Sussman, Georgia Tech and the Clinton’s. Of course!

[HokieFanDC]

It’s obvious you see no problem with what was spelled out…..which is expected.
The investigation is ongoing and accelerating according to some outlets.

I’ve said it before in another thread, but I’m sure ip’s crooked gal skates. They always do.

I have doubts he's read what was spelled out. The posts seem to imply as much, googling instead something like "what should I think about the latest Durham report?".

If you had actually read the filing, you would know what I wrote is exactly correct.
I've read the filing. I've read many, many articles about the filing. If you have some counter to what I wrote, have at it.
Otherwise, you're just wasting space and being an ass.

[HokieHam]

Got it.

You never ever ever get it when you say you've got it.

Joe still dialing it in, IP? Eh?

1. Correct.

2. Silly ip.

If Durham doesn't charge anyone with anything else, what will your reaction be?11

He's been working on this for 2 years.
And he's landed on a lying to the FBI charge.

Why is that. He knows what Sussman and Joffe did. They brought the information that thwy got to the FBI, and Durham exactly what it is, where they got it, and when they got it.
We know they were looking at DNS traffic. And that it was traffic from Trump Tower, another Trump building, and the EOP, in 2016.
And we know what they found, or moreso, what they didn't find.

Yet no claims of spying. No mention of any computer fraud crimes. The malfeasance he claims, is exploitation.
So, what's your take going to be, if that occurs?

It’s obvious you see no problem with what was spelled out…..which is expected.
The investigation is ongoing and accelerating according to some outlets.

I’ve said it before in another thread, but I’m sure ip’s crooked gal skates. They always do.

I don't see "no problem" with what was spelled out. You being wrong, is what is expected.
What I see is something may be criminal, but almost certainly unethical.
And Durham's filing says exactly that, and nothing more. Read it, "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".

He didn't use the words spying, or infiltrate - criminal terms. He said exploited an arrangement, a non-criminal phrase.
And like you said, the investigation is ongoing. I've seen the claims of accelerating activity, which is just odd, given that it's been 3 years.
And just to be clear, you're take is that if Hillary skates, it's not b/c Durham didn't find any illegal activity, it's because of something?

Why you’re not understanding the definition of spying is typical DC.

spy verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈspī \
spied; spying
Definition of spy (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes

Now…..go back and read what the governments evidence will establish…..specifically the portion that starts at “Tech Executive”…..and then try to say it was NOT spying as read in the definition above. Or maybe you can parse some verbs and go into minutiae of all the nonsense you typically do.

These people were in the employ of the Clinton campaign. The filing states that he billed the campaign. Sussmann then lied that he was not working for any client when he presented the scandal of Drumpf! and the bank when the FIB came around. But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there.

Durham has been known to be notoriously slow and thorough in his investigations…..I wish he would move sooner.

Again…..read what I said. The powerful skate. Always do.

[HokieFanDC]

You never ever ever get it when you say you've got it.

Joe still dialing it in, IP? Eh?

1. Correct.

2. Silly ip.

If Durham doesn't charge anyone with anything else, what will your reaction be?11

He's been working on this for 2 years.
And he's landed on a lying to the FBI charge.

Why is that. He knows what Sussman and Joffe did. They brought the information that thwy got to the FBI, and Durham exactly what it is, where they got it, and when they got it.
We know they were looking at DNS traffic. And that it was traffic from Trump Tower, another Trump building, and the EOP, in 2016.
And we know what they found, or moreso, what they didn't find.

Yet no claims of spying. No mention of any computer fraud crimes. The malfeasance he claims, is exploitation.
So, what's your take going to be, if that occurs?

It’s obvious you see no problem with what was spelled out…..which is expected.
The investigation is ongoing and accelerating according to some outlets.

I’ve said it before in another thread, but I’m sure ip’s crooked gal skates. They always do.

I don't see "no problem" with what was spelled out. You being wrong, is what is expected.
What I see is something may be criminal, but almost certainly unethical.
And Durham's filing says exactly that, and nothing more. Read it, "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".

He didn't use the words spying, or infiltrate - criminal terms. He said exploited an arrangement, a non-criminal phrase.
And like you said, the investigation is ongoing. I've seen the claims of accelerating activity, which is just odd, given that it's been 3 years.
And just to be clear, you're take is that if Hillary skates, it's not b/c Durham didn't find any illegal activity, it's because of something?

Why you’re not understanding the definition of spying is typical DC.

spy verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈspī \
spied; spying
Definition of spy (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes

Now…..go back and read what the governments evidence will establish…..specifically the portion that starts at “Tech Executive”…..and then try to say it was NOT spying as read in the definition above. Or maybe you can parse some verbs and go into minutiae of all the nonsense you typically do.

These people were in the employ of the Clinton campaign. The filing states that he billed the campaign. Sussmann then lied that he was not working for any client when he presented the scandal of Drumpf! and the bank when the FIB came around. But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there.

Durham has been known to be notoriously slow and thorough in his investigations…..I wish he would move sooner.

Again…..read what I said. The powerful skate. Always do.

"But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there."

No, it doesn't mean that. I didn't say that. Not ever. I'ts not nothing. It's just not what lots of ppl are claiming. This is just you being an emotional child.

And of course, spying has an actual definition. So does infiltrate. Funny how ppl don't like it when someone wants to change what words mean, and then want to ignore definitions when they don't fit their narrative.

