Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign

1. 96

   Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

   Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.
   
   Durham said in the court filing that lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a tech company to “infiltrate” servers belonging to Trump Tower and the Trump White House in an effort to establish a “narrative” linking President Donald Trump to Russia.
   
   “In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the filing states. “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.”
   
   https://www.dailywire.com/news/media-re … ny-of-this

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I don't understand how this is new, we knew years ago about how the dossier was fabricated, how Clinton's campaign along with the DNC paid for it.
      
      How the Obama administration got warrants to tap phone lines from a judge with that fraudulent information, etc etc.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         It is now in an official governmental report.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I am pretty sure that was official back back in 2017.
            
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … story.html
            
            https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2017/1 … n-dossier/
            
            "Obama for America began the payments to Perkins Coie in April 2016 — the same time the law firm hired Fusion GPS to look into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, The Federalist’s Sean Davis reported Sunday.
            
            This revelation could mean that President Obama and other administration officials may have, along with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, helped fund the unverified Trump dossier, which was used by the FBI to get a surveillance warrant on a Trump campaign official and used as a roadmap for the FBI’s investigation into any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia."
            ----
            
            I am sure the likes of CNN and MSNBC downplayed or called this information outright lies, but the facts have been out for a long time, all the charges of collusion with Russia were lies falsified by those supporting, or paid to create it, by Clinton, the DNC, etc.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               All the charges of collusion with Russia were not lies.  This was a report by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, including noted Trump brown-noser Marco Rubio.
               
               https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-r … ittee-find

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  It's a bit of an opinion piece.
                  
                  It even states "It is a bit of a mug’s game at this point to fight over whether what either Mueller or the Intelligence Committee found constitutes collusion and, if so, in what sense."
                  
                  I think it would be right for this same level of scrutiny be placed on the biden administration and their relationship with China.
                  
                  I'm sure many interesting things would be discovered.
                  
                  biden's son Hunter has a very interesting relationship with China.
                  
                  "Hunter Biden: What was he doing in China and Ukraine?"
                  
                  In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.
                  
                  Hunter told the New Yorker he had just met Mr Li for "a cup of coffee", but 12 days after the trip a private equity fund, BHR Partners, was approved by the Chinese authorities. Mr Li was chief executive and Hunter was a board member. He would hold a 10% stake."
                  
                    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54553132

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     This one is not an opinion piece and details the same facts that Manafort passed along internal campaign polling data to known Russian Intelligence member Kilimnik.
                     
                     https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pre … sia-report

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        I fail to see how social media and such described here equates to collusion by Trump.
                        
                        It seems to me Putin had a dislike for Clinton and her interference in Russian and Ukraine elections and was merely paying her back.
                        
                        Context matters. Details matter. Knowing the history between the involved parties matter.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           No one said it was collusion by Trump, but by his campaign, specifically his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who shared internal campaign polling with a known member of Russian Intelligence - Kilimnik.
                           
                           You're right, details matter.  Look further than what your far-right media tells you happened and what Congress uncovered.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              LOL  The claims of Russian collusion were first directed at Trump himself, and when that proved false the witch hunt went on to anyone remotely connected to him.

                              replyreport
                              1. 86

                                 Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Really?  Weird that they called it the Russia Investigation into election interference then.
                                 
                                 And where was it proved false?  Mueller noted ten instances of obstruction by Trump, so your view that it was proved false would not be accurate.  Unproven, perhaps, but not proved false.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    There was zero evidence of collusion by Trump with Putin, that's where.  Technically I guess that isn't proving the negative, but is good enough for me as it is notoriously difficult, and often impossible, to prove a negative.
                                    
                                    Certainly good enough to stop accusing Trump of collusion.
                                    
                                    Not sure where the "obstruction" by Trump came from; the topic was collusion by Trump to fix the election.  More attempts to divert when proven wrong?  To change the topic to something else?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 86

                                       Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                       You don't see why Trump would want to obstruct an investigation of Russian interference that helped his campaign?  When the Senate noted so many contacts between his campaign and Russians during the election?
                                       
                                       Not surprising that you don't get the correlation between the two things.

                                       report
                           2. 77

                              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              Didn't Manafort used to work for the Clintons, him and his brother, been years since I read the details on the matter.  Back then there was a lot of talk that Manafort was probably working for the Clintons to incriminate Trump's campaign in all this.
                              
                              Of course, most people called that absurd back then, just like they said the Clinton campaign being behind the "dossier" was absurd.

                              replyreport
                              1. 86

                                 Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 I think you're thinking of the Podestas....

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 77

                                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    Thank you... yes, interesting:
                                    
                                    Sep 14, 2018 · Clinton-connected lobbyist Tony Podesta knew he was working with Paul Manafort on behalf of a Ukrainian politician, according to an indictment released Friday by the special counsel----
                                    
                                    WASHINGTON (CNN) — One of Washington’s most prominent lobbying firms is on the verge of shuttering after becoming ensnared by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
                                    
                                    The developments come after the Podesta Group was tied last week to Mueller’s indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, who pleaded not guilty after being charged with failing to file as foreign agents relating to a decade of work they did for the Party of Regions, a pro-Russia political party in the Ukraine.
                                    
