Major update from many sources that hopefully gives closure to the following major
story and the massive wild rightwing media false story hyping a press legal
release from DOJ S/C John Durham’s story about Hillary Clinton spying on Trump
and Trump saying she and others deserve “the death penalty.”
First, this update from CNN as they tamp down the wild bogus
Hillary Clinton “spied on me” story vis-à-vis that Trump peddled and RW media ran with as seen in this excellent and easy to
follow video explanation (2:43 minutes) and headline:
“Hear
why right-wing media abruptly stopped covering false Clinton story”
The original story follows below in stark details.
It is
rather
long and comes from The Daily Mail with this headline:
“Hillary ignores question about
Durham claims she spied on Trump”
Hillary Clinton refused to answer reporter’s questions about
allegations that her allies spied on the Trump campaign as the controversy
continued to engulf her.
All this comes after a
court filing by Special Counsel John Durham which alleges Clinton's 2016
campaign paid a tech firm to infiltrate Trump Tower servers and later White
House servers in a bid to establish a link between Trump and Russia.
Durham was appointed as
special counsel by Trump administration former AG Barr in October
2020, and tasked with investigating whether the FBI's Trump-Russia probe,
code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” was opened and conducted legally.
Republicans are also calling for increased scrutiny on President Joe Biden's National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. That comes after the longtime Democratic operative's links to Durham's investigation were revived in the wake of a bombshell new court filing. Sullivan had been a top foreign policy adviser to Clinton's campaign.
Durham's probe into the origins of the Russian investigation moved closer to the White House late last year with a report that Sullivan was the foreign policy adviser mentioned in the indictment of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.
Sussmann was charged in September with allegedly lying to the FBI, he has pleaded not guilty.
In a response, Sussmann's legal team said
Durham “seems to be succeeding in his effort to instigate unfair and
prejudicial media coverage of Sussmann’s case” then the lawyer slammed the
Durham allegations as false.
Clinton shared a statement
from Sullivan who had been her 2016 campaign foreign policy adviser, on October
31, 2016, just days before the 2016 presidential.
It was in response to an article in Slate magazine covering a team of computer scientists who claimed to have discovered a link between Trump and Russia-based Alfa Bank.
Sullivan’s
statement said: “This could be the most direct link yet between Trump and
Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking
the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. This secret hotline may be the
key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) tweeted: “Jake Sullivan pushed
the Russia hoax. He knew it was a lie. He now works in the Biden White House.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) accused Sullivan of a “conflict
of interest in his current efforts trying to de-escalate with Moscow, adding: “Jake
Sullivan’s involvement in the Russia collusion hoax is a clear conflict of
interest, and he should not be allowed to speak on behalf of the U.S. as Russia-Ukraine
tensions heighten.”
Conservative PAC chairman, Matt Schlapp, demanded that
Sullivan quit his role in the Biden administration, saying: “With the
revelations that Trump was indeed spied on during 2016 and deep into his
presidency it is time for anyone complicit in this crime resign from the Biden
Administration and be charged, and Jake Sullivan must step down.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said: “If proven true, the Clinton
campaign's actions are unacceptable. Court filings by Special Counsel Durham
suggesting the Clinton campaign may have engaged in an orchestrated effort to
infiltrate the Trump campaign are unacceptable and should not be swept under
the rug.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called out the Clinton campaign as well
as mainstream media outlets that have largely been ignoring the filing, saying:
“The corrupt corporate media breathlessly covered every contour of the Russia
lies spread by Hillary & her cronies. Now it’s reported that Hillary’s team
paid to hack the White House & Trump Tower, crickets! Zero coverage on NBC,
ABC, & CBS morning shows. The silence is damning!'”
Sussman's 27-page indictment says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was not working for a client when he asked for a meeting in which he offered evidence of what he claimed was a secret communication channel between Trump and a Russian bank. But the document goes on to allege in fact he was being paid by at least two clients: U.S. technology executive, and the Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, saying in part: “On or about September 15, 2016, Campaign Lawyer-1 exchanged emails with the Clinton Campaign's campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy adviser concerning the Russian Bank-1 allegations that SUSSMANN had recently shared with Reporter-1.”
