath when upset until they experience syncope, or passing out. The media in Washington appears close to …

jonathanturley.org

Oh Turley. He is one of those media people who is misrepresenting the information in the Durham filing that Durham stated is not his fault.

There really isn’t anything new here. We have the same story about DNS lookups that we’ve know about for ages. Although Turley had to backtrack and correct himself that Joffe wasn’t hired, we still have nothing that says that anyone produced any information that was fabricated or that anyone involved didn’t believe was a legitimate issue.

 

[colfax_m]

~~~~~~
Indeed, Durham is a registered Democrat, but he's more honest than a Democrat and is doing the job he's been asked to do. That is finding the truth.

Do you have any evidence that Durham is a registered Democrat?

Newsweek says he’s a registered Republican.

What Happens When a Respected Prosecutor Joins Trump World? Ask John Durham

Depending on where you fall on the red-to-blue spectrum, Durham is either an avenging angel, come to right the wrongs inflicted on Donald Trump—or a deeply untrustworthy partisan hack, tasked to do the dirty work of an allegedly illegitimate president and his attorney general sidekick.

www.newsweek.com

 

[BlindBoo]

And again, Durham apparently has billing records showing Susamann billed the campaign for his time compiling and delivering the white papers.

Not what the filing say. The fact that he worked on the connection to the bank and then billed the Campaign for that work is hardly criminal or shows that he was directed to take the information and offer it to the FBI.

Durham is a PR Shield. The wording is particularly conflatable.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Doc7505]

Do you have any evidence that Durham is a registered Democrat?

Newsweek says he’s a registered Republican.

What Happens When a Respected Prosecutor Joins Trump World? Ask John Durham

Depending on where you fall on the red-to-blue spectrum, Durham is either an avenging angel, come to right the wrongs inflicted on Donald Trump—or a deeply untrustworthy partisan hack, tasked to do the dirty work of an allegedly illegitimate president and his attorney general sidekick.

www.newsweek.com

~~~~~~
I stand corrected.... Durham was a registered Republican but “generally is regarded as apolitical.” According to The Hartford Courant, “beginning in the late 1990s, Durham, a Republican accepted controversial assignments for successive presidential administrations of both political parties.”

 

[colfax_m]

And again, Durham apparently has billing records showing Susamann billed the campaign for his time compiling and delivering the white papers.

The charge pertains to Sussmann's role as the lawyer for Clinton and Fusion GPS when presenting the white papers to the FBI; that is an easily made point in fact. The case (at least this particular charge) hinges on if the government can prove Sussmann lied about his attachment to those parties. That's where Baker's notes (or non-existence of said notes) and Baker's already completed grand jury testimony and the grand jury testimony and questioning of others (of which we in the gen-pop have no substantive knowledge of) will be the focus.

Your statement above is not really applicable because you are talking about discovery, and a filing about conflict of interest of Sussmann's lawyer, is not discovery.

What was stated in Durham's filing is why Durham believes a conflict exists, what the interests may be of the firm who is representing multiple people involved who are exposed to being indicted (or who are already).

Durham doesn't need to say anything publicly. IIRC, there is a hearing today on Sussmann's motion to dismiss; perhaps Durham will be forced to present some new evidence / info in that proceeding.

Billing seems to be a poor substitute for the claim that someone was working specifically at the behest of someone else. At the end of the day, there is no one from the Clinton Campaign that Durham can point to that can say they asked Sussmann to do anything with the DNS data.

The case hinges on a lot of things.

First, it hinges on materiality. The government is going to have to prove that the lie would have affected the decisions made. That is, if Sussmann had said he's working for Joffe (or the Clinton campaign) that the investigation would not have proceeded. That's the first point of reasonable doubt.

Second, Baker already testified in 2018 that he did not remember anything specific about who Sussmann was working for. It stretches credibility to claim that he suddenly remember vividly such a thing a year or two later? Another point of reasonable doubt. Baker had no notes.

Sussmann has already been asking for discovery regarding this issue and the response has been pretty paltry from Durham. The claim that there is a conflict of interest hinges on whether the charge that he was working for the Clinton campaign is legitimate or not.

Although Durham doesn't need to say anything publicly, he needs to provide Sussmann his constitutional rights to have an adequate defense. So far we are seeing the inherent weakness in his case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Durham sets-out in the indictment, that the purposeful data mining (of non-public data) by Joffe (and his minions) and the data's analysis and the composing and composition of the white papers that Sussmann provided to the FBI and the media, was tainted by the allegiance of ALL the actors to, and coordination with, the Clinton campaign.

View attachment 603062

Durham, above and in his conflict of interest brief, states that Joffe, working with Sussmann on behalf of the Clinton campaign, assembled numerous cyber researchers (Tea Leaves) and employees at multiple Internet companies and researchers at Georgia Tech to assemble the purported data and white papers.

Durham also states that Joffe himself exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data and along with his minions, sought to establish an "inference" and "narrative" tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. Joffe's interest, besides being anti-Trump, was to please certain “VIPs,” referring to individuals at Perkins Coie and the Clinton Campaign.

