Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Durham Investigation
Quote | Reply
The Durham investigation seemed like it was going to go out with a whimper after securing only a single guilty conviction. Then came the Sussman indictment, and now the arrest of Danchenko.

https://www.cbsnews.com/...rested-durham-probe/


It's not yet clear if the connection between Danchenko and a long-time Clinton associate is significant.
https://www.politico.com/...urce-arrested-519498
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [TMI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are the folks at Fox still calling lying to the FBI a "Process Crime"?
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If they are then they are right, because a process crime is a serious crime. If found guilty, these people need the maximum sentence. And the person(s) that commissioned the lies should be indicted too.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [TMI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TMI wrote:
It's not yet clear if the connection between Danchenko and a long-time Clinton associate is significant.
https://www.politico.com/...urce-arrested-519498

Since the indictment details the information supposedly provided by the Clinton associate, can you tell me how it is possibly in any way significant? Explain to me how that information is in any way significant.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [NealH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NealH wrote:
If they are then they are right, because a process crime is a serious crime. If found guilty, these people need the maximum sentence. And the person(s) that commissioned the lies should be indicted too.

That would be the Republican Party oppo research on Candidate Trump.

If you read up on the dossier, it was full of lots of true things, some "rumors", and some things likely fabricated by Russian intelligence agents, designed to cause chaos and conflict. I think the dossier guy even put that caveat into the thing.

It's interesting... if you look into the math of this stuff, you get something like 2 to the third to the third things to run down in a nested ambiguity statement of N=3. That's like 1000 things the FBI has to track down. Scissor statements have exponential power as well, where N cuts = N squared the energy of the original whole or something like that. Fascinating science.

E

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [NealH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NealH wrote:
If they are then they are right, because a process crime is a serious crime. If found guilty, these people need the maximum sentence. And the person(s) that commissioned the lies should be indicted too.

100% agree. Supposedly this Russian guy lied 5 times to the FBI. Lock him up.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [TMI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Still moving at a snail's pace. Small update on Friday's filings.

https://www.msn.com/...sia-probe/ar-AATPJuG
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericMPro wrote:
NealH wrote:
If they are then they are right, because a process crime is a serious crime. If found guilty, these people need the maximum sentence. And the person(s) that commissioned the lies should be indicted too.

That would be the Republican Party oppo research on Candidate Trump.

If you read up on the dossier, it was full of lots of true things, some "rumors", and some things likely fabricated by Russian intelligence agents, designed to cause chaos and conflict. I think the dossier guy even put that caveat into the thing.

It's interesting... if you look into the math of this stuff, you get something like 2 to the third to the third things to run down in a nested ambiguity statement of N=3. That's like 1000 things the FBI has to track down. Scissor statements have exponential power as well, where N cuts = N squared the energy of the original whole or something like that. Fascinating science.

E

Can you rephrase that paragraph or something?

Nested ambiguity statement means what? Is that where statements are intentionally written to be ambiguous so that someone working to clarify has to investigate each potential meaning?

Scissor statements are statements that appear starkly obvious but are open to two entirely different meanings?

The dossier itself was an attack on democracy based upon ambiguous language? If I understand this, that is fascinating! Language is insane!
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [TMI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TMI wrote:
Still moving at a snail's pace. Small update on Friday's filings.

https://www.msn.com/...sia-probe/ar-AATPJuG

Can you explain why we should believe John Ratcliffe? Since he is known to lie?

That is without getting into how dumb the substance of what he said was.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
TMI wrote:
Still moving at a snail's pace. Small update on Friday's filings.

https://www.msn.com/...sia-probe/ar-AATPJuG


Can you explain why we should believe John Ratcliffe? Since he is known to lie?

That is without getting into how dumb the substance of what he said was.

Can someone even explain this whole thing to me? I saw articles earlier today that somehow Clinton was in the WH servers... doing what? I get the old claims about the 2016 stuff, but claims that Clinton directed this to be done while he was in the WH I do not understand at all. What was she doing and what exactly did they do "in the servers"??

I also don't get the bit in this article about the first impeachment, that was based on what Trump said about Ukraine, how could that tie back to her?

So confused... which maybe is the point.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [CallMeMaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CallMeMaybe wrote:
ericMPro wrote:
NealH wrote:
If they are then they are right, because a process crime is a serious crime. If found guilty, these people need the maximum sentence. And the person(s) that commissioned the lies should be indicted too.

That would be the Republican Party oppo research on Candidate Trump.

If you read up on the dossier, it was full of lots of true things, some "rumors", and some things likely fabricated by Russian intelligence agents, designed to cause chaos and conflict. I think the dossier guy even put that caveat into the thing.

It's interesting... if you look into the math of this stuff, you get something like 2 to the third to the third things to run down in a nested ambiguity statement of N=3. That's like 1000 things the FBI has to track down. Scissor statements have exponential power as well, where N cuts = N squared the energy of the original whole or something like that. Fascinating science.

E

Can you rephrase that paragraph or something?

Nested ambiguity statement means what? Is that where statements are intentionally written to be ambiguous so that someone working to clarify has to investigate each potential meaning?

