The Real Disinformation - spying on the president

[Wayward Son]

That is a question that Crunch's original post did not answer: why did Trump supposedly allow this company access to the White House computers after he took office?  Isn't White House security one of the first things an administration checks once it takes control? 

[kidv]

That is a question that Crunch's original post did not answer: why did Trump supposedly allow this company access to the White House computers after he took office?  Isn't White House security one of the first things an administration checks once it takes control? 

It didn't.  Or, the reporting that Crunch's original post refers to, and Crunch's original post, is misinformation.  The "bomb drop" from Durham, and the way Durham referred to it apparently intentionally in his filing, failed to acknowledge that White House DNS tracking Durham referred to in his filing and the tracking data which was referred to the CIA happened during Obama's presidency prior to Trump's inauguration.

Projection.  Not an actual issue.  Disinformation.

[Fenring]

'Crown Prosecutor' is a mistranslation.  He was referring to the Russian prosecutor-general - equivalent to the US Attorney General in terms of role in the legal system and power.  The individual is completely beholden to Putin.

Sure, ok, but that doesn't materially affect the core of my post. The main issue is that private information brokers were selling (or claimed to be). They maybe got it from Putin's minions, maybe not (Goldstone said so, is all we know). Even if they did, what other information came from the same place that both parties make use of over time? Note again that the 'Russian lawyer' was working for GPS Fusion, which helped American interests all the time. Who is to say where they were getting their info over the years? Trust me, no one wanted to know, they just wanted the dirt.

Goldstone is being used as a back channel.  Goldstone's emails and calls aren't going to be closely monitored by the US nor British intelligence agencies; whereas a direct contact by any of the Russians mentioned would have been.  Goldstone is a prior acquaintance of Don Jr. so again this avoids any red flags.  (So even if keywords that trigger monitoring occurred, an analyst would likely not be tasked/allowed to read the email).

Heh, obviously he was a back channel. But as a music publicist this is an insane left-turn to make unless you were already working as a go-between in the information business. All I was saying is that it's really unclear who are what this guy is, in terms of our ability to treat his email as gospel. Is he a dufus, an old-time pro, an exaggerator, a trickster? Hard to say without research.

We don't know what was said in the meeting.  Lies were told repeatedly about various aspect of the meeting and only after irrefutable evidence was provided did the story change, and only enough to craft a new narrative that took into account the proof they could no longer lie about.

Right, we don't know. All we know (that you have cited) is the content of an email, which was either a trick, or misinformed, or maybe something else. I see no case for "Russian collusion" unless your claim is any information originating from Russia makes the user of that information a Russian colluder, even if they did not deal directly with Russia in obtaining it. If that's collusion then probably half the U.S. government colludes with Russia all the time.

[yossarian22c]

That is a question that Crunch's original post did not answer: why did Trump supposedly allow this company access to the White House computers after he took office?  Isn't White House security one of the first things an administration checks once it takes control? 

It didn't.  Or, the reporting that Crunch's original post refers to, and Crunch's original post, is misinformation.  The "bomb drop" from Durham, and the way Durham referred to it apparently intentionally in his filing, failed to acknowledge that White House DNS tracking Durham referred to in his filing and the tracking data which was referred to the CIA happened during Obama's presidency prior to Trump's inauguration.

Projection.  Not an actual issue.  Disinformation.

In Crunch's true style, he did name the thread "the real disinformation - spying on the president." A little on the nose. I'm sure he is enjoying a good chuckle at his play on words and meaning.

[TheDrake]

I wonder what would happen if Biden's people had met with people that had ties to the Chinese government to dig up dirt on Trump. As it is, conservatives are running around saying how Biden colludes with China based on far less evidence.

[Fenring]

I wonder what would happen if Biden's people had met with people that had ties to the Chinese government to dig up dirt on Trump. As it is, conservatives are running around saying how Biden colludes with China based on far less evidence.

Well I have heard conservatives going on over 20 years already saying that the DNC is working with China. I never researched to see if this was a credible claim or not, but it's oft repeated.

[TheDrake]

If that's collusion then probably half the U.S. government colludes with Russia all the time.

Possibly true, but everyone but Trump's people have been in the game long enough to not ham-hand it with a direct meeting. Then lie about the meeting. Then claim the meeting was perfect.

Barry Bonds didn't make the hall of fame. Not because he was the only guy taking performance enhancing drugs, but because he didn't just confess and take his lumps. Trump's people probably could have made this go away, if they were capable of saying they made a mistake. Same with Pete Rose. Repent, say you're sorry, and move on.

[kidv]

For anybody interested in primary sources, here is Sussman's motion to dismiss his indictment from Durham for lack of materiality.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21226673-220217-sussmann-motion-to-dismiss


While the argument is of course on behalf of Sussman, the statement of the case and direct description of the actual filed documents should be illuminating as a baseline of what Durham has actually claimed, included, and not included in his court filings.

