With the advent of the internet and sophisticated spying tools (Al Gore had not yet created the internet in 1972), old-fashioned break-ins and listening devices implanted into landline phones are the stuff of legend. But the similarities between Watergate and Russiagate are growing by the day. One need only ask Hillary Clinton herself, who once briefly served on the House Judiciary Committee panel that investigated the Watergate scandal. Or better yet, ask her boss, who fired her.
Except in one way. This time, the FBI, Justice Department, and perhaps federal intelligence agencies were in on the scandal. The Russiagate allegations were fed to the FBI to generate an official investigation, an act by itself that would discredit Trump, launch a $30 million investigation led by former FBI director Robert Mueller, and eventually, a House impeachment. The Clinton campaign used – some say conspired with – our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes. It does make one wonder if this investigation — official or media — would even exist were Hillary Clinton President of the United States.
Apparently, only conservative-leaning media and their consumers find this of interest. Sure, congressional Republicans may pounce on the political ramifications but they don’t have a stellar track record when it comes to effectively investigating such malfeasance (former US Rep. Devin Nunes, R-CA, and House Intelligence Committee ex-counsel Kash Patel excepted). Democrats conduct only partisan investigations; they turn a blind eye and worse when their fellow travelers become suspect. At least John Durham hasn’t been shut down, not yet, anyway.
There may be good reasons (ahem, political calculations) behind Attorney General Merrick Garland’s refusal shut far to shut down Durham’s investigation, given rumors that she’s availing herself for another run for President in 2024, when she turns a sprightly 77 years of age. Even most Democrats don’t seem particularly enamored by that idea, and would rather she be investigated for her Russiagate role. Tangled webs are being spun everywhere, and Watergate increasingly looks like child’s play compared to Russiagate when it is all said and done.
Thus is the state of journalism, politics, and justice in America today. Where are the Bob Woodwards and Carl Bernsteins of the mainstream media today when you need them? Anyone? Bueller? And will it make any difference if and when Republicans take control of the House and/or Senate early next year?
Meanwhile, we all have to admit – especially the media – that Trump was right: he, his campaign, and his presidency were spied upon. Just like he said.
IMO it's time to move on..
She's not going to run for President again..and neither will Trump be the candidate.
You and the right wing media don't understand objective thinking about politics..That’s a “fool me once” trick.
If you knew anything at all about the mainstream media, you realized immediately this hyperventilating response had no contact with reality. Durham dropped his filing on a Friday night, when reporters, like most people, are ending their workweek. More importantly, Durham has an established history of floating allegations that disintegrate upon inspection. The last time he did this, Durham got the mainstream media to quickly amplify his charges before subsequent reporting showed how weak they were.
That’s a “fool me once” trick. So now, appropriately, the media is going to perform its due diligence and look into Durham’s charges rather than echo them in credulous headlines.
Sure enough, the mainstream news has begun reporting on the filing. Here’s CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Somehow, despite its absolute determination to ignore the story, the mainstream media has wound up producing several reports covering it. The flesh is weak.
These stories completely debunk the erroneous Fox News coverage that prompted all the right’s complaints. The charges in the filing — an alleged conflict of interest by a technology executive — fell far short of the broader conspiracy Durham is insinuating. (This is in keeping with Durham’s pattern of using minuscule criminal allegations to make sweeping but unsubstantiated allegations — I described his last filing as a “Hannity monologue wrapped around a parking ticket.”)
More damning, Fox News botched even the limited charges Durham did make. The word “infiltrate,” which Fox News put in its headline in quotation marks, does not appear anywhere in the filing, and is instead the characterization offered up by Trump stooge Kash Patel.
So why was the right so convinced the mainstream media was ignoring the Durham report in a sinister plot to mislead its own audience, when there was a far more plausible explanation available?
The answer is that the right has spent years nurturing a conspiratorial view of liberal media bias. Like sports fans who complain about bad officiating, conservatives focus obsessively on biased stories against the Republican Party while ignoring biases that run the other way. And while I’d agree that there is an imbalance between stories favoring the left and stories favoring the right, and that this imbalance has grown over the last couple decades, it simply does not work anything like the way conservatives imagine it does.
The conservative media is reverse-engineered to reproduce what conservatives think the liberal media is: partisan operatives devising a political message that will gin up their own side and presenting it as “news.”
It is a mark of how deeply the right has internalized these premises that even Kurtz, whose literal job is to report on the media, genuinely persuaded them that the mainstream media was refusing to cover Durham. The unexciting reality that the mainstream media was going to wait until Monday to report Durham’s hazy allegations was not one they could imagine, because it is premised on following conventions of journalistic objectivity that they can’t fathom.
If you follow the links the MSM covered the story.
Sure enough, the mainstream news has begun reporting on the filing. Here’s CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Somehow, despite its absolute determination to ignore the story, the mainstream media has wound up producing several reports covering it. The flesh is weak.
These stories completely debunk the erroneous Fox News coverage that prompted all the right’s complaints. The charges in the filing — an alleged conflict of interest by a technology executive — fell far short of the broader conspiracy Durham is insinuating. (This is in keeping with Durham’s pattern of using minuscule criminal allegations to make sweeping but unsubstantiated allegations — I described his last filing as a “Hannity monologue wrapped around a parking ticket.”)
The Wall Street Journal reports that the entire allegations were false. There was no scandal ballsless.
The press corps doesn’t usually support government spying, but when it comes to Donald Trump they are making an exception. The journalists who gave themselves prizes for pressing the Russia collusion narrative that turned out be false are now dismissing news that their narrative was inflated with false information collected by eavesdropping on Mr. Trump.
A legal filing Friday by special counsel John Durham says a private contractor aided the Hillary Clinton campaign in concocting the false collusion tale. Tech executive Rodney Joffe worked with other researchers to mine proprietary internet data, including records from the White House. The filing says Mr. Joffe could access this data because his employer had a “sensitive arrangement” with the government to provide internet services, which Mr. Joffe “exploited” to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”
Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.
“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” says the statement. And since there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” Mr. Joffe and “cyber-security researchers” prepared a “report of their findings,” which they gave to the CIA.
The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.
Special counsel John Durham is using court filings to spread conspiracy theories about the 2016 election, attorneys for defendant Michael Sussmann said in a late Monday court filing.
But even The conservative Wall Street Journal reported BTW on topic
The press corps doesn’t usually support government spying, but when it comes to Donald Trump they are making an exception. The journalists who gave themselves prizes for pressing the Russia collusion narrative that turned out be false are now dismissing news that their narrative was inflated with false information collected by eavesdropping on Mr. Trump.
A legal filing Friday by special counsel John Durham says a private contractor aided the Hillary Clinton campaign in concocting the false collusion tale. Tech executive Rodney Joffe worked with other researchers to mine proprietary internet data, including records from the White House. The filing says Mr. Joffe could access this data because his employer had a “sensitive arrangement” with the government to provide internet services, which Mr. Joffe “exploited” to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”
Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.
“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” says the statement. And since there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” Mr. Joffe and “cyber-security researchers” prepared a “report of their findings,” which they gave to the CIA.
The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.
So the left wing press is now writing stories about how the left wing press is correct to ignore or dismiss the Durham filing story and Fox news and others are incorrect to cover the Durham filing story at it's word?
This is the same left wing press that takes rumors about the former President eating or flushing top secret documents seriously and pretty much at face value without question, but wants everyone to hold off on Special Counsel legal filings because they might not be all they are cracked up to be?
Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.
Oh cool!
So any "apolitical internet security expert" can plug into the internet data from the White House and consume that data at their leisure.
That's awesome. Thanks alky.
I might just go find me a "apolitical internet security expert" and see what Joey Sprinkles has been working on form when he rises at 10 and when he calls a lid at 1.
Should be fun stuff, though I might need an interpreter to since I don't speak 'fucktard.'
This is the same left wing press that takes rumors about the former President eating or flushing top secret documents seriously and pretty much at face value without question, but wants everyone to hold off on Special Counsel legal filings because they might not be all they are cracked up to be?
Um...
Got Russian collusion, morons?
Yep. And all those same MSM hacks showered each other with P-U-litzer prizes for their breathless reporting on a fucking hoax.
Scott, the right wing media is useful to distract you from the Coldheartedtruth, but...
As a defensive strategy, fan-service scandals can be useful. Trump faces some unpleasant headlines at the moment: He seems to have illegally removed classified documents from the White House, despite attacking Clinton for her handling of sensitive information; the January 6 committee is marching inexorably forward; his accounting firm has dropped the Trump Organization and disavowed its financial statements for the company amid legal inquiries. The notion of vindication for past claims of persecution helps keep his supporters from losing heart.
Your love for Trump has risen back, but he is in serious danger on personal matters, where he has been evading taxes for his life. John Durham is using court filings to spread conspiracy theories.
CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ETC. All reported on John Durham's report...
I would pay-per-view to see Hillary in her orange Armani jumpsuit, drunk and hissing as they lead her to the hoosegow, slowly turning back into a lizard. It's not going to happen. The leftists didn't empty the jails and prisons to make room for their queen bee. Liberals won't allow violent and/or repeat offenders to go to the skookum house, knowing full well those criminals will attack more innocent victims. There is no way they'll lock up their Queen of Sleaze.
Domestic terrorist Darrell Brooks ran over 62 white people late last year in Waukesha, Wis. He SHOULD have been in jail after running over his girlfriend. He SHOULD have been kept there when a risk assessment test determined Brooks was likely to commit more crimes. But the local DA, John Chisholm, was happy to let him go, knowing full well that his bail reform nonsense would get people killed. Lefties look out for their own.
While the left is eager to round up meemaws who were let into the Capitol, they fight just as hard to keep their people out.
Jan. 6 buffalo horns guy Jacob Chansley got 41 months in federal prison for his stroll through the Capitol. Mohamed Hussein Abdi, 20, was given probation for trying to burn down a school during a riot for Saintly George Floyd. . .
. . . It steams my clams to say this, but the Clintons are made of a unique mixture of Teflon and kevlar. Most of the media won't even discuss their chicanery, much less call them out. When the news of their transgressions does manage to leak, the press runs interference for the Clintons and will even add suppressing fire to cover them. When that fails, the DOJ takes over to make sure the Clintons remain free.
The Clintons are the herpes of American politics, and the lefty news and DOJ refuse to slather on some Valtrex.
The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.
You know... it's almost as if we did not have five separate investigations including a 2 year Special counsel that spent 25 million dollars looking into the allegations of Russian interference and Trump collusion.
What they came up with was a fake indictment of some Russian companies that got blasted away when these companies sought council, demanded a speedy trial and discovery of what evidence they had. Turned out their evidence was a periodical story from a Russian magazine.
What has been "debunked" at this point by all accounts was the fact that Russia did any real election tampering or that somehow Trump and his associates were conspiring with the Russians in doing so.
So when you hear from anyone that monitoring on anything having to do with Russia and Trump was not legitimate, it was not originally court sanctioned, and when it was it was sanctioned on dishonest warrant requests.
This is the ENTIRE concept of the probe.
Did all these people have LEGITIMATE reasons to monitor, oversee, start investigations, garner FISA warrants on Trump campaign members, checking on Trump Tower server activity.
