Discussion:
More from the Durham Sussman Indictment
Add Reply
ScottW
2021-09-23 00:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Not every lying scumbag using gov't to try and influence an election was indicted....yet.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/09/22/latest-durham-indictment-may-make-russiagate-the-most-corrupt-scandal-in-u-s-history-n1480603

On or about August 20, 2016, Originator-1 emailed Tech Executive-1, Researcher­ I, and Researcher-2, stating, among other things, .that “even if we found what [Tech Executive-I] asks us to find in DNS, we don’t see the money flow, and we don’t see the content ofsome message saying ‘send the money here’.” Originator-1 then explained that it would be possible to “fill out a sales form on two websites, faking the other company’s email address in each form,” and thereby cause them “to appear to communicate with each other in DNS.” Originator-} then concluded:
“I[:f] [Tech Executive-1] can take the *inference* we gain through this team exercise … then work to develop even an inference may be worthwhile….It’s just not the case that you can rest assured that Hillary’s opposition research and whatever professional gov[ernments] and investigative
journalists are also digging [will] come up with the same things[.]” (asterisks in original).

They have them openly discussing how to fake the data.

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-23 12:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Not every lying scumbag using gov't to try and influence an election was indicted....yet.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/09/22/latest-durham-indictment-may-make-russiagate-the-most-corrupt-scandal-in-u-s-history-n1480603
<snip>

The indictment has been posted for days and you see this now because
it's in pjmedia?
Post by ScottW
They have them openly discussing how to fake the data.
This has nothing to do with whether Sussmann disclosed his clients. And
it's not "faking," it's emphasizing the view most favorable to their
objective.

Back to the legal analyst I quoted earlier:

I think the Sussmann case—particularly given the lengthy and irrelevant
verbiage about the efforts of the Clinton campaign, its lawyers,
cybersecurity experts and private investigators—is an effort to pressure
Sussmann to cooperate with a broader effort to prosecute Clinton-world
operatives for an attempt to defraud the FBI on Trump-Russia matters...

But there are two big problems with this approach. The first is that
digging dirt on political opponents and trying to interest law
enforcement in that dirt is not presumptively a crime. It’s
presumptively the ugly normal of political campaigns. In the particular
case of Donald Trump, who in fact had extensive connections with Russia
about which he was actively lying, it was also a perfectly valid line of
opposition research. While one cannot peddle information one knows to be
false to the FBI without violating the law, that is not what Durham is
alleging here about Sussmann.
MiNe109
2021-09-23 17:01:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Not every lying scumbag using gov't to try and influence an election was indicted....yet.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/09/22/latest-durham-indictment-may-make-russiagate-the-most-corrupt-scandal-in-u-s-history-n1480603
<snip>
The indictment has been posted for days and you see this now because
it's in pjmedia?
Post by ScottW
They have them openly discussing how to fake the data.
This has nothing to do with whether Sussmann disclosed his clients. And
it's not "faking," it's emphasizing the view most favorable to their
objective.
Yeah, that oh so pure, lily white and completely legal, objective.
Yes, completely legal. Do you expect oppo research to be objective? As
you just snipped, "It’s presumptively the ugly normal of political
campaigns."
Art Sackman
2021-09-23 21:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Not every lying scumbag using gov't to try and influence an election was indicted....yet.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/09/22/latest-durham-indictment-may-make-russiagate-the-most-corrupt-scandal-in-u-s-history-n1480603
<snip>
The indictment has been posted for days and you see this now because
it's in pjmedia?
Post by ScottW
They have them openly discussing how to fake the data.
This has nothing to do with whether Sussmann disclosed his clients. And
it's not "faking," it's emphasizing the view most favorable to their
objective.
Yeah, that oh so pure, lily white and completely legal, objective.
Yes, completely legal. Do you expect oppo research to be objective? As
you just snipped, "It’s presumptively the ugly normal of political
campaigns."
remember this guy?

from wiki

Overview of "dirty tricks" against Democrats
Segretti's involvement in the "Canuck letter"[5] typifies the tactics Segretti and others working with him used; in this case they forged a letter ascribed to Senator Edmund Muskie which maligned the people, language, and culture of French Canada and French Canadians, forcing that soon-to-be Democratic presidential candidate considerable headaches by having to deny having written the letter and to continue dealing with that recurring issue. Many historians have indicated, over the years, that Muskie's withdrawal from the Presidential primaries was at least partly the result of Segretti and some of the other "Ratfuckers"' having created so much confusion and so many false accusations that Muskie simply could not respond in any meaningful way.

