Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 11:08 am

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 11:03 am

More questions.  I'll answer.

That link, on another thread, is informing you that SUSSMANN and his lawyers are telling you that.  As I have often said let the court's figure it out.

Additionally, that same link informs you that is the ONLY FACT that SUSSMANN and the lawyers are saying is wrong,  

The narrative, based on the filing and the article, is accurate.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics ... index.html

"Tech Executive-1." In 2016, Joffe, who has not been previously identified, worked with researchers to collect internet data about the Trump Organization that Sussmann took to the FBI


Do you want to confirm the date of that story?

 

I did not post that link.  Here is the link I posted, moron:

That seems to be the case the case for the meeting with the CIA:

The five-year statute of limitations appears to have passed for Durham to accuse Sussmann of any wrongdoing related to his meeting with the CIA.

The other issue is Sussmann's attorney's are only denying one fact from the Factual Background section of the filing.

They said Durham had a fact wrong: that Sussmann told the CIA about internet data related to Russian phones being used around the White House before Trump was President, and not from after he took office.

Durham's most recent assertions in court about Sussmann implied that the CIA heard from him about Russian phones being used around the White House after Trump became President as a way to raise the intelligence communities' suspicions about Trump.

But Sussmann says that isn't so

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics ... index.html

They did not address any other allegations, particularly Trump Tower

My answer stands.  If you have a new point you would like to make go ahead and make.  Until then the courts will figure it out.  

 

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 11:11 am

I did not post that link.  Here is the link I posted, moron:

That seems to be the case the case for the meeting with the CIA:

The five-year statute of limitations appears to have passed for Durham to accuse Sussmann of any wrongdoing related to his meeting with the CIA.

The other issue is Sussmann's attorney's are only denying one fact from the Factual Background section of the filing.

They said Durham had a fact wrong: that Sussmann told the CIA about internet data related to Russian phones being used around the White House before Trump was President, and not from after he took office.

Durham's most recent assertions in court about Sussmann implied that the CIA heard from him about Russian phones being used around the White House after Trump became President as a way to raise the intelligence communities' suspicions about Trump.

But Sussmann says that isn't so

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics ... index.html

They did not address any other allegations, particularly Trump Tower

My answer stands.  If you have a new point you would like to make go ahead and make.  Until then the courts will figure it out.

Basically, Clinton Campaign Lawyers got a tech company to data mine the servers of both Trump towers AND the servers in the White House after Trump took office

Are those your words?

golfboy » 12 Feb 2022, 7:14 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2022, 7:14 pm

New Durham Filing: Clinton Campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia

Now we're actually getting into it. 

Durham has filed papers linking the Hillary campaign to illegal spying in/on the Trump campaign.

Maybe you should have read the filing instead of just watching FOX News.
The word 'infiltrate' does not appear anywhere in it.
Nor is there anything about wiretapping or hacking by the Clinton campaign.

golfboy » 12 Feb 2022, 7:14 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2022, 7:14 pm

Tell me how this is different than Watergate.

Watergate was real.
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 8:50 am

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 8:46 am

I'd like to see a citation supporting the elements of this narrative.

It is in the OP.  Go read it.  IF you really would like to see it. There is also a copy of the court filing posted.  If you are really interested.

The source used in the OP is FOX News.
They are the ones reporting that the Clinton campaign 'infiltrated' the Trump campaign or WH.
There is no mention of any infiltration or hacking or wiretapping in the Durham filing.
Nor does it make any connection to Hillary or her campaign.

Trump's DNI John Ratcliffe had to admit on Fox News that there was nothing really illegal about how that data was obtained.

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/stat ... 6887869443
 

golfboy » 16 Feb 2022, 8:07 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2022, 8:07 pm

Crazytrain » 16 Feb 2022, 7:52 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2022, 7:52 pm

Well this OP and fox news lied again folks.

Sorry *******, but the indictments say you're a liar.

Who has been indicted for infiltrating, spying on, hacking or wiretapping the Trump WH or Trump Tower?
 

Misty » 17 Feb 2022, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 8:19 pm

The source used in the OP is FOX News.
They are the ones reporting that the Clinton campaign 'infiltrated' the Trump campaign or WH.
There is no mention of any infiltration or hacking or wiretapping in the Durham filing.
Nor does it make any connection to Hillary or her campaign.

Trump's DNI John Ratcliffe had to admit on Fox News that there was nothing really illegal about how that data was obtained.

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/stat ... 6887869443

Wait til you get a load of how  @Huey  rstionalizes that.

 

I guess no one even bothered to read Durham's court filing.

The Words ‘Infiltrate’ and ‘Spy’ Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham’s Recent Court Filing. Here’s What It Actually Says — and What It Doesn’t.
 

Misty » 17 Feb 2022, 8:24 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 8:24 pm

Who has been indicted for infiltrating, spying on, hacking or wiretapping the Trump WH or Trump Tower?

No one.  Yet.   But his filing said it happened.   You read it, right?
"Tasked these researchers to mine internet data to establish 'an inference' and 'narrative' tying then-candidate Trump to Russia". 


 

Misty » 17 Feb 2022, 8:03 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 8:03 pm

Maybe you should have read the filing instead of just watching FOX News.
The word 'infiltrate' does not appear anywhere in it.
Nor is there anything about wiretapping or hacking by the Clinton campaign.

Watergate was real.