Or was this manufactured. The argument cannot simply be that Russia was a threat unless you can show that there was REAL evidence back then. So far from all of the investigations (including Durham) none of the reasons given to justify this interest was legitimate. All of it was fake, made up, paid for, and ultimately fabricated.
Of course, this is way too deep for some people here. I will assume that Roger, Reverend, and others will go to their graves believing that Putin and Trump conspired to steal the election... even as all of that has been debunked over and over.
Scott the Wall Street Journal reports that you are full of shit.
A Strange Defense of Spying on Trump https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-defense-of-spying-on-donald-trump-rodney-joffe-russia-clinton-john-durham-11644965327
Trump didn't try to steal the election and the A Strange Defense of Spying on Trump https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-defense-of-spying-on-donald-trump-rodney-joffe-russia-clinton-john-durham-11644965327
Trump didn't try to steal the election in cooperation with the Russian empire and the A Strange Defense of Spying on Trump https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-defense-of-spying-on-donald-trump-rodney-joffe-russia-clinton-john-durham-11644965327
Has nothing to do with the question of Durham's filing. Durham's filing suggests that the IP monitoring that was being done (even if that person had authorization to do so) was used (inappropriately) to imply to the FBI that there was communications going on between Russia and Trump Towers or later some other communications.
I think you miss the point here... probably because you want to.
You keep acting as if any investigation into Russia and Trump can just be assumed to be legitimate. But that is the ENTIRE purpose of the Durham probe. To make the determination if ANY investigation into Russia and Trump was EVER justified...
or if all of the justification came from paid sources, inaccurate or dishonest information, or other nefarious sources. If the FBI used fake information to justify their investigation into Trump - then either the people providing the fake information was committing a crime or the FBI would be committing a crime if they understood the information to be less than reliable.
The literally has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING Trump says.
So JUST STOP BRINGING HIM UP!
If you have the will power....
But as an addict who is addicted to Trump. Not likely.
You act as if the WSJ is the final arbiter on an interpretation of this event.
Actually the WSJ had a different piece from a different Author a couple of days ago who explained the Durham filing and was one of those who takes it a tip of the iceberg sort of thing rather than something to be dismissed as irrelevant.
Roger doesn't seem to understand that these are just journalists, almost none of them have legal backgrounds, or any sort of background that makes then experts on this subject.
People like Roger pick and choose to believe whatever non-expert tells them what they want to hear and then demand everything else is fake news. He literally believes that because this one person writes for the WSJ that they must be entirely correct.
Not remembering that every newspaper and journalist at one time thought Trump conspired with Russia and wrote thousands of stories on that subject.
He literally believes that because this one person writes for the WSJ that they must be entirely correct.
Most importantly, he's convinced that the WSJ is a standard-bearer of conservatism, and if that agrees with him or he with it in the slightest, that's it. Case closed!
"Look! See Scott! It's the WSJ and THEY'RE conservative! So there!"
YAWN.
That's it in a nutshell. As juvenile and as "small thinker" as it get's.
There is a reason why this tweet is so damning and people like Roger just cannot figure this out.
This so called covert link was done by a company that was paid to monitor computer IP addresses. As explained (if one bothers to read more than just other people's irrelevant opinion) there was never any direct link between Trump Towers and Russia. There was just communications between the larger IP hub use by Trump Towers (imagine how many people are using the same IP hub in Downtown New York) and a similar IP hub in Russia. The two hubs did include Trump Towers and some Russian Banks. But there was no direct manner to show that any actual communications happened between Trump and Russian banks. Just that some IP addresses within a larger hub communicated with some IP addresses with a different larger hub. It could have literally been any number of combinations (that was probably in the thousands).
So basically it was possible that there was a link, but no actual way to show it that it actually happened or that it was even probable that it was those two specific entities that were hooking up.
But yet, this information was provided to the FBI as part of the means to justify more monitoring of Trump and ultimately his campaign. The fact that it was used means that either the Company in question hedged their information to make it appear more damning than it was or the FBI went with flimsy information to justify a larger probe.
But here we have Hillary telling the world a few days before the election that Trump Towers was communicating with Russian Banks. Why did she have this information (which was fake) and why was she repeating it?
The Durham probe has found that the company in question was working with or for the Clinton campaign.
That is all this filing is. It's not proof of actual "spying" - but it is proof that Clinton was involved in pushing the FBI into probing and investigating Trump (her political opponent).
Trump wants to call it spying because that would make him sound right about his original assertions that he was spied on. But I couldn't give a bigger rip about Trump's ego or his demands of being right.
What I care about is how deep did this go. Was this company paid by Clinton specifically to dig up dirt and if so, was her campaign at all responsible for how this information was presented to the FBI.
The American Greatness aka Republicans Pravda says the exact opposite of the Wall Street Journal reported. And the Durham report.
CNN AND MSNBC AND all the other reported...
You actually believe that they are Democratic scammers not reporters...
People like you have brainwashed by Dictators for centuries.
The free press and again the right to choose our own leaders are the foundation of the United States of America and you discredit them for political reasons not like I think.
The Biden Administration contemptuously dismissed press skepticism of the “false flag” video allegation suggesting any doubts were unpatriotic and supportive of Russia, stating, “If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government, of the British government, of other governments and want to, you know, find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.”
The U.S. intelligence community’s role in promoting the Russia collusion hoax has seriously undermined public confidence in such pronouncements. Perhaps this explains why, notwithstanding a public relations blitz, only 13 percent of Americans are on board with U.S. intervention in the potential Ukraine/Russia war. Increasingly, the intelligence community seems not to care or notice whether the American public trusts it. If the intelligence community is unable to render apolitical and accurate intelligence to the American people, we should reevaluate their utility and relevance.
February 16, 2022 at 12:20 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 45 Comments
This piece is only available to Political Wire members.
For the last few days I’ve been bombarded with emails wondering why I’m ignoring the “bombshell” story from Fox News on how Hillary Clinton’s campaign “infiltrated” the White House in an effort to link Donald Trump to Russia.
For background, the story comes from a new court filing from special counsel John Durham which alleges that tech executive Rodney Joffe “exploited his access to computer data” at the Trump White House to find “derogatory information” about Trump and his connections with Russia, according to NBC News.
Joffe then gave that information to attorney Michael Sussmann, who was associated with the Clinton campaign, who supposedly passed it along to the CIA in February 2017.
Aaron Rupar reports the word “infiltrate” has been mentioned at least 47 times on either Fox News or Fox Business in covering this story so far this week — even though the word appears nowhere in Durham’s filing.
But where the story completely falls apart is that the “derogatory information” in question was acquired legally through the publicly-accessible domain name system that allows the Internet to function.
There was no hacking. There was no spying. This was not “far worse than Watergate.”
Which raises the question: Why is Fox News is trying to turn this into a story now, five years later?
Perhaps it’s the network’s never-quenched thirst for covering Clinton scandals. Or perhaps it’s an attempt to deflect from the bad news circling Donald Trump this week.
But more likely is that Fox News executives have convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton could be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.
It’s not likely in my view, but as John Ellis writes, it’s not impossible to imagine either.
Alky, Coldheart laid it our in graphic and accurate detail.
IP 'hubs' as he called them, or 'ranges' exist all over the interwebs. Had Trump had a static or private IP address assigned and had the mysterious Russian bank had a static or private IP assigned and it could be proven that the link between Trump and this Russian bank was essentially dedicated, then the nitwits involved in using this to make a case might actually HAVE a case. At the very least they could prove a connection. But there isn't even enough to go on to prove THAT much.
If you don't have a basic idea of IP addressing you have no way to interpret the bullshit coming from the leftist hack at Georgia Tech, or the reporters who a desperate to provide him with a cloak of legitimacy.
The American Greatness aka Republicans Pravda says the exact opposite of the Wall Street Journal reported. And the Durham report.
CNN AND MSNBC AND all the other reported...
You actually believe that they are Democratic scammers not reporters...
People like you have brainwashed by Dictators for centuries.
The free press and again the right to choose our own leaders are the foundation of the United States of America and you discredit them for political reasons not like I think.
But where the story completely falls apart is that the “derogatory information” in question was acquired legally through the publicly-accessible domain name system that allows the Internet to function.
There was no hacking. There was no spying. This was not “far worse than Watergate.”
Try digesting the info and drawing your own conclusion, alky. You know. Look at both sides (LOL) as you always brag of doing.
If all you can provide is a steady stream of plagiarized articles fueled by your confirmation bias, you're too stupid to converse on this topic any longer.
You actually believe that they are Democratic scammers not reporters...
They are journalists Roger...
Nothing more. They are not IT experts. They are not legal experts.
They are journalists who are being paid to write an opinion that for the most part is only believed by the truly gullible.
There is no "media" - only individual people. Most of them not nearly as smart or qualified to speak on a subject you would like them to be. They might be dishonest and many of them are...
But they are just people Roger.
Right now if you are an CNN journalist you have about a 10th of the followers as Joe Rogan. Tells you how relevant and important they really are, which is not very any more.
So no Roger.
If someone who is not an IT or legal experts provides an opinion on any medium. I am not simply going to defer to them because it's the WSJ or NYT. They are just journalist. They understand how to write in complete sentences. Good for them.
But that does not make them either IT or legal experts?
funny thing Roger... is that this opinion is about as common sense and simple as it can be.
It appears, though, that government agencies, at their top hierarchies, were predisposed to believe the worst about Trump, that they were biased against him, and that they failed to view highly dubious derogatory information about him with a skeptical eye — including failing to verify it before using it in court to obtain surveillance authority. Worse, they continued to pursue investigations as if they, not the president, were charged by the Constitution with running the executive branch.
That is not a case of the government being in a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy with the Clinton campaign, but it certainly bears a family resemblance to Watergate.
All indications are that Durham’s final report will be damning — and, if the pattern holds, ignored by all the same people in the media who promoted Russiagate for years. Even if few people ever face legal jeopardy for this, there ought to be political repercussions as well as serious thought given to preventing similar abuses in the future.
The editors here are not going over the top either by exaggerating or embellishing the claims made by Durham, nor are they twisting themselves into pretzels attempting to discount the filing.
They are simply viewing it exactly as it is being presented. Which is that the FBI was overly friendly to anti-Trump allegations, used dubious intelligence to justify continued investigations, and that some of those people (such as this company tied to Clinton) were knowingly feeding the FBI dubious information to encourage them to continue to investigate Trump for things that there was no real justification for.
Is it criminal? Probably. If you feed law enforcement fake information to get them to pursue investigations into political or business enemies, that would be a form of obstruction or otherwise providing misleading information to law enforcement.
As they state... it's not Watergate. But it is a problem and more likely than not, laws were broken.
Scott, you will never believe the free press, Scientists, technology experts, because you are the same kind of person, dictators have convinced to doubt them.
Your own words.
They are journalists who are being paid to write an opinion that for the most part is only believed by the truly gullible.
There is no "media" - only individual people. Most of them not nearly as smart or qualified to speak on a subject you would like them to be. They might be dishonest and many of them are...
But they are just people Roger
Classic propaganda and brainwashing of human beings.
In the reformation era you would have remained a Catholic.
I know nothing can change your mind because you can't separate from your DNA beliefs..
Fortunately we have, and created the best free country in history by people unlike you.
And again it will survive Donald Trump and people like you..
