Independent Leyton Orient Forum

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 11:46 pm

All we've had from the media like CNN, BBC and the lefties on here is crickets . Why ?

HainburgO wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:16 am From the side electoral-vote.com:

Special counsel John Durham was appointed by then-AG William Barr to look into the various investigations of Donald Trump's ties to Russia. Current AG Merrick Garland could theoretically fire Durham, but it would look politically motivated, and would make it seem as if someone—the Democrats, the Biden Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Deep State, the Cincinnati Bengals' offensive line, the original cast of "South Pacific," the guy who invented the Pet Rock, etc.—has something to hide. So, better to let Durham keep going and hope he will reveal himself to be a pettifogger. That moment might have arrived yesterday, as his latest filing in federal court was made public.

The actual filing bends over backwards to make mountains out of what certainly seem to be molehills. It points out that:

Hillary Clinton was the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in 2016
The Democratic Party employs lawyers
One of those lawyers is Michael Sussmann
Sussmann had information suggesting Russian-made phones were used by the Trump campaign
Sussmann passed the information on to the CIA in hopes of getting them to investigate
The CIA apparently did not take the matter seriously, and did not follow up
It's true that Sussmann is facing trial on the charge that he lied to the FBI, and that Durham is looking for anything he can find in order to nail Sussmann to the wall. That said, we are not seeing any real wrongdoing here—certainly nothing criminal. It's common to go to the CIA, FBI, etc. with dirt on one's opponents, and to hope that the G-Men run with it. And the right-wing folks who are gnashing their teeth and rending their garments right now, and lamenting how sleazy and underhanded the Democratic campaign was in 2016, are conveniently forgetting the whole purpose of the Hillary Clinton e-mails line of attack (if you need a reminder, here's a hint: "Lock her up!").

There's also more to this story. Either Durham just writes sloppy briefs, or he was deliberately trying to feed the right-wing outrage machine—whatever it is, he put stuff in the Sussmann brief that has Fox, et al., frothing at the mouth. It's rather complicated, but the executive summary is that the brief points out that Sussmann got the data for the Russian phones claim from a company called Neustar. And elsewhere, the brief notes that since 2015, Neustar has aided the federal government in trying to unravel Russian cyberattacks and to prevent future ones, including attacks against the White House and its computer servers.

From these scattered bits and pieces within the brief, the right-wing media concluded that the real story here is that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid someone to infiltrate a White House computer server. This makes no sense, of course—recall that when Clinton was campaigning, Barack Obama was in the White House. Why would she want or need to infiltrate a server there? But beyond that, this assertion requires several leaps of logic that are not present in Durham's actual briefing. The Clinton campaign paid for none of this and, besides, Neustar's work on the White House servers actually took place in 2015, before Donald Trump was even a candidate for president, much less the actual president.

Perhaps the most unhinged ranting and raving came from Fox entertainer Jesse Watters, who decreed:

Durham's documents show that Hillary Clinton hired people who hacked into Trump's home and office computers before and during his presidency, and planted evidence that he colluded with Russia.

Yeah. You heard that right. Hillary broke into a presidential candidate's computer server and a sitting president's computer server, spying on them. There, her hackers planted evidence, fabricated evidence connecting Trump to Russia, then fed that doctored material to the feds and the media.
Literally not one iota of that is actually in the filing. The first link above is to the filing itself; you can check for yourself, if you wish. It's badly written, so it might take you a while to slog through it, but you'll see it says none of these things.

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:59 am Im sure you said he'd get in office, even after he lost? Time to let it go, Red.

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:22 am

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:59 am Im sure you said he'd get in office, even after he lost? Time to let it go, Red.

I had forgotten about it until tuffers brought it up again . Then when I looked at the latest news from the US this news came up .

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:22 am

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:59 am Im sure you said he'd get in office, even after he lost? Time to let it go, Red.

I had forgotten about it until tuffers brought it up again . Then when I looked at the latest news from the US this news came up .

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:25 am

HainburgO wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:16 am From the side electoral-vote.com:

Special counsel John Durham was appointed by then-AG William Barr to look into the various investigations of Donald Trump's ties to Russia. Current AG Merrick Garland could theoretically fire Durham, but it would look politically motivated, and would make it seem as if someone—the Democrats, the Biden Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Deep State, the Cincinnati Bengals' offensive line, the original cast of "South Pacific," the guy who invented the Pet Rock, etc.—has something to hide. So, better to let Durham keep going and hope he will reveal himself to be a pettifogger. That moment might have arrived yesterday, as his latest filing in federal court was made public.

The actual filing bends over backwards to make mountains out of what certainly seem to be molehills. It points out that:

Hillary Clinton was the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in 2016
The Democratic Party employs lawyers
One of those lawyers is Michael Sussmann
Sussmann had information suggesting Russian-made phones were used by the Trump campaign
Sussmann passed the information on to the CIA in hopes of getting them to investigate
The CIA apparently did not take the matter seriously, and did not follow up
It's true that Sussmann is facing trial on the charge that he lied to the FBI, and that Durham is looking for anything he can find in order to nail Sussmann to the wall. That said, we are not seeing any real wrongdoing here—certainly nothing criminal. It's common to go to the CIA, FBI, etc. with dirt on one's opponents, and to hope that the G-Men run with it. And the right-wing folks who are gnashing their teeth and rending their garments right now, and lamenting how sleazy and underhanded the Democratic campaign was in 2016, are conveniently forgetting the whole purpose of the Hillary Clinton e-mails line of attack (if you need a reminder, here's a hint: "Lock her up!").

