LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Without going into too much detail, the data that Durham is referring to comes from DNS lookups (and date before the Trump administration even began).

DNS stands for domain name system - it is the basic internet tool that allows the conversion of the name (here fanlax.com) to an actual number. Because the older version of the internet (IPv4=Internet Protocol version 4) uses a numbering system that does not have enough addresses to cover the total number of available devices, so-called private addresses are often used "inside" an organization (like the university where I work), but there are a number of "public" addresses that are shared by PCs and Macs and iPhones, etc. for use when communicating with the outside world.

So when I am looking at a webpage from fanlax.com, my iPhone makes a query to the local DNS server here on campus to connect fanlax.com to a real number. That server in turn asks one of a set of servers at the top level domain to send the question to the servers that handle .com addresses, and those servers know how to find out what the address for fanlax.com (often by sending the request to the fanlax.com system to answer it themselves). They supply the number back, and then my phone web browser has the address to make the web page request.

The data that Durham is referring to is just lookup data (which is NOT private) - some device in/near the White House is making a request for a server numerical address. The interesting bit is that Sussman through his contact is that some of those requests were from Russian made phones. One hopes that there are not normally Russian made smart phones using the White House internal networks, so this was passed along to the CIA.

Not spying in the normal sense, and no content available as to why any address requests were made. Just possible red flags that needed more information to know if they were real problems.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 8:00 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 7:31 am Another false narrative from the Right's media stooges and the Trump Crime Syndicate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/us/p ... ussia.html

"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......

This article is a place setting to walk back corruption..... the 'who', has yet to be determined. I am amazed you are falling for it, especially after reading and recommending '"The FIfth Risk". That book clearly articulated that the staff from the last administration hung around for quite a long time....waiting for direction that often never came. Which implies what? Yep.....staff that still had access to continue whatever they needed to do.

I posted this link in another thread, which certainly paints a daunting picture of outside influence by all parties and an intended software platform to hide campaign donations. And no, it appears it was not setup by team trump, but he indeed benefited from it, as have others.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/whistl ... opayments/

The author of the Times article, Charlie Savage, is one of, if not the, most corrupt journalists in DC. He is basically a paid stooge for the DNC and a stenographer for the CIA.

One of Charlie’s most egregious lies was the Russian bounty charade…amazing that after being outed on that Charlie still maintains a job, but journalism just ain’t like it used to be, or should-be , I guess.

You may not like Savage, but here is a review of this particular article, courtesy of Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

this is a good explainer. one part an example of how the press generally is doing better at this and one part the sheer level of corruption and politicization of John Durham’s operation. Not a legal operation but a political and propaganda op set up by Trump and Barr.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:27 am You may not like Savage, but here is a review of this particular article, courtesy of Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

this is a good explainer. one part an example of how the press generally is doing better at this and one part the sheer level of corruption and politicization of John Durham’s operation. Not a legal operation but a political and propaganda op set up by Trump and Barr.

John Durham has been a fed prosecutor for like 35 years. In that time, he generated a universally-thought reputation as being completely down the middle, straight, and honest.

Only now that he’s on to how corrupt the Democrats are, suddenly he’s a political and propaganda clown. Yeah, sure.

Look, I don’t think guys like Weissman are down the middle, and even he would admit that, but I can also believe that the Mueller investigation was thorough and decent.

By the way, John Marshall of TPM isn’t exactly an independent journal…the dude is tied at the hip with the DNC.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:10 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:27 am You may not like Savage, but here is a review of this particular article, courtesy of Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

this is a good explainer. one part an example of how the press generally is doing better at this and one part the sheer level of corruption and politicization of John Durham’s operation. Not a legal operation but a political and propaganda op set up by Trump and Barr.

John Durham has been a fed prosecutor for like 35 years. In that time, he generated a universally-thought reputation as being completely down the middle, straight, and honest.

Only now that he’s on to how corrupt the Democrats are, suddenly he’s a political and propaganda clown. Yeah, sure.

Look, I don’t think guys like Weissman are down the middle, and even he would admit that, but I can also believe that the Mueller investigation was thorough and decent.

By the way, John Marshall of TPM isn’t exactly an independent journal…the dude is tied at the hip with the DNC.

You have no evidence of such ties - Marshall is often quite critical of the DNC...

Durham is out of his element - he thinks he has something but it is so far from his normal experience he does not know quite what to do other than keep digging. But his indictments so far don't amount to much, and it is quite unclear that there is really anything there than his interpretation.

You keep throwing darts at the messenger but do not seem to have an answer for the actual message - that there is really not much of anything to this investigation. And those who say so like Fox News are clearly lying about what is actually in the filings.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 8:00 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 7:31 am Another false narrative from the Right's media stooges and the Trump Crime Syndicate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/us/p ... ussia.html

"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......

This article is a place setting to walk back corruption....

What did you think was going to happen after you and every Republican on this board, and every Republican voter, and FoxNationMedia came up with excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse as to why Trump's corruptions were fine.

I'm still gobsmacked that some of my favorite folks here still think that when Trump met with the Ukrainian President, asking for him to announce a fake investigation into Biden...that it was just another day at the office. Meh, who cares?