Scissor statements are statements that appear starkly obvious but are open to two entirely different meanings?

The dossier itself was an attack on democracy based upon ambiguous language? If I understand this, that is fascinating! Language is insane!

It may surprise you that scientists know how to use math and language like weapons in a way in which normal people don’t. These people make other people very rich or powerful.

Google what I wrote, check out Noam Chomsky, etc. I’m saying that it’s all Kayfabe in the intelligence community.

E

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [trirunnermaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trirunnermaybe wrote:

Can someone even explain this whole thing to me? I saw articles earlier today that somehow Clinton was in the WH servers... doing what?


It is confusing.

This is what I gather. There was a guy doing investigatory work to try to tie Trump to a Russian bank. The end goal was to provide information to the FBI so that the FBI would have to start investigating Trump. This guy allegedly lied to Federal investigators about being paid by the Clinton Campaign to perform this work.

In the course of this investigation, he used non-public DNS server data (DNS is how you convert a domain name, like slowtwitch.com, to a specific IP address). He got access through a company contracted to provide DNS services to the Executive Office of the President of the United States. (aka The White House, I guess). The servers in question, according to the actual text from Durham, were for DNS services. The goal was to use this data to try to find that Trump-and-associates internet usage was resulting in DNS lookups to Russian-affiliated sites.

It does not appear to be about getting access to a file server, where government files would be stored. I'm not minimizing the importance. Because knowing what Internet sites White House personnel are visiting can certainly be considered government-sensitive information. Metadata collection is a form of eavesdropping.

Possibly some laws broken, for sure. And this is on the nastier, shady side of politics.

Is it Watergate bad if all true? Maybe not a good analogy because Clinton was not, and is not President. Certainly not good if she was aware of it. I'm fine with whatever legal outcome Durham decides.
Last edited by: trail: Feb 14, 22 18:56
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Didn’t this happen prior to Trump being in the White House?

The only thing I recall about this when it happened was everyone in my industry dismissed it as nonsense. It certainly wasn’t what started the Mueller investigation
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nutella wrote:
Didn’t this happen prior to Trump being in the White House?

The only thing I recall about this when it happened was everyone in my industry dismissed it as nonsense. It certainly wasn’t what started the Mueller investigation

Good question. I'll have to read the full Durham release. Sigh
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Nutella wrote:
Didn’t this happen prior to Trump being in the White House?

The only thing I recall about this when it happened was everyone in my industry dismissed it as nonsense. It certainly wasn’t what started the Mueller investigation


Good question. I'll have to read the full Durham release. Sigh

He appears to have collected dated from 2014 to February 2017. It doesn't appear that he was collecting data in 2014 but he did access some logs or archives.

Hearing it was Rodney Joffe, which is certainly a blast from the past.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
trirunnermaybe wrote:

Can someone even explain this whole thing to me? I saw articles earlier today that somehow Clinton was in the WH servers... doing what?


It is confusing.

This is what I gather. There was a guy doing investigatory work to try to tie Trump to a Russian bank. The end goal was to provide information to the FBI so that the FBI would have to start investigating Trump. This guy allegedly lied to Federal investigators about being paid by the Clinton Campaign to perform this work.

In the course of this investigation, he used non-public DNS server data (DNS is how you convert a domain name, like slowtwitch.com, to a specific IP address). He got access through a company contracted to provide DNS services to the Executive Office of the President of the United States. (aka The White House, I guess). The servers in question, according to the actual text from Durham, were for DNS services. The goal was to use this data to try to find that Trump-and-associates internet usage was resulting in DNS lookups to Russian-affiliated sites.

It does not appear to be about getting access to a file server, where government files would be stored. I'm not minimizing the importance. Because knowing what Internet sites White House personnel are visiting can certainly be considered government-sensitive information. Metadata collection is a form of eavesdropping.

Possibly some laws broken, for sure. And this is on the nastier, shady side of politics.

Is it Watergate bad if all true? Maybe not a good analogy because Clinton was not, and is not President. Certainly not good if she was aware of it. I'm fine with whatever legal outcome Durham decides.

Here is a good outline of what this nonsense is about.

Durham actually just filed a motion about a potential conflict of interest for Latham Watkins, who is the lawyer for Sussmann. Sussmann is the one accused of lying to FBI about, but Durham's case against Sussmann is basically nothing. Watkins used to represent Marc Elias and Durham may call Elias to the stand, so was saying Watkins may have a conflict.

That is all Durham actually needed to talk about.

But since Durham is not about actual crimes and is more concerned with spreading bullshit, he dishonestly frames the work of Rondey Joffe. First, because the meeting where Sussmann was indicted, Sussmann had no knowledge of any white house DNS information. He only learned of it later during a meeting with CIA, as Durham himself points out. Second, there is no crime here, Durham has known about this the whole time, but let the statue of limitations lapse on anything to do with White House DNS info. There is no crime here. Third, all this was also in Sussmann's original indictment, but Durham just kinda put it in there randomly and had nothing to do what was actually charged.