In the fall of 2016, Michael Sussmann, a prominent national security lawyer, voluntarily met with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to pass along information that raised national security concerns. He met with the FBI, in other words, to provide a tip. There is no allegation in the Indictment that the tip he provided was false. And there is no allegation that he believed that the tip he provided was false. Rather, Mr. Sussmann has been charged with making a false statement about an entirely ancillary matter—about who his client may have been when he met with the FBI—which is a fact that even the Special Counsel’s own Indictment fails to allege had any effect on the FBI’s decision to open an investigation. Case 1:21-cr-00582

[TheDrake]

Yeah. The Michael Flynn defense. Sure I lied to the FBI but not about that thing, I lied about some other thing. My answer then, as now, is don't lie to the FBI. It may be technically correct as apparently worked for Flynn to get his charges dropped because the question he lied in response was not "material" to the investigation.

[kidv]

Yeah. The Michael Flynn defense. Sure I lied to the FBI but not about that thing, I lied about some other thing. My answer then, as now, is don't lie to the FBI. It may be technically correct as apparently worked for Flynn to get his charges dropped because the question he lied in response was not "material" to the investigation.

Sussman disagrees that he lied, even about "the other thing," which is not the point of the quote.

[TheDrake]

Yeah. The Michael Flynn defense. Sure I lied to the FBI but not about that thing, I lied about some other thing. My answer then, as now, is don't lie to the FBI. It may be technically correct as apparently worked for Flynn to get his charges dropped because the question he lied in response was not "material" to the investigation.

Sussman disagrees that he lied, even about "the other thing," which is not the point of the quote.

I find the defense "I had no idea who I was working for" to be incredible. I'm a lawyer, but I never asked who my client was. Okay, sure. No, I don't buy it, go directly to jail. The document hammers on the materiality question, I suspect because they know he's dead to rights on making the statement.

Otherwise, they could just say "oh, as a matter of course, none of the lawyers in the firm are told who their clients are".

[kidv]

This may be facilitating misinformation by providing a quote that's not a quote and which is an exaggeration. 

The quote from the indictment of the claimed false statement is that

"42  . . . a. SUSSMAN stated falsely - as he previously had stated to the FBI General Counsel - that 'he was not representing a particular client.' In truth and in fact, and as SUSSMAN had acknowledged to the Former Employee just days earlier, SUSSMAN was representing a client."  (see indictment)(emphasis added) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21080001-210916-sussmann-indictment

Legal commenters have stated that if this can be proved, it potentially could be convicted, and the materiality standard is so ridiculously overbroad that it shouldn't matter.  I'm not trying to get into the weeds on this.  If the statement were, as TheDrake hypothesizes, something like ~"I don't know who my clients' are," then I would agree this is another example of don't lie to the FBI about anything.    But my attorney armchair observation of this is that it seems rational for this guy's defense to be ~"It wasn't a secret that my clients included the Clinton campaign, I had told people about that and the FBI knew.  On that particular day I was not talking on behalf of any particular client, I genuinely thought this was something the FBI should check out."  Unfortunately Sussman would need to testify and waive his fifth amendment to raise that defense fully, and go through a trial.
[If Sussman was indeed trying to pull a fast one, and saying, ~"aw shucks, I just came across this," because he was trying to obscure that he was indeed meeting with the FBI at least partly to further his clients' interest, then I'd say that was stupid. But even there this seems like a he said / she said as to his state of mind.] 

With that, this seems more an example of "never talk to the FBI at all, because they can find a way to charge you for virtually any statement you make."
And also, wow, "don't try to play cutesy when you talk to the FBI."

[kidv]

This following seems to be a more sensible framework for the Durham story overall, which we will see play out:

Durham’s indictment, which is based on the testimony of one witness who has contradicted himself, claims Sussmann committed perjury by denying he was working for the Clinton campaign at the time he brought his information about Trump’s Russian ties to the FBI in 2016. The false statement claim is a laughably small crime to serve as the centerpiece of Durham’s $4 million investigation, which has produced two indictments. (By contrast, Robert Mueller indicted 34 people as part of his Russia probe.)

As journalist Marcy Wheeler details, Durham’s allegation is based on the central claim that Sussmann had secretly “coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign.” When Sussmann’s lawyers in a court filing last October demanded to know with whom Sussmann had directly plotted with on the Clinton campaign, Durham refused name anyone. That’s because at the time, Durham had not interviewed anyone with the Clinton campaign to see if Sussman had coordinated with them.

https://pressrun.media/p/the-media-and-durhams-corrupt-spying?utm_source=url

[LetterRip]

It isn't perjury, the charge is false statements to a federal officer.

https://www.pagepate.com/experience/criminal-defense/federal-crimes/false-statement-charges/

[TheDrake]

And also, wow, "don't try to play cutesy when you talk to the FBI."