I told you this was coming. That after you guys let everything Trump did slide.... the Dems could murder TWO people on Trump's Fifth Avenue, and they wouldn't lose votes. If (if) Durham comes up with anything....no one will care. Not the least of the reasons is that this happened five freaking years ago, and Durham has been digging for three years (and counting), looking for anything he can find.

You asked for America to be like this, my man. Next time? Call out your own team's BS.

But we both know that's not going to happen.

Bottomline, Durham's investigation has been going on for a very, very long time and appears unlikely to result in any serious convictions...maybe zero of any level.

Looks like Sussman will get his indictment tossed.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:58 am Bottomline, Durham's investigation has been going on for a very, very long time and appears unlikely to result in any serious convictions...maybe zero of any level.

Looks like Sussman will get his indictment tossed.

... certainly true it is looking less likely to stick.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 12:27 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:58 am Bottomline, Durham's investigation has been going on for a very, very long time and appears unlikely to result in any serious convictions...maybe zero of any level.

Looks like Sussman will get his indictment tossed.

... certainly true it is looking less likely to stick.

You guys are hilarious. The number of targets of federal investigations who get their cases “dismissed” or “the charges don’t stick” can be counted on one hand, over a 100 years of DOJ chicanery.

You’re praying for an statistically impossible outcome. Your only hope is Joe or Merrick ‘Saturday night massacres’ the investigation…that would be poetic.

It’s far likelier that Durham has a few scared swamp boys over a barrel right now, trying to get them to turn on much sexier targets like that offensively oafish slob Elias. If lucky, Durham ends up with Dementia Joe.

I wouldn’t sleep too well at night if I were an ActBlue donor dummy.

Let’s do this, John!! Rack’em up.

It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:31 pm It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Proceeding from a position of near perfect ignorance is so much easier a way for some to exist.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 12:27 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:58 am Bottomline, Durham's investigation has been going on for a very, very long time and appears unlikely to result in any serious convictions...maybe zero of any level.

Looks like Sussman will get his indictment tossed.

... certainly true it is looking less likely to stick.

yup, despite Petey's thrashing, it appears that Sussman may make a motion to dismiss and may very well prevail. Durham misrepresented his case to the court. Oops. He's already brought a motion to remove the inflammatory asides in the recent filing.

But I'm not a lawyer and Petey's undoubtedly correct that the DOJ rarely brings cases that don't at least result in a plea or a trial. That said, 2,732 criminal cases were dismissed in US District Court in 2020 (2021 #'s not yet published). That's about 5% of cases, so "rarely" would fit...but a lot more than "counting on one hand".

This looks like it may very well be one such in 2022.

Of course, it also didn't go through the usual DOJ vetting process; indeed, had it done so, it might well have not been mishandled.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:31 pm It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:31 pm It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

-- ya think?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:44 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:31 pm It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:51 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:44 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:31 pm It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

Judge Orders Eastman To Prove That He Has A Real Reason To Assert Attorney-Client Privilege Over Trump Docs

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/judg ... trump-docs

The federal judge overseeing ex-Trump legal adviser John Eastman’s battle against the House Jan. 6 Committee on Monday ordered the lawyer to back up the attorney-client privilege claims he’s made as he seeks to shield his communications with ex-President Donald Trump and others from the committee.

Judge David Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California noted in his order that the Jan. 6 Committee had objected to Eastman’s privilege claims for 130 records (which adds up to 568 pages) of his communications dating Jan. 4 to Jan. 7 of last year. Committee lawyers have argued that Eastman hasn’t proven the existence of the official legal service that he claims prevents him from turning over the communications — he hasn’t proven that the attorney-client relationship exists.

“The Select Committee has repeatedly noted the significance of communications immediately before and after the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” Carter wrote. “Given the investigation’s urgency, the Court finds it appropriate to expedite its privilege review of the January 4-7, 2021 documents.”

The judge ordered Eastman to file a brief supporting his privilege claims for each document in question, plus evidence of “all attorney-client and agent relationships” he had asserted in his privilege log.

“Dr. Eastman shall also provide evidence documenting any attorney-client relationships that existed with his clients,” Carter wrote.

The judge gave Eastman a deadline of Feb. 22. The House committee will then have until March 2 to file its opposition, according to the order.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:51 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:31 pm It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

-- ya think?

Feel like I’m making strides on Fanlax; fewer posters demanding I be silenced even if on a rare occasion I’m technically slightly incorrect, though I don’t even trust those numbers.

In any event, you guys are hilarious. Tick tock…JohnDurham is on the way, baby!

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 2:13 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:51 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:44 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:31 pm It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

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. Sussman knew what he was being asked and he shielded his ultimate client by alleging he got it from the tech guy, when all the while he knew the tech guy was working for the campaign. You can lie by omission as easily as you can lie by commission. He may have actually done both.

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:14 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 2:13 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:51 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:44 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:31 pm It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

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. Sussman knew what he was being asked and he shielded his ultimate client by alleging he got it from the tech guy, when all the while he knew the tech guy was working for the campaign. You can lie by omission as easily as you can lie by commission. He may have actually done both.

A hoax? Really? Then were is the transcript of the translator during Trump and Putin’s love chat? Huh? That is a federal record. Where is it?