Now why would Durham wait 5 months after indicting Sussmann to claim Sussmann's lawyer may have a conflict? Because Durham needs something so people don't forget who he is. If there was really a crime here, Durham would have charged someone. He has shown he doesn't need a strong case to charge people. There is obviously nothing here. Also, it is not really obvious there is any conflict in the first place, so why he filed this motion is just wild.

Durham's case against Sussmann is very weak. But he needs to drag the case out as long as possible so that he can keep spreading BS. He does not want it to actually end.

Of course Durham makes this all as confusing as possible and then Kash Patel (who would be Durham's witness on Sussmann's testimony under oath to congress) is then exaggerating what Durham says and then the right wing media repeats what Kash Patel said. Of course Kash Patel has his own issues with the whole trying to destroy the country by overturning the 2020 presidential election, but that is a whole other thing.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At this point hasn’t the Durham investigation been going along almost twice as long as muellers investigation?
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Marcy Wheeler can be a bit hyperbolic but she is spot on about this. It is interesting to note that she was one of the many experts that shot down the Alfa Luma non-story when it first came out.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [TMI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track
The latest alarmist claims about spying on Trump appeared to be flawed, but the explanation is byzantine — underlining the challenge for journalists in deciding what merits coverage.

https://www.nytimes.com/...nn-trump-russia.html

Quote:
Quote:
Upon close inspection, these narratives are often based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation. They also tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time — raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims. Yet Trump allies portray the news media as engaged in a cover-up if they don’t.
Quote:
The conservative media also skewed what the filing said. For example, Mr. Durham’s filing never used the word “infiltrate.” And it never claimed that Mr. Joffe’s company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.
Quote:
Most important, contrary to the reporting, the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. According to lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped develop the Yota analysis, the data — so-called DNS logs, which are records of when computers or smartphones have prepared to communicate with servers over the internet — came from Barack Obama’s presidency.
Quote:
“The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't let facts get in the way!

Suffer Well.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
Can you explain why we should believe John Ratcliffe?
Sorry, a full day of work, then dinner and a movie with the wife, and there just weren't many reports from which to choose yesterday.

After reading several more articles and analyses today, is Durham really not the straight arrow everyone thought he was, or do they just not like what he has found? Sussman's lawyers are clearly pushing back.

Andrew McCarthy's legal analysis is usually pretty reliable, and his take on the Durham investigation seems spot-on.

Quote:
But for all the extravagant claims about how Durham is supposedly on the verge of breaking the case wide open, the big one never comes. For all the current noise about spying on the Trump White House, Sussmann is charged merely with misleading the FBI about who his clients were. Joffe is not charged. Other Clinton-campaign operatives are not charged. Obama officials are not charged. There is no allegation of fraud on the government, or any indictment claiming that the information proffered to make Trump look corrupt was fraudulent.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [TMI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TMI wrote:
chaparral wrote:
Can you explain why we should believe John Ratcliffe?

Sorry, a full day of work, then dinner and a movie with the wife, and there just weren't many reports from which to choose yesterday.

After reading several more articles and analyses today, is Durham really not the straight arrow everyone thought he was, or do they just not like what he has found? Sussman's lawyers are clearly pushing back.

Andrew McCarthy's legal analysis is usually pretty reliable, and his take on the Durham investigation seems spot-on.

Quote:
But for all the extravagant claims about how Durham is supposedly on the verge of breaking the case wide open, the big one never comes. For all the current noise about spying on the Trump White House, Sussmann is charged merely with misleading the FBI about who his clients were. Joffe is not charged. Other Clinton-campaign operatives are not charged. Obama officials are not charged. There is no allegation of fraud on the government, or any indictment claiming that the information proffered to make Trump look corrupt was fraudulent.

While the part you highlighted is correct, and well put, McCarthy is off on a few things. There is no indication that Joffe was a "Clinton Operative" or that his monitoring continued into the Trump presidency. Durham is vague on dates but it appears it ended January 17, 2017. There is zero indication that Joffe's work was predicate for the Mueller investigation.

The only thing that is clear is that Trump, Fox News, and the rest of the MAGA media are lying about a lot of this
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fox News has had this as their top headline all week. Multiple headlines every day about how scandalous this is and how the main stream media refuses to cover it.

Today, nothing. Of the 30 or so headlines that make the front page of Foxnews.com, I'm not seeing any mention of the story. It's a complex story that I haven't taken a bunch of time to dig into, but I'm going to take this as a sign that there is no there, there.

It may not matter, their mission is already accomplished. The base will believe that Hillary was spying on the Trump campaign and I doubt anything will change their mind.
Quote Reply
Re: Durham Investigation [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
Fox News has had this as their top headline all week. Multiple headlines every day about how scandalous this is and how the main stream media refuses to cover it.

Today, nothing. Of the 30 or so headlines that make the front page of Foxnews.com, I'm not seeing any mention of the story. It's a complex story that I haven't taken a bunch of time to dig into, but I'm going to take this as a sign that there is no there, there.

It may not matter, their mission is already accomplished. The base will believe that Hillary was spying on the Trump campaign and I doubt anything will change their mind.

Isn't it obvious? She was spying so that she could get enough information to help Biden steal the election.
Quote Reply

Prev Next