I never said that she was mentioned in this latest filing
I said she is a target (non-legal) in the Special Counsel investigation
Durham alleges they were tapping White House servers after Trump was in office
Preparing for Trump's Indictment
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
I said she is a target (non-legal) in the Special Counsel investigation
Durham alleges they were tapping White House servers after Trump was in office
You said but are unable to link to any source in anyway which links the investigation to Hillary herself, not in any filing or the scope of the investigation in any official document.
Can you quote where Durhman alleges tapping White House servers while Trump was in office? Because absolutely nobody serious has been able to find that.
According to NYT
"Most important, contrary to the reporting, the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. According to lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped develop the Yota analysis, the data — so-called DNS logs, which are records of when computers or smartphones have prepared to communicate with servers over the internet — came from Barack Obama’s presidency."
Is the Durham Filing the Smoking Gun That Undoes Hillary Clinton?
https://www.newsweek.com/durham-filing-smoking-gun-that-undoes-hillary-clinton-1679518
Donald Trump and right-wing figures are pointing to a new court filing from Special Counsel John Durham as proof that Hillary Clinton spied on the former president.
The 13-page document from Durham, tasked by former Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the FBI's probe into Trump's 2016 campaign and its connections with Russia, sparked a firestorm on the right after its release Friday. Trump called it "worse than Watergate" while Fox News stated Clinton's campaign paid to "infiltrate" his servers.
But legal analysts have told Newsweek that the document isn't the damning evidence conservatives are touting it to be.
"It's not the smoking gun that folks are saying that it is," said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.
Or as Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, put it: "It's absolutely nonsense."
The filing is centered on Michael Sussmann, a lawyer with ties to the Clinton campaign. Sussmann has been charged with a single count of lying to the FBI in 2016 when presenting it with documents that allegedly showed secret communications between the Trump campaign and a Russian bank.
Durham said Sussmann falsely said he wasn't working "for any client" at the time. Sussmann has disputed Durham's account and pleaded not guilty. The pretrial motion filed Friday asked the court to look into potential conflicts of interest with Sussmann's defense counsel Latham & Watkins LLP.
The document also detailed a 2017 meeting in which Sussmann presented a federal agency with suspicious internet data purported to show Russian-made cellphones being used near the White House complex and Trump Tower.
Sussmann had received that information from a tech executive who accessed the domain name system, or DNS, data through his firm which maintained servers for the executive office of the president (EOP). Durham said that the executive, identified by The New York Times as Rodney Joffe, and his associates "exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump."
A spokesperson for Joffe told the Times that he had lawful access to analyze DNS data and "contrary to the allegations in this recent filing" was apolitical.
"All this new filing showed is that researchers who had access to existing DNS traffic mined it for information," said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security. "There was no unlawful infiltration of Trump or White House servers, or anything else that has been bandied about by the conservative echo chamber."
Akerman echoed that sentiment, stating if a law had been broken someone would have been charged.
"If there really was something that was proprietary that was stolen, they would have indicted this person under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. They didn't. And so you've got to ask yourself, 'What the heck is this?'"
So far, Durham has not charged anyone with spying on Trump. The filing also did not state that any content from White House communications were read or compromised, or that the tech company Joffe worked for was on Clinton's payroll.
Durham also noted in the filing that the DNS lookups started as early as 2014, when Barack Obama was in office, and continued until early 2017.
Still, Trump said the filing is "indisputable evidence" of wrongdoing by Clinton and suggested that "in a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death."
Trump is a fucking clown.
https://www.newsweek.com/durham-filing-smoking-gun-that-undoes-hillary-clinton-1679518
Donald Trump and right-wing figures are pointing to a new court filing from Special Counsel John Durham as proof that Hillary Clinton spied on the former president.
The 13-page document from Durham, tasked by former Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the FBI's probe into Trump's 2016 campaign and its connections with Russia, sparked a firestorm on the right after its release Friday. Trump called it "worse than Watergate" while Fox News stated Clinton's campaign paid to "infiltrate" his servers.
But legal analysts have told Newsweek that the document isn't the damning evidence conservatives are touting it to be.
"It's not the smoking gun that folks are saying that it is," said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.
Or as Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, put it: "It's absolutely nonsense."
The filing is centered on Michael Sussmann, a lawyer with ties to the Clinton campaign. Sussmann has been charged with a single count of lying to the FBI in 2016 when presenting it with documents that allegedly showed secret communications between the Trump campaign and a Russian bank.
Durham said Sussmann falsely said he wasn't working "for any client" at the time. Sussmann has disputed Durham's account and pleaded not guilty. The pretrial motion filed Friday asked the court to look into potential conflicts of interest with Sussmann's defense counsel Latham & Watkins LLP.
The document also detailed a 2017 meeting in which Sussmann presented a federal agency with suspicious internet data purported to show Russian-made cellphones being used near the White House complex and Trump Tower.
Sussmann had received that information from a tech executive who accessed the domain name system, or DNS, data through his firm which maintained servers for the executive office of the president (EOP). Durham said that the executive, identified by The New York Times as Rodney Joffe, and his associates "exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump."
A spokesperson for Joffe told the Times that he had lawful access to analyze DNS data and "contrary to the allegations in this recent filing" was apolitical.
"All this new filing showed is that researchers who had access to existing DNS traffic mined it for information," said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security. "There was no unlawful infiltration of Trump or White House servers, or anything else that has been bandied about by the conservative echo chamber."
Akerman echoed that sentiment, stating if a law had been broken someone would have been charged.
"If there really was something that was proprietary that was stolen, they would have indicted this person under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. They didn't. And so you've got to ask yourself, 'What the heck is this?'"
So far, Durham has not charged anyone with spying on Trump. The filing also did not state that any content from White House communications were read or compromised, or that the tech company Joffe worked for was on Clinton's payroll.
Durham also noted in the filing that the DNS lookups started as early as 2014, when Barack Obama was in office, and continued until early 2017.
Still, Trump said the filing is "indisputable evidence" of wrongdoing by Clinton and suggested that "in a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death."
_______________________
Trump is a fucking clown.
So did he just say that he underreported the value of assets...
of course his ass lickers will never claim that is...illegal...
Could Thursday Be the Worst Day Yet for Trump and His Kids?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/could...r-donald-trump-and-his-kids-ivanka-and-don-jr
A New York judge will decide whether Donald Trump and his children will have to testify in the New York attorney general’s tax fraud case.
Former President Donald Trump and two of his adult kids are aggressively trying to avoid explaining—under oath—why so many of their business properties have wildly different values on paper. A New York judge will decide their fate on Thursday.
On Feb. 17, Judge Arthur F. Engoron will hear defense attorneys and investigators spar over whether Don Jr., Ivanka, and their former president father can keep dodging subpoenas recently issued by the New York Attorney General’s office, which is investigating potential bank fraud.
The trio was supposed to sit down with investigators at the New York City office of AG Letitia James during the first week of January. Instead, the civil lawsuit quickly spiraled into a nasty, high-stakes fight with both sides going straight for the proverbial jugular.
On one side is James, a state’s Democratic attorney general elected on the promise she would target the American president over his long history of corrupt behavior. She’s pursuing her own civil lawsuit against Trump while simultaneously teaming up with the Manhattan District Attorney on a similar criminal investigation.
On the other side is Trump, now facing an onslaught of local criminal and civil investigations seeking to hold him accountable now that he’s no longer shielded by the near-total executive power of the presidency—and before he gets a chance to get back into the White House.
In December, the Trump Organization went after James personally, suing her in federal court in an attempt to halt her investigation by claiming her political campaign promises have compromised her.
At the start of the year, Trump and his two adult kids—both executives at the family company—refused to show up to scheduled depositions. They then upped the ante by exposing details of the AG’s investigation in court documents. In those filings, the Trumps are trying to convince the judge that James’ lawsuit is just a thinly veiled attempt at double-dipping, getting them to make statements in a civil case that could be used against them in the separate criminal matter.
In mid-January, James hit back with an unconventional legal maneuver. She dumped reams of new evidence in public court filings that laid out what her investigators have uncovered so far.
On Twitter, James said her office had “uncovered significant evidence indicating that the Trump Organization used fraudulent and misleading asset valuations.” Court documents detailed how the company allegedly faked the value of at least six properties, including Trump’s neo-Gothic skyscraper at 40 Wall Street in Manhattan, as well as his golf clubs in the New York suburbs and Scotland.
The details James exposed were cited as the reason the company’s outside accounting firm, Mazars USA, severed ties with the Trump Organization and disavowed 10 years of Trump’s personal financial statements in a letter Feb. 9.
That forced Trump to make a public statement defending his dynasty as a “great company with fantastic assets.” But the chest-beating also came with an odd financial disclosure about his personal wealth that made no accounting sense.
In the statement, Trump lumped together his “net worth” and “total liabilities”—which aren’t conventionally added together—in what appeared to be a sloppy attempt to distract from the fact that he owes a gargantuan $523 million in assorted business obligations.
The local judge overseeing this case could force the ex-president to subject himself to investigators’ questions, but it doesn’t mean Trump will even try to answer them.
During a deposition in October at Trump Tower, he reportedly dodged questions for four-and-a-half hours about how his building’s security team allegedly assaulted protesters in 2015. Then again, sometimes he’s said too much, as he did in his disastrous lawsuit against journalist Timothy L. O'Brien.
Regardless of whether the judge forces the former president to be deposed or not, the political damage is already done. The revelation that Trump’s long-time trusted accountants decided to ditch him—citing the AG’s investigation—has spooked Trump’s own inner circle. And the company is now on financially shaky ground, as banks could immediately call back their loans and force him to seek money elsewhere.