Your own words made my point about objective thinking.
FBI was overly friendly to anti-Trump allegations, used dubious intelligence to justify continued investigations, and that some of those people (such as this company tied to Clinton) were knowingly feeding the FBI dubious information to encourage them to continue to investigate Trump for things that there was no real justification for.
Is it criminal? Probably. If you feed law enforcement fake information to get them to pursue investigations into political or business enemies, that would be a form of obstruction or otherwise providing misleading information to law enforcement.
Nope.. a competent legal expert understands the law.
A competent journalist understands how to write in complete sentences.
You cannot in any good faith suggest that personal legal opinions from journalists should be given any weight, if not backed by or even disagreed with by legal minds.
But as far as this story goes, there is one real expert.
It would be Durham himself. He (more than anyone else) knows where the process is and where he is at in his investigation and what is and is not relevant.
I find it funny that some of you believe a Journalist major working for a media outlet understand better than Durham what Durhame means or what he is should be doing.
So pointing out that people writing for the media are just people
While you write trying to convince an audience of 4 that you and your side are correct........BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! If you think that is not a waste of your valuable time, keep writing Lil Schittyl....rather amusing you now have so much time on your hands to pursue such minimal returns.....Oh well to each his own!!!!!!!!
Funny how Lil Schitty is obsessed with ancient Hillary history as the current implosion of Trump world is happening all around him!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Scroll back up to restore default view. INSIDER Republicans expressed unease after Trump's longtime accounting firm cut its ties with the former president Tom Porter Wed, February 16, 2022, 9:36 AM A close-up of Sen. Mitt Romney Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah.Stefani Reynolds/The New York Times via AP, Pool Trump's longtime accountants distanced themselves from his businesses in newly-published documents.
The news had had ripples in the Republican Party, helping galvanize his critics.
Sen. Mitt Romney, a Trump foe in the GOP, said the development was problematic.
Some Republicans expressed unease after former President Donald Trump's accountancy firm severed ties with him and said that 10 years of his financial statements could not be relied on.
The statement from Mazars adds to the tangle of controversies surrounding Trump's business empire as he teases a potential new campaign for the presidency in 2024.
In a letter released as part of New York Attorney General Letitia James' probe into the Trump Organization, Mazars said the statements it helped compile on Trump's finances "should not be relied upon."
In recent days, reports have claimed that some Republican leaders are questioning Trump's pre-eminence in the party. The GOP figures named are all those who have been willing to criticize Trump in the past.
They are said to believe that controversy surrounding his business dealings and his fixation on bogus election fraud claims could damage them in the mid-terms.
The New York Times reported Saturday that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was quietly backing candidates who would resist Trump's influence.
The January 6th investigation is finding out all kinds of damage crimes evidence
Texting through an insurrection Thousands of frantic text messages that might have otherwise been lost to history are now key to piecing together a picture of the events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack. (Lucy Naland/Washington Post illustration; Patrick Semansky/AP; iStock) By Jacqueline Alemany, Tom Hamburger, Josh Dawsey and Tyler Remmel Feb. 16, 2022
48 The panicked texts started landing in Mark Meadows’s phone long before thousands of supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.
Fox News host Sean Hannity shot off a text on New Year’s Eve — a week before the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the violent siege — warning the White House chief of staff of mass resignations in the White House Counsel’s Office.
Dec. 31, 2020 Sean Hannity Sean Hannity We can’t lose the entire WH counsels office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told. After the 6 th. He should announce will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity. Received by Mark Meadows Received by Mark Meadows The night before the rally, Hannity’s private concerns about the day ahead escalated in another text to Meadows.
Jan. 5, 2021 Sean Hannity Sean Hannity Im very worried about the next 48 hours. Pence pressure. White House counsel will leave. Received by Mark Meadows Received by Mark Meadows The ping-pong of private Hannity missives was a far cry from the contents of his show, where he continued to amplify the arguments for electoral objections despite his stated fears.
By Jan. 6, as images of violent rioters storming the building splashed across screens and news feeds, the Fox News host’s single-sentence thoughts turned into desperate directives.
Jan. 6, 2021 Sean Hannity Sean Hannity Can he make a statement? Ask people to peacefully leave the [Capitol]. Received by Mark Meadows Received by Mark Meadows These and thousands of other frantic, ephemeral text messages that might have otherwise been lost to history are now key to piecing together the most vivid and comprehensive picture to date of the events surrounding the chaos at the Capitol. Many were sent to Meadows by Fox News hosts, lawmakers and other Trump allies urging him to get his boss — cocooned in his private dining room just off the Oval Office — to put a halt to the assault.
The texts, obtained by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault, are among the most important tools the panel has to bring home the gravity of what happened that day, the planning that preceded it and the concern for democracy that lingered in the aftermath — even among some of Trump’s most loyal allies, who have since sought to play down the events of the day.
The committee so far has publicly revealed only a sliver of the thousands of text messages it has received so far. The panel has left a trail of newly released text messages between other players in Trump’s inner circle beyond the 4,000 messages provided by Meadows as it compiles communications from hundreds of individuals and entities who have cooperated with its investigation. The committee’s trove includes texts from dozens of people, a committee staffer said.
[Jan. 6 insurrection: The Washington Post’s investigation of the causes, cost and aftermath]
Meadows also turned over a barrage of messages from people questioning the election results ahead of the Jan. 6 rally — a reflection of the competing interests he was entertaining.
He was texted on Jan. 4 with allegations of voter fraud in churches in Atlanta by James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, an organization known for using undercover tactics to expose what it says is liberal bias in the mainstream news media. Meadows did not respond, according to a person with knowledge of the text messages.
Jan. 4, 2021 James O’Keefe James O’Keefe thousands registered to vote at two church addresses in Atlanta. These admissions were obtained today. James. Received by Mark Meadows Received by Mark Meadows In responding to questions from The Washington Post, O’Keefe posted a video Tuesday on Instagram that included a screenshot of one of his texts. He said he only shared information with Meadows that he had made publicly available elsewhere and chided The Post for reporting on the issue.
Meadows also had texts with a variety of other figures involved in the effort to overturn the results of the election — including lawyer Cleta Mitchell, and multiple witnesses have been asked about their text message interactions with Meadows. The messages also show Meadows getting briefed on the planning and speakers at the rally on the Ellipse by organizers, according to two people who have reviewed the messages.
On the committee, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) has in particular drilled witnesses about any text messages with Fox News hosts, according to a person questioned by the committee, who like some others in this article requested anonymity to discuss details of the probe.
And me for a few months, but I'm not fucking crazy like you Scott
Only one of us is living in a senior community sharing a one room studio "apartment" with a crazy guy who believes he is the fifth Beatle... where (as you stated) you have all meals provided, your food cut up for you, and you have unlimited nurse calls.
And you want people to believe that "I" am crazy, huh?
Indy and about 2 dozen others around here are correct about you!
Only one of us is living in a senior community sharing a one room studio "apartment" with a crazy guy who believes he is the fifth Beatle... where (as you stated) you have all meals provided, your food cut up for you, and you have unlimited nurse calls.
And his meds under lock and key. Served to him in one those Jell-O shot paper cups
The factual insinuations led to a number of allegations of malfeasance by Democrats, particularly among Republicans and supporters of Trump. Trump himself jumped into the fray by dispatching a number of statements which suggested that the allegations amounted to “spying.” According to one of those Trump statements:
The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia. This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution. In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this.
Trump noticeably referred to Durham as “Robert Durham.” The special counsel’s name is John H. Durham. Trump didn’t even correctly identify the person about whom he was presumably talking. Therefore, the rest of the missive from POTUS 45 technically references something and someone who doesn’t actually exist — unless there’s a Robert Durham out there who just happens to be a duly appointed special counsel who is investigating this very same matter.
In any event, let’s assume Trump was attempting to talk about John Durham. Despite the application of the words “spy,” “spying,” “infiltrate,” or “infiltration” by Trump or FOX News guests to describe the allegations made in Durham’s filings, those words do not appear anywhere in the filing itself. Rather, the filing itself asserts that the aforementioned tech executive “exploited” data after having “worked with” Sussmann, with “a U.S. investigative firm retained by” his law firm “on behalf of the Clinton Campaign,” with “numerous cyber researchers,” and with “employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers.”
While some might blur the line between “spying” and “exploit[ing] . . . access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the distinction is, based on what we know right now, critical. Durham has not alleged a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) — all of which are major sources of law as to the prosecutions of federal computer crimes.
Broadly speaking, the CFAA criminalizes “knowingly access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access.” That might be something akin to “infiltrating” a system, but Durham’s Friday filing hasn’t alleged that, and it is unclear whether level of “access” the alleged exploiter was legally allowed to have to the alleged “non-public and/or proprietary” data.
The SCA deals with the disclosure of online communications — but it has many exceptions. Plus, the nature of “communications” can be legally quite narrow. (Remember: the government can look at phone numbers but cannot tap actual telephone calls without a warrant, and the government’s mail carriers can read addresses but not open envelopes or read mail. Phone numbers, addresses, and data a user has transmitted or “communicated to the system in order to make it work for him” has long been legally deemed to have been voluntarily injected into the public sphere; in other words, it isn’t secret.) Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
And his meds under lock and key. Served to him in one those Jell-O shot paper cups
BWAAAAAAAA!!!! From the short poster who thinks Brennen is a commie because he voted for one when in college.....LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! UGA is proud of his profound ignorance coming from their halls!!!!
The Words ‘Infiltrate’ and ‘Spy’ Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham’s Recent Court Filing. Here’s What It Actually Says — and What It Doesn’t
John Durham.
Dueling court filings have attracted considerable attention recently — especially among conservative media outlets — about the alleged inner workings of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign leading up to the 2016 election. The first missive, filed Friday by special counsel John H. Durham, led to claims by conservatives (such as Kash Patel on FOX News) and even by Donald Trump himself that liberal and Democratic figures were “infiltrating” or “spying” on his campaign. The Durham filing, however, does not directly make such a bald allegation,
Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
New York is firing LEO's and Fire Fighters in staggering numbers.
1400 to be precise because they would rather not work than take a shot......I hope they have a lot of savings to live on....asshole all like the goat fucking idiot!!!!!
99% of the country is not really concerned about what Trump says about that filing. I am not at all concerned with Trump's beliefs on the matter or his accusations based on those filings.
The filing stand on its own and it's more about fabricated allegations provided about Trump to the FBI that came direction from a company that was either working for or working with Hillary Clinton.
That fake information was used by the Clinton campaign to try to discredit Trump about a week before the election and the allegations were made more potent by the fact that the FBI actually did use it to further their investigation... and ultimately much of this was "leaked" just before the election.
I think this gets down to one thing, Roger.
You still believe that Russia and Trump conspired to unsurp the election and you will always support the FBI going after him... even as it has been proven over and over that those allegations were not just wrong, but corrupt.
You cannot understand why Durham even has a Special Counsel and no matter what he finds, you will never change your opinion.
The Words ‘Infiltrate’ and ‘Spy’ Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham’s Recent Court Filing. Here’s What It Actually Says — and What It Doesn’t
John Durham.
