Court filings are not the same as “anonymous sources“ the Trump media critics so often rely on. Court filings are filed under the threat of sanctions if they are determined to be groundless.
What to make of the Durham filing?
- Thread starter Courtsensetwo
- Start date
There is a huge gap between "groundless" and "proven". You know as well as anyone that prosecutors make filings every day and fail to prove them in court.
If your point is that Durham’s filing is still to be proven, you are correct. But if your point is that the allegation is not based on investigation leading to a sound good faith belief that is true and can be proven you are wrong.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
yea, trumpers never rely on anonymous sources when spouting their conspiracies on this board.
You mean like all those groundless pleadings filed by Trump's lawyers in the days following the Nov 2020 election?
there are the court filings and there is the interpretation. There was a group of cyber researchers hired by the government to investigate Russian cyber crime. That group had legal access to said data. So "infiltration" appears unlikely, they didn't have to infiltrate anything.
Even that this was on behalf of Clinton seems unproven. From the Wiki, bolding is mine:
In a December 2021 court filing, Sussmann's attorneys presented portions of two documents provided to them by Durham days earlier which they asserted undermined the indictment. One document was a summary of an interview Durham's investigators conducted with Baker in June 2020 in which he did not say that Sussmann told him he was not there on behalf of any client, but rather that Baker had assumed it and that the issue never came up. A second document was a June 2019 Justice Department inspector general interview with Baker in which he said the Sussmann meeting "related to strange interactions that some number of people that were his clients, who were, he described as I recall it, sort of cybersecurity experts, had found." The New York Times reported that the narrow charge against Sussmann was contained in a 27-page indictment that elaborated on activities of cybersecurity researchers who were not charged, including what their attorneys asserted were selected email excerpts that falsely portrayed them as not actually believing their claims. Trump and his supporters seized on that information to assert the Alfa-Bank matter was a hoax devised by Clinton supporters and so the Trump-Russia investigation had been unjustified. Sussmann's attorneys told the court that the new evidence "underscores the baseless and unprecedented nature of this indictment" and asked that his trial date be moved from July to May 2022.[12] A Durham prosecutor later asserted that subsequent to his 2019 and 2020 interviews, Baker "affirmed and then re-affirmed his now-clear recollection of the defendant’s false statement" after refreshing his memory with contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous notes.[13]
Being a court filing, it is based on a sound good faith belief that is true and can be proven.Both sides have normalized piss poor individual behavior…same as we’ve normalized piss poor parenting.
ftw's post right before yours shows both media sides use unnamed sources.
They are all pushing bulls*** for ratings.
Yep. Ratings and agenda. Have to follow the filings and let the "upon information and belief" be vetted
If you invite me into your house to have a beer, and I use your bathroom, and then look in your cabinet to see what kinds of meds you are on, I think I have infiltrated your medical data.
Since they were all groundless I assume you can explain the seemingly coordinated stoppage of counting ballots at about the same time early in the am by, again coincidentally, several swing states. Haven't seen that explanation so I assume, since you made the "groundless" comment, you could provide? Thanks.
Only conspiracies if they don't turn out to be true. Just because a Democrat media outlet says something is not true doesn't make it so. Remember the Wuhan lab was a conspiracy?
If I invite you into my house to investigate a family member's drug use and you look in the medicine cabinet?
At the moment, Joffe is not accused of anything. So reading the court filings, nothing yet.
The salient question is what was done with the data in each instance. You can be paid to collect data for a certain job and the collection of that is fine, sharing that data with a third party is where you get into dodgey behavior.
So the fact that data was also being collected during the Obama administration does not really strike me as information that exonerates anyone from the crimes being accused in the court filings.
The NYT story is to make people like IUHickory spike the ball in the endzone. I mean, there is a penalty flag out on the field but his team is in the endzone so no story here. And all that matters is the early narrative because people like Hickory still believe Russian Collusion happened, COVID was likely to have jumped from an animal to a human, and that masking kids in school helps slow the spread of the same. All the news stations know that the most important part of these stories is establishing the narrative early. People will cling to those narratives like the edge of a cliff they are trying to keep from falling from.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
no media outlet has a perfect record with the truth but I'd take liberal media over the bs that gets spewed on fox news by tucker carlson and their constant barrage of bull crap.
You tell me. Was the "coordinated stoppage" allegation the subject of any of the post-election pleadings? If so, whoever made the allegation lost.
Again this has been debunked ad nauseum. I've personally posted video from Nevada (3 hrs behind East coast states) that shows the count in NV was ongoing at the same time you claim that counting was "simultaneously stopped" in all the swing states...This is just more lies for the stupid to believe- no offense, but you posted it so evidently you believe it...