The foreign policy adviser is Jake Sullivan according to Fox News, which cited two well-placed sources.
In Durham's filing, he revealed how Sussman “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1), named as Rodney Joffe, at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”
The filing also reveals how Joffe worked with Sussman at
the instruction of the Clinton campaign to “assemble the purported data and
white papers” – essentially to gather information that would tie Trump to
Russia.
When Clinton became Secretary of State, Sullivan joined as her deputy chief of staff, before becoming Vice President Joe Biden's national security adviser in 2013.
(Note: There is no suggestion that Sullivan is a
target of Durham’s investigation, only that he received information from
Sussmann).
Trump has long denied any illegal conspiracy with Russia in
his 2016 campaign, insisting that the allegations were trumped up by his
political enemies.
Likewise, Democrats claim that Durham's probe is a political hatchet job. The first criminal charges in Durham's probe were against Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI attorney assigned to the Robert Mueller probe, who altered an email during the process of acquiring a wiretap warrant renewal on Page.
Clinesmith
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation.
Last week, a key source who provided information to
British ex-spy Christopher Steele for “his dirty dossier” of allegations
against Trump was been arrested in the U.S that is Igor
Y. Danchenko, a Russian-born analyst living in the United States, was arrested
on in VA by federal agents assigned to Durham's investigation, according to the
DOJ.
Danchenko is charged with five counts of lying to FBI agents about the sources he used in collecting information for Steele, who is identified in the indictment only as “UK Person-1.” He is charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI.
Danchenko, 43, was the primary researcher for Steele's dossier alleging that Trump's 2016 presidential campaign conspired with Russia in a covert operation to beat Hillary Clinton, and that Russia had salacious videos that could be used to blackmail Trump.
Trump praised Durahm's effort multiple times and he predicted
that it will show: “That it all leads back to the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, and
the dirty lawyers. It really has come out. In all fairness, while it has taken
a long time, hats off to John Durham. Hats off, because, it’s coming out, and
it is coming out at a level – Durham has come out with things that are
absolutely amazing.”
This added from
ABC News and their
headline:
“Special Counsel Durham and
Democratic lawyer clash over new allegations regarding Trump data”
That story highlights:
A former lawyer for the Democratic Party, Michael Sussmann, indicted by DOJ Special Counsel John Durham for allegedly lying to the FBI has accused Durham's office of leveling false allegations that he claims are intended to politicize his case.
Sussmann is a cybersecurity lawyer who previously worked for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. He was charged last year by Durham for allegedly lying to the then-FBI general counsel James Baker in a July 2016.
Sussmann has pleaded not
guilty saying he was not passing along the information on behalf of any
specific client, while Durham says Sussmann was in fact working on behalf of
Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and a tech executive named Rodney
Joffe.
Sussmann, however, denies that he ever told Baker he was not
representing the interests of any client and, additionally, says he was not
acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign in passing along the allegations to
Baker.
This past weekend, Durham put forward new allegations in a
seemingly unrelated filing where he sought to raise potential conflict concerns
over the attorneys currently representing Sussmann.
Durham claimed his office has evidence that Joffe worked
with a group of cybersecurity researchers to collect internet data about the
Trump Organization, and in doing so accessed so-called “DNS traffic data” records
– those are records that show back-and-forth communications that computers or
cellphones have with internet servers from entities including Trump
Tower, Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of
the President of the United States.
Durham alleges that Joffe's company had a contract with
Executive Office of the President to provide DNS-related services, but that he “exploited
this arrangement ... for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about
Donald Trump.”
According to the Durham filing, in a meeting with the CIA in
February of 2017, Sussmann allegedly passed along information and data from
Joffe and others that Sussmann said appeared suspicious and showed: “That Trump
and/or his associates may have been using supposedly rare, Russian-made
wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”
Trump and numerous other Republicans went on to cite
Durham's filing as proof that Hillary Clinton's campaign directed an illegal
conspiracy to spy on Trump both during and possibly after his 2016 election
victory.