DNS lookups aren't spying. Anyone can do it. Doing it against the WH servers is probably not legal, but of course in this case, it is, since the company was hired to monitor the WH DNS traffic, because of a bunch of malware attacks.

You are aware that's what Durham is talking about, right???

Right?

[hokie80]

1. Correct.

2. Silly ip.

If Durham doesn't charge anyone with anything else, what will your reaction be?11

He's been working on this for 2 years.
And he's landed on a lying to the FBI charge.

Why is that. He knows what Sussman and Joffe did. They brought the information that thwy got to the FBI, and Durham exactly what it is, where they got it, and when they got it.
We know they were looking at DNS traffic. And that it was traffic from Trump Tower, another Trump building, and the EOP, in 2016.
And we know what they found, or moreso, what they didn't find.

Yet no claims of spying. No mention of any computer fraud crimes. The malfeasance he claims, is exploitation.
So, what's your take going to be, if that occurs?

It’s obvious you see no problem with what was spelled out…..which is expected.
The investigation is ongoing and accelerating according to some outlets.

I’ve said it before in another thread, but I’m sure ip’s crooked gal skates. They always do.

I don't see "no problem" with what was spelled out. You being wrong, is what is expected.
What I see is something may be criminal, but almost certainly unethical.
And Durham's filing says exactly that, and nothing more. Read it, "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".

He didn't use the words spying, or infiltrate - criminal terms. He said exploited an arrangement, a non-criminal phrase.
And like you said, the investigation is ongoing. I've seen the claims of accelerating activity, which is just odd, given that it's been 3 years.
And just to be clear, you're take is that if Hillary skates, it's not b/c Durham didn't find any illegal activity, it's because of something?

Why you’re not understanding the definition of spying is typical DC.

spy verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈspī \
spied; spying
Definition of spy (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes

Now…..go back and read what the governments evidence will establish…..specifically the portion that starts at “Tech Executive”…..and then try to say it was NOT spying as read in the definition above. Or maybe you can parse some verbs and go into minutiae of all the nonsense you typically do.

These people were in the employ of the Clinton campaign. The filing states that he billed the campaign. Sussmann then lied that he was not working for any client when he presented the scandal of Drumpf! and the bank when the FIB came around. But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there.

Durham has been known to be notoriously slow and thorough in his investigations…..I wish he would move sooner.

Again…..read what I said. The powerful skate. Always do.

"But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there."

No, it doesn't mean that. I didn't say that. Not ever. I'ts not nothing. It's just not what lots of ppl are claiming. This is just you being an emotional child.

And of course, spying has an actual definition. So does infiltrate. Funny how ppl don't like it when someone wants to change what words mean, and then want to ignore definitions when they don't fit their narrative.

DNS lookups aren't spying. Anyone can do it. Doing it against the WH servers is probably not legal, but of course in this case, it is, since the company was hired to monitor the WH DNS traffic, because of a bunch of malware attacks.

You are aware that's what Durham is talking about, right???

Right?

But…

What does the FOX say

[HokieHam]

1. Correct.

2. Silly ip.

If Durham doesn't charge anyone with anything else, what will your reaction be?11

He's been working on this for 2 years.
And he's landed on a lying to the FBI charge.

Why is that. He knows what Sussman and Joffe did. They brought the information that thwy got to the FBI, and Durham exactly what it is, where they got it, and when they got it.
We know they were looking at DNS traffic. And that it was traffic from Trump Tower, another Trump building, and the EOP, in 2016.
And we know what they found, or moreso, what they didn't find.

Yet no claims of spying. No mention of any computer fraud crimes. The malfeasance he claims, is exploitation.
So, what's your take going to be, if that occurs?

It’s obvious you see no problem with what was spelled out…..which is expected.
The investigation is ongoing and accelerating according to some outlets.

I’ve said it before in another thread, but I’m sure ip’s crooked gal skates. They always do.

I don't see "no problem" with what was spelled out. You being wrong, is what is expected.
What I see is something may be criminal, but almost certainly unethical.
And Durham's filing says exactly that, and nothing more. Read it, "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".

He didn't use the words spying, or infiltrate - criminal terms. He said exploited an arrangement, a non-criminal phrase.
And like you said, the investigation is ongoing. I've seen the claims of accelerating activity, which is just odd, given that it's been 3 years.
And just to be clear, you're take is that if Hillary skates, it's not b/c Durham didn't find any illegal activity, it's because of something?

Why you’re not understanding the definition of spying is typical DC.

spy verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈspī \
spied; spying
Definition of spy (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes

Now…..go back and read what the governments evidence will establish…..specifically the portion that starts at “Tech Executive”…..and then try to say it was NOT spying as read in the definition above. Or maybe you can parse some verbs and go into minutiae of all the nonsense you typically do.

These people were in the employ of the Clinton campaign. The filing states that he billed the campaign. Sussmann then lied that he was not working for any client when he presented the scandal of Drumpf! and the bank when the FIB came around. But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there.

Durham has been known to be notoriously slow and thorough in his investigations…..I wish he would move sooner.

Again…..read what I said. The powerful skate. Always do.

"But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there."

No, it doesn't mean that. I didn't say that. Not ever. I'ts not nothing. It's just not what lots of ppl are claiming. This is just you being an emotional child.

