He may have had it read to him and then approved it.
It's pretty funny that reading your company's DNS lookup request logs from a customer, in this case the Executive Office of the President, would be characterized as infiltration. Must have been a slow news day.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:04 amI think you are correct.
Latest from Durham--the Clinton campaign paid to have data gathered on Trump, including after he was elected. I believe the previous narrative's villains were Obama and the FBI, but that's just details. Probably they were all doing it. The important thing to remember is that Dear Leader's opponents are horrible people. Via Fox News:
'Clinton campaign paid to "infiltrate" Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham'
Note that as yet no charges have been made against anybody discussed in this filing other than Sussmann. He isn't being charged with anything but supposedly lying to the FBI about his affiliations. Fox News didn't bother to spell his name correctly.Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham says.
The former president implies that part of Making America Great Again would be instituting the death penalty for traitors who dare inquire into his activities.
'"Punishable By Death": Clinton Paid to Infiltrate Trump Servers, Plant Russia Conspiracy, Filing Says'
Trump mouthpiece wrote:"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."
Hardly a criminal indictment, especially given that the motion was asking the Court "to inquire into potential conflicts of interest arising from theThe Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”). (Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)
Fox News and the rest of the right wing noise are desperate for Durham to turn up something, after years of near silence from him. Thanks for the link to his latest filing.Joe wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 3:54 pmIt's pretty funny that reading your company's DNS lookup request logs from a customer, in this case the Executive Office of the President, would be characterized as infiltration. Must have been a slow news day.
From Durham's filing:
Hardly a criminal indictment, especially given that the motion was asking the Court "to inquire into potential conflicts of interest arising from theThe Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”). (Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)
representation of the defendant by his current counsel..."
Fox News has been hyping special counsel John Durham's filing, which they have inaccurately declared as evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign had paid technology executive Rodney Joffe to "infiltrate" a White House server, and Trump has called for anyone involved to be executed -- but attorney Marcy Wheeler explained how they had gotten their facts wrong to MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"One of the things [Durham] revealed in that, which I have heard from other people is this claim that Rodney Joffe was accessing data from the White House," Wheeler said. "All of that data precedes Trump's inauguration, so you have Trump out there calling for these people to be put to death when really what happened is Rodney Joffe was trying to keep [then-president] Barack Obama safe from hackers. That's all it is. That's why Trump wants these people killed, Durham knows that."
"Durham knows that this data precedes Trump," she continued. "He didn't include it in the filing so he has everyone worked up on Fox News. John Ratcliffe, you showed him earlier. Kash Patel is the source of many of these false claims. They were both witnesses to John Durham and Kash Patel has known about this allegation going back to December of 2017 because he's the one who asked [cybersecurity lawyer] Michael Sussman about it. Michael Sussman was honest about it back in December 2017 and Kash Patel when he was an Intelligence Committee staffer, when he was working in the White House, when he was the chief of staff for [the Department of Defense] he did nothing about this because he knew that all Rodney Joffe was doing was trying to keep the White House safe from hackers. That's what this is about."
I'm sure there will be indictments any day now.“Contrary to the allegations in this recent filing, Mr. Joffe is an apolitical internet security expert with decades of service to the U.S. Government who has never worked for a political party, and who legally provided access to DNS data obtained from a private client that separately was providing DNS services to the Executive Office of the President (EOP)," a spokesperson for Joffe said in a statement reported by NBC News.
I will credit Barr with choosing somebody who would be willing to speciously attempt a hatchet job to please the Fox News/Jim Jordan/Canadian 'leftist' types.Unfortunately, the Special Counsel has done more than simply file a document
identifying potential conflicts of interest. Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in
this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial--and false--allegations that are irrelevant to his
Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media
coverage, and taint the jury pool.
...
[A]lthough the Special Counsel implies that in Mr. Sussmann’s February 9, 2017
meeting, he provided Agency-2 with EOP data from after Mr. Trump took office, the Special
Counsel is well aware that the data provided to Agency-2 pertained only to the period of time
before Mr. Trump took office, when Barack Obama was President. Further—and contrary to the
Special Counsel’s alleged theory that Mr. Sussmann was acting in concert with the Clinton
Campaign—the Motion conveniently overlooks the fact that Mr. Sussmann’s meeting with
Agency-2 happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the Clinton Campaign
had effectively ceased to exist. Unsurprisingly, the Motion also omits any mention of the fact that
Mr. Sussmann never billed the Clinton Campaign for the work associated with the February 9,
2017 meeting, nor could he have (because there was no Clinton Campaign).
...
[R]ecently, in his 19-page “Discovery Update” filed on January 25, 2022, the
Special Counsel again went out of his way to include uncharged and inflammatory allegations. In
his filing, which sought an extension of time to produce certain discovery, the Special Counsel
stretched to include the gratuitous claim that his Office had an “active, ongoing criminal
investigation of the defendant’s conduct and other matters.” ... However, the Special
Counsel has been investigating for years, and some of the Special Counsel’s “ongoing”
investigation seems to be work that should have been completed before indicting Mr. Sussmann.
For example, the Special Counsel has alleged that Mr. Sussmann met with the FBI on behalf of
the Clinton Campaign, but it was not until November 2021—two months after Mr. Sussmann was
indicted—that the Special Counsel bothered to interview any individual who worked full-time for
that Campaign to determine if that allegation was true. It is not.