However, nowhere in Durham's filing did prosecutors say that
the effort was directed by or involved the Clinton campaign, that any of the
alleged gathering of data took place after Trump had taken office, or that any
of the alleged conduct even if it took place, was illegal.
Durham raised the new set of allegations as part of a filing
regarding concerns over whether Sussmann's defense attorneys have a conflict of
interest in representing him. No additional criminal charges have been brought
against Sussmann or others related to the new allegations.
Note: Contrary to reports, nowhere in Durham's
filing does he state that lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a tech company
to “infiltrate” servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House.
Joffe did not respond to a request for comment from ABC
News. In a statement provided to ABC News, a spokesperson for Joffe disputed
Durham's allegations, calling Joffe an “apolitical Internet security expert
with decades of service to the U.S. Government who has never worked for a
political party, and who legally provided access to DNS data obtained from a
private client that separately was providing DNS services to the Executive
Office of the President (EOP).”
Joffe's spokesperson said:
“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and
analyze any security breaches or threats. As a result of the hacks of EOP and
DNC [Democratic National Committee] servers in 2015 and 2016, respectively,
there were serious and legitimate national security concerns about Russian
attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election. Upon identifying DNS queries from
Russian-made Yota phones in proximity to the Trump campaign and the EOP,
respected cybersecurity researchers were deeply concerned about the anomalies
they found in the data and prepared a report of their findings, which was subsequently
shared with the CIA.”
Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, attorneys for David Dagon, a
Georgia Institute of Technology analyst who was part of the research team
referenced in Durham's filing, told ABC News that the team only provided data
that was legally obtained during the Obama administration. Westby and Rasch
said researchers were looking at attempted malware attacks.
Attacks that were believed to be targeting the White House, and that contrary to Durham's allegations, Joffe was never tasking the researchers in their work.
Westby and Rasch said: “He
was simply providing data. He may have commented on it, but he did not task the
researchers in what they were doing. They were in no way ever working for
Rodney Joffe.”
Both lawyers maintain that the effort to bring this information to the attention of the FBI and CIA was appropriate, and say they're concerned that Durham's actions could have a chilling effect on researchers bringing cybersecurity information to the attention of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the future.
The two lawyers added: “What
you don't want to have happen, which we already see happening, is for
researchers to be chilled in bringing concerns about cybersecurity threats to
appropriate government agencies. Right now, the cybersecurity community is
largely afraid to talk to law enforcement because of what has happened and how
this case has been handled.”
Sussmann's attorneys responded to Durham's new filing, accusing him of making “false allegations that are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.”
Sussmann's
attorneys also dispute what they say appears to be Durham's leading theory,
that Sussmann was acting in concert with the Clinton campaign when he took the
DNS data to the CIA in February of 2017.
Sussmann's attorneys also say in their filing: “The [Durham]
Motion conveniently overlooks the fact that Mr. Sussmann's meeting with
Agency-2 happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the
Clinton Campaign had effectively ceased to exist. The Motion also omits any
mention that Mr. Sussmann never billed the Clinton Campaign work associated
with the February 9, 2017 meeting, nor could he have (because there was no Clinton Campaign).”
The filing directly cites former President Trump's numerous
statements released since Durham's filing, including where he suggested the
alleged conduct “...would have been punishable by death in a stronger period of time.”
Sussmann's attorneys accuse Durham of purposefully ginning
up the new wave of furor, noting that the new allegations were included in a
completely unrelated filing regarding potential conflicts of interest among
Sussmann's legal team, adding: “This is not the first time in this case that
the Special Counsel has sought to include allegations about uncharged conduct
in public filings and done so using inflammatory and prejudicial rhetoric. The
Indictment is 27 pages long and reads as though there was a vast conspiracy,
involving the Clinton Campaign and Mr. Sussmann, to defraud the FBI into
investigating Donald Trump as part of an October surprise. But the Indictment
does not charge anyone other than Mr. Sussmann; the Indictment does not charge
a conspiracy; and the Indictment does not even charge a fraud.”