And of course, spying has an actual definition. So does infiltrate. Funny how ppl don't like it when someone wants to change what words mean, and then want to ignore definitions when they don't fit their narrative.

DNS lookups aren't spying. Anyone can do it. Doing it against the WH servers is probably not legal, but of course in this case, it is, since the company was hired to monitor the WH DNS traffic, because of a bunch of malware attacks.

You are aware that's what Durham is talking about, right???

Right?

Yes I am……..

No…..I see smoke. I’m going on a gut feeling. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. So what? You act like me having that on the matter is some kind of travesty. Of course in another thread someone can smell smoke and it’s perfectly fine…….LOL.

As I’ve said, if reports are true about this gaining momentum……..good.

[RiverguyVT]

squawk~!

[HokieHam]

If Durham doesn't charge anyone with anything else, what will your reaction be?11

He's been working on this for 2 years.
And he's landed on a lying to the FBI charge.

Why is that. He knows what Sussman and Joffe did. They brought the information that thwy got to the FBI, and Durham exactly what it is, where they got it, and when they got it.
We know they were looking at DNS traffic. And that it was traffic from Trump Tower, another Trump building, and the EOP, in 2016.
And we know what they found, or moreso, what they didn't find.

Yet no claims of spying. No mention of any computer fraud crimes. The malfeasance he claims, is exploitation.
So, what's your take going to be, if that occurs?

It’s obvious you see no problem with what was spelled out…..which is expected.
The investigation is ongoing and accelerating according to some outlets.

I’ve said it before in another thread, but I’m sure ip’s crooked gal skates. They always do.

I don't see "no problem" with what was spelled out. You being wrong, is what is expected.
What I see is something may be criminal, but almost certainly unethical.
And Durham's filing says exactly that, and nothing more. Read it, "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".

He didn't use the words spying, or infiltrate - criminal terms. He said exploited an arrangement, a non-criminal phrase.
And like you said, the investigation is ongoing. I've seen the claims of accelerating activity, which is just odd, given that it's been 3 years.
And just to be clear, you're take is that if Hillary skates, it's not b/c Durham didn't find any illegal activity, it's because of something?

Why you’re not understanding the definition of spying is typical DC.

spy verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈspī \
spied; spying
Definition of spy (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes

Now…..go back and read what the governments evidence will establish…..specifically the portion that starts at “Tech Executive”…..and then try to say it was NOT spying as read in the definition above. Or maybe you can parse some verbs and go into minutiae of all the nonsense you typically do.

These people were in the employ of the Clinton campaign. The filing states that he billed the campaign. Sussmann then lied that he was not working for any client when he presented the scandal of Drumpf! and the bank when the FIB came around. But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there.

Durham has been known to be notoriously slow and thorough in his investigations…..I wish he would move sooner.

Again…..read what I said. The powerful skate. Always do.

"But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there."

No, it doesn't mean that. I didn't say that. Not ever. I'ts not nothing. It's just not what lots of ppl are claiming. This is just you being an emotional child.

And of course, spying has an actual definition. So does infiltrate. Funny how ppl don't like it when someone wants to change what words mean, and then want to ignore definitions when they don't fit their narrative.

DNS lookups aren't spying. Anyone can do it. Doing it against the WH servers is probably not legal, but of course in this case, it is, since the company was hired to monitor the WH DNS traffic, because of a bunch of malware attacks.

You are aware that's what Durham is talking about, right???

Right?

But…

What does the FOX say

Right on cue. Quick, post a link to HuffPo

[RiverguyVT]

Right on cue. Quick, post a link to HuffPo

It's like someone saying "Gordon Liddy wasn't spying at Watergate; he was only planting listening devices."

[HokieHam]

Right on cue. Quick, post a link to HuffPo

It's like someone saying "Gordon Liddy wasn't spying at Watergate; he was only planting listening devices."

It’s freaking hilarious…..but the two who punch right, ya know……

[HokieFanDC]

If Durham doesn't charge anyone with anything else, what will your reaction be?11

He's been working on this for 2 years.
And he's landed on a lying to the FBI charge.

Why is that. He knows what Sussman and Joffe did. They brought the information that thwy got to the FBI, and Durham exactly what it is, where they got it, and when they got it.
We know they were looking at DNS traffic. And that it was traffic from Trump Tower, another Trump building, and the EOP, in 2016.
And we know what they found, or moreso, what they didn't find.

Yet no claims of spying. No mention of any computer fraud crimes. The malfeasance he claims, is exploitation.
So, what's your take going to be, if that occurs?

It’s obvious you see no problem with what was spelled out…..which is expected.
The investigation is ongoing and accelerating according to some outlets.

I’ve said it before in another thread, but I’m sure ip’s crooked gal skates. They always do.

I don't see "no problem" with what was spelled out. You being wrong, is what is expected.
What I see is something may be criminal, but almost certainly unethical.
And Durham's filing says exactly that, and nothing more. Read it, "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".

He didn't use the words spying, or infiltrate - criminal terms. He said exploited an arrangement, a non-criminal phrase.
And like you said, the investigation is ongoing. I've seen the claims of accelerating activity, which is just odd, given that it's been 3 years.
And just to be clear, you're take is that if Hillary skates, it's not b/c Durham didn't find any illegal activity, it's because of something?

