Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should watch today's segment on Maddow.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should watch today's segment on Maddow.

Yep.

The real news on this thread that is in 2021 there are still people credulous enough to take Marcy and Maddow seriously.

[Anonymous]

So, citing primry documents should be ignored?

The bottom line here, Durham mischaracterized the server issue and it brings Trumps communications with Russia from 2016 back into the forefront.

The GOP has tried to sweep this under the rug because they are the ones being held over the fire for the information on the RNC hack that they like to ignore.

Durham was just hoisted by his own petard. Sad, he came into the DOJ as a man with integrity.

Everything Trump Touches, Dies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, citing primry documents should be ignored?

The bottom line here, Durham mischaracterized the server issue and it brings Trumps communications with Russia from 2016 back into the forefront.

The GOP has tried to sweep this under the rug because they are the ones being held over the fire for the information on the RNC hack that they like to ignore.

Durham was just hoisted by his own petard. Sad, he came into the DOJ as a man with integrity.

Everything Trump Touches, Dies.

The letter from the lawyer is not a "primary document."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should watch today's segment on Maddow.

The fiction hour.

[Anonymous]

Ok, do you want to explain the technology and rationale behind an Alpha Bank server, a Spectrum Health (Erik Prince/Betsy Devos) server and Trump Tower server having regular communications and spiking in the Spring of 2016?

[Anonymous]

The Sussman indictment mischaracterizes the computer researchers' findings. The NY Times wrote an article on this a few weeks ago and now the researchers' lawyer has formally put it in a letter to DOJ.

But Mr. Durham used a 27-page indictment to lay out a far more expansive tale, one in which four computer scientists who were not charged in the case “exploited” their access to internet data to develop an explosive theory about cyberconnections in 2016 between Donald J. Trump’s company and a Kremlin-linked bank — a theory, he insinuated, they did not really believe....

At the same time, defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Mr. Durham’s indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation for the odd data they had uncovered — and still do.

The Alfa Bank results “have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today; reports that these findings were innocuous or a hoax are simply wrong,” said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist and one of the researchers whom the indictment discussed but did not name.

Steven A. Tyrrell, a lawyer for Rodney Joffe, an internet entrepreneur and another of the four data experts, said his client had a duty to share the information with the F.B.I. and that the indictment “gratuitously presents an incomplete and misleading picture” of his role.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should watch today's segment on Maddow.

The fiction hour.

When you’ve been stewing in propaganda, yes, reality will look a little cock-eyed. Treat yourself to an hour of reality and watch Maddow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Sussman indictment mischaracterizes the computer researchers' findings. The NY Times wrote an article on this a few weeks ago and now the researchers' lawyer has formally put it in a letter to DOJ.

But Mr. Durham used a 27-page indictment to lay out a far more expansive tale, one in which four computer scientists who were not charged in the case “exploited” their access to internet data to develop an explosive theory about cyberconnections in 2016 between Donald J. Trump’s company and a Kremlin-linked bank — a theory, he insinuated, they did not really believe....

At the same time, defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Mr. Durham’s indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation for the odd data they had uncovered — and still do.

The Alfa Bank results “have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today; reports that these findings were innocuous or a hoax are simply wrong,” said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist and one of the researchers whom the indictment discussed but did not name.

Steven A. Tyrrell, a lawyer for Rodney Joffe, an internet entrepreneur and another of the four data experts, said his client had a duty to share the information with the F.B.I. and that the indictment “gratuitously presents an incomplete and misleading picture” of his role.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html

I still want to know what was going back and forth between those servers. Let’s be honest, the chance of it being something benign is approaching zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should watch today's segment on Maddow.

The fiction hour.

When you’ve been stewing in propaganda, yes, reality will look a little cock-eyed. Treat yourself to an hour of reality and watch Maddow.

Reality? LOL.

A recent court case revealed what we all know.... that Maddow deals in hyperbole and she deals more in opinion than in actual facts.... something her viewers EXPECT her to do.

Face it, pp. She has snowed you.

Even her own lawyer admitted in court that her show was one of “quintessential statements of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Sussman indictment mischaracterizes the computer researchers' findings. The NY Times wrote an article on this a few weeks ago and now the researchers' lawyer has formally put it in a letter to DOJ.

But Mr. Durham used a 27-page indictment to lay out a far more expansive tale, one in which four computer scientists who were not charged in the case “exploited” their access to internet data to develop an explosive theory about cyberconnections in 2016 between Donald J. Trump’s company and a Kremlin-linked bank — a theory, he insinuated, they did not really believe....

At the same time, defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Mr. Durham’s indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation for the odd data they had uncovered — and still do.

The Alfa Bank results “have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today; reports that these findings were innocuous or a hoax are simply wrong,” said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist and one of the researchers whom the indictment discussed but did not name.

Steven A. Tyrrell, a lawyer for Rodney Joffe, an internet entrepreneur and another of the four data experts, said his client had a duty to share the information with the F.B.I. and that the indictment “gratuitously presents an incomplete and misleading picture” of his role.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html

I still want to know what was going back and forth between those servers. Let’s be honest, the chance of it being something benign is approaching zero.

Correct. Paul Sperry at RealClearInvestiations is writing about all the investigative findings quite well. Someone may be going to jail.

[Anonymous]

So Durham had exculpatory evidence and chose to indict Sussman anyway? He should lose his bar license for that.

[Anonymous]

Why isn’t this getting more press? So far, it has looked like a “win” for Durham because only one part of the story has been covered, giving a very misleading impression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Durham had exculpatory evidence and chose to indict Sussman anyway? He should lose his bar license for that.

Prolly won't. But maybe he should.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Igor Danchenko has been arrested