Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for someone to tell me, in one sentence, what happened that the problem here? Facts please. Not allegations.

It's all allegations. Durham has alleged that three people "lied" - that's the crime. And, those accused of lying dispute it.

Meanwhile right wing media is fabricating all kinds of nonsensical claims and is peddling a grotesquely overboard narrative that is not at all backed up by any facts whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for someone to tell me, in one sentence, what happened that the problem here? Facts please. Not allegations.

It's all allegations. Durham has alleged that three people "lied" - that's the crime. And, those accused of lying dispute it.

Meanwhile right wing media is fabricating all kinds of nonsensical claims and is peddling a grotesquely overboard narrative that is not at all backed up by any facts whatsoever.

Durham claims Sussman lied by omission by not telling someone that he represented the HRC campaign. The person he supposedly lied to has given multiple conflicting accounts of that and the first three times he said there was no lie. Durham also never bothered to interview anyone on the HRC campaign to confirm the relationship. He also never bothered to check an IG report that covered many of the same issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for someone to tell me, in one sentence, what happened that the problem here? Facts please. Not allegations.

It's all allegations. Durham has alleged that three people "lied" - that's the crime. And, those accused of lying dispute it.

Meanwhile right wing media is fabricating all kinds of nonsensical claims and is peddling a grotesquely overboard narrative that is not at all backed up by any facts whatsoever.

Durham claims Sussman lied by omission by not telling someone that he represented the HRC campaign. The person he supposedly lied to has given multiple conflicting accounts of that and the first three times he said there was no lie. Durham also never bothered to interview anyone on the HRC campaign to confirm the relationship. He also never bothered to check an IG report that covered many of the same issues.

Durham should be fired and sanctioned, and his sham "investigation" shut down.

[Anonymous]

Right wing media has been tripping all over itself lying about what Durham's crappy filings mean...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/17/jesse-watters/jesse-watters-spins-facts-beyond-recognition-claim/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right wing media has been tripping all over itself lying about what Durham's crappy filings mean...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/17/jesse-watters/jesse-watters-spins-facts-beyond-recognition-claim/

Following the former guy’s lead. This is beyond.

[Anonymous]

I love it when the left underestimates Durham.

There will be more indictments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DNS records are public, but the access of DNS records is not. Even though the traffic is not encrypted, there is a certain level of anonymity because that lookup traffic usually traverses only between the requestor and the name servers provided by the ISP. It is also highly likely that the EOP IT network is in an enclave of sorts, and that the DNS server provided by the tech company is within that enclave or has a VPN connection of some sort since it's likely that DNS is just one among a suite of services provided.

All this is to say that while the government certainly can subpoena and obtain DNS lookup information from ISPs since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for information volunteered to a third party, such information is nonetheless protected from disclosure to non-government entities, including private investigators, law firms, and political campaigns.

the contract in place was to scan for nefarious activity and protect against it. there is zero proof of any information being shared or use by private investigators, law firms or political campaigns

Well, that's what Durham said happened in the court filing. If we don't trust Durham, that's a different argument. These allegations need to be proven, of course. Personally, I fail to see an alternative explanation as to why this private investigator was in possession of EOP DNS access records and provided it in a meeting with a government agency (CIA?).

They will never be proven, because they are utterly irrelevant to the charged conduct. They don't appear anywhere in the indictment and have nothing to do with the alleged false statement to Baker. Durham just slipped them into a filing regarding alleged conflicts of interest that Sussman had already waived. So he can unaccountably make wild accusations without ever having to present any evidence for them.

In any case, the allegations don't make sense. The EOP access and records all pertained to the time period when Obama was president. How would that indicate any kind of spying on Trump?

What do these words mean to you: "The Government's evidence at trial will establish..." Go read the filing again.

I also don't understand your logic in the bolded part. It's like saying that a fisherman wasn't fishing because his net also caught some shrimp.

Durham can plan to present all the evidence he wants, but the judge won't let him present any of this because it is irrelevant. Joffe could not have been spying on Trump using the EOP records because Trump was not in the WH at any point during period of those records. It's like saying a fisherman wasn't fishing because he stuck his net in a bathtub.

This is false based on the filing.

Provide the quote then. Because Sussman's filing specifically says this and I don't see anything in Durham's that contradicts it.

It's paragraph 6 of the filing.

That paragraph doesn't say any of the DNS data from the EOP related to Trump's time in the WH. I see how you are reading that into, and I'm sure that's what Durham intended people to do, but it doesn't actually say that. If you think it does, provide the exact quote. Think about the timing here. The meeting with the CIA happened on Feb. 9, 2017. That's only 3 weeks after Trump took office.

It certainly does. It specifically mentions suspicious DNS lookup to Russian Phone Provider in reference to Trump's activities in the "vicinity of the White House". This directly indicates that EOP DNS records during Trump's presidency were disclosed.

"Second, the Government included these paragraphs to apprise the Court of the factual basis for one of the potential conflicts described
in the Government’s Motion, namely, that a member of the defense team was working for the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”) during relevant events that involved the EOP." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.40.0_12.pdf, who was this member of the defense team working in the EOP during relevant events that involved the EOP." That would be Michael Bosworth, the deputy white house counsel for Obama. I accept your apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love it when the left underestimates Durham.

There will be more indictments.

Sure. Just like when the left kept saying the right underestimated Mueller, huh?

What I am taking out of all of this is that there are a lot of mediocre, older white dudes having their last hurrah.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Yeah, this is bad. And if I were the judge I’d sanction him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love it when the left underestimates Durham.

There will be more indictments.

Sure. Just like when the left kept saying the right underestimated Mueller, huh?

What I am taking out of all of this is that there are a lot of mediocre, older white dudes having their last hurrah.

Same, but different. As it turns out, Mueller opted not to prosecute a lot of offenses that he found. Durham has found nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord I just went over to fox.com
It’s crazy over there.
Durham should be sanctioned for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love it when the left underestimates Durham.

There will be more indictments.

Durham underestimates Durham. This is all a nothingburger being whipped up by the right wing media cabal. If you read the actual filings, it amounts to a load of horsecrap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love it when the left underestimates Durham.

There will be more indictments.

Sure. Just like when the left kept saying the right underestimated Mueller, huh?

What I am taking out of all of this is that there are a lot of mediocre, older white dudes having their last hurrah.

Same, but different. As it turns out, Mueller opted not to prosecute a lot of offenses that he found. Durham has found nothing.

Barr opted not to prosecute. Gee, I wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love it when the left underestimates Durham.

There will be more indictments.

Durham underestimates Durham. This is all a nothingburger being whipped up by the right wing media cabal. If you read the actual filings, it amounts to a load of horsecrap.

Agree. I think Comey didn't understand the significance of his speech, how it would be taken. Similarly, I think Durham doesn't understand how so many people in the public hang on his every (imprecise aka sloppy) word.