Clinton campaign spied on Pres. Trump

[Moksha]

Do Binger's programmers get paid in Rubles by the column inch?

[Binger]

Do Binger's programmers get paid in Rubles by the column inch?

My column inches are not for sale.

[K Graham]

From that article:

According to the filing, Sussmann had gotten his information from technology executive Rodney Joffe, whose company, Neustar, had performed server-related work for the White House. In Durham’s estimation, Joffe and his colleagues had “exploited this arrangement by mining [certain records] for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.” Fox News took this line from Durham’s filing and ran with it, claiming Durham had said he had found that the Clinton campaign had paid the technology company to “infiltrate” White House servers. The lack of similarly baseless claims from the mainstream media led Trump to declare “The press refuses to even mention the major crime that took place. This in itself is a scandal, the fact that a story so big, so powerful and so important for the future of our nation is getting zero coverage from LameStream, is being talked about all over the world.”

Strangely, there wasn’t a lot of fact-checking going on down at Mar-a-Lago, but the actual reason that the “LameStream” media hadn’t covered the story was likely because, as the Times notes: (1) Sussmann’s conversation with the CIA had already been reported last October (2) Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]” (3) the special counsel also never claimed the Clinton campaign had paid Joffe’s company and (4) perhaps most importantly, “the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era.”

In fact, lawyers for the data scientist who helped develop the data analysis in question, say this happened during— wait for it—Barack Obama’s presidency.

“What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” attorneys Jody Westby and Mark Rasch told the Times. “The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

In other words, Trump and company got the whole thing hilariously, mortifyingly incorrect. But fear not: We’re sure they’ll issue a lengthy correction and heartfelt apology to the people whose reputations they impugned—and the ones Trump suggested should be put to death—in no time.

[Res Ipsa]

The Lawfare folks did a pretty comprehensive write up on the indictment: https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-cou ... l-sussmann

Given that the sole witness to the alleged lie testified in a deposition that he couldn't recall whether Sussman had even told the alleged lie, I don't think Sussman is too worried. And the indictment, which comes into an investigation that's supposed to be about whether the FBI spied on Trump, makes the FBI look good.

And this blogger, who called BS on the Alfa Bank issue long before the Durham indictment, gives a pretty detailed factual rundown about important facts the indictment simply leaves out. https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/09/22/j ... en-starrs/

And a more current post showing that the indictment states that Sussman coordinated coordinated with the Clinton campaign without interviewing a single witness from the campaign. https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/16/i ... h-hillary/

This is uncharacteristically shoddy work by Durham.

[K Graham]

The Lawfare folks did a pretty comprehensive write up on the indictment: https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-cou ... l-sussmann

Given that the sole witness to the alleged lie testified in a deposition that he couldn't recall whether Sussman had even told the alleged lie, I don't think Sussman is too worried. And the indictment, which comes into an investigation that's supposed to be about whether the FBI spied on Trump, makes the FBI look good.

And this blogger, who called BS on the Alfa Bank issue long before the Durham indictment, gives a pretty detailed factual rundown about important facts the indictment simply leaves out. https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/09/22/j ... en-starrs/

And a more current post showing that the indictment states that Sussman coordinated coordinated with the Clinton campaign without interviewing a single witness from the campaign. https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/16/i ... h-hillary/

This is uncharacteristically shoddy work by Durham.

Wow thanks for those links Res, it looks like this is more of a sham than I thought. Holy cow, the only witness to the so called "lie" testified prior that he had no recollection about it. It is stunning how Trump, FOX and the entire Right Wing blogosphere has not only spun this into some sinister plot, but also the way they've claimed the "lamestream" media has a black out on covering it. This should go down as a textbook example analyzing the birth of a fake news story. Republicans did the same thing with the Mueller report when they immediately jumped the gun and claimed the report "exonerated" Trump, when it fact it said the exact opposite. Gaslighting to the extreme and the sad thing is, it works. So long as they keep pounding their audiences with this notion that legit media is lying to them and ONLY THEY will tell them the truth, that's just music that sounds too good to their ears, which makes them refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. Trump told them, don't believe what you see, you're eyes are lying to you. Trust the Right Wing talking heads on FOX.