Thanks for this. I particularly liked:L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:38 pmYour source also had a link to Sussmann's counsel's response to Durham's filing. Gives the strong impression that Durham is desperate to squeeze something out of what looks more and more like a spurious indictment. Unsparing and gets to the heart of the issue:
Unfortunately, the Special Counsel has done more than simply file a document
identifying potential conflicts of interest. Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in
this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial--and false--allegations that are irrelevant to his
Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media
coverage, and taint the jury pool.
...
[A]lthough the Special Counsel implies that in Mr. Sussmann’s February 9, 2017
meeting, he provided Agency-2 with EOP data from after Mr. Trump took office, the Special
Counsel is well aware that the data provided to Agency-2 pertained only to the period of time
before Mr. Trump took office, when Barack Obama was President. Further—and contrary to the
Special Counsel’s alleged theory that Mr. Sussmann was acting in concert with the Clinton
Campaign—the Motion conveniently overlooks the fact that Mr. Sussmann’s meeting with
Agency-2 happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the Clinton Campaign
had effectively ceased to exist. Unsurprisingly, the Motion also omits any mention of the fact that
Mr. Sussmann never billed the Clinton Campaign for the work associated with the February 9,
2017 meeting, nor could he have (because there was no Clinton Campaign).
I'm guessing this is just opportunistic lawyering, but I'll derive some guilty pleasure if the right wing noise machine just shot its cause in the foot.As a result, Mr. Sussmann hereby requests that the Court strike the Factual Background portion of the Special Counsel’s motion pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017). In addition, Mr. Sussmann reserves all rights to submit appropriate motions and seek appropriate relief concerning this conduct should the Indictment not be dismissed and should the case proceed to trial, including by seeking extensive voir dire about potential jurors’ exposure to prejudicial media resulting from the Special Counsel’s irresponsible actions.
In the wake of this week’s mania in Republican circles, Sussman’s defense lawyers accused the special counsel’s office of having made needlessly provocative claims in order to “politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool.”
By way of a defense, Durham told the court in a new filing, “If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information.”
Implicit in that defense is an acknowledgement that the special counsel’s office does not want to be associated with this week’s hysterics in far-right circles.
What’s more, while the details get a little complicated, one of the key elements that’s emerged this week is that Trump and other GOP conspiracy theorists had a calendar problem: The relevant White House network data appeared to come from the Obama era, before Trump even took office. Durham’s filing from last week didn’t acknowledge this timeline, which led Republicans and conservative media to make assumptions that were wrong.
With this in mind, the new report from the Times added:
According to the special counsel’s new filing, Durham was exploring Mr. Sussmann’s potential conflicts of interest, one of which involved a lawyer who worked for the White House “during the relevant events that involved” the White House.Mr. Durham did not directly address that basic factual dispute. But his explanation for why he included the information about the matter in the earlier filing implicitly confirmed that Mr. Sussmann had conveyed concerns about White House data that came from before Mr. Trump was president.
That lawyer worked in Barack Obama’s White House, not Trump’s.
All of which is to say, this week’s far-right conspiracy theories were already difficult to take seriously. In the wake of Durham’s new filing, they suddenly look a little worse.
It wouldn't surprise me if Durham really didn't anticipate the reaction. By all accounts, he's a serious prosecutor, and not a media hound like Rudy Giuliani. After all, his motion was asking the court to look at possible conflict of interests for the defendant's legal team. It's hardly a major move.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 5:03 pmDurham is claiming that he didn't intend for his 'conflict of interest' filing to be taken up in the way that Fox News did, and that he is not responsible for their interpretation of his filing. That's cute, but if he didn't want Republicans and their propaganda machine to jump to the conclusion that the Clinton campaign was 'spying' on Trump even after he was in the White House, he could have explicitly acknowledged in the filing that the White House data in question was from late in Obama's presidency. In this latest filing, he continues to avoid doing that.
'In filing, Durham appears to distance himself from far-right theories'
In the wake of this week’s mania in Republican circles, Sussman’s defense lawyers accused the special counsel’s office of having made needlessly provocative claims in order to “politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool.”
By way of a defense, Durham told the court in a new filing, “If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information.”
Implicit in that defense is an acknowledgement that the special counsel’s office does not want to be associated with this week’s hysterics in far-right circles.
What’s more, while the details get a little complicated, one of the key elements that’s emerged this week is that Trump and other GOP conspiracy theorists had a calendar problem: The relevant White House network data appeared to come from the Obama era, before Trump even took office. Durham’s filing from last week didn’t acknowledge this timeline, which led Republicans and conservative media to make assumptions that were wrong.
With this in mind, the new report from the Times added:
According to the special counsel’s new filing, Durham was exploring Mr. Sussmann’s potential conflicts of interest, one of which involved a lawyer who worked for the White House “during the relevant events that involved” the White House.Mr. Durham did not directly address that basic factual dispute. But his explanation for why he included the information about the matter in the earlier filing implicitly confirmed that Mr. Sussmann had conveyed concerns about White House data that came from before Mr. Trump was president.
That lawyer worked in Barack Obama’s White House, not Trump’s.
All of which is to say, this week’s far-right conspiracy theories were already difficult to take seriously. In the wake of Durham’s new filing, they suddenly look a little worse.
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 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.
Users browsing this forum: Woodbutcher and 15 guests
