Did Durham Read "Last Of The Mohicans"????

[TeeDub]

Just the opposite.

You should read more carefully.


Sussman's lawyers tried to claim the lie was immaterial.

"... remember that the law on materiality is clear that the falsehood need not actually influence the agency’s decision-making process, but merely needs to be “capable” of doing so."



Durham said....WRONG.

As you are.....WRONG.

PC you can't win a argument with a idiot. Nice try though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC you can't win a argument with a idiot. Nice try though.

I simply post the truth for all to see.

It works to our advantage when they try to lie, and I can expose 'em.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations​

3. There Was No ‘Infiltration,’ So There Is No Story​

A third counter pushed in response to Durham’s Friday court filing focused on Fox News’ coverage and its opener that read, “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 found.”

Durham never said “infiltrate,” however, came the rejoinder. At least on this point, the press members suffering from “media vapors” have a point: Durham did not say “infiltrate.”

Durham said the data Sussmann provided to the CIA came from data tech executive Rodney Joffe obtained when he “exploited” his access to sensitive data from the Executive Office of the President (EOP).



... Joffe voluntarily exploited his access to the data and received no compensation from Clinton for his forays into the EOP and other databases.

These criticisms by the Times, CNN, and others might hold more weight if the same outlets hadn’t pushed the Russia collusion hoax for five years. But, in any event, correcting those two points does nothing to counter the serious allegations revealed in Durham’s latest filing revealed.

In fact, he exposed so many significant details that it required two separate articles to adequately cover the developments. Notwithstanding the concerted pushback against the Fox News article, The Federalist’s in-depth coverage remains unblemished."

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

The Durham deniers’ talking points remain gibberish. They are furiously attempting to hand-wave away the facts the special counsel has found.

thefederalist.com

 

[colfax_m]

Is it accurate or not????

It's not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's not.

You have been exposed as low-life lying scum, exactly what the Democrat Party needs to survive.

I have asked that you not post to me, as every time you do so, I feel the need for a full course of penicillin.

Please honor my request.

 

[colfax_m]

You have been exposed as low-life lying scum, exactly what the Democrat Party needs to survive.

I have asked that you not post to me, as every time you do so, I feel the need for a full course of penicillin.

Please honor my request.

I sense your palpable fear of truth. You prefer the lies.

 

[lantern2814]

I never said it was in the statement, Master Moron. Was Fox adding to their interpretation of said statement? Yes.

Yes you did asshole. You specifically mentioned Fox in YOUR post. Now trying to run and hide because you got caught lying. As usual. That diaper you’re wearing is getting pretty full now.

 

[lantern2814]

Yea I know that's why I hardly ever respond to her. It was just tempting this time. I've never seen anybody, even on this board both this condescending and this wrong at the same time. And she's totally shameless about it.

Yet here you are filling your diaper and lying in every post. Without any shame at being a blatant liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations​

4. But Trump Wasn’t Even President Yet​

The next narrative launched to minimize the significance of the revelations contained in Durham’s motion ...

The data relating to the White House “came from Barack Obama’s presidency,” the Times reported, quoting two lawyers representing one of the researchers who aided Joffe. Rather, “to our knowledge,” the lawyers claimed, “all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

As the motion explained, in providing the DNS data to the CIA, Sussmann told the government agents “these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”

As a matter of pure logic, the data Sussmann presented to the CIA related to the White House must have somehow related to Trump or it would not “demonstrate” that “Trump and/or his associates were using” the Russian cell phones “in the vicinity of the White House.” Most likely, then, the data presented concerned the transition period. Further, there is nothing to say that after Trump took office Joffe stopped “exploiting” the data."

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

The Durham deniers’ talking points remain gibberish. They are furiously attempting to hand-wave away the facts the special counsel has found.

thefederalist.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

"5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations​

​

​

5. It’s Old News​

The fifth response, which Savage again initiated, ran that the “news” was “old news.”

“...much of this was not new: The New York Times had reported in October what Mr. Sussmann had told the C.I.A. about data suggesting that Russian-made smartphones, called YotaPhones, had been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.”



What the Times did not report on October 1, 2021, however, was that Joffe’s internet company “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the [Executive Office of the Presidency] as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP.”

Nor did the Times report, as Durham alleged, that Joffe 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.”



In other words, this was new news, and those claiming otherwise serve, not as journalists, but as pushers of propaganda."

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

The Durham deniers’ talking points remain gibberish. They are furiously attempting to hand-wave away the facts the special counsel has found.

thefederalist.com

 

[berg80]

1. In Durham's indictment we find

.......some politicized language that right wing media grabbed and ran with. Duping every knuckle dragging rube who tuned in to the latest iteration of Faux' 24/7 barrage of lies.

Let's review. The overt lies spun by various right wing media sources making erroneous assertions based on Durham's filing last Friday have been thoroughly debunked. Even Durham himself, in a half-assed way, has backed away from the ridiculous RWM claims.

Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/...rump-russia.html?referringSource=articleShare

New details on 2016 Russia probe prompt flawed allegations of espionage
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/n...-probe-prompt-flawed-allegations-of-espionage

Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing
The special counsel implicitly acknowledged that White House internet data he discussed, which conservative outlets have portrayed as proof of spying on the Trump White House, came from the Obama era.

But over the weekend, the conservative news media treated those sentences in Mr. Durham’s filing as a new revelation while significantly embellishing what it had said. Mr. Durham, some outlets inaccurately reported, had said he had discovered that the Clinton campaign had paid Mr. Joffe’s company to spy on Mr. Trump. But the campaign had not paid his company, and the filing did not say so. Some outlets also quoted Mr. Durham’s filing as using the word “infiltrate,” a word it did not contain.

