Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

If Durham has anything more to say, if Durham has anyone else to charge, then he needs to do that, not file vaguely threatening motions about conflicts of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

And there were many existing concerns that white hats had found relative to strange Trump Org - Alfa Bank DNS and communications. There were white hat bloggers talking about it back then.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

If Durham has anything more to say, if Durham has anyone else to charge, then he needs to do that, not file vaguely threatening motions about conflicts of interest.

Prosecutors have discretion on who, what, and when to charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

If Durham has anything more to say, if Durham has anyone else to charge, then he needs to do that, not file vaguely threatening motions about conflicts of interest.

Prosecutors have discretion on who, what, and when to charge.

They don't have discretion about filing a lot of prejudicial nonsense in nonsensical motions.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

If Durham has anything more to say, if Durham has anyone else to charge, then he needs to do that, not file vaguely threatening motions about conflicts of interest.

Prosecutors have discretion on who, what, and when to charge.

They don't have discretion to charge after the SOL, and all the conduct described in this motion, including the meeting with the CIA, happened over 5 years ago. In fact, the 5 year SOL ran just a couple days before Durham filed this garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

If Durham has anything more to say, if Durham has anyone else to charge, then he needs to do that, not file vaguely threatening motions about conflicts of interest.

Prosecutors have discretion on who, what, and when to charge.

They don't have discretion about filing a lot of prejudicial nonsense in nonsensical motions.

That's completely irrelevant to what I wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

If Durham has anything more to say, if Durham has anyone else to charge, then he needs to do that, not file vaguely threatening motions about conflicts of interest.

Prosecutors have discretion on who, what, and when to charge.

They don't have discretion about filing a lot of prejudicial nonsense in nonsensical motions.

That's completely irrelevant to what I wrote.

Agreed. The motion of potential conflict of interest is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.

Did you read the links? These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time. Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists. Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources? Make Trump look bad? Something else? In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it. This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it. No one could make sense of it. Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith? Can you spot it?

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly.

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker. That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did. It's all prejudicial and irrelevant. But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser.

If Durham has anything more to say, if Durham has anyone else to charge, then he needs to do that, not file vaguely threatening motions about conflicts of interest.

Prosecutors have discretion on who, what, and when to charge.

They don't have discretion to charge after the SOL, and all the conduct described in this motion, including the meeting with the CIA, happened over 5 years ago. In fact, the 5 year SOL ran just a couple days before Durham filed this garbage.

So maybe he decided not to charge? Maybe Joffe has permission to disclose? I don't know.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I would like the ride or die conspiracy theorist to explain in one sentence what he believes happened and why it was illegal.

[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.

You're still not provide a quote, because it doesn't say that.