                                    Mueller’s special investigation team has also interviewed multiple people from the Podesta Group, which was recruited by Manafort and Gates to work along with another firm.
                                    
                                    Talk of potentially closing the Podesta Group marks a dramatic downfall of one of K Street’s most iconic and well-connected firms. In its heyday, Podesta Group was the largest non-law firm lobbying organization in Washington. Tony Podesta, the firm’s founder and chairman, helped fuel the company with work for foreign governments. He and his brother, John, founded the company almost three decades ago. (John Podesta chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He left the firm in 1993.)
                                    
                                    A Podesta Group informant claims that John and Tony Podesta, Paul Manafort and Hillary Clinton were in deep collusion together.

                                    replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Ken, Add this to all we do know, and yes we know plenty ---  The new filing contains new information. It's not an indictment,  Instead, it relates to a conflict-of-interest matter in Durham's ongoing case against Sussmann, who worked at the law firm Perkins Coie, which represents the Democratic National Committee. Sussmann was charged last year with lying to the FBI while trying to get the FBI to investigate an allegation that the Trump campaign used a secret email server to communicate with Russia's Alfa Bank during the 2016 campaign. The FBI did not uncover any evidence of such a connection after investigating Sussmans allegations.
         
         Durham's new filing (Feb 11, 2022) said there's a potential conflict because the law firm representing Sussmann, Latham Watkins, previously represented Perkins Coie, and the lawyer Marc Elias, who testified before Durham's grand jury.
         
         The new motion offers more details at a February 2017 meeting in which Sussmann flagged to the CIA that internet data he had obtained suggested someone using a Russian-made smartphone was connecting to White House and Trump Tower networks.
         
         The filing also says Sussmann got the data from an unnamed technology executive who Durham said "exploited" DNS traffic to gauge if there was a link between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives during the 2016 election.
         
         Multiple media outlets have (leaked) reported that the executive is Rodney Joffe, who works at the American tech company Neustar.
         
         Durham's filing says some of the internet data that was mined was connected to two Trump buildings in New York City, the executive office of the President (EOP), and an unrelated Michigan hospital company that had also interacted with the Trump server.   It added that Joffe had access to this data because his employer had a set of "dedicated servers" for the White House as part of a "sensitive arrangement" in which it provided DNS resolution services to the White House. As Durham pointed out later in the filing, these DNS lookups started as early as 2014, when Barack Obama was in office and continued until early 2017. Durham's filing noted that the lookups took place on a broader scale as well. According to the filing, Sussmann claimed the 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."
         Between  2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Provider-1 IP addresses that originated with US-based IP addresses," the filing said.1,000 of those lookups came from IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower.
         
         The information Durham laid out raises questions about the ethics of Joffe using the data his company had legal access to for purposes that went beyond the scope of what the firm was hired to do. And it's true Durham is alleging that criminal conduct occurred. But the crime that's being alleged is lying to the FBI, not domestic political espionage or anything related to spying or hacking, thus far.
         
         That doesn't mean Durham won't bring more serious charges down the line related to Democratic efforts to establish a Trump-Russia link, or that Sussmann and his source didn't behave unethically.

         replyreport
   2. 86

      My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Not so much of a "bombshell" is it? 
      
      The REAL news are the rack of bombs just dropped on Trump in the insurrection hearings.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, the bomb that their key witness may have lied .. You do realize if it is proven she lied this entire investigation is tainted?
         
         It may go down as just another unproven witch hunt,
         
         I will wait and see, if the committee does not show the three secret services' testimony to collaborate her story, I will look at her as a criminal. A woman that lied under oath, and needs to be punished.
         
         Thus far the three secret service men have denied her story --- let's see what the committee said. I will reserve judgment.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            I see you are still listening only to right-wing propaganda.
            
            You, for good reason I suppose, didn't answer my question from the other forum.
            
            Are you claiming (without evidence) that Hutchinson didn't hear someone else tell her about the episode in the limo?? Answer if you dare

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

               We have three men that have said her story is not true.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  I am sorry, can you not read?  It is NOT HER STORY. She was repeating somebody else's story, 
                  
                  And here you go jumping to conclusions again regarding the veracity of whoever (it was Meadow's deputy chief of staff) told Hutchinson about the incident.
                  
                  So, if anybody is lying, it is him.  Got that?  So we need to hear from him, as well as the three men who will allegedly say it didn't happen the way it was decribed.  Why haven't they come forward if they are trully willing to testify?
                  
                  You also claimed she lied about hearing the story.  SO, I ask again, what proof do you have she lied about that?  Your answer CANNOT be "there are three men who will supposedly say the events she related are not true.  That is irrelavent!  What WOULD be relavant is if the deputy chief of staff saying he didn't tell her about those events. 
                  
                  In any case, all of this is a huge deflection away from Trump's guilt.

                  replyreport
2. 86

   My Esotericposted 17 months ago

   As expected, Durham came up empty and wasted a lot of money doing it.

   replyreport
3. 86

   My Esotericposted 10 months ago

   I just had to note that the "Bombshell" turned into a nothing-burger Dud.

   replyreport