Sussmann's attorneys have
asked the judge in the case to strike from the record Durham's latest series of
allegations.
A spokesperson for Durham
declined to comment to ABC News when asked about the accusation put forward by
Sussmann.
Then this update added to the entire mix – very troublesome,
too – here from CNN
with this headline:
“Analysis: The Durham
report reveals how bad information spreads in Trump's MAGA world”
On Saturday (February 12) Trump declared that he was the
victim of a scandal “far greater than Watergate.” He called for “criminal
prosecutions and reparations.” He also said “in a stronger period of time in
our country, this crime would have been punishable by death.”
Trump's statement made no
sense, except to the Fox audience base that badly wants it to be true.
* Then four days later,
Trump-aligned media outlets are still amplifying his bogus message far and wide
and ranting about the circumstances of his 2016 election win over Hillary
Clinton.
* The cover of the New
York Post portrayed “HILLARY THE SPY.”
* The WSJ editorial page
said: “Trump really was spied on.”
* Fox hosts have called it
a bombshell dozens of times.
The actual court filing at issue is much less newsworthy than the explosion of false claims that have ricocheted from it.
Reporters who
went down that “Rabbit Hole” to examine the evidence found something very
different from what Trump and his media allies said. That should have been the
end of it — but instead the careful reporting became fodder for commentators to
allege a media cover-up.
That's why it is worth examining this as a media phenomenon
and an example of how talking points are spread by a massive media apparatus
and shared by millions of consumers.
The anatomy of a
right-wing talking points:
CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Evan Perez explain, S/C John Durham “accused a lawyer for the Democrats of sharing with the CIA in 2017 internet data purported to show Russian-made phones being used in the vicinity of the White House complex, as part of a broader effort to raise the intelligence community's suspicions of Donald Trump's ties to Russia shortly after he took office.”
The accusation was couched in what Polantz and Perez described as “vague,
technical language” in a court filing. It was not accompanied by any
indictments or other prosecutorial steps. But pro-Trump media outlets noticed
the filing and started to share it on Saturday.
The fact that this supposed bombshell had been buried in a
motion related to claims about attorneys having a conflict of interest, and not
an indictment, was the first sign that the story was not what right-wing outlets
said. The second was that the initial stories never actually went beyond the
technical language to explain what purportedly happened.
But the ideological outlets that blew the filing way out of
proportion weren't incentivized to apply journalistic analysis to the filing.
They were incentivized to do the opposite.
Among Trump loyalists, Durham's investigation into the
origins of the FBI's Russia probe is a shot at vindication. Right-wing TV and
radio shows regularly hype Durham as a hero who is trying to right the
perceived wrongs of “Russiagate.” The key word is “perceived.”
Even though government and media investigations confirmed
dozens of links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the candidate
welcomed the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 election, Trump boosters insist
the issue was “a hoax that was hyped by media outlets and intelligence
officials to hurt Trump.”
Charlie Savage of The New York Times concluded in a point-by-point news article: “So in this pro-Trump media bubble, any scrap of information that supports the hoax hypothesis or the idea that Trump was right when he said he'd been spied on, no matter how irrelevant or incomplete, is turned into a big story. In this case, the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news. But the frenzied chatter by Trump cheerleaders asserted otherwise. And incendiary talk, not news, is what drives right-wing outlets like Fox.”
My 2 cents: As I said this post is rather long and a detailed story but one that
has complete clarity and more importantly – the truth.
Now with the CNN update
above and the Durham statement, the truth is revealed and rightwing media goes
dark. Pitiful aren’t they?
I hope Hillary Clinton
sues them all for a bundle of money – she deserves it and so does the public to
see just how evil, nasty, and criminal Trump and everyone around him truly are.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment