"The Deep State" aka the American Intelligence Community

[get it to x]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

whoa...the meeting ended because it was a "waste of time", she didn't have the goods? as in if she had damning info they'd have happily taken and used it??? You do understand that would not be ok, right? Not just a "bad look", wouldn't it be immediately disqualifying to be working with a foreign agent? As to law, FARA at a minimum. Complicity with that foreign agent doing an illegal act.

But hey, guess it's just peachy keen to try to break the law, right?

It's not that they didn't know that she was representing herself to be working on behalf of Russia.

Which of course is why they lied about it.

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

I am sure Hilary appreciates your defense of her honor.

[MDlaxfan76]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

whoa...the meeting ended because it was a "waste of time", she didn't have the goods? as in if she had damning info they'd have happily taken and used it??? You do understand that would not be ok, right? Not just a "bad look", wouldn't it be immediately disqualifying to be working with a foreign agent? As to law, FARA at a minimum. Complicity with that foreign agent doing an illegal act.

But hey, guess it's just peachy keen to try to break the law, right?

It's not that they didn't know that she was representing herself to be working on behalf of Russia.

Which of course is why they lied about it.

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

I am sure Hilary appreciates your defense of her honor.

I have a long history of expressing disgust with Hillary (and Bill).
and I think my views have been well justified, while not going down the deep dark rat hole of faux issues like Benghazi. Plenty to not like without exaggerating simply for partisan purpose.

But no, monitoring publicly available information is not illegal. That's what you asked. Of course, one of our legal folks on here may correct me...wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

[Peter Brown]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

whoa...the meeting ended because it was a "waste of time", she didn't have the goods? as in if she had damning info they'd have happily taken and used it??? You do understand that would not be ok, right? Not just a "bad look", wouldn't it be immediately disqualifying to be working with a foreign agent? As to law, FARA at a minimum. Complicity with that foreign agent doing an illegal act.

But hey, guess it's just peachy keen to try to break the law, right?

It's not that they didn't know that she was representing herself to be working on behalf of Russia.

Which of course is why they lied about it.

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

I am sure Hilary appreciates your defense of her honor.

I have a long history of expressing disgust with Hillary (and Bill).
and I think my views have been well justified, while not going down the deep dark rat hole of faux issues like Benghazi. Plenty to not like without exaggerating simply for partisan purpose.

But no, monitoring publicly available information is not illegal. That's what you asked. Of course, one of our legal folks on here may correct me...wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

So quick to excuse Hillary even though you don’t really know anything here other than what you’ve glanced at in a paper…yet never in doubt when believing the worst about Trump with the same amount of facts.

[MDlaxfan76]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

whoa...the meeting ended because it was a "waste of time", she didn't have the goods? as in if she had damning info they'd have happily taken and used it??? You do understand that would not be ok, right? Not just a "bad look", wouldn't it be immediately disqualifying to be working with a foreign agent? As to law, FARA at a minimum. Complicity with that foreign agent doing an illegal act.

But hey, guess it's just peachy keen to try to break the law, right?

It's not that they didn't know that she was representing herself to be working on behalf of Russia.

Which of course is why they lied about it.

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

I am sure Hilary appreciates your defense of her honor.

I have a long history of expressing disgust with Hillary (and Bill).
and I think my views have been well justified, while not going down the deep dark rat hole of faux issues like Benghazi. Plenty to not like without exaggerating simply for partisan purpose.

But no, monitoring publicly available information is not illegal. That's what you asked. Of course, one of our legal folks on here may correct me...wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

So quick to excuse Hillary even though you don’t really know anything here other than what you’ve glanced at in a paper…yet never in doubt when believing the worst about Trump with the same amount of facts.

sorry, but that also falls completely flat, as usual.

I was asked a straight question and I answered it straight, as best I know. And that is that monitoring DNS information, which is publicly accessible, is not illegal. I'm open to being shown that's mistaken, but that's my understanding.

I wasn't asked about anything else about Hillary until 'go to somewhere' made a crack about her. And I have a long record in expressing my views on her and Bill. I obviously don't think they're paragons of virtue, so the crack, too, falls flat.

And no, we have immensely more "facts" about Trump, his Campaign Manager, and lots of others.

But hey, "squirrel" all you want.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/16/media/du ... index.html

[old salt]

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

The filing says Mr. Joffe could access this data because his employer had a “sensitive arrangement” with the government to provide internet services, which Mr. Joffe “exploited” to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

Joffe was supposed to be helping intelligence agencies combat hacking. Durham says that some of the data he mined was generated by the Executive Office of the President — i.e., the White House.

If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.