Dueling court filings have attracted considerable attention recently — especially among conservative media outlets — about the alleged inner workings of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign leading up to the 2016 election. The first missive, filed Friday by special counsel John H. Durham, led to claims by conservatives (such as Kash Patel on FOX News) and even by Donald Trump himself that liberal and Democratic figures were “infiltrating” or “spying” on his campaign. The Durham filing, however, does not directly make such a bald allegation,
Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
You are so pathetically desperate for my attention, hell any attention
BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!! Who the fuck wants your ignorant attention when all you ever have is a big FUCKING mouth and no substance!!!! Yeah you won....LOLOLOLOLOL>>>>When you getting your lake house....prices are soaring out in the country and you can't rub 2 nickels together for a down payment.....yeah you won!!!!!!!
Or are you not smart enough to distinguish my argument with someone else's argument? Perhaps it is your C+ 1500/2400 SAT living with a crazy person cognitive limitations showing through.
The Durham filing, however, does not directly make such a bald allegation,
Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
And the goat fucker like a good little dope, adds his own brand of stupidity to shorties desperate plea for help.....BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! Wow goat fucker....that left a real welt....LOLOLOLOL
Alky, it's painfully obvious that you simply can't cope with topic without the assistance of dozens of MSM sources you lean upon like a fucking crutch.
Perhaps you should just stick to gloating about Slow Joe's new cat, or some other trivial sense of nonsense like what kind of ice cream he's enjoying before nappy time.
Neither Roger or the cronies in the liberal MSM can debate the actual topic presented by Durham himself. Because... well it is really difficult to defend the factual evidence that the original claims of supposed ties between Trump and Russian banks was for all purposes a hoax (an extremely remote possibility that was pushed as factual evidence) and that this hoax was being pushed on the FBI (and leaked to the media) by an IT company that was working with (or for) the Clinton campaign.
So rather than address the actual filings, they decide to attack how others are reporting on it or attack how Trump is portraying it.
Wow Lil Schitty.....that is the most convoluted opinion pile of shit you have evah posted.....Nothing is going to come from Durham other than jerks like you spreading your bullshit wide and deep!!!! Keep digging since it makes you feel virile and studley for your child bride.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Worse.....Mueller did show trump to be a liar and a crook and a obstructer while Durham showed no actual spying.....sorry sport...your Sanchez chasing windmills is out of style and facts.......BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
BTW, no one has refuted what Durham has alleged. Not a single MSM outlet.
All of the MSM response has been a massive semantic pretzel wrapped around a massive semantic Rubik's Cube. No refutation, just implicit claims of bias, with even Sussman himself not even refuting what Durham has alleged, but with all his fury directed at unflattering media outlets like Breitbart.
And yes BWAA, I realize that Breitbart is still dead, while his media empire is still very much ALIVE.
BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Suggest you read the times piece on the current bullshit furor over a nothing finding.....that is why there is quiet except for idiots like you and Lil SChitty!!!!!!! Sorry sport.....your opinion counts as much as the dead breitbart.....
Suggest you read the times piece on the current bullshit furor over a nothing finding.....
Well, thanks for making my fucking point, genius. Outlets like the NYT are furiously spinning the reporting on the allegations rather than addressing Durham's findings head on.
Worse.....Mueller did show trump to be a liar and a crook and a obstructer while Durham showed no actual spying.....sorry sport.
Mueller's job was to prove Trump conspired with Russia. It's not up to a special council to determine if Politicians tell the truth. They are politicians. Politicians rarely tell the truth.
On the flip side...
Durham is not trying to prove spying and didn't suggest any spying took place. So not sure why you think that is even relevant. What is is attempting to figure out is if the FBI had reasonable reason to investigate a Presidential Candidate during a campaign and whether or not his opponent had anything to do with prodding along that investigation.
He has a ways to go, but so far he appears to be a lot further along proving what he was set out to prove than Mueller.
MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, : : Defendant. : GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION TO STRIKE 1. The United States of America, by and through its attorney, Special Counsel John H. Durham, writes respectfully in opposition to the defendant’s Cross-Motion to Strike six paragraphs from the Government’s February 11, 2022 Motion to Inquire into Potential Conflicts of Interest. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should deny the defendant’s motion. 2. As an initial matter, defense counsel has presumed the Government’s bad faith and asserts that the Special Counsel’s Office intentionally sought to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool. (Dkt. No. 36). That is simply not true. The Government included two paragraphs of limited additional factual detail in its Motion for valid and straightforward reasons. First, those paragraphs reflect conduct that is intertwined with, and part of, events that are central to proving the defendant’s alleged criminal conduct. 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. If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise Case 1:21-
2 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. 3. In light of the above, there is no basis to strike any portion of the Government’s Motion. Indeed, the Government intends to file motions in limine in which it will further discuss these and other pertinent facts to explain why they constitute relevant and admissible evidence at trial. Pursuant to caselaw and common practice in this and other districts, the filing of documents containing reference to such evidence on the public docket is appropriate and proper, even in high- profile cases where the potential exists that such facts could garner media attention. See, e.g., United States v. Stone, 19 Cr. 18 (D.D.C. October 21, 2019) (ABJ), Minute Order (addressing the Government’s publicly-filed motion in limine seeking to admit video clip from the movie “Godfather II” that defendant sent to an associate and permitting admission of a transcript of the video); United States v. Craig, 19 Cr. 125 (D.D.C. July 10, 2019) (ABJ), Minute Order (addressing Government’s publicly-filed Rule 404(b) motion to offer evidence of defendant’s efforts to assist Paul Manafort’s relative in obtaining employment); United States v. Martoma, S1 12 Cr. 973, 2014 WL 164181 (S.D.N.Y. January 9, 2014) (denying defendant’s motion for sealing and courtroom closure relating to motions in limine concerning evidence of defendant’s expulsion from law school and forgery of law school transcript);1 see also Johnson v. Greater SE Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F. 1 The publicly-filed evidentiary motions and judicial rulings in each of the above-cited cases received significant media attention. See, e.g., Prosecutors Can’t Show Godfather II Clip at Roger Stone Trial, Judge Rules, CNN, October 21, 2019 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/politics/godfather-ii-roger-stone/index.html; Greg Craig Pushed to Hire Manfort’s Relative at Skadden, Prosecutors Say, POLITICO, May 10, 2019 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/10/greg-craig-hire-manaforts-relative-1317600); SAC’s Martoma Tried to Cover Up Fraud at Harvard, Documents Show, REUTERS, January 9, 2014 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sac-martoma-harvard/sacs-martoma-tried-to-cover-up-fraud-at-harvard-documents-show-idUSBREA081C720140109). Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 40 Filed 02/17/22
3 2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (holding that there is a “strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings”). Moreover, any potential prejudice or jury taint arising from such media attention can effectively and appropriately be addressed through the voir dire process during jury selection. 4. 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. Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 40 Filed 02/17/22 Page 3 of 4
4 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the defendant’s Cross-Motion to Strike. Respectfully submitted, JOHN H. DURHAM Special Counsel By: /s/ Brittain Shaw_ Jonathan E. Algor Assistant Special Counsel jonathan.algor@usdoj.gov Andrew J. DeFilippis Assistant Special Counsel andrew.defilippis@usdoj.gov Michael T. Keilty Assistant Special Counsel michael.keilty@usdoj.gov Brittain Shaw Assistant Special Counsel brittain.shaw@usdoj.gov Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 40 Filed 02
117 comments:
Ricochet a right wing website perspective.
With the advent of the internet and sophisticated spying tools (Al Gore had not yet created the internet in 1972), old-fashioned break-ins and listening devices implanted into landline phones are the stuff of legend. But the similarities between Watergate and Russiagate are growing by the day. One need only ask Hillary Clinton herself, who once briefly served on the House Judiciary Committee panel that investigated the Watergate scandal. Or better yet, ask her boss, who fired her.
Except in one way. This time, the FBI, Justice Department, and perhaps federal intelligence agencies were in on the scandal. The Russiagate allegations were fed to the FBI to generate an official investigation, an act by itself that would discredit Trump, launch a $30 million investigation led by former FBI director Robert Mueller, and eventually, a House impeachment. The Clinton campaign used – some say conspired with – our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes. It does make one wonder if this investigation — official or media — would even exist were Hillary Clinton President of the United States.
Apparently, only conservative-leaning media and their consumers find this of interest. Sure, congressional Republicans may pounce on the political ramifications but they don’t have a stellar track record when it comes to effectively investigating such malfeasance (former US Rep. Devin Nunes, R-CA, and House Intelligence Committee ex-counsel Kash Patel excepted). Democrats conduct only partisan investigations; they turn a blind eye and worse when their fellow travelers become suspect. At least John Durham hasn’t been shut down, not yet, anyway.
There may be good reasons (ahem, political calculations) behind Attorney General Merrick Garland’s refusal shut far to shut down Durham’s investigation, given rumors that she’s availing herself for another run for President in 2024, when she turns a sprightly 77 years of age. Even most Democrats don’t seem particularly enamored by that idea, and would rather she be investigated for her Russiagate role. Tangled webs are being spun everywhere, and Watergate increasingly looks like child’s play compared to Russiagate when it is all said and done.
Thus is the state of journalism, politics, and justice in America today. Where are the Bob Woodwards and Carl Bernsteins of the mainstream media today when you need them? Anyone? Bueller? And will it make any difference if and when Republicans take control of the House and/or Senate early next year?
Meanwhile, we all have to admit – especially the media – that Trump was right: he, his campaign, and his presidency were spied upon. Just like he said.
IMO it's time to move on..
She's not going to run for President again..and neither will Trump be the candidate.
You and the right wing media don't understand objective thinking about politics..That’s a “fool me once” trick.
If you knew anything at all about the mainstream media, you realized immediately this hyperventilating response had no contact with reality. Durham dropped his filing on a Friday night, when reporters, like most people, are ending their workweek. More importantly, Durham has an established history of floating allegations that disintegrate upon inspection. The last time he did this, Durham got the mainstream media to quickly amplify his charges before subsequent reporting showed how weak they were.
That’s a “fool me once” trick. So now, appropriately, the media is going to perform its due diligence and look into Durham’s charges rather than echo them in credulous headlines.
Sure enough, the mainstream news has begun reporting on the filing. Here’s CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Somehow, despite its absolute determination to ignore the story, the mainstream media has wound up producing several reports covering it. The flesh is weak.
These stories completely debunk the erroneous Fox News coverage that prompted all the right’s complaints. The charges in the filing — an alleged conflict of interest by a technology executive — fell far short of the broader conspiracy Durham is insinuating. (This is in keeping with Durham’s pattern of using minuscule criminal allegations to make sweeping but unsubstantiated allegations — I described his last filing as a “Hannity monologue wrapped around a parking ticket.”)
More damning, Fox News botched even the limited charges Durham did make. The word “infiltrate,” which Fox News put in its headline in quotation marks, does not appear anywhere in the filing, and is instead the characterization offered up by Trump stooge Kash Patel.
So why was the right so convinced the mainstream media was ignoring the Durham report in a sinister plot to mislead its own audience, when there was a far more plausible explanation available?
The answer is that the right has spent years nurturing a conspiratorial view of liberal media bias. Like sports fans who complain about bad officiating, conservatives focus obsessively on biased stories against the Republican Party while ignoring biases that run the other way. And while I’d agree that there is an imbalance between stories favoring the left and stories favoring the right, and that this imbalance has grown over the last couple decades, it simply does not work anything like the way conservatives imagine it does.
The conservative media is reverse-engineered to reproduce what conservatives think the liberal media is: partisan operatives devising a political message that will gin up their own side and presenting it as “news.”
It is a mark of how deeply the right has internalized these premises that even Kurtz, whose literal job is to report on the media, genuinely persuaded them that the mainstream media was refusing to cover Durham. The unexciting reality that the mainstream media was going to wait until Monday to report Durham’s hazy allegations was not one they could imagine, because it is premised on following conventions of journalistic objectivity that they can’t fathom.
Time to move on?? It's likely the biggest political scandal in U.S. history. People need to go to jail for it.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/john-durham-and-the-rights-mainstream-media-paranoia.html
https://ricochet.com/1138261/watergates-eery-resemblances-to-russiagate/
If you follow the links the MSM covered the story.
Sure enough, the mainstream news has begun reporting on the filing. Here’s CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Somehow, despite its absolute determination to ignore the story, the mainstream media has wound up producing several reports covering it. The flesh is weak.
These stories completely debunk the erroneous Fox News coverage that prompted all the right’s complaints. The charges in the filing — an alleged conflict of interest by a technology executive — fell far short of the broader conspiracy Durham is insinuating. (This is in keeping with Durham’s pattern of using minuscule criminal allegations to make sweeping but unsubstantiated allegations — I described his last filing as a “Hannity monologue wrapped around a parking ticket.”)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/john-durham-and-the-rights-mainstream-media-paranoia.html
The Wall Street Journal reports that the entire allegations were false. There was no scandal ballsless.
The press corps doesn’t usually support government spying, but when it comes to Donald Trump they are making an exception. The journalists who gave themselves prizes for pressing the Russia collusion narrative that turned out be false are now dismissing news that their narrative was inflated with false information collected by eavesdropping on Mr. Trump.
A legal filing Friday by special counsel John Durham says a private contractor aided the Hillary Clinton campaign in concocting the false collusion tale. Tech executive Rodney Joffe worked with other researchers to mine proprietary internet data, including records from the White House. The filing says Mr. Joffe could access this data because his employer had a “sensitive arrangement” with the government to provide internet services, which Mr. Joffe “exploited” to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”
Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.
“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” says the statement. And since there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” Mr. Joffe and “cyber-security researchers” prepared a “report of their findings,” which they gave to the CIA.
The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.
The private company should be investigated...
Look at Roger dumping all of this additional crap in front of my post. He's trying hard to convince somebody.
He has nothing else to do. This is it
MyballsFebruary 16, 2022 at 9:02 AM
Time to move on?? It's likely the biggest political scandal in U.S. history. People need to go to jail for it."
Your truth TRUMPS , life @ the bottom Alky
Roger said he would have $500,000 banked "IF" only he could sell today a home he doesn't own.
Yet, Roger would need to stop paying $5,000 a month to have $10,000 banked.
Fatal flaw, he would again be homless.cd
Blogger Caliphate4vr said...
He has nothing else to do. This is it
Yep. This is his life.
This, and his occasional late night tryst with the 5th Beatle.
LOL.
Special counsel John Durham is using court filings to spread conspiracy theories about the 2016 election, attorneys for defendant Michael Sussmann said in a late Monday court filing.
But even The conservative Wall Street Journal reported BTW on topic
The press corps doesn’t usually support government spying, but when it comes to Donald Trump they are making an exception. The journalists who gave themselves prizes for pressing the Russia collusion narrative that turned out be false are now dismissing news that their narrative was inflated with false information collected by eavesdropping on Mr. Trump.
A legal filing Friday by special counsel John Durham says a private contractor aided the Hillary Clinton campaign in concocting the false collusion tale. Tech executive Rodney Joffe worked with other researchers to mine proprietary internet data, including records from the White House. The filing says Mr. Joffe could access this data because his employer had a “sensitive arrangement” with the government to provide internet services, which Mr. Joffe “exploited” to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”
Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.
“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” says the statement. And since there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” Mr. Joffe and “cyber-security researchers” prepared a “report of their findings,” which they gave to the CIA.
The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.
So the left wing press is now writing stories about how the left wing press is correct to ignore or dismiss the Durham filing story and Fox news and others are incorrect to cover the Durham filing story at it's word?
This is the same left wing press that takes rumors about the former President eating or flushing top secret documents seriously and pretty much at face value without question, but wants everyone to hold off on Special Counsel legal filings because they might not be all they are cracked up to be?
Um...
Got Russian collusion, morons?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics/durham-sussmann-filing/index.html
Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.
Oh cool!
So any "apolitical internet security expert" can plug into the internet data from the White House and consume that data at their leisure.
That's awesome. Thanks alky.
I might just go find me a "apolitical internet security expert" and see what Joey Sprinkles has been working on form when he rises at 10 and when he calls a lid at 1.
Should be fun stuff, though I might need an interpreter to since I don't speak 'fucktard.'
This is the same left wing press that takes rumors about the former President eating or flushing top secret documents seriously and pretty much at face value without question, but wants everyone to hold off on Special Counsel legal filings because they might not be all they are cracked up to be?
Um...
Got Russian collusion, morons?
Yep. And all those same MSM hacks showered each other with P-U-litzer prizes for their breathless reporting on a fucking hoax.
“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” says the statement.
Next up we get to find out who authorized the contract.
I wonder when Susan Rice's 'email to herself' on her last day in the 0linsky regime pops up in all of this.
Scott, the right wing media is useful to distract you from the Coldheartedtruth, but...
As a defensive strategy, fan-service scandals can be useful. Trump faces some unpleasant headlines at the moment: He seems to have illegally removed classified documents from the White House, despite attacking Clinton for her handling of sensitive information; the January 6 committee is marching inexorably forward; his accounting firm has dropped the Trump Organization and disavowed its financial statements for the company amid legal inquiries. The notion of vindication for past claims of persecution helps keep his supporters from losing heart.
Your love for Trump has risen back, but he is in serious danger on personal matters, where he has been evading taxes for his life. John Durham is using court filings to spread conspiracy theories.
CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ETC. All reported on John Durham's report...
They have not censored anything.
I would pay-per-view to see Hillary in her orange Armani jumpsuit, drunk and hissing as they lead her to the hoosegow, slowly turning back into a lizard.
It's not going to happen. The leftists didn't empty the jails and prisons to make room for their queen bee. Liberals won't allow violent and/or repeat offenders to go to the skookum house, knowing full well those criminals will attack more innocent victims. There is no way they'll lock up their Queen of Sleaze.
Domestic terrorist Darrell Brooks ran over 62 white people late last year in Waukesha, Wis. He SHOULD have been in jail after running over his girlfriend. He SHOULD have been kept there when a risk assessment test determined Brooks was likely to commit more crimes. But the local DA, John Chisholm, was happy to let him go, knowing full well that his bail reform nonsense would get people killed. Lefties look out for their own.
While the left is eager to round up meemaws who were let into the Capitol, they fight just as hard to keep their people out.
Jan. 6 buffalo horns guy Jacob Chansley got 41 months in federal prison for his stroll through the Capitol. Mohamed Hussein Abdi, 20, was given probation for trying to burn down a school during a riot for Saintly George Floyd. . .
. . . It steams my clams to say this, but the Clintons are made of a unique mixture of Teflon and kevlar. Most of the media won't even discuss their chicanery, much less call them out. When the news of their transgressions does manage to leak, the press runs interference for the Clintons and will even add suppressing fire to cover them. When that fails, the DOJ takes over to make sure the Clintons remain free.
The Clintons are the herpes of American politics, and the lefty news and DOJ refuse to slather on some Valtrex.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2022/02/15/dont-pop-the-champagne-hillary-isnt-going-to-jail-n1559562
The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.
You know... it's almost as if we did not have five separate investigations including a 2 year Special counsel that spent 25 million dollars looking into the allegations of Russian interference and Trump collusion.
What they came up with was a fake indictment of some Russian companies that got blasted away when these companies sought council, demanded a speedy trial and discovery of what evidence they had. Turned out their evidence was a periodical story from a Russian magazine.
What has been "debunked" at this point by all accounts was the fact that Russia did any real election tampering or that somehow Trump and his associates were conspiring with the Russians in doing so.
So when you hear from anyone that monitoring on anything having to do with Russia and Trump was not legitimate, it was not originally court sanctioned, and when it was it was sanctioned on dishonest warrant requests.
This is the ENTIRE concept of the probe.
Did all these people have LEGITIMATE reasons to monitor, oversee, start investigations, garner FISA warrants on Trump campaign members, checking on Trump Tower server activity.
Or was this manufactured. The argument cannot simply be that Russia was a threat unless you can show that there was REAL evidence back then. So far from all of the investigations (including Durham) none of the reasons given to justify this interest was legitimate. All of it was fake, made up, paid for, and ultimately fabricated.
Of course, this is way too deep for some people here. I will assume that Roger, Reverend, and others will go to their graves believing that Putin and Trump conspired to steal the election... even as all of that has been debunked over and over.
Scott the Wall Street Journal reports that you are full of shit.
A Strange Defense of Spying on Trump https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-defense-of-spying-on-donald-trump-rodney-joffe-russia-clinton-john-durham-11644965327
Trump didn't try to steal the election and the A Strange Defense of Spying on Trump https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-defense-of-spying-on-donald-trump-rodney-joffe-russia-clinton-john-durham-11644965327
Says that you have been debunked by Trump.
It's not Russia Gate
Trump didn't try to steal the election in cooperation with the Russian empire and the A Strange Defense of Spying on Trump https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-defense-of-spying-on-donald-trump-rodney-joffe-russia-clinton-john-durham-11644965327
Zero, even the Durham filing got any Russian collusion..............................
Zero, even the Durham filing found zero Russian collusion..............................
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-defense-of-spying-on-donald-trump-rodney-joffe-russia-clinton-john-durham-11644965327
But you won't read it.
Roger...
Why do you keep talking about Trump and spying.
Has nothing to do with the question of Durham's filing. Durham's filing suggests that the IP monitoring that was being done (even if that person had authorization to do so) was used (inappropriately) to imply to the FBI that there was communications going on between Russia and Trump Towers or later some other communications.
I think you miss the point here... probably because you want to.
You keep acting as if any investigation into Russia and Trump can just be assumed to be legitimate. But that is the ENTIRE purpose of the Durham probe. To make the determination if ANY investigation into Russia and Trump was EVER justified...
or if all of the justification came from paid sources, inaccurate or dishonest information, or other nefarious sources. If the FBI used fake information to justify their investigation into Trump - then either the people providing the fake information was committing a crime or the FBI would be committing a crime if they understood the information to be less than reliable.
The literally has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING Trump says.
So JUST STOP BRINGING HIM UP!
If you have the will power....
But as an addict who is addicted to Trump. Not likely.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-defense-of-spying-on-donald-trump-rodney-joffe-russia-clinton-john-durham-11644965327
But you won't read it.
You act as if the WSJ is the final arbiter on an interpretation of this event.
They're not.
I get your angle alky, and it's as childish as you can be. -
"LOOK! The Conservative WSJ said something I agree with!"
Yawn.
You're SUCH a predictable tool, alky.
The literally has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING Trump says.
So JUST STOP BRINGING HIM UP!
He can't help it.
And he continues to confirm my belief that he's mentally ill, and he expires in his current looney bin, emerging feet first on that fateful day.
La dumps school board members for being too liberal against Parents.
You act as if the WSJ is the final arbiter on an interpretation of this event.
Actually the WSJ had a different piece from a different Author a couple of days ago who explained the Durham filing and was one of those who takes it a tip of the iceberg sort of thing rather than something to be dismissed as irrelevant.
Roger doesn't seem to understand that these are just journalists, almost none of them have legal backgrounds, or any sort of background that makes then experts on this subject.
People like Roger pick and choose to believe whatever non-expert tells them what they want to hear and then demand everything else is fake news. He literally believes that because this one person writes for the WSJ that they must be entirely correct.
Not remembering that every newspaper and journalist at one time thought Trump conspired with Russia and wrote thousands of stories on that subject.
Russia is still firmly in place.
Roger, stopped posting , why.
34,773.03 -857.78 (-2.41%) past 5 days
He literally believes that because this one person writes for the WSJ that they must be entirely correct.
Most importantly, he's convinced that the WSJ is a standard-bearer of conservatism, and if that agrees with him or he with it in the slightest, that's it. Case closed!
"Look! See Scott! It's the WSJ and THEY'RE conservative! So there!"
YAWN.
That's it in a nutshell. As juvenile and as "small thinker" as it get's.
Always wrong Roger .
NATO says Russia is increasing troop numbers at Ukrainian border, calls for talks
PUBLISHED WED, FEB 16 2022 4:49 AM ESTUPDATED 49 MIN AGO
Roger predicted $3.00 gallon gasoline based on Biden's fantastic Transformative policies.
Biden was given $2.20 gas
Biden took it today to Current Avg. $3.51 gas
There is a reason why this tweet is so damning and people like Roger just cannot figure this out.
This so called covert link was done by a company that was paid to monitor computer IP addresses. As explained (if one bothers to read more than just other people's irrelevant opinion) there was never any direct link between Trump Towers and Russia. There was just communications between the larger IP hub use by Trump Towers (imagine how many people are using the same IP hub in Downtown New York) and a similar IP hub in Russia. The two hubs did include Trump Towers and some Russian Banks. But there was no direct manner to show that any actual communications happened between Trump and Russian banks. Just that some IP addresses within a larger hub communicated with some IP addresses with a different larger hub. It could have literally been any number of combinations (that was probably in the thousands).
So basically it was possible that there was a link, but no actual way to show it that it actually happened or that it was even probable that it was those two specific entities that were hooking up.
But yet, this information was provided to the FBI as part of the means to justify more monitoring of Trump and ultimately his campaign. The fact that it was used means that either the Company in question hedged their information to make it appear more damning than it was or the FBI went with flimsy information to justify a larger probe.
But here we have Hillary telling the world a few days before the election that Trump Towers was communicating with Russian Banks. Why did she have this information (which was fake) and why was she repeating it?
The Durham probe has found that the company in question was working with or for the Clinton campaign.
That is all this filing is. It's not proof of actual "spying" - but it is proof that Clinton was involved in pushing the FBI into probing and investigating Trump (her political opponent).
Trump wants to call it spying because that would make him sound right about his original assertions that he was spied on. But I couldn't give a bigger rip about Trump's ego or his demands of being right.
What I care about is how deep did this go. Was this company paid by Clinton specifically to dig up dirt and if so, was her campaign at all responsible for how this information was presented to the FBI.
The American Greatness aka Republicans Pravda says the exact opposite of the Wall Street Journal reported. And the Durham report.
CNN AND MSNBC AND all the other reported...
You actually believe that they are Democratic scammers not reporters...
People like you have brainwashed by Dictators for centuries.
The free press and again the right to choose our own leaders are the foundation of the United States of America and you discredit them for political reasons not like I think.
The Biden Administration contemptuously dismissed press skepticism of the “false flag” video allegation suggesting any doubts were unpatriotic and supportive of Russia, stating, “If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government, of the British government, of other governments and want to, you know, find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.”
The U.S. intelligence community’s role in promoting the Russia collusion hoax has seriously undermined public confidence in such pronouncements. Perhaps this explains why, notwithstanding a public relations blitz, only 13 percent of Americans are on board with U.S. intervention in the potential Ukraine/Russia war. Increasingly, the intelligence community seems not to care or notice whether the American public trusts it. If the intelligence community is unable to render apolitical and accurate intelligence to the American people, we should reevaluate their utility and relevance.
The January 6 Pipe Bombs Look Like Another FBI Hoax
Discrediting our institutions is domestic terrorism
https://amgreatness.com/2022/02/14/the-january-6-pipe-bombs-look-like-another-fbi-hoax/
Roger, can you respond with your own words.
Would like to see if you are still able.
You were gaslighted by Fox news
Fox News Creates Another Clinton Scandal
February 16, 2022 at 12:20 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 45 Comments
This piece is only available to Political Wire members.
For the last few days I’ve been bombarded with emails wondering why I’m ignoring the “bombshell” story from Fox News on how Hillary Clinton’s campaign “infiltrated” the White House in an effort to link Donald Trump to Russia.
For background, the story comes from a new court filing from special counsel John Durham which alleges that tech executive Rodney Joffe “exploited his access to computer data” at the Trump White House to find “derogatory information” about Trump and his connections with Russia, according to NBC News.
Joffe then gave that information to attorney Michael Sussmann, who was associated with the Clinton campaign, who supposedly passed it along to the CIA in February 2017.
Aaron Rupar reports the word “infiltrate” has been mentioned at least 47 times on either Fox News or Fox Business in covering this story so far this week — even though the word appears nowhere in Durham’s filing.
But where the story completely falls apart is that the “derogatory information” in question was acquired legally through the publicly-accessible domain name system that allows the Internet to function.
There was no hacking. There was no spying. This was not “far worse than Watergate.”
Which raises the question: Why is Fox News is trying to turn this into a story now, five years later?
Perhaps it’s the network’s never-quenched thirst for covering Clinton scandals. Or perhaps it’s an attempt to deflect from the bad news circling Donald Trump this week.
But more likely is that Fox News executives have convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton could be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.
It’s not likely in my view, but as John Ellis writes, it’s not impossible to imagine either.
Alky, Coldheart laid it our in graphic and accurate detail.
IP 'hubs' as he called them, or 'ranges' exist all over the interwebs. Had Trump had a static or private IP address assigned and had the mysterious Russian bank had a static or private IP assigned and it could be proven that the link between Trump and this Russian bank was essentially dedicated, then the nitwits involved in using this to make a case might actually HAVE a case. At the very least they could prove a connection. But there isn't even enough to go on to prove THAT much.
If you don't have a basic idea of IP addressing you have no way to interpret the bullshit coming from the leftist hack at Georgia Tech, or the reporters who a desperate to provide him with a cloak of legitimacy.
One is hard pressed to find a bigger leftist hack than Aaron Rupar.
LOL.
Carry on, alky.
The American Greatness aka Republicans Pravda says the exact opposite of the Wall Street Journal reported. And the Durham report.
CNN AND MSNBC AND all the other reported...
You actually believe that they are Democratic scammers not reporters...
People like you have brainwashed by Dictators for centuries.
The free press and again the right to choose our own leaders are the foundation of the United States of America and you discredit them for political reasons not like I think.
But where the story completely falls apart is that the “derogatory information” in question was acquired legally through the publicly-accessible domain name system that allows the Internet to function.
There was no hacking. There was no spying. This was not “far worse than Watergate.”
Try digesting the info and drawing your own conclusion, alky. You know. Look at both sides (LOL) as you always brag of doing.
If all you can provide is a steady stream of plagiarized articles fueled by your confirmation bias, you're too stupid to converse on this topic any longer.
Shut up you horse's ass. Of course there was. You've got your head far up your ass again.
CNN AND MSNBC AND all the other reported...
You actually believe that they are Democratic scammers not reporters...
They are journalists Roger...
Nothing more. They are not IT experts. They are not legal experts.
They are journalists who are being paid to write an opinion that for the most part is only believed by the truly gullible.
There is no "media" - only individual people. Most of them not nearly as smart or qualified to speak on a subject you would like them to be. They might be dishonest and many of them are...
But they are just people Roger.
Right now if you are an CNN journalist you have about a 10th of the followers as Joe Rogan. Tells you how relevant and important they really are, which is not very any more.
So no Roger.
If someone who is not an IT or legal experts provides an opinion on any medium. I am not simply going to defer to them because it's the WSJ or NYT. They are just journalist. They understand how to write in complete sentences. Good for them.
But that does not make them either IT or legal experts?
You do understand this?
They say the exact opposite view of the Wall Street Journal and the MSM.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/durhams-jaw-dropping-revelation/
They call it fake Watergate on steroids
~~~Truths are truths~~~
~~whether uttered by~~
competent legal experts
~~~~~~~~~or~~~~~~~~~~
~~competent journalists~~
~~~~~~or as in this case, by both~~~~~~~~
funny thing Roger... is that this opinion is about as common sense and simple as it can be.
It appears, though, that government agencies, at their top hierarchies, were predisposed to believe the worst about Trump, that they were biased against him, and that they failed to view highly dubious derogatory information about him with a skeptical eye — including failing to verify it before using it in court to obtain surveillance authority. Worse, they continued to pursue investigations as if they, not the president, were charged by the Constitution with running the executive branch.
That is not a case of the government being in a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy with the Clinton campaign, but it certainly bears a family resemblance to Watergate.
All indications are that Durham’s final report will be damning — and, if the pattern holds, ignored by all the same people in the media who promoted Russiagate for years. Even if few people ever face legal jeopardy for this, there ought to be political repercussions as well as serious thought given to preventing similar abuses in the future.
The editors here are not going over the top either by exaggerating or embellishing the claims made by Durham, nor are they twisting themselves into pretzels attempting to discount the filing.
They are simply viewing it exactly as it is being presented. Which is that the FBI was overly friendly to anti-Trump allegations, used dubious intelligence to justify continued investigations, and that some of those people (such as this company tied to Clinton) were knowingly feeding the FBI dubious information to encourage them to continue to investigate Trump for things that there was no real justification for.
Is it criminal? Probably. If you feed law enforcement fake information to get them to pursue investigations into political or business enemies, that would be a form of obstruction or otherwise providing misleading information to law enforcement.
As they state... it's not Watergate. But it is a problem and more likely than not, laws were broken.
Scott, you will never believe the free press, Scientists, technology experts, because you are the same kind of person, dictators have convinced to doubt them.
Your own words.
They are journalists who are being paid to write an opinion that for the most part is only believed by the truly gullible.
There is no "media" - only individual people. Most of them not nearly as smart or qualified to speak on a subject you would like them to be. They might be dishonest and many of them are...
But they are just people Roger
Classic propaganda and brainwashing of human beings.
In the reformation era you would have remained a Catholic.
I know nothing can change your mind because you can't separate from your DNA beliefs..
Fortunately we have, and created the best free country in history by people unlike you.
And again it will survive Donald Trump and people like you..
Your own words made my point about objective thinking.