Any of this confusion could all have been eliminated had Trump, and Trump controlled GOP Legislatures in swing states allowed mail in ballots to be counted first like they did in OH and FL. The Dem Governors in states like PA and WI urged the Legislatures to allow all the mail votes to be counted first, because they knew that opening and sorting them was a tedious time consuming task that would delay the count for several days.
But doing so would destroy the Trump narrative that he was ahead and that it was "late ballots" that were illegal and cost him those states. They knew their supporters would fall for such ridiculous nonsense, and that is exactly why they made sure mail/early votes were counted last in PA,MI,WI etc. Voila, "we wuz cheated", and evidently you fell for it hook, line and sinker...
We're actually in agreement that when/if they ever uncover any actual wrongdoing they should punish whoever is holding that bag to the fullest extent of the law. If they discover that the Clintons are actually the crime family Republicans have tried to paint them out to be, then by all means, punish them.
If that's the way the facts played out, fine. Conversely, I'm certain there would be people whining, bitching and moaning about a witch hunt if anyone even hinted at any further criminal activity Trump might've committed.
I was replying to something that offered a plausible explanation. Is it validated or absolving for anyone? No. Will it matter if it is eventually validated or absolving? Again, as far as the MAGA crowd is concerned, also no.
So I haven't seen if you weighed in on the issue of Trump cutting the CDC staff in China in summer 2019...Can you explain why you're so upset and convinced of the validity of a lab leak theory that is controversial and shaky at best, but you evidently don't share the same conviction over a matter that is part of the historical record and an established fact? Ever since the Bush Admin the US maintained US personnel embedded within the Chinese CDC whose job it was to investigate and keep track of any possible disease out breaks in China and keep the US Govt informed.
We know Trump basically ended that oversight in Summer 2019,when they informed the epidemiologist embedded in China (Dr Linda Quick) that they would no longer fund her. Now if the Chinese are responsible for covid, don't you think the removal of the watchdog responsible for preventing exactly that situation 5 mos or so before covid emerged is a MONUMENTAL issue? Esp when the whole motivation behind all of these "cost savings measures" was to divert funds to his pet project- The Wall...
My argument is we have no idea what happened or if it was illegal. I suspect DNS data is routinely sold.
I think the ball is being spiked on both sides.
If anyone committed a crime, try, convict, sentence.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
nice post as always.
btw, I wonder how that wall is coming. did it protect us from anything? definitely didn't keep the pandemic at bay.
Have the mexicans sent in any sort of payment for the wall?
Inquiring minds want to know...although i'm sure the conservatives on this board don't want to dig into that
The only "indictment" is for Sussmann supposedly claiming that he wasn't working for a client which he disputes. Even that charge is based on Baker's notes, relayed to another agent who was apparently debriefing him following the meeting between Sussmann and Baker. It's not really even "he said- he said" because the agent interpreting Baker's notes wasn't really sure what his shorthand means...
My understanding of the tech experts who broached the connection between Trump's servers and Alfa bank, was that they found it in April 2016 and were alarmed. Pretty sure there was heightened scrutiny of a Trump/Russia link at that point, because in March/April 2016 the Trump campaign hired both Carter Page and Paul Manafort, who both had ties either directly or indirectly to Putin. If you aren't aware of those ties I'll explain them, but for now I'll just make the point...
Also, in April 2016 the Free Beacon may still have been investigating Trump on behalf of the Rubio campaign, funding the investigation being conducted by Fusion GPS. At any rate, Cruz and Kasich were still actively campaigning, so the idea that the Clinton campaign was trying to "subvert" Trump is ludicrous at best, since both Cruz and Kasich were viewed as more dangerous adversaries in a general election. On top of that my understanding was that Sussmann was the legal rep for the Tech experts, who were generally alarmed by the connection they saw between Alfa and the Trump campaign.
What gets seemingly obscured is the fact that Team Trump (and esp Trump himself in speeches etc...) made moves, comments etc... that generally alarmed members of the intelligence world in Spring 2016. Steele wasn't even a part of things yet, although when Fusion approached him in the next couple of months he agreed because what he had read about Trump and possible ties to Russia concerned him.
People didn't just "create" this false narrative about Trump/Russia. People were legitimately concerned ,and based on what they found while working for Rubio, Fusion wanted to investigate further, even though they no longer had a role in opposition research for Rubio after he dropped out...
nice post as always.
btw, I wonder how that wall is coming. did it protect us from anything? definitely didn't keep the pandemic at bay.
Have the mexicans sent in any sort of payment for the wall?
Inquiring minds want to know...although i'm sure the conservatives on this board don't want to dig into that
I’m not going to make a decision on the Durham filing until we hear from Adam Schiff.nice post as always.
btw, I wonder how that wall is coming. did it protect us from anything? definitely didn't keep the pandemic at bay.
Have the mexicans sent in any sort of payment for the wall?