[old salt]

Recall all the 2016 campaign bombshell stories about Trump Tower servers communicating with Russians via the Alfa Bank servers, stoking the media firestorm on the collusion narritive, including tweets from HRC & Jake Sullivan.
This is how the partisan msm is used to spread disinformation.
This is more effective than anything the Russians do.

This 3 month old WP story makes more sense now :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

How a battle over Trump computer accusations is playing out in court
By Devlin Barrett, November 18, 2021

A long-running fight over accusations of computer links between Donald Trump and a Russian bank has intensified recently, shedding new light on how the government uses obscure Internet data to hunt for hackers and underscoring how the legal battles rage on regarding the 2016 presidential race.

The computer data dispute centers on an allegation that surfaced at the very end of the campaign — that a server tied to the Trump Organization was in repeated contact months earlier with a server for Russia-based Alfa Bank. The claim was based on records from the Domain Name System, or DNS, a kind of digital phone book that matches domain names — usually a jumble of words — to Internet protocol addresses, which are numbers. Such records show when one computer seeks out another, but the logs don’t explain the substance of any communication.

When the claim first surfaced, some computer researchers argued that the DNS data, while not definitive, indicated human communications between the Trump Organization and Russia. Other experts dismissed that idea, saying the nature of the data made it easy to create a fake trail.

The fight over what the Alfa Bank computer data did or didn’t show largely faded from public view. But it roared back to life this fall.

In September, special counsel John Durham indicted Michael Sussmann, a lawyer with ties to Democrats, on charges that he lied to the FBI in 2016 about who his client was when he brought the bureau information about the Alfa Bank computer allegations. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.

Separately, Alfa Bank is suing a number of unknown hackers — “John Does” — who the bank claims fabricated data to “create the false appearance of a covert communication channel between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.” As part of that lawsuit, the bank has sought to subpoena the researchers who initially raised concerns about Alfa’s DNS records.

Lawyers for some of those researchers argue Alfa Bank’s suit is an improper effort to use information from Durham’s investigation to help Russian interests better understand how the U.S. government detects and gathers evidence against hackers.

The lawsuit “is a Trojan horse to monitor what is transpiring before a federal grand jury exploring the same matters, and serves as an information-gathering tool about U.S. cybersecurity methods and means to benefit the Russian political regime,” attorneys for two of the researchers wrote this month to the Florida judge overseeing the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, now nearly a year and a half old, has yet to identify any of the John Doe defendants. It has spawned court fights in several states as some computer experts resist the bank’s demands for information, decrying the case as an attempt to silence or punish security experts.

At a court hearing last week in Fairfax, Michael McIntosh, a lawyer for the bank, said the Sussmann indictment “supports key elements of Alfa Bank’s complaint.” At the same time, he insisted there was nothing untoward about subpoenaing people who attorneys believe have relevant information.

The indictment says the FBI investigated the computer links and concluded “there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel” between the bank and Trump’s business. Among other things, it said, “the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization, but rather, had been administered by a mass marketing email company that sent advertisements for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients.”

The same indictment also detailed the role one of Sussmann’s clients — Internet entrepreneur Rodney Joffe, identified only as “Tech Executive-1” — played in examining the DNS data that Sussmann brought to the FBI.

Now, Joffe’s lawyers are fighting a subpoena from Alfa Bank. Joffe’s attorney Steven Tyrrell urged Fairfax County Judge Thomas Mann to quash Alfa Bank’s subpoena, noting that a Rhode Island judge had ruled earlier in the week against Alfa’s effort to subpoena computer researcher April Lorenzen.

Mann, however, ruled in Alfa Bank’s favor and against Joffe, who until his recent retirement helped build and lead companies that hold vast quantities of DNS data. Cybersecurity experts say those companies are valuable sources of information for the FBI and other agencies investigating transnational hackers because researchers can search the data for unusual patterns of connections between computers.

In 2013, Joffe was the recipient of an FBI Director’s Award for helping the government tackle a global botnet operation. At the court hearing in Fairfax, Tyrrell also said Joffe’s work was important in the government’s response to the 2020 hack of SolarWinds, a Texas-based company whose software was breached in a major Russian cyberattack.

Joffe’s role in the events of 2016 have come under particular scrutiny from both Durham and Alfa Bank, pulling back the curtain on how the government uses DNS records to build cases against hackers.

"As part of their lawyer-client relationship,” Sussmann, Joffe, another lawyer at Sussmann’s firm and “individuals acting on behalf” of the campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton worked together “to share information about the Russian Bank Data with the media and others, claiming that it demonstrated the existence of a secret communications channel,” the indictment says.