FBI was overly friendly to anti-Trump allegations, used dubious intelligence to justify continued investigations, and that some of those people (such as this company tied to Clinton) were knowingly feeding the FBI dubious information to encourage them to continue to investigate Trump for things that there was no real justification for.
Is it criminal? Probably. If you feed law enforcement fake information to get them to pursue investigations into political or business enemies, that would be a form of obstruction or otherwise providing misleading information to law enforcement.
You believe the FBI are Democratic and scammers
competent legal experts
~~~~~~~~~or~~~~~~~~~~
~~competent journalists~~
Nope.. a competent legal expert understands the law.
A competent journalist understands how to write in complete sentences.
You cannot in any good faith suggest that personal legal opinions from journalists should be given any weight, if not backed by or even disagreed with by legal minds.
But as far as this story goes, there is one real expert.
It would be Durham himself. He (more than anyone else) knows where the process is and where he is at in his investigation and what is and is not relevant.
I find it funny that some of you believe a Journalist major working for a media outlet understand better than Durham what Durhame means or what he is should be doing.
Classic propaganda and brainwashing of human beings
So pointing out that people writing for the media are just people with journalism majors and not necessarily the arbitrators of all truth and fact...
Is propaganda and brainwashing.
So in order to "not" fall for propaganda and brainwashing
Roger believes that you should believe all journalists?
What if two journalists disagree? Whom would Roger suggest is factual and infallible and whom is the one pushing propaganda and brainwashing?
So pointing out that people writing for the media are just people
While you write trying to convince an audience of 4 that you and your side are correct........BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! If you think that is not a waste of your valuable time, keep writing Lil Schittyl....rather amusing you now have so much time on your hands to pursue such minimal returns.....Oh well to each his own!!!!!!!!
Funny how Lil Schitty is obsessed with ancient Hillary history as the current implosion of Trump world is happening all around him!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Scroll back up to restore default view.
INSIDER
Republicans expressed unease after Trump's longtime accounting firm cut its ties with the former president
Tom Porter
Wed, February 16, 2022, 9:36 AM
A close-up of Sen. Mitt Romney
Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah.Stefani Reynolds/The New York Times via AP, Pool
Trump's longtime accountants distanced themselves from his businesses in newly-published documents.
The news had had ripples in the Republican Party, helping galvanize his critics.
Sen. Mitt Romney, a Trump foe in the GOP, said the development was problematic.
Some Republicans expressed unease after former President Donald Trump's accountancy firm severed ties with him and said that 10 years of his financial statements could not be relied on.
The statement from Mazars adds to the tangle of controversies surrounding Trump's business empire as he teases a potential new campaign for the presidency in 2024.
In a letter released as part of New York Attorney General Letitia James' probe into the Trump Organization, Mazars said the statements it helped compile on Trump's finances "should not be relied upon."
In recent days, reports have claimed that some Republican leaders are questioning Trump's pre-eminence in the party. The GOP figures named are all those who have been willing to criticize Trump in the past.
They are said to believe that controversy surrounding his business dealings and his fixation on bogus election fraud claims could damage them in the mid-terms.
The New York Times reported Saturday that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was quietly backing candidates who would resist Trump's influence.
The January 6th investigation is finding out all kinds of damage crimes evidence
Texting through
an insurrection
Thousands of frantic text messages that
might have otherwise been lost to history
are now key to piecing together a picture of
the events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack.
(Lucy Naland/Washington Post illustration; Patrick Semansky/AP; iStock)
By Jacqueline Alemany, Tom Hamburger, Josh Dawsey and Tyler Remmel
Feb. 16, 2022
48
The panicked texts started landing in Mark Meadows’s phone long before thousands of supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.
Fox News host Sean Hannity shot off a text on New Year’s Eve — a week before the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the violent siege — warning the White House chief of staff of mass resignations in the White House Counsel’s Office.
Dec. 31, 2020
Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity
We can’t lose the entire WH counsels office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told. After the 6 th. He should announce will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity.
Received by Mark Meadows
Received by Mark Meadows
The night before the rally, Hannity’s private concerns about the day ahead escalated in another text to Meadows.
Jan. 5, 2021
Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity
Im very worried about the next 48 hours.
Pence pressure. White House counsel will leave.
Received by Mark Meadows
Received by Mark Meadows
The ping-pong of private Hannity missives was a far cry from the contents of his show, where he continued to amplify the arguments for electoral objections despite his stated fears.
Scroll back up to restore default view.
INSIDER
Why do the geriatrics here have so much trouble c & ping
You are as crazy as kputz and rrb now
Indy was 100% correct in you. And me for a few months, but I'm not fucking crazy like you Scott
Distrusting journalists is classic propaganda....
By Jan. 6, as images of violent rioters storming the building splashed across screens and news feeds, the Fox News host’s single-sentence thoughts turned into desperate directives.
Jan. 6, 2021
Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity
Can he make a statement? Ask people to peacefully leave the [Capitol].
Received by Mark Meadows
Received by Mark Meadows
These and thousands of other frantic, ephemeral text messages that might have otherwise been lost to history are now key to piecing together the most vivid and comprehensive picture to date of the events surrounding the chaos at the Capitol. Many were sent to Meadows by Fox News hosts, lawmakers and other Trump allies urging him to get his boss — cocooned in his private dining room just off the Oval Office — to put a halt to the assault.
The texts, obtained by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault, are among the most important tools the panel has to bring home the gravity of what happened that day, the planning that preceded it and the concern for democracy that lingered in the aftermath — even among some of Trump’s most loyal allies, who have since sought to play down the events of the day.
The committee so far has publicly revealed only a sliver of the thousands of text messages it has received so far. The panel has left a trail of newly released text messages between other players in Trump’s inner circle beyond the 4,000 messages provided by Meadows as it compiles communications from hundreds of individuals and entities who have cooperated with its investigation. The committee’s trove includes texts from dozens of people, a committee staffer said.
[Jan. 6 insurrection: The Washington Post’s investigation of the causes, cost and aftermath]
Meadows also turned over a barrage of messages from people questioning the election results ahead of the Jan. 6 rally — a reflection of the competing interests he was entertaining.
He was texted on Jan. 4 with allegations of voter fraud in churches in Atlanta by James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, an organization known for using undercover tactics to expose what it says is liberal bias in the mainstream news media. Meadows did not respond, according to a person with knowledge of the text messages.
Jan. 4, 2021
James O’Keefe
James O’Keefe
thousands registered to vote at two church addresses in Atlanta. These admissions were obtained today. James.
Received by Mark Meadows
Received by Mark Meadows
In responding to questions from The Washington Post, O’Keefe posted a video Tuesday on Instagram that included a screenshot of one of his texts. He said he only shared information with Meadows that he had made publicly available elsewhere and chided The Post for reporting on the issue.
Meadows also had texts with a variety of other figures involved in the effort to overturn the results of the election — including lawyer Cleta Mitchell, and multiple witnesses have been asked about their text message interactions with Meadows. The messages also show Meadows getting briefed on the planning and speakers at the rally on the Ellipse by organizers, according to two people who have reviewed the messages.
On the committee, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) has in particular drilled witnesses about any text messages with Fox News hosts, according to a person questioned by the committee, who like some others in this article requested anonymity to discuss details of the probe.
It's not fake news robotics Scott Johnson MD schizophrenia squad
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/texting-insurrection/
Distrusting journalists is classic propaganda....
Actually, it’s the opposite you fucking dolt
And me for a few months, but I'm not fucking crazy like you Scott
Only one of us is living in a senior community sharing a one room studio "apartment" with a crazy guy who believes he is the fifth Beatle... where (as you stated) you have all meals provided, your food cut up for you, and you have unlimited nurse calls.
And you want people to believe that "I" am crazy, huh?
Indy and about 2 dozen others around here are correct about you!
Only one of us is living in a senior community sharing a one room studio "apartment" with a crazy guy who believes he is the fifth Beatle... where (as you stated) you have all meals provided, your food cut up for you, and you have unlimited nurse calls.
And his meds under lock and key. Served to him in one those Jell-O shot paper cups
If you disagree with life @The Bottom Alky , he calls you crazy.
Yet , his mental health takes him to the edge of Suicide.
Lawandcrime
What Durham’s Filing Didn’t Say
The factual insinuations led to a number of allegations of malfeasance by Democrats, particularly among Republicans and supporters of Trump. Trump himself jumped into the fray by dispatching a number of statements which suggested that the allegations amounted to “spying.” According to one of those Trump statements:
The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia. This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution. In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this.
Trump noticeably referred to Durham as “Robert Durham.” The special counsel’s name is John H. Durham. Trump didn’t even correctly identify the person about whom he was presumably talking. Therefore, the rest of the missive from POTUS 45 technically references something and someone who doesn’t actually exist — unless there’s a Robert Durham out there who just happens to be a duly appointed special counsel who is investigating this very same matter.
In any event, let’s assume Trump was attempting to talk about John Durham. Despite the application of the words “spy,” “spying,” “infiltrate,” or “infiltration” by Trump or FOX News guests to describe the allegations made in Durham’s filings, those words do not appear anywhere in the filing itself. Rather, the filing itself asserts that the aforementioned tech executive “exploited” data after having “worked with” Sussmann, with “a U.S. investigative firm retained by” his law firm “on behalf of the Clinton Campaign,” with “numerous cyber researchers,” and with “employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers.”
Hillary got caught.
Good times.
While some might blur the line between “spying” and “exploit[ing] . . . access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the distinction is, based on what we know right now, critical. Durham has not alleged a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) — all of which are major sources of law as to the prosecutions of federal computer crimes.
Broadly speaking, the CFAA criminalizes “knowingly access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access.” That might be something akin to “infiltrating” a system, but Durham’s Friday filing hasn’t alleged that, and it is unclear whether level of “access” the alleged exploiter was legally allowed to have to the alleged “non-public and/or proprietary” data.
The SCA deals with the disclosure of online communications — but it has many exceptions. Plus, the nature of “communications” can be legally quite narrow. (Remember: the government can look at phone numbers but cannot tap actual telephone calls without a warrant, and the government’s mail carriers can read addresses but not open envelopes or read mail. Phone numbers, addresses, and data a user has transmitted or “communicated to the system in order to make it work for him” has long been legally deemed to have been voluntarily injected into the public sphere; in other words, it isn’t secret.) Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
There is very evidence
The question used to be What did he know and when did he know it.
Not applicable to Biden.
https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/the-words-infiltrate-and-spy-appear-exactly-zero-times-in-john-durhams-recent-court-filing-heres-what-it-actually-says-and-what-it-doesnt/?utm_source=mostpopular
Blogger KansasDemocrat said...
Hillary got caught.
BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!!!! So did trump!!!!!!
They actually don't have any nurses here.
There is very evidence
Whaaa?
Lol, mocking waaaaaa.
New York is firing LEO's and Fire Fighters in staggering numbers.
No longer are the Hero's of 9-11 essential workers.
And his meds under lock and key. Served to him in one those Jell-O shot paper cups
BWAAAAAAAA!!!! From the short poster who thinks Brennen is a commie because he voted for one when in college.....LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! UGA is proud of his profound ignorance coming from their halls!!!!
The Words ‘Infiltrate’ and ‘Spy’ Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham’s Recent Court Filing. Here’s What It Actually Says — and What It Doesn’t
John Durham.