Why you’re not understanding the definition of spying is typical DC.

spy verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈspī \
spied; spying
Definition of spy (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes

Now…..go back and read what the governments evidence will establish…..specifically the portion that starts at “Tech Executive”…..and then try to say it was NOT spying as read in the definition above. Or maybe you can parse some verbs and go into minutiae of all the nonsense you typically do.

These people were in the employ of the Clinton campaign. The filing states that he billed the campaign. Sussmann then lied that he was not working for any client when he presented the scandal of Drumpf! and the bank when the FIB came around. But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there.

Durham has been known to be notoriously slow and thorough in his investigations…..I wish he would move sooner.

Again…..read what I said. The powerful skate. Always do.

"But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there."

No, it doesn't mean that. I didn't say that. Not ever. I'ts not nothing. It's just not what lots of ppl are claiming. This is just you being an emotional child.

And of course, spying has an actual definition. So does infiltrate. Funny how ppl don't like it when someone wants to change what words mean, and then want to ignore definitions when they don't fit their narrative.

DNS lookups aren't spying. Anyone can do it. Doing it against the WH servers is probably not legal, but of course in this case, it is, since the company was hired to monitor the WH DNS traffic, because of a bunch of malware attacks.

You are aware that's what Durham is talking about, right???

Right?

Yes I am……..

No…..I see smoke. I’m going on a gut feeling. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. So what? You act like me having an opinion on the matter is some kind of travesty. Of course in another thread someone can smell smoke and it’s perfectly fine…….LOL.

As I’ve said, if reports are true about this gaining momentum……..good.

That's rich.

I don't have an issue with you seeing smoke and having an opinion.

You guys attacked facts that I pointed out. I responded.

[HokieHam]

It’s obvious you see no problem with what was spelled out…..which is expected.
The investigation is ongoing and accelerating according to some outlets.

I’ve said it before in another thread, but I’m sure ip’s crooked gal skates. They always do.

I don't see "no problem" with what was spelled out. You being wrong, is what is expected.
What I see is something may be criminal, but almost certainly unethical.
And Durham's filing says exactly that, and nothing more. Read it, "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".

He didn't use the words spying, or infiltrate - criminal terms. He said exploited an arrangement, a non-criminal phrase.
And like you said, the investigation is ongoing. I've seen the claims of accelerating activity, which is just odd, given that it's been 3 years.
And just to be clear, you're take is that if Hillary skates, it's not b/c Durham didn't find any illegal activity, it's because of something?

Why you’re not understanding the definition of spying is typical DC.

spy verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
\ ˈspī \
spied; spying
Definition of spy (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes

Now…..go back and read what the governments evidence will establish…..specifically the portion that starts at “Tech Executive”…..and then try to say it was NOT spying as read in the definition above. Or maybe you can parse some verbs and go into minutiae of all the nonsense you typically do.

These people were in the employ of the Clinton campaign. The filing states that he billed the campaign. Sussmann then lied that he was not working for any client when he presented the scandal of Drumpf! and the bank when the FIB came around. But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there.

Durham has been known to be notoriously slow and thorough in his investigations…..I wish he would move sooner.

Again…..read what I said. The powerful skate. Always do.

"But of course, this means nothing went on……right? Hillary and the campaign is right as rain though…….LOL. That’s some naïveté right there."

No, it doesn't mean that. I didn't say that. Not ever. I'ts not nothing. It's just not what lots of ppl are claiming. This is just you being an emotional child.

And of course, spying has an actual definition. So does infiltrate. Funny how ppl don't like it when someone wants to change what words mean, and then want to ignore definitions when they don't fit their narrative.

DNS lookups aren't spying. Anyone can do it. Doing it against the WH servers is probably not legal, but of course in this case, it is, since the company was hired to monitor the WH DNS traffic, because of a bunch of malware attacks.

You are aware that's what Durham is talking about, right???

Right?

Yes I am……..

No…..I see smoke. I’m going on a gut feeling. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. So what? You act like me having an opinion on the matter is some kind of travesty. Of course in another thread someone can smell smoke and it’s perfectly fine…….LOL.

As I’ve said, if reports are true about this gaining momentum……..good.

That's rich.

I don't have an issue with you seeing smoke and having an opinion.

You guys attacked facts that I pointed out. I responded.

And, it’s spying. They gathered information for hostile purposes secretly.

That’s the fact I’m attacking.

[RiverguyVT]

Right on cue. Quick, post a link to HuffPo

It's like someone saying "Gordon Liddy wasn't spying at Watergate; he was only planting listening devices."

It’s freaking hilarious…..but the two who punch right, ya know……

Who does this sound like?

(Caution: "newsbusters" link.)

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ti ... rump-tower

Fact Checkers Nitpick: Durham Never Said the Libs 'Infiltrated' Trump Tower, White House
Tim Graham
February 18th, 2022 3:43 PM


The "independent fact checkers" really wanted to downplay anything John Durham was saying about lawyers for the Clinton campaign snooping around in the Trump team's internet activities. They seized on words that Fox News used that sounded like active verbs meant to sell a story -- in this case, that Team Clinton paid to "infiltrate" the Trump orbit.

First there's Dean Miller at Lead Stories, a website that Facebook uses to warn users of "misinformation."

Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers
This on some level assumes that liberal media outlets never used more colorful words to describe Mueller findings. They have an energetic tendency to check the hype in conservative media articles, not liberal media articles.

Did Special Counsel John Durham's court filings say the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid to have servers in Trump Tower and in the White House infiltrated in hopes of establishing a link between Russian operatives and Donald J. Trump? No, that's not true: neither the new filing nor the indictment Durham filed in 2021 about events in 2016 say anyone infiltrated White House or Trump Tower servers. This fact check is only concerned with the claim the Durham filings say the White House and other servers were infiltrated.
Durham's filing said contractor Rodney Joffe “exploited” his access to internet records to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

The filing says Joffe looked at this data from his employer's client to look for information related 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". It does not say he accessed, connected to or even "infiltrated" any servers owned or operated by any of these entities.

The chronology of events described in the indictment filed by Durham makes claims about White House server infiltration nonsensical.
Then there was Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post:

Since being appointed special counsel 16 months ago, after a preliminary investigation lasting 17 months, Durham has filed two indictments. Every subsequent court filing is scrutinized carefully by right-leaning media, sometimes in misleading ways.

For instance, Fox News has reported that Durham alleged that Clinton’s “presidential campaign in 2016 had paid to ‘infiltrate’ servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House.” But the word “infiltrate,” even though it is in quotes, appears nowhere in Durham’s filing. Instead that word comes via Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official who offered his own spin on the document.

We'll suppress a wry smile about misleading words in headlines. Glenn Kessler had a funny one a few months back, that "Biden's claim that his 'great grand-pop' was a coal miner mostly pans out." (It didn't pan out.)

Journalists are running around repeating Joffe publicist claims that he was "apolitical." THAT needs a fact check.

As Kimberly Strassel reported at The Wall Street Journal, Joffe "sat" for an October 2018 New Yorker piece that pushed the unfounded Alfa Bank claims, anonymously calling himself "Max." A deposition in the Alfa litigation identified Mr. Joffe as Max.

Here’s the most revealing bit: “Max” also explained to the New Yorker how vitally important it was in 2016 to make sure the threat his team discovered was “known before the election.” Which was why he and his lawyer first went with their information to the press. The Sussmann indictment says Mr. Sussmann tried peddling the data to the New York Times in late August 2016. He didn’t approach the FBI until the middle of September. Mr. Joffe’s spokesperson declined to comment.

[HokieFanDC]

Right on cue. Quick, post a link to HuffPo

It's like someone saying "Gordon Liddy wasn't spying at Watergate; he was only planting listening devices."

It’s freaking hilarious…..but the two who punch right, ya know……

Who does this sound like?

(Caution: "newsbusters" link.)

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ti ... rump-tower

Fact Checkers Nitpick: Durham Never Said the Libs 'Infiltrated' Trump Tower, White House
Tim Graham
February 18th, 2022 3:43 PM


The "independent fact checkers" really wanted to downplay anything John Durham was saying about lawyers for the Clinton campaign snooping around in the Trump team's internet activities. They seized on words that Fox News used that sounded like active verbs meant to sell a story -- in this case, that Team Clinton paid to "infiltrate" the Trump orbit.

First there's Dean Miller at Lead Stories, a website that Facebook uses to warn users of "misinformation."

Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers
This on some level assumes that liberal media outlets never used more colorful words to describe Mueller findings. They have an energetic tendency to check the hype in conservative media articles, not liberal media articles.

Did Special Counsel John Durham's court filings say the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid to have servers in Trump Tower and in the White House infiltrated in hopes of establishing a link between Russian operatives and Donald J. Trump? No, that's not true: neither the new filing nor the indictment Durham filed in 2021 about events in 2016 say anyone infiltrated White House or Trump Tower servers. This fact check is only concerned with the claim the Durham filings say the White House and other servers were infiltrated.
Durham's filing said contractor Rodney Joffe “exploited” his access to internet records to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

The filing says Joffe looked at this data from his employer's client to look for information related 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". It does not say he accessed, connected to or even "infiltrated" any servers owned or operated by any of these entities.

The chronology of events described in the indictment filed by Durham makes claims about White House server infiltration nonsensical.
Then there was Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post:

Since being appointed special counsel 16 months ago, after a preliminary investigation lasting 17 months, Durham has filed two indictments. Every subsequent court filing is scrutinized carefully by right-leaning media, sometimes in misleading ways.

For instance, Fox News has reported that Durham alleged that Clinton’s “presidential campaign in 2016 had paid to ‘infiltrate’ servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House.” But the word “infiltrate,” even though it is in quotes, appears nowhere in Durham’s filing. Instead that word comes via Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official who offered his own spin on the document.

We'll suppress a wry smile about misleading words in headlines. Glenn Kessler had a funny one a few months back, that "Biden's claim that his 'great grand-pop' was a coal miner mostly pans out." (It didn't pan out.)

Journalists are running around repeating Joffe publicist claims that he was "apolitical." THAT needs a fact check.

As Kimberly Strassel reported at The Wall Street Journal, Joffe "sat" for an October 2018 New Yorker piece that pushed the unfounded Alfa Bank claims, anonymously calling himself "Max." A deposition in the Alfa litigation identified Mr. Joffe as Max.

Here’s the most revealing bit: “Max” also explained to the New Yorker how vitally important it was in 2016 to make sure the threat his team discovered was “known before the election.” Which was why he and his lawyer first went with their information to the press. The Sussmann indictment says Mr. Sussmann tried peddling the data to the New York Times in late August 2016. He didn’t approach the FBI until the middle of September. Mr. Joffe’s spokesperson declined to comment.