View attachment 603074




Durham doesn't make any claims about who Joffe was employed by, other than Neustar having a government contract for DNS resolution services in the EOP.

Durham does say that Joffe personally, (using the access to EOP's servers inherent in Neustar's conract) "worked with" Sussmann and Fusion GPS, who was retained by Perkins Coie on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, to assemble the data and craft the white papers for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.

A plain reading of Durham's statement says to me that, Joffe, was "working with" Sussmann, who, as a partner of Perkins Coie, was acting in the interests of Perkins Coie's client Fusion GPS and all this was a cooperative endeavor (including Joffe's minions, working at the direction of Joffe) to gather derogatory information about Donald Trump, which was then carried by "concerned citizen" Sussmann to the FBI . . .

The question is, what does "working with" mean in this arrangement? Who was directing who, or were both working at the direction of Fusion GPS?

It's at this point we need to remember Fusion GPS was in the employ of the Clinton campaign from late April, in a deal brokered by everyone's lawyer; the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike -- MICHAEL SUSSMANN!

Sussmann is the definition of a nexus, which is why he's the focus of Durham's attention for now.

.

Shows how the FBI is beyond crooked. I used to think there were many good people there, but that's probably not true at all

 

[Lastamender]

Nah, somebody used new technology to try and make a profit and turn up some dirt on the Dirty One himself.

No, an elite who shits on people like you. You have learned to love it. That is on you.

 

[Lastamender]

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

The Durham deniers’ talking points remain gibberish. They are furiously attempting to hand-wave away the facts the special counsel has found.

thefederalist.com

1. It’s Just Those Crazy Right-Wingers​

2. Pay No Attention to the Facts Behind the Filing​

3. There Was No ‘Infiltration,’ So There Is No Story​

4. But Trump Wasn’t Even President Yet​

Oh boy

5. It’s Old News​

 

[Lesh]

I actually don't feel hatred towards Hillary, Lesh. She's her own worst enemy. She wants the Presidency so bad she can taste it but every time she thinks that brass ring is almost in her grasp either another scandal rears its ugly head or some unforeseen candidate like Barack Obama or Donald Trump comes out of nowhere to steal it away from her! To be honest I find her to be rather pathetic. She's rapidly becoming the Wile E Coyote of American politics!

Yea...we can tell by your obsessive posts claiming to read her mind

 

[Lesh]

The information regarding Alfabank was publicly available and had been "noted" as early as 2016

The information Durham claims Joffe "accessed" was obtained by Joffe in 2016 as well when Joffe was doing for for the OBAMA Administration. He was paid BY the Obama Admin to perform a service which required that access

Durham is flailing

 

[dudmuck]

~~~~~~
Indeed, Durham is a registered Democrat, but he's more honest than a Democrat and is doing the job he's been asked to do. That is finding the truth.

Durham was installed into this role by Barr in 2019.
So, why would Barr put a democrat into such a role?
Are you on crack?

 

[berg80]

Let's review. The overt lies spun by various right wing media sources making erroneous assertions based on Durham's filing last Friday have been thoroughly debunked. Even Durham himself, in a half-assed way, has backed away from the ridiculous RWM claims.

Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/...rump-russia.html?referringSource=articleShare

New details on 2016 Russia probe prompt flawed allegations of espionage
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/n...-probe-prompt-flawed-allegations-of-espionage

Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing
The special counsel implicitly acknowledged that White House internet data he discussed, which conservative outlets have portrayed as proof of spying on the Trump White House, came from the Obama era.

But over the weekend, the conservative news media treated those sentences in Mr. Durham’s filing as a new revelation while significantly embellishing what it had said. Mr. Durham, some outlets inaccurately reported, had said he had discovered that the Clinton campaign had paid Mr. Joffe’s company to spy on Mr. Trump. But the campaign had not paid his company, and the filing did not say so. Some outlets also quoted Mr. Durham’s filing as using the word “infiltrate,” a word it did not contain.

Most important, the coverage about purported spying on the Trump White House was premised on the idea that the White House network data involved came from when Mr. Trump was president. But Mr. Durham’s filing did not say when it was from.

Lawyers for a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped analyze the Yota data said on Monday that the data came from the Obama presidency. Mr. Sussmann’s lawyers said the same in a filing on Monday night complaining about Mr. Durham’s conduct.

Mr. Durham did not directly address that basic factual dispute. But his explanation for why he included the information about the matter in the earlier filing implicitly confirmed that Mr. Sussmann had conveyed concerns about White House data that came from before Mr. Trump was president.
Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing

This reporting puts Faux's lies in context and on full display. Which, I might add, happens every day.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...that-her-campaign-spied-on-trump-133433925577

Will the truth put an end to this story? Of course not. The Following still thinks Trump won the election. Once a lie circulates among them they hold on to it like a life raft.

 

[Lesh]

Let's review. The overt lies spun by various right wing media sources making erroneous assertions based on Durham's filing last Friday have been thoroughly debunked. Even Durham himself, in a half-assed way, has backed away from the ridiculous RWM claims.

Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/...rump-russia.html?referringSource=articleShare

New details on 2016 Russia probe prompt flawed allegations of espionage
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/n...-probe-prompt-flawed-allegations-of-espionage

Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing
The special counsel implicitly acknowledged that White House internet data he discussed, which conservative outlets have portrayed as proof of spying on the Trump White House, came from the Obama era.

But over the weekend, the conservative news media treated those sentences in Mr. Durham’s filing as a new revelation while significantly embellishing what it had said. Mr. Durham, some outlets inaccurately reported, had said he had discovered that the Clinton campaign had paid Mr. Joffe’s company to spy on Mr. Trump. But the campaign had not paid his company, and the filing did not say so. Some outlets also quoted Mr. Durham’s filing as using the word “infiltrate,” a word it did not contain.

Most important, the coverage about purported spying on the Trump White House was premised on the idea that the White House network data involved came from when Mr. Trump was president. But Mr. Durham’s filing did not say when it was from.

Lawyers for a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped analyze the Yota data said on Monday that the data came from the Obama presidency. Mr. Sussmann’s lawyers said the same in a filing on Monday night complaining about Mr. Durham’s conduct.

Mr. Durham did not directly address that basic factual dispute. But his explanation for why he included the information about the matter in the earlier filing implicitly confirmed that Mr. Sussmann had conveyed concerns about White House data that came from before Mr. Trump was president.
Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing

This reporting puts Faux's lies in context and on full display. Which, I might add, happens every day.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...that-her-campaign-spied-on-trump-133433925577

Will the truth put an end to this story? Of course not. The Following still thinks Trump won the election. Once a lie circulates among them they hold on to it like a life raft.

And resurrected "zombie lies" are what they DO

 

[rightnow909]