This. Don't sit down with law enforcement and try to hide anything. If you are legally prevented from doing so, you say, "I'm sorry, I can't answer that question without violating attourney-client privilege."

Also, how dumb do you have to be to not only agree to such an interview, but in this case, he requested it to give them a tip and then wasn't prepared to give full disclosure of everything associated with the information.

[msquared]

Doesn't he watch TV? That is what phone booths are for.  Just remember to wear gloves so you don't leave finger printed on the handset.

[LetterRip]

Contemporaneous documents held by the FBI, and the FBI attorney's testimony under oath before congress establish that Sussmann didn't lie, and also that the FBI were aware of who his clients were.  So it seems like this should be dismissed with prejudice since neither the claim that he lied; nor the claim that it hampered the investigation can be established beyond reasonable doubt.

[TheDrake]

The contemporaneous document lists him as representing that he said he was not doing this for any client.

I think what we know is that he didn't tell the FBI "My client is the Clinton Campaign"

Baker's later testimony doesn't claim that, he just says "I don't remember". Not entirely an exoneration bomb.

Do I think he'd be convicted? Probably not, there is reasonable doubt.

[LetterRip]

The contemporaneous document lists him as representing that he said he was not doing this for any client.

No it doesn't a second hand hearsay report says that.  All of the reports and statements and testimony under oath by the individual in the room contradict it.  Hearsay is generally inadmissible.  The US attorney he talked to would have had to commit perjury and have filed false reports and statements for the charge to be true.  For the charge to be false, merely requires that the person the US attorney talked to to have misheard or misinterpreted what he said when giving a second hand report.

[TheDrake]

So there are only a few alternatives.

They never asked him who hired him.
They asked, and he gave them a straight answer.
They asked, and said he was not representing a specific client, a lie
They asked and he said something evasive but not a lie

What probabilities would you put on those scenarios, LR? I'm not asking what can be proven sufficiently to convict.

Do you really think he didn't hide the identity of his client?

[msquared]

What is the real dis information?  Maybe how Fox and others are spinning this.

https://www.businessinsider.com/durham-says-media-may-have-misinterpreted-previous-filing-2022-2?fbclid=IwAR2mqyIVX3XQ3LeG58d0bdJ1wy1Y7g-myI6SJORujjFJeTR0JgpQJZtHkMA

Even the guy doing the filing says they might have it wrong.

[LetterRip]

So there are only a few alternatives.

They never asked him who hired him.
They asked, and he gave them a straight answer.
They asked, and said he was not representing a specific client, a lie
They asked and he said something evasive but not a lie

What probabilities would you put on those scenarios, LR?

I'd put 1 at 50%, 4 at 25%, 2, at 20%, and 3 at 5%.  A former prosecutor isn't going to lie to the FBI intentionally, and the FBI attorney's statements, testimony, and notes are most consistent with not asking.  There really was no reason to, it was something he already knew.

Do you really think he didn't hide the identity of his client?

There was no need to, the evidence was sufficient to open an investigation and it was known who his clients were.

[cherrypoptart]

This lady seems to know what she's talking about. Her credentials are nice but the real reason she seems legit is of course because we agree.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/17/durham-report-proves-hillary-clinton-was-putins-puppet-not-trump/

"Since 2016, Hillary Clinton has been trolling Donald Trump on social media over his alleged ties to Russia, calling him “Putin’s Puppet.” But Special Counsel John Durham’s probe has uncovered the truth about who was Putin’s Puppet. It was Clinton herself.

She and the Obama-Biden administration spy agency chiefs and their corrupt minions were unknowingly, or perhaps even knowingly, Putin’s little helpers in tearing our country apart.

It turns out that Clinton and her top foreign policy advisor, Jake Sullivan, spread a bogus Trump-Russia “collusion” narrative. To enable this Soviet-style disinformation campaign, Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign hired a tech firm to “infiltrate” servers at Trump Tower in Manhattan and at the White House in order to link Donald Trump to Russia."

-------------------------------------------

It can take a while for the truth to come out and sometimes it never does but I'm glad at least in this case we're finally getting it. It was Hillary Clinton all along. I mean we knew it of course. Everyone did. But it's nice to finally start seeing the proof of her prints all over the cookie jar.

[kidv]

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/17/the-durham-investigation-has-lasted-50-longer-than-the-mueller-investigation/

This lady seems to know what she's talking about.  Her credentials are but the real reason she seems legit is of course because she only cites to primary documents and court filings.


More substantively, the NY Post article cited and quoted above relies on statements and exaggerations which have been disavowed by Durham himself (via court filing) as exaggerations by the media for which Durham disavows responsibility:

If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.

(emphasis added)

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/17/durham-says-hes-not-responsible-for-the-calls-for-death/



This is in reference again to the false claim that anyone "'infiltrate[d]' servers at the [Trump] White House," to which Sussman claims Durham included deliberately vague references solely for political purposes.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21234155-220217-durham-response-motion-to-strike