Dueling court filings have attracted considerable attention recently — especially among conservative media outlets — about the alleged inner workings of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign leading up to the 2016 election. The first missive, filed Friday by special counsel John H. Durham, led to claims by conservatives (such as Kash Patel on FOX News) and even by Donald Trump himself that liberal and Democratic figures were “infiltrating” or “spying” on his campaign. The Durham filing, however, does not directly make such a bald allegation,
Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
New York is firing LEO's and Fire Fighters in staggering numbers.
1400 to be precise because they would rather not work than take a shot......I hope they have a lot of savings to live on....asshole all like the goat fucking idiot!!!!!
So Roger...
99% of the country is not really concerned about what Trump says about that filing. I am not at all concerned with Trump's beliefs on the matter or his accusations based on those filings.
The filing stand on its own and it's more about fabricated allegations provided about Trump to the FBI that came direction from a company that was either working for or working with Hillary Clinton.
That fake information was used by the Clinton campaign to try to discredit Trump about a week before the election and the allegations were made more potent by the fact that the FBI actually did use it to further their investigation... and ultimately much of this was "leaked" just before the election.
I think this gets down to one thing, Roger.
You still believe that Russia and Trump conspired to unsurp the election and you will always support the FBI going after him... even as it has been proven over and over that those allegations were not just wrong, but corrupt.
You cannot understand why Durham even has a Special Counsel and no matter what he finds, you will never change your opinion.
This destroyed your argument Scott Johnson
The Words ‘Infiltrate’ and ‘Spy’ Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham’s Recent Court Filing. Here’s What It Actually Says — and What It Doesn’t
John Durham.
Dueling court filings have attracted considerable attention recently — especially among conservative media outlets — about the alleged inner workings of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign leading up to the 2016 election. The first missive, filed Friday by special counsel John H. Durham, led to claims by conservatives (such as Kash Patel on FOX News) and even by Donald Trump himself that liberal and Democratic figures were “infiltrating” or “spying” on his campaign. The Durham filing, however, does not directly make such a bald allegation,
Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/the-words-infiltrate-and-spy-appear-exactly-zero-times-in-john-durhams-recent-court-filing-heres-what-it-actually-says-and-what-it-doesnt/?utm_source=mostpopular
Who’s Brennen was he in the Ramon’s
You are so pathetically desperate for my attention, hell any attention
It’s really really sad, fatty
Oh BTW I won again
I read it . It didn't prove your allegations about Hillary Clinton's campaign.
suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
The links would not prevail in court
Roger Amick said...
I don't change collusion.
But the fact is that the Russians did use carefully designed talking points to sew doubt about Hillary Clinton.
Come up with something coherent, it’s beyond pitiful
You are so pathetically desperate for my attention, hell any attention
BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!! Who the fuck wants your ignorant attention when all you ever have is a big FUCKING mouth and no substance!!!! Yeah you won....LOLOLOLOLOL>>>>When you getting your lake house....prices are soaring out in the country and you can't rub 2 nickels together for a down payment.....yeah you won!!!!!!!
🤣But the fact is that the Russians did use carefully designed talking points to sew doubt about Hillary Clinton.🤣
Nope, what a dope.
Come up with something coherent, it’s beyond pitiful
Like your earlier nonsense gibberish and ramona???? Keep digging loser
I left a mark on fatty
LOL
Roger, for 5 years you said Trump worked with Putin.
Now you said.
"Trump didn't work with the Russians."
You are a failed human.
Cali, watching you club baby seal fatty is fun.
This destroyed your argument Scott Johnson
Really?
Because I have not accused anyone of spying?
Or are you not smart enough to distinguish my argument with someone else's argument? Perhaps it is your C+ 1500/2400 SAT living with a crazy person cognitive limitations showing through.
The Durham filing, however, does not directly make such a bald allegation,
Durham’s filing is somewhat unclear on the precise nature of the data but seems to tacitly suggest it might fall within the permissible bounds — perhaps, and perhaps just barely.
And shorty keeps jumping up for attention.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! Yeah, sad you are such a fucking loser!!!!!
Dear Leftist, do not blame Bidenomics inflation on Russia.
Biden built inflation on his own.
And the goat fucker like a good little dope, adds his own brand of stupidity to shorties desperate plea for help.....BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! Wow goat fucker....that left a real welt....LOLOLOLOL
There’s no originality in you fatboi, nothing nada
I did a word search for "Spy(ing).
Roger used it 27 times.
CHT used it once only in response to Roger saying CHT used it.
Alky, it's painfully obvious that you simply can't cope with topic without the assistance of dozens of MSM sources you lean upon like a fucking crutch.
Perhaps you should just stick to gloating about Slow Joe's new cat, or some other trivial sense of nonsense like what kind of ice cream he's enjoying before nappy time.
You're out of your depth pal, by a long shot.
Roger's Facebook page is good of his photos at this year's Super Bowl, he said he was going.
Roger used it 27 times.
And you made 20 idiotic posts today......BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
it's called a strawman logical fallacy.
Neither Roger or the cronies in the liberal MSM can debate the actual topic presented by Durham himself. Because... well it is really difficult to defend the factual evidence that the original claims of supposed ties between Trump and Russian banks was for all purposes a hoax (an extremely remote possibility that was pushed as factual evidence) and that this hoax was being pushed on the FBI (and leaked to the media) by an IT company that was working with (or for) the Clinton campaign.
So rather than address the actual filings, they decide to attack how others are reporting on it or attack how Trump is portraying it.
Strawman logical fallacy.
Wow Lil Schitty.....that is the most convoluted opinion pile of shit you have evah posted.....Nothing is going to come from Durham other than jerks like you spreading your bullshit wide and deep!!!! Keep digging since it makes you feel virile and studley for your child bride.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
The shift is on .
Blame Putin for Bidenomics Inflation.
Chuck Schumer said GOP is not giving him answers on how to fight Biden's Sytemic Inflation.
Nothing is going to come from Durham other than jerks like you spreading your bullshit wide and deep!!
So in other words... you believe it will be a nothingburger like the Mueller Russian collusion special counsel, huh?
Worse.....Mueller did show trump to be a liar and a crook and a obstructer while Durham showed no actual spying.....sorry sport...your Sanchez chasing windmills is out of style and facts.......BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
BTW, no one has refuted what Durham has alleged. Not a single MSM outlet.
All of the MSM response has been a massive semantic pretzel wrapped around a massive semantic Rubik's Cube. No refutation, just implicit claims of bias, with even Sussman himself not even refuting what Durham has alleged, but with all his fury directed at unflattering media outlets like Breitbart.
And yes BWAA, I realize that Breitbart is still dead, while his media empire is still very much ALIVE.
BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Suggest you read the times piece on the current bullshit furor over a nothing finding.....that is why there is quiet except for idiots like you and Lil SChitty!!!!!!! Sorry sport.....your opinion counts as much as the dead breitbart.....
Suggest you read the times piece on the current bullshit furor over a nothing finding.....
Well, thanks for making my fucking point, genius. Outlets like the NYT are furiously spinning the reporting on the allegations rather than addressing Durham's findings head on.
Worse.....Mueller did show trump to be a liar and a crook and a obstructer while Durham showed no actual spying.....sorry sport.
Mueller's job was to prove Trump conspired with Russia. It's not up to a special council to determine if Politicians tell the truth. They are politicians. Politicians rarely tell the truth.
On the flip side...
Durham is not trying to prove spying and didn't suggest any spying took place. So not sure why you think that is even relevant. What is is attempting to figure out is if the FBI had reasonable reason to investigate a Presidential Candidate during a campaign and whether or not his opponent had anything to do with prodding along that investigation.
He has a ways to go, but so far he appears to be a lot further along proving what he was set out to prove than Mueller.
MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, : : Defendant. : GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION TO STRIKE 1. The United States of America, by and through its attorney, Special Counsel John H. Durham, writes respectfully in opposition to the defendant’s Cross-Motion to Strike six paragraphs from the Government’s February 11, 2022 Motion to Inquire into Potential Conflicts of Interest. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should deny the defendant’s motion. 2. As an initial matter, defense counsel has presumed the Government’s bad faith and asserts that the Special Counsel’s Office intentionally sought to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool. (Dkt. No. 36). That is simply not true. The Government included two paragraphs of limited additional factual detail in its Motion for valid and straightforward reasons. First, those paragraphs reflect conduct that is intertwined with, and part of, events that are central to proving the defendant’s alleged criminal conduct. 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. If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise Case 1:21-
2 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. 3. In light of the above, there is no basis to strike any portion of the Government’s Motion. Indeed, the Government intends to file motions in limine in which it will further discuss these and other pertinent facts to explain why they constitute relevant and admissible evidence at trial. Pursuant to caselaw and common practice in this and other districts, the filing of documents containing reference to such evidence on the public docket is appropriate and proper, even in high- profile cases where the potential exists that such facts could garner media attention. See, e.g., United States v. Stone, 19 Cr. 18 (D.D.C. October 21, 2019) (ABJ), Minute Order (addressing the Government’s publicly-filed motion in limine seeking to admit video clip from the movie “Godfather II” that defendant sent to an associate and permitting admission of a transcript of the video); United States v. Craig, 19 Cr. 125 (D.D.C. July 10, 2019) (ABJ), Minute Order (addressing Government’s publicly-filed Rule 404(b) motion to offer evidence of defendant’s efforts to assist Paul Manafort’s relative in obtaining employment); United States v. Martoma, S1 12 Cr. 973, 2014 WL 164181 (S.D.N.Y. January 9, 2014) (denying defendant’s motion for sealing and courtroom closure relating to motions in limine concerning evidence of defendant’s expulsion from law school and forgery of law school transcript);1 see also Johnson v. Greater SE Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F. 1 The publicly-filed evidentiary motions and judicial rulings in each of the above-cited cases received significant media attention. See, e.g., Prosecutors Can’t Show Godfather II Clip at Roger Stone Trial, Judge Rules, CNN, October 21, 2019 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/politics/godfather-ii-roger-stone/index.html; Greg Craig Pushed to Hire Manfort’s Relative at Skadden, Prosecutors Say, POLITICO, May 10, 2019 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/10/greg-craig-hire-manaforts-relative-1317600); SAC’s Martoma Tried to Cover Up Fraud at Harvard, Documents Show, REUTERS, January 9, 2014 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sac-martoma-harvard/sacs-martoma-tried-to-cover-up-fraud-at-harvard-documents-show-idUSBREA081C720140109). Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 40 Filed 02/17/22
3 2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (holding that there is a “strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings”). Moreover, any potential prejudice or jury taint arising from such media attention can effectively and appropriately be addressed through the voir dire process during jury selection. 4. 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. Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 40 Filed 02/17/22 Page 3 of 4
4 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the defendant’s Cross-Motion to Strike. Respectfully submitted, JOHN H. DURHAM Special Counsel By: /s/ Brittain Shaw_ Jonathan E. Algor Assistant Special Counsel jonathan.algor@usdoj.gov Andrew J. DeFilippis Assistant Special Counsel andrew.defilippis@usdoj.gov Michael T. Keilty Assistant Special Counsel michael.keilty@usdoj.gov Brittain Shaw Assistant Special Counsel brittain.shaw@usdoj.gov Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 40 Filed 02
Post a Comment