Sounds like a normal person with a solid understanding of the facts.

You two are more aligned in thought and critical thinking with the Russiagate/pee hooker crowd.

[HokieHam]

Right on cue. Quick, post a link to HuffPo

It's like someone saying "Gordon Liddy wasn't spying at Watergate; he was only planting listening devices."

It’s freaking hilarious…..but the two who punch right, ya know……

Who does this sound like?

(Caution: "newsbusters" link.)

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ti ... rump-tower

Fact Checkers Nitpick: Durham Never Said the Libs 'Infiltrated' Trump Tower, White House
Tim Graham
February 18th, 2022 3:43 PM


The "independent fact checkers" really wanted to downplay anything John Durham was saying about lawyers for the Clinton campaign snooping around in the Trump team's internet activities. They seized on words that Fox News used that sounded like active verbs meant to sell a story -- in this case, that Team Clinton paid to "infiltrate" the Trump orbit.

First there's Dean Miller at Lead Stories, a website that Facebook uses to warn users of "misinformation."

Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers
This on some level assumes that liberal media outlets never used more colorful words to describe Mueller findings. They have an energetic tendency to check the hype in conservative media articles, not liberal media articles.

Did Special Counsel John Durham's court filings say the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid to have servers in Trump Tower and in the White House infiltrated in hopes of establishing a link between Russian operatives and Donald J. Trump? No, that's not true: neither the new filing nor the indictment Durham filed in 2021 about events in 2016 say anyone infiltrated White House or Trump Tower servers. This fact check is only concerned with the claim the Durham filings say the White House and other servers were infiltrated.
Durham's filing said contractor Rodney Joffe “exploited” his access to internet records to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

The filing says Joffe looked at this data from his employer's client to look for information related 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". It does not say he accessed, connected to or even "infiltrated" any servers owned or operated by any of these entities.

The chronology of events described in the indictment filed by Durham makes claims about White House server infiltration nonsensical.
Then there was Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post:

Since being appointed special counsel 16 months ago, after a preliminary investigation lasting 17 months, Durham has filed two indictments. Every subsequent court filing is scrutinized carefully by right-leaning media, sometimes in misleading ways.

For instance, Fox News has reported that Durham alleged that Clinton’s “presidential campaign in 2016 had paid to ‘infiltrate’ servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House.” But the word “infiltrate,” even though it is in quotes, appears nowhere in Durham’s filing. Instead that word comes via Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official who offered his own spin on the document.

We'll suppress a wry smile about misleading words in headlines. Glenn Kessler had a funny one a few months back, that "Biden's claim that his 'great grand-pop' was a coal miner mostly pans out." (It didn't pan out.)

Journalists are running around repeating Joffe publicist claims that he was "apolitical." THAT needs a fact check.

As Kimberly Strassel reported at The Wall Street Journal, Joffe "sat" for an October 2018 New Yorker piece that pushed the unfounded Alfa Bank claims, anonymously calling himself "Max." A deposition in the Alfa litigation identified Mr. Joffe as Max.

Here’s the most revealing bit: “Max” also explained to the New Yorker how vitally important it was in 2016 to make sure the threat his team discovered was “known before the election.” Which was why he and his lawyer first went with their information to the press. The Sussmann indictment says Mr. Sussmann tried peddling the data to the New York Times in late August 2016. He didn’t approach the FBI until the middle of September. Mr. Joffe’s spokesperson declined to comment.

Sounds like a normal person with a solid understanding of the facts.

You two are more aligned in thought and critical thinking with the Russiagate/pee hooker crowd.

No comparison whatsoever.

[HokieFanDC]

Right on cue. Quick, post a link to HuffPo

It's like someone saying "Gordon Liddy wasn't spying at Watergate; he was only planting listening devices."

It’s freaking hilarious…..but the two who punch right, ya know……

Who does this sound like?

(Caution: "newsbusters" link.)

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ti ... rump-tower

Fact Checkers Nitpick: Durham Never Said the Libs 'Infiltrated' Trump Tower, White House
Tim Graham
February 18th, 2022 3:43 PM


The "independent fact checkers" really wanted to downplay anything John Durham was saying about lawyers for the Clinton campaign snooping around in the Trump team's internet activities. They seized on words that Fox News used that sounded like active verbs meant to sell a story -- in this case, that Team Clinton paid to "infiltrate" the Trump orbit.

First there's Dean Miller at Lead Stories, a website that Facebook uses to warn users of "misinformation."

Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers
This on some level assumes that liberal media outlets never used more colorful words to describe Mueller findings. They have an energetic tendency to check the hype in conservative media articles, not liberal media articles.

Did Special Counsel John Durham's court filings say the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid to have servers in Trump Tower and in the White House infiltrated in hopes of establishing a link between Russian operatives and Donald J. Trump? No, that's not true: neither the new filing nor the indictment Durham filed in 2021 about events in 2016 say anyone infiltrated White House or Trump Tower servers. This fact check is only concerned with the claim the Durham filings say the White House and other servers were infiltrated.
Durham's filing said contractor Rodney Joffe “exploited” his access to internet records to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

The filing says Joffe looked at this data from his employer's client to look for information related 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". It does not say he accessed, connected to or even "infiltrated" any servers owned or operated by any of these entities.