Another notable example of Segretti's wrongdoing was a letter he faked, on Democratic presidential candidate Edmund Muskie's letterhead, falsely alleging that U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a fellow Democrat, had an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old. The "Muskie letters" also accused Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of sexual misconduct.[6]

After testimony regarding the Muskie letters emerged, Democrats in Florida noted the similarity between those sabotage incidents and others that involved stationery stolen from Humphrey's offices after Muskie dropped out of the race. For example, a false news release on Humphrey's letterhead "accused Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.) of being mentally unbalanced", and a mailing with an unidentified source mischaracterized Humphrey as supporting a controversial environmental measure that he actually opposed.[6]

Segretti appeared as a witness before the Senate Watergate Committee in October 1973.

Imprisoned following Watergate conviction
MiNe109
2021-09-23 23:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Art Sackman
remember this guy?
from wiki
<Donald Segretti>

Of course. His fictionalized character in "All the President's Men" was
many people's introduction to the colorful term mentioned.

He was portrayed by actor Robert Walden, seen on the Austin stage as J.
Edgar Hoover in All The Way, the LBJ play, in 2015.
Art Sackman
2021-09-24 02:15:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by Art Sackman
remember this guy?
from wiki
<Donald Segretti>
Of course. His fictionalized character in "All the President's Men" was
many people's introduction to the colorful term mentioned.
He was portrayed by actor Robert Walden, seen on the Austin stage as J.
Edgar Hoover in All The Way, the LBJ play, in 2015.
You just referenced Woodward's (along with Bernstein) very first fiction
MiNe109
2021-09-24 14:08:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Art Sackman
Post by MiNe109
Post by Art Sackman
remember this guy?
from wiki
<Donald Segretti>
Of course. His fictionalized character in "All the President's Men" was
many people's introduction to the colorful term mentioned.
He was portrayed by actor Robert Walden, seen on the Austin stage as J.
Edgar Hoover in All The Way, the LBJ play, in 2015.
You just referenced Woodward's (along with Bernstein) very first fiction
To be clear, I meant the movie. Remember how anti-climactic the Deep
Throat reveal was?
ScottW
2021-09-24 02:43:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Not every lying scumbag using gov't to try and influence an election was indicted....yet.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/09/22/latest-durham-indictment-may-make-russiagate-the-most-corrupt-scandal-in-u-s-history-n1480603
<snip>
The indictment has been posted for days and you see this now because
it's in pjmedia?
Post by ScottW
They have them openly discussing how to fake the data.
This has nothing to do with whether Sussmann disclosed his clients. And
it's not "faking," it's emphasizing the view most favorable to their
objective.
Yeah, that oh so pure, lily white and completely legal, objective.
Yes, completely legal. Do you expect oppo research to be objective? As
you just snipped, "It’s presumptively the ugly normal of political
campaigns."
Let's see....forge some data....claim it's evidence of corruption...
then dump it in the feds lap to investigate....and lie about not knowing it's origin or being paid for it to said feds.
All perfectly legal shenanigans to you.....
You do live in a very shitty and lawless world.

ScottW
ScottW
2021-09-24 16:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Not every lying scumbag using gov't to try and influence an election was indicted....yet.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/09/22/latest-durham-indictment-may-make-russiagate-the-most-corrupt-scandal-in-u-s-history-n1480603
<snip>
The indictment has been posted for days and you see this now because
it's in pjmedia?
Post by ScottW
They have them openly discussing how to fake the data.
This has nothing to do with whether Sussmann disclosed his clients. And
it's not "faking," it's emphasizing the view most favorable to their
objective.
Yeah, that oh so pure, lily white and completely legal, objective.
Yes, completely legal. Do you expect oppo research to be objective? As
you just snipped, "It’s presumptively the ugly normal of political
campaigns."
Let's see....forge some data...
Not forged.
You're trying to divert from how weak the Sussmann indictment is and
what a long-shot is the chance of a fraud-conspiracy case against the
Clinton campaign. Also, saying the evidence was forged isn't compatible
with the charge that it was stolen. Pick a lane!
I think misappropriated and misrepresented.