The government does not hold large volumes of DNS data itself but has contracts with companies to search their information, according to several computer experts familiar with the practice. Those searches do not require warrants. Government lawyers do not believe the DNS data searches raise privacy concerns because the data shows computers talking to each other but does not identify the people or firms behind those Internet addresses.

Government lawyers do not believe the DNS data searches raise privacy concerns because the data shows computers talking to each other but does not identify the people or firms behind those Internet addresses....yet somehow, this became a msm bombshell & a key piece of "evidence" in the Russia collusion narrative.

Combine this with the Steele dossier & it becomes obvious that the Clinton campaign was the genesis of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
They fabricated it & injected it into the msm & the Federal govt, via embedded supporters in both institutions. It was a disinformation psyop more effective than anything the Russians accomplished.

[RedFromMI]

OS is conveniently ignoring the direct evidence such as Manafort and his extensive Russian connections and debts combined with Trump’s obvious affection for all things Russian, heightened by his desire to build in Russia to say this was manufactured.

There was a connection between the Trump campaign and the Russian run efforts to both boost votes for Trump and suppress Clinton votes (e.g. Facebook campaigns).

I think that Russia was also pushing misinformation intentionally toward the Clinton campaign to make extra connections that may not have been there (say some of the more salacious parts of the Steele dossier) to make the Clinton efforts look like overreach, but the basic fact that Trump was a dupe when it came to Putin and Russia still remains.

[Typical Lax Dad]

OS is conveniently ignoring the direct evidence such as Manafort and his extensive Russian connections and debts combined with Trump’s obvious affection for all things Russian, heightened by his desire to build in Russia to say this was manufactured.

There was a connection between the Trump campaign and the Russian run efforts to both boost votes for Trump and suppress Clinton votes (e.g. Facebook campaigns).

I think that Russia was also pushing misinformation intentionally toward the Clinton campaign to make extra connections that may not have been there (say some of the more salacious parts of the Steele dossier) to make the Clinton efforts look like overreach, but the basic fact that Trump was a dupe when it came to Putin and Russia still remains.

There wasn’t a signed agreement in place.

[cradleandshoot]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

whoa...the meeting ended because it was a "waste of time", she didn't have the goods? as in if she had damning info they'd have happily taken and used it??? You do understand that would not be ok, right? Not just a "bad look", wouldn't it be immediately disqualifying to be working with a foreign agent? As to law, FARA at a minimum. Complicity with that foreign agent doing an illegal act.

But hey, guess it's just peachy keen to try to break the law, right?

It's not that they didn't know that she was representing herself to be working on behalf of Russia.

Which of course is why they lied about it.

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

I am sure Hilary appreciates your defense of her honor.

I have a long history of expressing disgust with Hillary (and Bill).
and I think my views have been well justified, while not going down the deep dark rat hole of faux issues like Benghazi. Plenty to not like without exaggerating simply for partisan purpose.

But no, monitoring publicly available information is not illegal. That's what you asked. Of course, one of our legal folks on here may correct me...wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

It is funny how your long history of criticizing Bill and the queen of evil hits a caveat when it comes to Benghazi... You don't want to tick off your liberal friends on this forum on that issue do you??? The simple truth is the queen of evil effed up and ignored ALL the warnings given to the State Department she was in charge of concerning the drastically deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Like all your "friends" on this forum your comfortable as hell giving her a pass for her incompetence.
That is what you RINO blue blood Rockefeller Republicans do is it not? You make excuses for your Democrat friends when they eff up. You can all hash it out at the next party over caviar and champagne. Then go sailing or play around of golf the next day.

[tech37]

I have a long history of expressing disgust with Hillary (and Bill).
and I think my views have been well justified, while not going down the deep dark rat hole of faux issues like Benghazi. Plenty to not like without exaggerating simply for partisan purpose.

But no, monitoring publicly available information is not illegal. That's what you asked. Of course, one of our legal folks on here may correct me...wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

It is funny how your long history of criticizing Bill and the queen of evil hits a caveat when it comes to Benghazi... You don't want to tick off your liberal friends on this forum on that issue do you??? The simple truth is the queen of evil effed up and ignored ALL the warnings given to the State Department she was in charge of concerning the drastically deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Like all your "friends" on this forum your comfortable as hell giving her a pass for her incompetence.
That is what you RINO blue blood Rockefeller Republicans do is it not? You make excuses for your Democrat friends when they eff up. You can all hash it out at the next party over caviar and champagne. Then go sailing or play around of golf the next day.

Also, this same guy who in past actually complained about anyone citing Andy McCarthy articles because he disagreed with the content, hasn't said a peep re McCarthy's latest. Confirmation bias at it's finest. Hypocrisy reigns...

Good for OS for posting an article that shows an opinion that, despite the author, is an honest critique of Durham investigation latest filing.