So now what say ye, ajax, now that this so called scandal has turned out to be an epic dud?

[Binger]

Gosh. This is sad for Hillary. Maybe she will be so brave and run for president again.

[K Graham]

DURHAM SAYS IT’S NOT HIS FAULT HIS FORMER BOSS CALLED FOR THE DEATH OF HIS DEFENDANT

John Durham didn’t have much to say after being called out for making baseless accusations that their source Kash Patel lied about, leading the former President to suggest Michael Sussmann should be killed.

They’re not responsible for the death threats, the attorney who filed a notice of appearance in the wake of Friday’s stunt, Brittain Shaw, insists.

If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.

She said this even while acknowledging it might be prudent to take measures against death threats in the future.

That said, to the extent the Government’s future filings contain information that legitimately gives rise to privacy issues or other concerns that might overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents – such as the disclosure of witness identities, the safety of individuals, or ongoing law enforcement or national security concerns – the Government will make such filings under seal. United States v. Hubbard, 650 F. 2d 293, 317-323 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (setting forth factors for considering whether the presumption of public access is overridden, including (1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any property and privacy interests asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents were introduced during the judicial proceedings.) The Government respectfully submits that no such issues or concerns are implicated here.

The former President implied the defendant and a witness should be killed. But it’s not Durham’s fault and so he doesn’t have to deal with the fact that it happened!!

This is factually specious. Kash Patel, who was among the first to make egregiously false claims, is not a “third party.” He is the originator of this inquiry, and he knew well his statements to be false. Donald Trump, who suggested Sussmann and others should be killed, is not a “third party.” He was Durham’s boss and his demands for prosecutions are what led to Durham being appointed Special Counsel in the first place.

Plus, Durham’s team have already made the identities of some grand jury witnesses public in discovery filings.

The claim that the architects of this mob are neutral “third parties” is all the more pathetic given the excuse Shaw provides for including the false insinuation that Rodney Joffe spied on Trump’s White House rather than tried to keep the White House safe from hackers at the time it happened to be occupied by Barack Obama.

read it all... https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/17/d ... for-death/

[Res Ipsa]

I think both the Mueller and Durham investigations nicely illustrate the difference between a conspiracy theory and evidence of a conspiracy. The conspiracy theorist finds a bunch of dots and assumes they are connected. Prosecutors have to prove that the doors are actually connected using evidence. For conspiracy, they have to show that there was an actual agreement to do something against the law.

Mueller found a bunch of dots (contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did not find evidence sufficient to show that the dots were connected. So far, Durham hasn’t shown any dots about what he was originally investigating — an alleged conspiracy within the FBI. That’s very good news.

The Sussman indictment appears to lay out a conspiracy theory based on alleged dots, but the dots are few and faint and they don’t seem to be connected.

[K Graham]

I think both the Mueller and Durham investigations nicely illustrate the difference between a conspiracy theory and evidence of a conspiracy. The conspiracy theorist finds a bunch of dots and assumes they are connected. Prosecutors have to prove that the doors are actually connected using evidence. For conspiracy, they have to show that there was an actual agreement to do something against the law.

Mueller found a bunch of dots (contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did not find evidence sufficient to show that the dots were connected. So far, Durham hasn’t shown any dots about what he was originally investigating — an alleged conspiracy within the FBI. That’s very good news.

The Sussman indictment appears to lay out a conspiracy theory based on alleged dots, but the dots are few and faint and they don’t seem to be connected.