The chronology of events described in the indictment filed by Durham makes claims about White House server infiltration nonsensical.
Then there was Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post:

Since being appointed special counsel 16 months ago, after a preliminary investigation lasting 17 months, Durham has filed two indictments. Every subsequent court filing is scrutinized carefully by right-leaning media, sometimes in misleading ways.

For instance, Fox News has reported that Durham alleged that Clinton’s “presidential campaign in 2016 had paid to ‘infiltrate’ servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House.” But the word “infiltrate,” even though it is in quotes, appears nowhere in Durham’s filing. Instead that word comes via Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official who offered his own spin on the document.

We'll suppress a wry smile about misleading words in headlines. Glenn Kessler had a funny one a few months back, that "Biden's claim that his 'great grand-pop' was a coal miner mostly pans out." (It didn't pan out.)

Journalists are running around repeating Joffe publicist claims that he was "apolitical." THAT needs a fact check.

As Kimberly Strassel reported at The Wall Street Journal, Joffe "sat" for an October 2018 New Yorker piece that pushed the unfounded Alfa Bank claims, anonymously calling himself "Max." A deposition in the Alfa litigation identified Mr. Joffe as Max.

Here’s the most revealing bit: “Max” also explained to the New Yorker how vitally important it was in 2016 to make sure the threat his team discovered was “known before the election.” Which was why he and his lawyer first went with their information to the press. The Sussmann indictment says Mr. Sussmann tried peddling the data to the New York Times in late August 2016. He didn’t approach the FBI until the middle of September. Mr. Joffe’s spokesperson declined to comment.

Sounds like a normal person with a solid understanding of the facts.

You two are more aligned in thought and critical thinking with the Russiagate/pee hooker crowd.

No comparison whatsoever.

There may be a smidgen of hyperbole in my post.

[HokieHam]

It's like someone saying "Gordon Liddy wasn't spying at Watergate; he was only planting listening devices."

It’s freaking hilarious…..but the two who punch right, ya know……

Who does this sound like?

(Caution: "newsbusters" link.)

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ti ... rump-tower

Fact Checkers Nitpick: Durham Never Said the Libs 'Infiltrated' Trump Tower, White House
Tim Graham
February 18th, 2022 3:43 PM


The "independent fact checkers" really wanted to downplay anything John Durham was saying about lawyers for the Clinton campaign snooping around in the Trump team's internet activities. They seized on words that Fox News used that sounded like active verbs meant to sell a story -- in this case, that Team Clinton paid to "infiltrate" the Trump orbit.

First there's Dean Miller at Lead Stories, a website that Facebook uses to warn users of "misinformation."

Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers
This on some level assumes that liberal media outlets never used more colorful words to describe Mueller findings. They have an energetic tendency to check the hype in conservative media articles, not liberal media articles.

Did Special Counsel John Durham's court filings say the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid to have servers in Trump Tower and in the White House infiltrated in hopes of establishing a link between Russian operatives and Donald J. Trump? No, that's not true: neither the new filing nor the indictment Durham filed in 2021 about events in 2016 say anyone infiltrated White House or Trump Tower servers. This fact check is only concerned with the claim the Durham filings say the White House and other servers were infiltrated.
Durham's filing said contractor Rodney Joffe “exploited” his access to internet records to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

The filing says Joffe looked at this data from his employer's client to look for information related 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". It does not say he accessed, connected to or even "infiltrated" any servers owned or operated by any of these entities.

The chronology of events described in the indictment filed by Durham makes claims about White House server infiltration nonsensical.
Then there was Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post:

Since being appointed special counsel 16 months ago, after a preliminary investigation lasting 17 months, Durham has filed two indictments. Every subsequent court filing is scrutinized carefully by right-leaning media, sometimes in misleading ways.

For instance, Fox News has reported that Durham alleged that Clinton’s “presidential campaign in 2016 had paid to ‘infiltrate’ servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House.” But the word “infiltrate,” even though it is in quotes, appears nowhere in Durham’s filing. Instead that word comes via Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official who offered his own spin on the document.

We'll suppress a wry smile about misleading words in headlines. Glenn Kessler had a funny one a few months back, that "Biden's claim that his 'great grand-pop' was a coal miner mostly pans out." (It didn't pan out.)

Journalists are running around repeating Joffe publicist claims that he was "apolitical." THAT needs a fact check.

As Kimberly Strassel reported at The Wall Street Journal, Joffe "sat" for an October 2018 New Yorker piece that pushed the unfounded Alfa Bank claims, anonymously calling himself "Max." A deposition in the Alfa litigation identified Mr. Joffe as Max.

Here’s the most revealing bit: “Max” also explained to the New Yorker how vitally important it was in 2016 to make sure the threat his team discovered was “known before the election.” Which was why he and his lawyer first went with their information to the press. The Sussmann indictment says Mr. Sussmann tried peddling the data to the New York Times in late August 2016. He didn’t approach the FBI until the middle of September. Mr. Joffe’s spokesperson declined to comment.

Sounds like a normal person with a solid understanding of the facts.

You two are more aligned in thought and critical thinking with the Russiagate/pee hooker crowd.

No comparison whatsoever.

There may be a smidgen of hyperbole in my post.

Well…..that one was hard to tell. Get better at snark!

[HokieFanDC]

It’s freaking hilarious…..but the two who punch right, ya know……

Who does this sound like?

(Caution: "newsbusters" link.)