Too bad you're wrong.  Which shows YOU didn't read it. 

golfboy » 17 Feb 2022, 9:56 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:56 pm

No one.  Yet.   But his filing said it happened.   You read it, right?
"Tasked these researchers to mine internet data to establish 'an inference' and 'narrative' tying then-candidate Trump to Russia".

so candidate not new president?  got it.

golfboy » 17 Feb 2022, 9:57 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:57 pm

Too bad you're wrong.  Which shows YOU didn't read it.

Goofball,

Even ​​​​​​@Huey  , Kneepadder, 1st Class w/Oak Leaf Cluster, is slinking away from this...
 

golfboy » 17 Feb 2022, 9:57 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:57 pm

Too bad you're wrong.  Which shows YOU didn't read it.

I read it... from cover to cover...all thirteen pages... and the word "infiltrate" does not appear once.  Which shows that your dyslexia/aphasia/mental retardation is real.  But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.  Here is the filing...just tell me the page # that "infiltrate" appears - assuming it actually does appear there, which we both know it does NOT - and you will be vindicated!

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ling-21122
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Feb 2022, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2022, 9:32 am

Goofball,

Even ​​​​​​@Huey  , Kneepadder, 1st Class w/Oak Leaf Cluster, is slinking away from this...

I am not slinking away.  Although in the motion Durham never said what the time frame was CONCERNING THE WH DATA Fox reported it as during the Trump Administration, which was incorrect.  This is their Bloomberg moment.

Next, you still have the data from Trump Towers.  That is not being disputed by Sussmann.  Additionally, all of this is in the factual background section, not where the charges are.  The WH was mentioned because one of Sussmann’s lawyers worked at the WH as Deputy WH Counsel when it occurred and may be a conflict of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/us/d ... trump.html

Additionally, I have posted Sussman’s stance on the WH portion earlier in the week.  No sir, you are lying again when you claim I am slinking away.

maineman » 18 Feb 2022, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2022, 9:41 am

I read it... from cover to cover...all thirteen pages... and the word "infiltrate" does not appear once.  Which shows that your dyslexia/aphasia/mental retardation is real.  But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.  Here is the filing...just tell me the page # that "infiltrate" appears - assuming it actually does appear there, which we both know it does NOT - and you will be vindicated!

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ling-21122

May not have the word "infiltrate in the filing.  But what the hell do the terms "assemble purported data", "exploitwed his access to NON-public and/or proprietarty internet data",  "mine internet data to estanblish an inference and narrative"  mean"?  Sounds like spying and infiltrating!!!

Buffalo » 18 Feb 2022, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2022, 10:05 am

May not have the word "infiltrate in the filing.  But what the hell do the terms "assemble purported data", "exploitwed his access to NON-public and/or proprietarty internet data",  "mine internet data to estanblish an inference and narrative"  mean"?  Sounds like spying and infiltrating!!!

"sounds like"  Are we **** playing CHARADES?  How many syllables??  

The fact remains... @golfboy  claimed that the word was in there and it isn't.  Ergo...he's a **** liar.  

Huey » 18 Feb 2022, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2022, 9:43 am

I am not slinking away.  Although in the motion Durham never said what the time frame was CONCERNING THE WH DATA Fox reported it as during the Trump Administration, which was incorrect.  This is their Bloomberg moment.

Next, you still have the data from Trump Towers.  That is not being disputed by Sussmann.  Additionally, all of this is in the factual background section, not where the charges are.  The WH was mentioned because one of Sussmann’s lawyers worked at the WH as Deputy WH Counsel when it occurred and may be a conflict of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/us/d ... trump.html

Additionally, I have posted Sussman’s stance on the WH portion earlier in the week.  No sir, you are lying again when you claim I am slinking away.

THE WH DATA Fox reported it as during the Trump Administration, which was incorrect.  This is their Bloomberg moment.

what were these frequent FOX **** called before 2017?

Does your narrative remain unchallenged, or do you now acknowledge that it is ****?

Please don't add more unnecessary words to your diet.
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Feb 2022, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2022, 10:26 am

what were these frequent FOX **** called before 2017?

Does your narrative remain unchallenged, or do you now acknowledge that it is ****?

Please don't add more unnecessary words to your diet.

And there is the yeah butt argument to divert…..

Not interested in your games.

As far as the narrative, wait for it.
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 8:41 am

Basically, Clinton Campaign Lawyers got a tech company to data mine the servers of both Trump towers AND the servers in the White House after Before Trump took office to try and create a narrative that Trump was working with the Russians.  The tech company has access to the WH thru a contract to access and maintain the servers. 

In a sense, the computer digital equivalent of breaking into the Watergate Hotel.  When one of the Lawyers was interviewed by the FBI he lied by saying he was not representing any client.  His billable hours got him caught.

@Blackvegetable  

There is the corrected version.
 
 
 

Huey » 18 Feb 2022, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2022, 10:39 am

@Blackvegetable  

There is the corrected version.

Give it a rest, Ruby..

Pry the hook out of your gullet.
 

Huey » 18 Feb 2022, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2022, 10:38 am

And there is the yeah butt argument to divert…..

Not interested in your games.

As far as the narrative, wait for it.

Sheilagh,

This was nothing like the incident in 2017.

YOU went there.

As far as the narrative, wait for it.

Your acknowledgement that it was ****.....as I pointed out from the start?