Are you sure about that? Because Mueller said he didn't prosecute only because he couldn't as it was against DOJ policy to indict a sitting President. From what I remember, another problem was that the media got hooked on "collusion" which isn't even a crime. But there obviously was collusion. Trump's campaign members including his son met with Russians for the sole purpose of getting dirt on Hillary, and even Steve Bannon called that meeting "borderline treason." But the real evidence of criminal behavior was when Trump obstructed justice for which Comey outlined 10 different examples and said only Congress could prosecute him.

Of course the Right Wing media completely ignores all examples, and they insist Mueller found NOTHING by virtue of the fact that he didn't prosecute, ignoring completely Mueller's statement to the effect that he wouldn't indict a sitting President no matter what.

As far as collusion, the Senate Intel committee seemed to suggest there was more evidence than Mueller indicated. The report was twice as detailed as Mueller's: A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?

From the Conclusion:

One of the clever features of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is the committee’s apparent decision to draw no conclusions, merely to recount facts. This allowed the entire committee, irrespective of party or fealty to the president, to join in the factual findings. Even Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, who opposed the committee’s formal adoption of the report, did so not because he objected to any of the findings the committee made but because he objected to its failure to find explicitly that there was “no collusion”: “[T]he Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election,” he claimed. “The facts presented in Volume 5 make this conclusion abundantly clear, however I voted against the report because it fails to explicitly state this critical finding.” The factual findings are, for all intents and purposes, unanimous; the absence of any interpretive conclusions allowed the committee to achieve that substantial accomplishment.

This strategy also, however, allowed each member, or group of members, to draw their own conclusions. The committee leadership during the investigation—Sens. Richard Burr and Mark Warner—both decorously sat out from this jockeying. But a group of Republican senators wrote additional views to emphasize their conclusion that while “the Russian government inappropriately meddled in our 2016 general election in many ways[,] then-Candidate Trump was not complicit. After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.” And Democratic members wrote separately to state their conclusion that:

The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetrators—even after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer.

[Res Ipsa]

DURHAM SAYS IT’S NOT HIS FAULT HIS FORMER BOSS CALLED FOR THE DEATH OF HIS DEFENDANT

John Durham didn’t have much to say after being called out for making baseless accusations that their source Kash Patel lied about, leading the former President to suggest Michael Sussmann should be killed.

They’re not responsible for the death threats, the attorney who filed a notice of appearance in the wake of Friday’s stunt, Brittain Shaw, insists.

If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.

She said this even while acknowledging it might be prudent to take measures against death threats in the future.

That said, to the extent the Government’s future filings contain information that legitimately gives rise to privacy issues or other concerns that might overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents – such as the disclosure of witness identities, the safety of individuals, or ongoing law enforcement or national security concerns – the Government will make such filings under seal. United States v. Hubbard, 650 F. 2d 293, 317-323 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (setting forth factors for considering whether the presumption of public access is overridden, including (1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any property and privacy interests asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents were introduced during the judicial proceedings.) The Government respectfully submits that no such issues or concerns are implicated here.

The former President implied the defendant and a witness should be killed. But it’s not Durham’s fault and so he doesn’t have to deal with the fact that it happened!!

This is factually specious. Kash Patel, who was among the first to make egregiously false claims, is not a “third party.” He is the originator of this inquiry, and he knew well his statements to be false. Donald Trump, who suggested Sussmann and others should be killed, is not a “third party.” He was Durham’s boss and his demands for prosecutions are what led to Durham being appointed Special Counsel in the first place.

Plus, Durham’s team have already made the identities of some grand jury witnesses public in discovery filings.

The claim that the architects of this mob are neutral “third parties” is all the more pathetic given the excuse Shaw provides for including the false insinuation that Rodney Joffe spied on Trump’s White House rather than tried to keep the White House safe from hackers at the time it happened to be occupied by Barack Obama.

read it all... https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/17/d ... for-death/

I don’t think anyone should be held responsible for Trump’s insane statements other than Trump. I’d never heard of Patel, but found this background. https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/13/k ... ed-frenzy/