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ti ... rump-tower

Fact Checkers Nitpick: Durham Never Said the Libs 'Infiltrated' Trump Tower, White House
Tim Graham
February 18th, 2022 3:43 PM


The "independent fact checkers" really wanted to downplay anything John Durham was saying about lawyers for the Clinton campaign snooping around in the Trump team's internet activities. They seized on words that Fox News used that sounded like active verbs meant to sell a story -- in this case, that Team Clinton paid to "infiltrate" the Trump orbit.

First there's Dean Miller at Lead Stories, a website that Facebook uses to warn users of "misinformation."

Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers
This on some level assumes that liberal media outlets never used more colorful words to describe Mueller findings. They have an energetic tendency to check the hype in conservative media articles, not liberal media articles.

Did Special Counsel John Durham's court filings say the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid to have servers in Trump Tower and in the White House infiltrated in hopes of establishing a link between Russian operatives and Donald J. Trump? No, that's not true: neither the new filing nor the indictment Durham filed in 2021 about events in 2016 say anyone infiltrated White House or Trump Tower servers. This fact check is only concerned with the claim the Durham filings say the White House and other servers were infiltrated.
Durham's filing said contractor Rodney Joffe “exploited” his access to internet records to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

The filing says Joffe looked at this data from his employer's client to look for information related 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". It does not say he accessed, connected to or even "infiltrated" any servers owned or operated by any of these entities.

The chronology of events described in the indictment filed by Durham makes claims about White House server infiltration nonsensical.
Then there was Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post:

Since being appointed special counsel 16 months ago, after a preliminary investigation lasting 17 months, Durham has filed two indictments. Every subsequent court filing is scrutinized carefully by right-leaning media, sometimes in misleading ways.

For instance, Fox News has reported that Durham alleged that Clinton’s “presidential campaign in 2016 had paid to ‘infiltrate’ servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House.” But the word “infiltrate,” even though it is in quotes, appears nowhere in Durham’s filing. Instead that word comes via Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official who offered his own spin on the document.

We'll suppress a wry smile about misleading words in headlines. Glenn Kessler had a funny one a few months back, that "Biden's claim that his 'great grand-pop' was a coal miner mostly pans out." (It didn't pan out.)

Journalists are running around repeating Joffe publicist claims that he was "apolitical." THAT needs a fact check.

As Kimberly Strassel reported at The Wall Street Journal, Joffe "sat" for an October 2018 New Yorker piece that pushed the unfounded Alfa Bank claims, anonymously calling himself "Max." A deposition in the Alfa litigation identified Mr. Joffe as Max.

Here’s the most revealing bit: “Max” also explained to the New Yorker how vitally important it was in 2016 to make sure the threat his team discovered was “known before the election.” Which was why he and his lawyer first went with their information to the press. The Sussmann indictment says Mr. Sussmann tried peddling the data to the New York Times in late August 2016. He didn’t approach the FBI until the middle of September. Mr. Joffe’s spokesperson declined to comment.

Sounds like a normal person with a solid understanding of the facts.

You two are more aligned in thought and critical thinking with the Russiagate/pee hooker crowd.

No comparison whatsoever.

There may be a smidgen of hyperbole in my post.

Well…..that one was hard to tell. Get better at snark!

Dershowitz is a subscriber to my UWS posts.

[UpstateSCHokie]

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

[HooFighter]

I’m going on a gut feeling. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. So what? You act like me having that on the matter is some kind of travesty.

That’s pretty **** rich coming from someone who appears to get off on using the term “pisshoof” in every response to me.



Go punch yourself in the nuts.

[RiverguyVT]

I’m going on a gut feeling. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. So what? You act like me having that on the matter is some kind of travesty.

That’s pretty **** rich coming from someone who appears to get off on using the term “pisshoof” in every response to me.

Go punch yourself in the nuts.

You went with your gut on the pee-gate, huh?

[HokieHam]

I’m going on a gut feeling. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. So what? You act like me having that on the matter is some kind of travesty.

That’s pretty **** rich coming from someone who appears to get off on using the term “pisshoof” in every response to me.



Go punch yourself in the nuts.

Makes you mad, don’t it, PissHoof.

This is believable. Because the whole Russian collusion/agent thing was a clear and proven fraud. I knew(knowing how your ilk operate) that whole pile of crap was a fraud from the get go.

Having DrumpF! have hookers pee on a bed that Obeezy slept in? That just shows…..oh, I don’t know…….

[HokieHam]

Interesting…….

Exclusive: Special Counsel’s Office Is Investigating The 2016 DNC Server Hack

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/10/ex ... rver-hack/

[HokieHam]

CIA Bombshell: The Sussmann data was "user created"
Also: Confirmation of a frame-job against President-Elect Trump

https://technofog.substack.com/p/cia-bo ... EFUy4I&s=r

[HokieJoe]

CIA Bombshell: The Sussmann data was "user created"
Also: Confirmation of a frame-job against President-Elect Trump

https://technofog.substack.com/p/cia-bo ... EFUy4I&s=r

From your link:

The CIA reviewed the Trump/YotaPhone data (and the Alfa Bank data) in early 2017. The fact that the CIA accepted this data on President Trump is its own scandal. In any event, the CIA’s findings are significant, as they concluded that the data was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.”

Wonder what Media Matters talking points we'll get in response? Better yet, how long before those forthcoming talking points are spouted as gospel on UWS?

[HokieHam]

Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaign’s False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/17/d ... amendment/