Inquiring minds want to know...although i'm sure the conservatives on this board don't want to dig into that
The Morning Joe breakdown on this is pretty illuminating. The indictment against Sussmann is the epitome of weak, and I doubt anything any more significant is coming...
Surprise, surprise that Fox and the Post don't even report on anything to do with Jan 6 revelations, and act like this is anywhere near to Watergate...
Following me around again, danc? Bizarre, to say the least.
But while you're here, read this (below). You might learn something.
"[T]he lawsuits . . . were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence." Do you know what lack of evidence means, danc? It means there was nothing to support the claims. In other words, the cases were meritless. Baseless. Groundless.
"Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign
Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented...
www.reuters.com
OMFG...you guys are Trump 24/7. I wasn't even discussing blame, I was discussing lying about what happened and the inability for people to buy it. And right on cue you come around and "but whatabout Trump..." my post wasn't about assigning blame, it was about the narratives built up around events and the fact that people cannot let go of them.
Blame Trump, blame Fauci, blame the people before them, blame the U.S. government for being involved in this shit to begin with. We shouldn't need oversight because we shouldn't be playing footsie with the ****ing Chinese on anything to begin with. They cannot be trusted to do anything above board. And that blame goes all the way back to Bush the Elder who saw them as an opportunity to make money as opposed to the evil ****ing bastards they are.
So your turn, you ready to stop your reflexive clinging to narratives you have been fed by your propagandists of choice and just admit they lied to you? Because they did.
But look how clean our air is! Since we moved all our manufacturing to China!
The real smart move was when we let China manufacturer medicine.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I wonder if he understands why Giuliani's law license is suspended.Following me around again, danc? Bizarre, to say the least.
But while you're here, read this (below). You might learn something.
"[T]he lawsuits . . . were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence." Do you know what lack of evidence means, danc? It means there was nothing to support the claims. In other words, the cases were meritless. Baseless. Groundless.
"Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign
Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented...
"He said if the Durham allegations are proven true, “it would be one of the biggest scandals in American history".”
and what if the Clinton allegations are also true?
how big a scandal is that?
and which is the biggest scandal???
is this not a turd calling the sht brown fest???
and what if the Clinton allegations are also true?
how big a scandal is that?
and which is the biggest scandal???
is this not a turd calling the sht brown fest???
I know it means one person decided there wasn't enough evidence and that it didn't go to court.Following me around again, danc? Bizarre, to say the least.
But while you're here, read this (below). You might learn something.
"[T]he lawsuits . . . were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence." Do you know what lack of evidence means, danc? It means there was nothing to support the claims. In other words, the cases were meritless. Baseless. Groundless.
"Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign
Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented...
If you think that clears anyone of anything, you're even dumber than I thought.
" We shouldn't need oversight because we shouldn't be playing footsie with the ****ing Chinese on anything to begin with. They cannot be trusted to do anything above board. And that blame goes all the way back to Bush the Elder who saw them as an opportunity to make money as opposed to the evil ****ing bastards they are."
Pretty sure the whole rationale for establishing a WATCHDOG agency was the mutual belief that Govts couldn't be trusted, so we needed someone on the ground...Kind of exactly what you said, although you characterize us establishing a watchdog in China as "playing footsie" with them...Pretty sure all of this arose out of Ebola, and the fact that without observers in places like Tanzania and Angola the world was caught flatfooted by the emergence of a horrible plague...
I pointed out that you're upset because a controversial theory that you believe and is still widely disputed places blame on Fauci (I guess). But when I present actual FACTS- that Trump cut the budget for a watchdog program, you claim that I'm the one what abouting or shifting the goal post...
Your argument is based on speculation- and very intelligent people disagree. My point is a FACT- the Trump Admin cut funding for the program and the Epidemiologist left. Now we can argue over whether having an observer would have made a difference, and nipped the whole mess in the bud. THAT is speculation... But there is no argument that the Trump Admin (for whatever reason) informed the CDC that they were cutting the budget, and Dr Quick who had been in the post since Obama was forced to return to the states...In late summer 2019...
Seems to me that's where the whole story originates...
Wait, you mean not having enough evidence to bring it to trial does NOT equal exoneration? So we're agreed that when Mueller said there wasn't enough evidence to charge Trump with Obstruction of Justice, he wasn't saying Trump was innocent of that particular offense? Good to know...
It means one person decided there was no evidence of fraud large enough to change the result.
The one person was a judge.
In several cases the judge was appointed by DJT.
Well, that's always been your position, but it's a bad analogy.
There was a 2 1/2 year investigation into Trump. The Trump campaigan had - what - 6 weeks to gather any evidence?
But it's cute you're trying to draw some kind of comparison.
So a judge is supposed to support whoever appointed him? What's that got to do with it?
Are judges infallable?