Most important, the coverage about purported spying on the Trump White House was premised on the idea that the White House network data involved came from when Mr. Trump was president. But Mr. Durham’s filing did not say when it was from.

Lawyers for a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped analyze the Yota data said on Monday that the data came from the Obama presidency. Mr. Sussmann’s lawyers said the same in a filing on Monday night complaining about Mr. Durham’s conduct.

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.
Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing

This reporting puts Faux's lies in context and on full display. Which, I might add, happens every day.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...that-her-campaign-spied-on-trump-133433925577

Will the truth put an end to this story? Of course not. The Following still thinks Trump won the election. Once a lie circulates among them they hold on to it like a life raft.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.......some politicized language that right wing media grabbed and ran with. Duping every knuckle dragging rube who tuned in to the latest iteration of Faux' 24/7 barrage of lies.

Let's review. The overt lies spun by various right wing media sources making erroneous assertions based on Durham's filing last Friday have been thoroughly debunked. Even Durham himself, in a half-assed way, has backed away from the ridiculous RWM claims.

Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/...rump-russia.html?referringSource=articleShare

New details on 2016 Russia probe prompt flawed allegations of espionage
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/n...-probe-prompt-flawed-allegations-of-espionage

Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing
The special counsel implicitly acknowledged that White House internet data he discussed, which conservative outlets have portrayed as proof of spying on the Trump White House, came from the Obama era.

But over the weekend, the conservative news media treated those sentences in Mr. Durham’s filing as a new revelation while significantly embellishing what it had said. Mr. Durham, some outlets inaccurately reported, had said he had discovered that the Clinton campaign had paid Mr. Joffe’s company to spy on Mr. Trump. But the campaign had not paid his company, and the filing did not say so. Some outlets also quoted Mr. Durham’s filing as using the word “infiltrate,” a word it did not contain.

Most important, the coverage about purported spying on the Trump White House was premised on the idea that the White House network data involved came from when Mr. Trump was president. But Mr. Durham’s filing did not say when it was from.

Lawyers for a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped analyze the Yota data said on Monday that the data came from the Obama presidency. Mr. Sussmann’s lawyers said the same in a filing on Monday night complaining about Mr. Durham’s conduct.

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.
Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing

This reporting puts Faux's lies in context and on full display. Which, I might add, happens every day.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...that-her-campaign-spied-on-trump-133433925577

Will the truth put an end to this story? Of course not. The Following still thinks Trump won the election. Once a lie circulates among them they hold on to it like a life raft.

Let's check.

 

[berg80]

"5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations​

​

​

5. It’s Old News​

The fifth response, which Savage again initiated, ran that the “news” was “old news.”

“...much of this was not new: The New York Times had reported in October what Mr. Sussmann had told the C.I.A. about data suggesting that Russian-made smartphones, called YotaPhones, had been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.”



What the Times did not report on October 1, 2021, however, was that Joffe’s internet company “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the [Executive Office of the Presidency] as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP.”

Nor did the Times report, as Durham alleged, that Joffe 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.”



In other words, this was new news, and those claiming otherwise serve, not as journalists, but as pushers of propaganda."

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

The Durham deniers’ talking points remain gibberish. They are furiously attempting to hand-wave away the facts the special counsel has found.

thefederalist.com

Read this paragraph closely and then read it again.

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. Got it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Read this paragraph closely and then read it again.

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. Got it?

Read this carefully: any errors?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Read this paragraph closely and then read it again.

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. Got it?

And this:


"The Indictment alleges that the defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive ('Tech Executive-1 - identified as Rodney Jeffe) at a U.S.-based Internet company ('Internet Company1'), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign. 3.

The defendant's billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign ('Campaign Lawyer-1').

The Indictment also alleges that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Tech Executive-1 had worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract."

Hillary's campaign lawyer files motion to DISMISS Durham charges

Hillary's campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann's legal team filed a motion for Special Counsel John Durham to drop his case against their client that alleges he lied to the FBI in September 2016.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[berg80]

Read this carefully: any errors?

Yes, in the first sentence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, in the first sentence.

Wow....you sure are sweatin' about this indictment.

It must be because Hillary paid Sussmann to do the dirty work, huh?

berg80 said:
Read this paragraph closely and then read it again.

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. Got it?
Click to expand...

And this:


"The Indictment alleges that the defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive ('Tech Executive-1 - identified as Rodney Jeffe) at a U.S.-based Internet company ('Internet Company1'), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign. 3.

The defendant's billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work

Excellent.

 

[struth]

Talking on Durham... Did you know he's not answering questions about RW media's mis-representation of his statement?
You should read up on it. Maybe your propaganda will dissipate. Maybe.

i saw where he had to make a filing because dembot propagandist, over at msdnc, attacked him

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow......Republicans actually beating the Democrats to the 'stone wall' where they use the weaponsized DoJ against Durham...

"All but 4 Sen. Republicans Demand Garland Respect Durham’s Autonomy​

'While also ensuring he is provided all resources necessary to fully, thoroughly, and completely pursue the investigation for which he was appointed... '
Every Republican Senator except four signed a letter telling Attorney General Merrick Garland to respect Special Counsel John Durham‘s independent investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion hoax, Just the News reported.

“We write to seek your assurance that you will continue to respect the prosecutorial independence of Special Counsel John Durham and his staff, while also ensuring he is provided all resources necessary to fully, thoroughly, and completely pursue the investigation for which he was appointed,” the Republicans wrote."

All but 4 Sen. Republicans Demand Garland Respect Durham's Autonomy | Headline USA

(Joshua Paladino, Headline USA) Every Republican Senator except four signed a letter telling Attorney General Merrick Garland to respect Special Counsel John Durham‘s independent investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion hoax, Just the News reported. “We write to seek your assurance...

headlineusa.com