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-24 17:59:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
You're trying to divert from how weak the Sussmann indictment is and
what a long-shot is the chance of a fraud-conspiracy case against the
Clinton campaign. Also, saying the evidence was forged isn't compatible
with the charge that it was stolen. Pick a lane!
I think misappropriated and misrepresented.
Spun, for sure, but to no advantage. The FBI's response, to quote,
"amounted to investigating it, alerting the press there was nothing to
it, then dismissing it pretty quickly..."
ScottW
2021-09-25 04:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
You're trying to divert from how weak the Sussmann indictment is and
what a long-shot is the chance of a fraud-conspiracy case against the
Clinton campaign. Also, saying the evidence was forged isn't compatible
with the charge that it was stolen. Pick a lane!
I think misappropriated and misrepresented.
Spun, for sure, but to no advantage. The FBI's response, to quote,
"amounted to investigating it, alerting the press there was nothing to
it, then dismissing it pretty quickly..."
Long enough for the dem run MSM to yack it up for a week or more.

ScottW
George M. Middius
2021-09-25 04:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The barking never stops...
Post by ScottW
Long enough for the dem run MSM
Anyone care to translate that from Witlessese?
MiNe109
2021-09-25 15:12:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George M. Middius
The barking never stops...
Post by ScottW
Long enough for the dem run MSM
Anyone care to translate that from Witlessese?
Another article of faith from the right. They've been yacking this one
up for decades.
George M. Middius
2021-09-25 18:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by George M. Middius
The barking never stops...
Post by ScottW
Long enough for the dem run MSM
Anyone care to translate that from Witlessese?
Another article of faith from the right. They've been yacking this one
up for decades.
I thought the LRW's standard for bias was a simple litmus test. Either a
news source repeats and amplifies LRW talking points (= "not biased") or
they report anything else that does not conform (= "biased"). Are they any
worse nowadays?
MiNe109
2021-09-25 15:12:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
You're trying to divert from how weak the Sussmann indictment is and
what a long-shot is the chance of a fraud-conspiracy case against the
Clinton campaign. Also, saying the evidence was forged isn't compatible
with the charge that it was stolen. Pick a lane!
I think misappropriated and misrepresented.
Spun, for sure, but to no advantage. The FBI's response, to quote,
"amounted to investigating it, alerting the press there was nothing to
it, then dismissing it pretty quickly..."
Long enough for the dem run MSM to yack it up for a week or more.
If you want a long yack, look to the right. Y'all never give up anything.

"But, her emails!"
ScottW
2021-09-25 16:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
You're trying to divert from how weak the Sussmann indictment is and
what a long-shot is the chance of a fraud-conspiracy case against the
Clinton campaign. Also, saying the evidence was forged isn't compatible
with the charge that it was stolen. Pick a lane!
I think misappropriated and misrepresented.
Spun, for sure, but to no advantage. The FBI's response, to quote,
"amounted to investigating it, alerting the press there was nothing to
it, then dismissing it pretty quickly..."
Long enough for the dem run MSM to yack it up for a week or more.
If you want a long yack, look to the right. Y'all never give up anything.
"But, her emails!"
They will go down in infamy....just before the great insurrection.

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-25 18:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
You're trying to divert from how weak the Sussmann indictment is and
what a long-shot is the chance of a fraud-conspiracy case against the
Clinton campaign. Also, saying the evidence was forged isn't compatible
with the charge that it was stolen. Pick a lane!
I think misappropriated and misrepresented.
Spun, for sure, but to no advantage. The FBI's response, to quote,
"amounted to investigating it, alerting the press there was nothing to
it, then dismissing it pretty quickly..."
Long enough for the dem run MSM to yack it up for a week or more.
If you want a long yack, look to the right. Y'all never give up anything.
"But, her emails!"
They will go down in infamy....just before the great insurrection.
See? Like that.

Loading...