There's also more to this story. Either Durham just writes sloppy briefs, or he was deliberately trying to feed the right-wing outrage machine—whatever it is, he put stuff in the Sussmann brief that has Fox, et al., frothing at the mouth. It's rather complicated, but the executive summary is that the brief points out that Sussmann got the data for the Russian phones claim from a company called Neustar. And elsewhere, the brief notes that since 2015, Neustar has aided the federal government in trying to unravel Russian cyberattacks and to prevent future ones, including attacks against the White House and its computer servers.

From these scattered bits and pieces within the brief, the right-wing media concluded that the real story here is that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid someone to infiltrate a White House computer server. This makes no sense, of course—recall that when Clinton was campaigning, Barack Obama was in the White House. Why would she want or need to infiltrate a server there? But beyond that, this assertion requires several leaps of logic that are not present in Durham's actual briefing. The Clinton campaign paid for none of this and, besides, Neustar's work on the White House servers actually took place in 2015, before Donald Trump was even a candidate for president, much less the actual president.

Perhaps the most unhinged ranting and raving came from Fox entertainer Jesse Watters, who decreed:

Durham's documents show that Hillary Clinton hired people who hacked into Trump's home and office computers before and during his presidency, and planted evidence that he colluded with Russia.

Yeah. You heard that right. Hillary broke into a presidential candidate's computer server and a sitting president's computer server, spying on them. There, her hackers planted evidence, fabricated evidence connecting Trump to Russia, then fed that doctored material to the feds and the media.
Literally not one iota of that is actually in the filing. The first link above is to the filing itself; you can check for yourself, if you wish. It's badly written, so it might take you a while to slog through it, but you'll see it says none of these things.

Maybe let a court decide. Incidentally, are you trying to say CNN isn’t very biased or have they already completely imploded .

HainburgO wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 7:09 pm

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:25 am

HainburgO wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:16 am From the side electoral-vote.com:

Special counsel John Durham was appointed by then-AG William Barr to look into the various investigations of Donald Trump's ties to Russia. Current AG Merrick Garland could theoretically fire Durham, but it would look politically motivated, and would make it seem as if someone—the Democrats, the Biden Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Deep State, the Cincinnati Bengals' offensive line, the original cast of "South Pacific," the guy who invented the Pet Rock, etc.—has something to hide. So, better to let Durham keep going and hope he will reveal himself to be a pettifogger. That moment might have arrived yesterday, as his latest filing in federal court was made public.

The actual filing bends over backwards to make mountains out of what certainly seem to be molehills. It points out that:

Hillary Clinton was the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in 2016
The Democratic Party employs lawyers
One of those lawyers is Michael Sussmann
Sussmann had information suggesting Russian-made phones were used by the Trump campaign
Sussmann passed the information on to the CIA in hopes of getting them to investigate
The CIA apparently did not take the matter seriously, and did not follow up
It's true that Sussmann is facing trial on the charge that he lied to the FBI, and that Durham is looking for anything he can find in order to nail Sussmann to the wall. That said, we are not seeing any real wrongdoing here—certainly nothing criminal. It's common to go to the CIA, FBI, etc. with dirt on one's opponents, and to hope that the G-Men run with it. And the right-wing folks who are gnashing their teeth and rending their garments right now, and lamenting how sleazy and underhanded the Democratic campaign was in 2016, are conveniently forgetting the whole purpose of the Hillary Clinton e-mails line of attack (if you need a reminder, here's a hint: "Lock her up!").

There's also more to this story. Either Durham just writes sloppy briefs, or he was deliberately trying to feed the right-wing outrage machine—whatever it is, he put stuff in the Sussmann brief that has Fox, et al., frothing at the mouth. It's rather complicated, but the executive summary is that the brief points out that Sussmann got the data for the Russian phones claim from a company called Neustar. And elsewhere, the brief notes that since 2015, Neustar has aided the federal government in trying to unravel Russian cyberattacks and to prevent future ones, including attacks against the White House and its computer servers.

From these scattered bits and pieces within the brief, the right-wing media concluded that the real story here is that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid someone to infiltrate a White House computer server. This makes no sense, of course—recall that when Clinton was campaigning, Barack Obama was in the White House. Why would she want or need to infiltrate a server there? But beyond that, this assertion requires several leaps of logic that are not present in Durham's actual briefing. The Clinton campaign paid for none of this and, besides, Neustar's work on the White House servers actually took place in 2015, before Donald Trump was even a candidate for president, much less the actual president.

Perhaps the most unhinged ranting and raving came from Fox entertainer Jesse Watters, who decreed:

Durham's documents show that Hillary Clinton hired people who hacked into Trump's home and office computers before and during his presidency, and planted evidence that he colluded with Russia.

Yeah. You heard that right. Hillary broke into a presidential candidate's computer server and a sitting president's computer server, spying on them. There, her hackers planted evidence, fabricated evidence connecting Trump to Russia, then fed that doctored material to the feds and the media.
Literally not one iota of that is actually in the filing. The first link above is to the filing itself; you can check for yourself, if you wish. It's badly written, so it might take you a while to slog through it, but you'll see it says none of these things.

Maybe let a court decide. Incidentally, are you trying to say CNN isn’t very biased or have they already completely imploded .

Ok, a court decided

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michae ... ohn-durham

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 7:55 pm I did ages ago but thanks for reminding me .