And if Trump vies the presidency again in 2024, the AG’s ability to nudge Trump’s accountants to ditch him has ramifications for American politics and national security.
“Since Trump is no longer in public office, the details of his personal finances are no longer required to be regularly disclosed to the public in ethics disclosures so we may not necessarily know what foreign or domestic interests swoop in to help him financially,” said Anna Massoglia, the editorial and investigations manager at the transparency group OpenSecrets.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/could...r-donald-trump-and-his-kids-ivanka-and-don-jr
A New York judge will decide whether Donald Trump and his children will have to testify in the New York attorney general’s tax fraud case.
Former President Donald Trump and two of his adult kids are aggressively trying to avoid explaining—under oath—why so many of their business properties have wildly different values on paper. A New York judge will decide their fate on Thursday.
On Feb. 17, Judge Arthur F. Engoron will hear defense attorneys and investigators spar over whether Don Jr., Ivanka, and their former president father can keep dodging subpoenas recently issued by the New York Attorney General’s office, which is investigating potential bank fraud.
The trio was supposed to sit down with investigators at the New York City office of AG Letitia James during the first week of January. Instead, the civil lawsuit quickly spiraled into a nasty, high-stakes fight with both sides going straight for the proverbial jugular.
On one side is James, a state’s Democratic attorney general elected on the promise she would target the American president over his long history of corrupt behavior. She’s pursuing her own civil lawsuit against Trump while simultaneously teaming up with the Manhattan District Attorney on a similar criminal investigation.
On the other side is Trump, now facing an onslaught of local criminal and civil investigations seeking to hold him accountable now that he’s no longer shielded by the near-total executive power of the presidency—and before he gets a chance to get back into the White House.
In December, the Trump Organization went after James personally, suing her in federal court in an attempt to halt her investigation by claiming her political campaign promises have compromised her.
At the start of the year, Trump and his two adult kids—both executives at the family company—refused to show up to scheduled depositions. They then upped the ante by exposing details of the AG’s investigation in court documents. In those filings, the Trumps are trying to convince the judge that James’ lawsuit is just a thinly veiled attempt at double-dipping, getting them to make statements in a civil case that could be used against them in the separate criminal matter.
In mid-January, James hit back with an unconventional legal maneuver. She dumped reams of new evidence in public court filings that laid out what her investigators have uncovered so far.
On Twitter, James said her office had “uncovered significant evidence indicating that the Trump Organization used fraudulent and misleading asset valuations.” Court documents detailed how the company allegedly faked the value of at least six properties, including Trump’s neo-Gothic skyscraper at 40 Wall Street in Manhattan, as well as his golf clubs in the New York suburbs and Scotland.
The details James exposed were cited as the reason the company’s outside accounting firm, Mazars USA, severed ties with the Trump Organization and disavowed 10 years of Trump’s personal financial statements in a letter Feb. 9.
That forced Trump to make a public statement defending his dynasty as a “great company with fantastic assets.” But the chest-beating also came with an odd financial disclosure about his personal wealth that made no accounting sense.
In the statement, Trump lumped together his “net worth” and “total liabilities”—which aren’t conventionally added together—in what appeared to be a sloppy attempt to distract from the fact that he owes a gargantuan $523 million in assorted business obligations.
The local judge overseeing this case could force the ex-president to subject himself to investigators’ questions, but it doesn’t mean Trump will even try to answer them.
During a deposition in October at Trump Tower, he reportedly dodged questions for four-and-a-half hours about how his building’s security team allegedly assaulted protesters in 2015. Then again, sometimes he’s said too much, as he did in his disastrous lawsuit against journalist Timothy L. O'Brien.
Regardless of whether the judge forces the former president to be deposed or not, the political damage is already done. The revelation that Trump’s long-time trusted accountants decided to ditch him—citing the AG’s investigation—has spooked Trump’s own inner circle. And the company is now on financially shaky ground, as banks could immediately call back their loans and force him to seek money elsewhere.
And if Trump vies the presidency again in 2024, the AG’s ability to nudge Trump’s accountants to ditch him has ramifications for American politics and national security.
“Since Trump is no longer in public office, the details of his personal finances are no longer required to be regularly disclosed to the public in ethics disclosures so we may not necessarily know what foreign or domestic interests swoop in to help him financially,” said Anna Massoglia, the editorial and investigations manager at the transparency group OpenSecrets.
I was going through the tic toc of this mornings hearing and it reads like a Trump speech at a rally. Off the wall claims, dubious legal strategy and wild accusations.
But this is what Trump wants. He wants his lawyers to argue nonsense because that’s what he wants to hear and it’s why he can’t get any real lawyers to defend him.
Hillary is.............. LAUGHING HER ASS OFF..... popcorn and everything.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------