[Peter Brown]

I have a long history of expressing disgust with Hillary (and Bill).
and I think my views have been well justified, while not going down the deep dark rat hole of faux issues like Benghazi. Plenty to not like without exaggerating simply for partisan purpose.

But no, monitoring publicly available information is not illegal. That's what you asked. Of course, one of our legal folks on here may correct me...wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

It is funny how your long history of criticizing Bill and the queen of evil hits a caveat when it comes to Benghazi... You don't want to tick off your liberal friends on this forum on that issue do you??? The simple truth is the queen of evil effed up and ignored ALL the warnings given to the State Department she was in charge of concerning the drastically deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Like all your "friends" on this forum your comfortable as hell giving her a pass for her incompetence.
That is what you RINO blue blood Rockefeller Republicans do is it not? You make excuses for your Democrat friends when they eff up. You can all hash it out at the next party over caviar and champagne. Then go sailing or play around of golf the next day.

Also, this same guy who in past actually complained about anyone citing Andy McCarthy articles because he disagreed with the content, hasn't said a peep re McCarthy's latest. Confirmation bias at it's finest. Hypocrisy reigns...

Good for OS for posting an article that shows an opinion that, despite the author, is an honest critique of Durham investigation latest filing.

Andy McCarthy might be the only former DOJ opining honestly on current topics. He’s a straight shooter, often arguing against what might be considered the ‘Republican’ angle. He’s certainly a conservative, but he’s an honest guy, assembling facts and information prior to arriving at an opinion. He’s the very opposite of the liberal DOJ guys infecting MSNBC and CNN whose opinions on any topic (regardless of facts) can be pre-forecast even by first graders (whose opinions I’d value higher than the talking DOJ heads on TV).

McCarthy is disliked by guys like MD precisely because of this.

[MDlaxfan76]

Recall all the 2016 campaign bombshell stories about Trump Tower servers communicating with Russians via the Alfa Bank servers, stoking the media firestorm on the collusion narritive, including tweets from HRC & Jake Sullivan.
This is how the partisan msm is used to spread disinformation.
This is more effective than anything the Russians do.

This 3 month old WP story makes more sense now :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

How a battle over Trump computer accusations is playing out in court
By Devlin Barrett, November 18, 2021

A long-running fight over accusations of computer links between Donald Trump and a Russian bank has intensified recently, shedding new light on how the government uses obscure Internet data to hunt for hackers and underscoring how the legal battles rage on regarding the 2016 presidential race.

The computer data dispute centers on an allegation that surfaced at the very end of the campaign — that a server tied to the Trump Organization was in repeated contact months earlier with a server for Russia-based Alfa Bank. The claim was based on records from the Domain Name System, or DNS, a kind of digital phone book that matches domain names — usually a jumble of words — to Internet protocol addresses, which are numbers. Such records show when one computer seeks out another, but the logs don’t explain the substance of any communication.

When the claim first surfaced, some computer researchers argued that the DNS data, while not definitive, indicated human communications between the Trump Organization and Russia. Other experts dismissed that idea, saying the nature of the data made it easy to create a fake trail.

The fight over what the Alfa Bank computer data did or didn’t show largely faded from public view. But it roared back to life this fall.

In September, special counsel John Durham indicted Michael Sussmann, a lawyer with ties to Democrats, on charges that he lied to the FBI in 2016 about who his client was when he brought the bureau information about the Alfa Bank computer allegations. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.

Separately, Alfa Bank is suing a number of unknown hackers — “John Does” — who the bank claims fabricated data to “create the false appearance of a covert communication channel between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.” As part of that lawsuit, the bank has sought to subpoena the researchers who initially raised concerns about Alfa’s DNS records.

Lawyers for some of those researchers argue Alfa Bank’s suit is an improper effort to use information from Durham’s investigation to help Russian interests better understand how the U.S. government detects and gathers evidence against hackers.

The lawsuit “is a Trojan horse to monitor what is transpiring before a federal grand jury exploring the same matters, and serves as an information-gathering tool about U.S. cybersecurity methods and means to benefit the Russian political regime,” attorneys for two of the researchers wrote this month to the Florida judge overseeing the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, now nearly a year and a half old, has yet to identify any of the John Doe defendants. It has spawned court fights in several states as some computer experts resist the bank’s demands for information, decrying the case as an attempt to silence or punish security experts.

At a court hearing last week in Fairfax, Michael McIntosh, a lawyer for the bank, said the Sussmann indictment “supports key elements of Alfa Bank’s complaint.” At the same time, he insisted there was nothing untoward about subpoenaing people who attorneys believe have relevant information.

The indictment says the FBI investigated the computer links and concluded “there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel” between the bank and Trump’s business. Among other things, it said, “the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization, but rather, had been administered by a mass marketing email company that sent advertisements for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients.”

The same indictment also detailed the role one of Sussmann’s clients — Internet entrepreneur Rodney Joffe, identified only as “Tech Executive-1” — played in examining the DNS data that Sussmann brought to the FBI.

Now, Joffe’s lawyers are fighting a subpoena from Alfa Bank. Joffe’s attorney Steven Tyrrell urged Fairfax County Judge Thomas Mann to quash Alfa Bank’s subpoena, noting that a Rhode Island judge had ruled earlier in the week against Alfa’s effort to subpoena computer researcher April Lorenzen.

Mann, however, ruled in Alfa Bank’s favor and against Joffe, who until his recent retirement helped build and lead companies that hold vast quantities of DNS data. Cybersecurity experts say those companies are valuable sources of information for the FBI and other agencies investigating transnational hackers because researchers can search the data for unusual patterns of connections between computers.

In 2013, Joffe was the recipient of an FBI Director’s Award for helping the government tackle a global botnet operation. At the court hearing in Fairfax, Tyrrell also said Joffe’s work was important in the government’s response to the 2020 hack of SolarWinds, a Texas-based company whose software was breached in a major Russian cyberattack.

Joffe’s role in the events of 2016 have come under particular scrutiny from both Durham and Alfa Bank, pulling back the curtain on how the government uses DNS records to build cases against hackers.

"As part of their lawyer-client relationship,” Sussmann, Joffe, another lawyer at Sussmann’s firm and “individuals acting on behalf” of the campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton worked together “to share information about the Russian Bank Data with the media and others, claiming that it demonstrated the existence of a secret communications channel,” the indictment says.

The government does not hold large volumes of DNS data itself but has contracts with companies to search their information, according to several computer experts familiar with the practice. Those searches do not require warrants. Government lawyers do not believe the DNS data searches raise privacy concerns because the data shows computers talking to each other but does not identify the people or firms behind those Internet addresses.

Government lawyers do not believe the DNS data searches raise privacy concerns because the data shows computers talking to each other but does not identify the people or firms behind those Internet addresses....yet somehow, this became a msm bombshell & a key piece of "evidence" in the Russia collusion narrative.

Combine this with the Steele dossier & it becomes obvious that the Clinton campaign was the genesis of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
They fabricated it & injected it into the msm & the Federal govt, via embedded supporters in both institutions. It was a disinformation psyop more effective than anything the Russians accomplished.

No, it didn't. It was speculated about in the media, but it was never a major element. Not even remotely close. It was a question and no more.

We learned that there were very real efforts and invitations of collusion, and even actions taken like Manafort providing campaign information to a Russian agent, and a very real Russian effort to influence the election....and a whole lot of lying, but the DNS stuff re Trump Tower never grew legs...apparently because it wasn't confirmed as actually indicative of anything important. 'Maybe, maybe not' info...which the FBI/DOJ dismissed as not being worth digging further on. Never used in any filings.

[MDlaxfan76]

OS is conveniently ignoring the direct evidence such as Manafort and his extensive Russian connections and debts combined with Trump’s obvious affection for all things Russian, heightened by his desire to build in Russia to say this was manufactured.

There was a connection between the Trump campaign and the Russian run efforts to both boost votes for Trump and suppress Clinton votes (e.g. Facebook campaigns).

I think that Russia was also pushing misinformation intentionally toward the Clinton campaign to make extra connections that may not have been there (say some of the more salacious parts of the Steele dossier) to make the Clinton efforts look like overreach, but the basic fact that Trump was a dupe when it came to Putin and Russia still remains.

Exactly.

[MDlaxfan76]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

whoa...the meeting ended because it was a "waste of time", she didn't have the goods? as in if she had damning info they'd have happily taken and used it??? You do understand that would not be ok, right? Not just a "bad look", wouldn't it be immediately disqualifying to be working with a foreign agent? As to law, FARA at a minimum. Complicity with that foreign agent doing an illegal act.

But hey, guess it's just peachy keen to try to break the law, right?

It's not that they didn't know that she was representing herself to be working on behalf of Russia.

Which of course is why they lied about it.

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

I am sure Hilary appreciates your defense of her honor.

I have a long history of expressing disgust with Hillary (and Bill).
and I think my views have been well justified, while not going down the deep dark rat hole of faux issues like Benghazi. Plenty to not like without exaggerating simply for partisan purpose.

But no, monitoring publicly available information is not illegal. That's what you asked. Of course, one of our legal folks on here may correct me...wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

It is funny how your long history of criticizing Bill and the queen of evil hits a caveat when it comes to Benghazi... You don't want to tick off your liberal friends on this forum on that issue do you??? The simple truth is the queen of evil effed up and ignored ALL the warnings given to the State Department she was in charge of concerning the drastically deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Like all your "friends" on this forum your comfortable as hell giving her a pass for her incompetence.
That is what you RINO blue blood Rockefeller Republicans do is it not? You make excuses for your Democrat friends when they eff up. You can all hash it out at the next party over caviar and champagne. Then go sailing or play around of golf the next day.

You conveniently forget that I was quite critical of the decision making that led to the deaths and quite critical of the initial communications (lying/confusing) about what went down. Errors in judgment happen. Misrepresenting what went down shouldn't happen, though do. But it was never the scandal that a-holes like Jordan tried to make it into. That was the deep dark hole of faux news.

[seacoaster]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

whoa...the meeting ended because it was a "waste of time", she didn't have the goods? as in if she had damning info they'd have happily taken and used it??? You do understand that would not be ok, right? Not just a "bad look", wouldn't it be immediately disqualifying to be working with a foreign agent? As to law, FARA at a minimum. Complicity with that foreign agent doing an illegal act.

But hey, guess it's just peachy keen to try to break the law, right?

It's not that they didn't know that she was representing herself to be working on behalf of Russia.

Which of course is why they lied about it.

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

I am sure Hilary appreciates your defense of her honor.

I have a long history of expressing disgust with Hillary (and Bill).
and I think my views have been well justified, while not going down the deep dark rat hole of faux issues like Benghazi. Plenty to not like without exaggerating simply for partisan purpose.

But no, monitoring publicly available information is not illegal. That's what you asked. Of course, one of our legal folks on here may correct me...wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

It is funny how your long history of criticizing Bill and the queen of evil hits a caveat when it comes to Benghazi... You don't want to tick off your liberal friends on this forum on that issue do you??? The simple truth is the queen of evil effed up and ignored ALL the warnings given to the State Department she was in charge of concerning the drastically deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Like all your "friends" on this forum your comfortable as hell giving her a pass for her incompetence.
That is what you RINO blue blood Rockefeller Republicans do is it not? You make excuses for your Democrat friends when they eff up. You can all hash it out at the next party over caviar and champagne. Then go sailing or play around of golf the next day.

Jiminy, the number of little cues of grievance in this short paragraph: caviar, Rockefeller, champagne, sailing and a round of golf. You just sound jealous.

Read all about something:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02 ... use-spying

"magine, if you will, that a special counsel appointed by the federal government declared in a court filing that he had evidence that a major political figure—let’s call her Hillary Clinton—had paid spies to infiltrate the White House and run surveillance on Donald Trump in order to frame him as a foreign asset. The whole thing would be a big flipping deal! One for which there would be major, major consequences and far-reaching fallout. The country, nay, the world would be gripped by the story, and for good reason—a former candidate for office spying on the president? In the White House? That would be crazy! And you’re right—it would be crazy if something like that had actually happened. Which it didn’t, though unfortunately for reason, logic, and the concept of the truth, Donald Trump, Fox News, and various other deranged conservatives cannot be convinced of that.

Yes, as you’ve probably heard, on Saturday the former president released a statement claiming “Special Counsel Robert Durham”—he meant to say “John Durham” but was apparently too angry to keep his Johns and his Roberts straight—had uncovered “indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia,” a “scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate” for which Trump suggested those involved should be executed but would settle for criminal prosecution. The problem? Neither Robert Durham nor John Durham nor anyone else for that matter had actually provided evidence of any such crime, let alone even suggested it.

Per The New York Times:

'When John H. Durham, the Trump-era special counsel investigating the inquiry into Russia’s 2016 election interference, filed a pretrial motion on Friday night, he slipped in a few extra sentences that set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump. But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news—the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies.

The latest example began with the motion Mr. Durham filed in a case he has brought against Michael A. Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer with links to the Democratic Party. The prosecutor has accused Mr. Sussmann of lying during a September 2016 meeting with an F.B.I. official about Mr. Trump’s possible links to Russia. The filing was ostensibly about potential conflicts of interest. But it also recounted a meeting at which Mr. Sussmann had presented other suspicions to the government. In February 2017, Mr. Sussmann told the C.I.A. about odd internet data suggesting that someone using a Russian-made smartphone may have been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.'

According to the filing, Sussmann had gotten his information from technology executive Rodney Joffe, whose company, Neustar, had performed server-related work for the White House. In Durham’s estimation, Joffe and his colleagues had “exploited this arrangement by mining [certain records] for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.” Fox News took this line from Durham’s filing and ran with it, claiming Durham had said he had found that the Clinton campaign had paid the technology company to “infiltrate” White House servers. The lack of similarly baseless claims from the mainstream media led Trump to declare “The press refuses to even mention the major crime that took place. This in itself is a scandal, the fact that a story so big, so powerful and so important for the future of our nation is getting zero coverage from LameStream, is being talked about all over the world.”

Strangely, there wasn’t a lot of fact-checking going on down at Mar-a-Lago, but the actual reason that the “LameStream” media hadn’t covered the story was likely because, as the Times notes: (1) Sussmann’s conversation with the CIA had already been reported last October (2) Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]” (3) the special counsel also never claimed the Clinton campaign had paid Joffe’s company and (4) perhaps most importantly, “the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era.” In fact, lawyers for the data scientist who helped develop the data analysis in question, say this happened during— wait for it—Barack Obama’s presidency.

“What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” attorneys Jody Westby and Mark Rasch told the Times. “The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

In other words, Trump and company got the whole thing hilariously, mortifyingly incorrect. But fear not: We’re sure they’ll issue a lengthy correction and heartfelt apology to the people whose reputations they impugned—and the ones Trump suggested should be put to death—in no time."

[old salt]

No, it didn't. It was speculated about in the media, but it was never a major element. Not even remotely close. It was a question and no more.

We learned that there were very real efforts and invitations of collusion, and even actions taken like Manafort providing campaign information to a Russian agent, and a very real Russian effort to influence the election....and a whole lot of lying, but the DNS stuff re Trump Tower never grew legs...apparently because it wasn't confirmed as actually indicative of anything important. 'Maybe, maybe not' info...which the FBI/DOJ dismissed as not being worth digging further on. Never used in any filings.

You are missing the greater point.
It's not a matter of how effective the actions of either campaign were.
Members of our govt colluded & conspired with the HRC/DNC campaign to propagate a false narrative of Russian collusion.

Those efforts continued into the Trump Presidency & included members of the " Deep State" -- intel & law enforcement.

Members of the govt were not participants in what you term Trump's "very real efforts and invitations of collusion",
which were extensively investigated yet never established.

Your examples are ludicrous. It is ridiculous to term Trump's campaign rhetoric as an invitation to collude.
The Trump campaign had nothing to do with wikileaks acquiring the DNC emails. Those hackers were not working for a Trump campaign law firm & feeding info to the FBI, DoJ & CIA.
The Trump tower meeting & Manafort's grift were no different than Chalupa colluding with Ukraine to get the black ledger on Manafort.
The "Russian spy" sent to the Trump tower meeting had a client-customer relationship with Fusion GPS. That's where she got some of the info she said she could provide. The Trump team saw what it was & did not take the bait.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... mp-n819526

[MDlaxfan76]

No, it didn't. It was speculated about in the media, but it was never a major element. Not even remotely close. It was a question and no more.

We learned that there were very real efforts and invitations of collusion, and even actions taken like Manafort providing campaign information to a Russian agent, and a very real Russian effort to influence the election....and a whole lot of lying, but the DNS stuff re Trump Tower never grew legs...apparently because it wasn't confirmed as actually indicative of anything important. 'Maybe, maybe not' info...which the FBI/DOJ dismissed as not being worth digging further on. Never used in any filings.

You are missing the greater point.
It's not a matter of how effective the actions of either campaign were.
Members of our govt colluded & conspired with the HRC/DNC campaign to propagate a false narrative of Russian collusion.

No, that's entirely unsubstantiated.

Those efforts continued into the Trump Presidency & included members of the " Deep State" -- intel & law enforcement.

Members of the govt were not participants in what you term Trump's "very real efforts and invitations of collusion",
which were extensively investigated yet never established.

No, they simply wanted to be members of the government. Trump himself, his Campaign Chairman, his Assistant Campaign Chairman, members of the Trump family, others...all were lying about their relationships with Russians, and Trump was openly inviting Russian interference.

Your examples are ludicrous. It is ridiculous to term Trump's campaign rhetoric as an invitation to collude.
The Trump campaign had nothing to do with wikileaks acquiring the DNC emails. Those hackers were not working for a Trump campaign law firm & feeding info to the FBI, DoJ & CIA.
The Trump tower meeting & Manafort's grift were no different than Chalupa colluding with Ukraine to get the black ledger on Manafort.
The "Russian spy" sent to the Trump tower meeting had a client-customer relationship with Fusion GPS. That's where she got some of the info she said she could provide. The Trump team saw what it was & did not take the bait.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... mp-n819526

Sorry, Salty, you're flailing.
It's a shame, because it would be so easy to admit that Trump and his crew were a bunch of corrupt bums who tried to collude...just as it's incredibly easy to say that Trump and his crew were a bunch of corrupt bums who tried to overturn an election that had already happened.

And move on. So easy.

But nah, these guys weren't a bunch of corrupt bums, it was really Hillary (the Devil) who made'em do it.

[get it to x]

No, it didn't. It was speculated about in the media, but it was never a major element. Not even remotely close. It was a question and no more.

We learned that there were very real efforts and invitations of collusion, and even actions taken like Manafort providing campaign information to a Russian agent, and a very real Russian effort to influence the election....and a whole lot of lying, but the DNS stuff re Trump Tower never grew legs...apparently because it wasn't confirmed as actually indicative of anything important. 'Maybe, maybe not' info...which the FBI/DOJ dismissed as not being worth digging further on. Never used in any filings.

You are missing the greater point.
It's not a matter of how effective the actions of either campaign were.
Members of our govt colluded & conspired with the HRC/DNC campaign to propagate a false narrative of Russian collusion.

Those efforts continued into the Trump Presidency & included members of the " Deep State" -- intel & law enforcement.

Members of the govt were not participants in what you term Trump's "very real efforts and invitations of collusion",
which were extensively investigated yet never established.

Your examples are ludicrous. It is ridiculous to term Trump's campaign rhetoric as an invitation to collude.
The Trump campaign had nothing to do with wikileaks acquiring the DNC emails. Those hackers were not working for a Trump campaign law firm & feeding info to the FBI, DoJ & CIA.
The Trump tower meeting & Manafort's grift were no different than Chalupa colluding with Ukraine to get the black ledger on Manafort.
The "Russian spy" sent to the Trump tower meeting had a client-customer relationship with Fusion GPS. That's where she got some of the info she said she could provide. The Trump team saw what it was & did not take the bait.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... mp-n819526

Ms. Veselnitskaya denied it, but Glenn Simpson's attorney confirmed she had several meetings with Simpson. She was basically a lawyer for grifters, and somewhat of a grifter herself. I think things will heat up, as we're running up against statue of limitation milestone dates. I wonder if anyone indicted of threatening our free and fair election will be held in pre-trial detention with 20 hours of solitary a day? Couldn't happen in America, could it?

[Peter Brown]

No, it didn't. It was speculated about in the media, but it was never a major element. Not even remotely close. It was a question and no more.

We learned that there were very real efforts and invitations of collusion, and even actions taken like Manafort providing campaign information to a Russian agent, and a very real Russian effort to influence the election....and a whole lot of lying, but the DNS stuff re Trump Tower never grew legs...apparently because it wasn't confirmed as actually indicative of anything important. 'Maybe, maybe not' info...which the FBI/DOJ dismissed as not being worth digging further on. Never used in any filings.

You are missing the greater point.
It's not a matter of how effective the actions of either campaign were.
Members of our govt colluded & conspired with the HRC/DNC campaign to propagate a false narrative of Russian collusion.

Those efforts continued into the Trump Presidency & included members of the " Deep State" -- intel & law enforcement.

Members of the govt were not participants in what you term Trump's "very real efforts and invitations of collusion",
which were extensively investigated yet never established.

Your examples are ludicrous. It is ridiculous to term Trump's campaign rhetoric as an invitation to collude.
The Trump campaign had nothing to do with wikileaks acquiring the DNC emails. Those hackers were not working for a Trump campaign law firm & feeding info to the FBI, DoJ & CIA.
The Trump tower meeting & Manafort's grift were no different than Chalupa colluding with Ukraine to get the black ledger on Manafort.
The "Russian spy" sent to the Trump tower meeting had a client-customer relationship with Fusion GPS. That's where she got some of the info she said she could provide. The Trump team saw what it was & did not take the bait.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... mp-n819526

Ms. Veselnitskaya denied it, but Glenn Simpson's attorney confirmed she had several meetings with Simpson. She was basically a lawyer for grifters, and somewhat of a grifter herself. I think things will heat up, as we're running up against statue of limitation milestone dates. I wonder if anyone indicted of threatening our free and fair election will be held in pre-trial detention with 20 hours of solitary a day? Couldn't happen in America, could it?

Interestingly and somewhat relatedly, a left wing activist attempted to assassinate a politician in Kentucky on Monday (he literally fired four rounds out of his 9mm, barely missing his target) and yesterday was released on a remarkably low bond of $100,000. It’s not being discussed on national mainstream media. He’s not being held in solitary.

People have now done the research into the group that bailed out the criminal. It’s ummm interesting to say the least. Read this thread if you want to understand:

https://twitter.com/oilfield_rando/stat ... 27749?s=21