~~~~~~
Indeed, Durham is a registered Democrat, but he's more honest than a Democrat and is doing the job he's been asked to do. That is finding the truth.

what a disappointment... I thought for sure he was too smart to be a dim...

oh well... If he tells the truth as he appears to be doing... I will forgive

 

[Lesh]

what a disappointment... I thought for sure he was too smart to be a dim...

oh well... If he tells the truth as he appears to be doing... I will forgive

Stop lying. Durham is a Republican...appointed by Republicans

 

[Abatis]

Billing seems to be a poor substitute for the claim that someone was working specifically at the behest of someone else.

Have you ever had a lawyer on retainer? They don't do anything without billable hours. Time being billed is the primary indicator of the focus of a lawyer's (directed) actions.

At the end of the day, there is no one from the Clinton Campaign that Durham can point to that can say they asked Sussmann to do anything with the DNS data.

That we in the gen-pop know of.

Durham has had many people testify before the grand jury and even more interviewed. Do you really think that everything Durham knows has been presented in these motions filed so far?

The case hinges on a lot of things.

First, it hinges on materiality. The government is going to have to prove that the lie would have affected the decisions made. That is, if Sussmann had said he's working for Joffe (or the Clinton campaign) that the investigation would not have proceeded. That's the first point of reasonable doubt.

And I would bet Durham has that testimony / evidence in hand. It is known that the following people have given sworn testimony before the grand jury:

FBI General Counsel James Baker
FBI Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence Bill Priestap (who Baker gave the Sussman Alfa Bank materials to)
FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok
Daniel Jones -- former staffer for Diane Feinstein who secured $50 million to fund Fusion GPS and Steele.
Charles Dolan -- the Clinton ally “source” of Steele primary subsource, Igor Danchenko
An FBI Special Agent who served as case agent for the FBI’s Alfa Bank investigation. Identity currently unknown.
An FBI Headquarters Supervisory Special Agent assigned to the Alfa Bank investigation. Identity currently unknown.
Two former employees of DARPA
Eight current and former employees of the CIA
Eight current and former employees of Neustar
Four current employees of Packet Forensics, LLC and VOSTROM Holdings Inc. (Likely “Internet Company-2” and “Internet Company-3” in the Sussmann indictment.)
The former chairman of Perkins Coie.
A former employee of the Clinton Campaign.
Four current and former employees of Georgia Tech.
An employee of Rodney Joffe.

All that testimony is under court seal and unless the people discussed it afterwards, none know what the others were asked or answered.

There is so much information that at this time, only Durham and his team know . . . We goofballs debating on a web forum are here like boobs on a boat, trying to describe the bottom of the ocean by describing the waves we see . . .

Second, Baker already testified in 2018 that he did not remember anything specific about who Sussmann was working for. It stretches credibility to claim that he suddenly remember vividly such a thing a year or two later? Another point of reasonable doubt. Baker had no notes.

Or it could be Baker simply took Sussmann as he presented himself, a concerned citizen. If Sussmann told Baker of his actual credentials and connections, I would expect that would have been more memorable event for Baker.

The claim that there is a conflict of interest hinges on whether the charge that he was working for the Clinton campaign is legitimate or not.

It hinges more on who else among Latham and Watkins' clients are going to be called as material witnesses or charged defendants.

Although Durham doesn't need to say anything publicly, he needs to provide Sussmann his constitutional rights to have an adequate defense. So far we are seeing the inherent weakness in his case.

The judge extended the discovery deadline to March 18 with any new material to be produced on a rolling basis as it is located.

.