Durham's investigation of the investigation

You Forgot about the hack of the DNC and DNCC and the involvement of Trump foot soldiers in the distribution of those emails? The meeting at Trump Tower? Paul Manafort’s meetings with and FSB agent and offer to sell information to work off his debts? And all the lies about it. Etc. Etc. Memory issues?

 

This is the best article I have read on this topic that deal with what Joffe and the researchers were doing. I'm cutting and pasting the key paragraphs but the entire article is worth a read.

Rodney Joffe (Tech Executive-1) at Neustar. He worked with DNS researchers across the industry, including at Georgia Tech (university). During this time, Georgia Tech competed for and won a $17million contract from DARPA to find new ways of tracking down hackers using DNS logs.

Thus, Neustar and Georgia Tech analyzing these logs for cybersecurity reasons is totally legitimate. It’s not considered spying, and it’s absolutely nothing like “infiltrating” something.

However, Joffe and the Georgia Tech researchers went beyond their scope, analyzing those logs for what they describe as “legitimate national security concerns”, but which others describe as “derogatory information on Trump”. National security and cybersecurity are interrelated after all, in their minds, so if they believe a candidate for President is a Manchurian candidate controlled by the Russians, then in their minds, they are justified for searching the logs for corroboration.

Fact-check: Hillary didn't pay techies to infiltrate Trump Tower or the White House

The question I have and will be interested to hear what the National Security Lawyer types have to say on it, is since DARPA is a Title 10 DoD Agency, did the researchers crossed a legal line when they went from extremely broad data to narrowing down their focus to web traffic of people they knew were US Persons?

 

I posted very early in the thread about this. Sussman has problems because he apparently was representing two clients, Joffre and the Clinton campaign. Both would have expected proper representation. And the interests were not aligned given the duties of each. But, the conflict is very complex and would arise when he had to advise Nustar of the limits of its activities, which may have been at odds with what the campaign wanted. What is interesting is that Sussman billed and was paid by the Clinton campaign. Apparently, Joffre also did. So, while Sussman was paid by the campaign, he may have also had a separate client. But if Sussman paid Nustar, that would make Nustar more of a service provider than a client. And while the data was on Nustar’s servers, White House data is not for distribution.

 

Deep State? Durham Says Hillary Clinton's Campaign Gave CIA Trump's Hacked WH Files, Demanded Probe

People should go to prison for this.

 

There was no "hack." People need to stop saying that or realize that you will not be taken seriously.

What Joffe did was take privileged data that he had access to through government contracts and have researchers data mine it to look for suspicious traffic of the people associated with the Trump Campaign. The researchers wrote a report of dubious quality that was then given to Sussman, representing Joffe and the Clinton Campaign, who took it to the FBI and the CIA.

The outstanding question is if Joffe and the researchers violated the bounds of their government contract and if they violated any laws if they did. If the data came from a DARPA contract, then there could also issues about a Title 10 DOD Agency using its data to monitor the activities of known US Persons.

 

Still trying to keep this nothing burger alive, huh?

I guess cognitive dissonance just won't allow the debunking to set in.

 

. I see a lot of issues in this.
He gave domestic data to the CIA, too. The CIA could only turn it over to the FBI since the CIA cannot conduct domestic surveillance. Joffre may not have known who to give the data to In the government, but that seems doubtful given his position. Assuming Joffre gets a pass for passing the data to the CIA, the next issue is what did the CIA do with that data. It could only legally have passed or to the FBI. And, yes. Hosting web data does not give Joffre the right to give that data to private parties. But, it may be that Sussman did. Critically, and the conflict is this: Sussman had a duty to counsel his client, Joffre, that he could not give the data to the Clinton campaign.

 

Some other things to look at:
-Why did Joffe not turn the report over to the leadership at whatever agency his company had the government contract with? Is it because he knew it fell outside the SoW of the government contract his company had?

-If the report fell outside the SoW of the contract, did the GaTech researchers bill the government for the time they spent developing the report? If so, then that is likely time card fraud. It's a little tick tack but if they spent a lot of time on the report and their bill rates were high enough, it could be a decent amount of money.

 

People need to re-think the way they look at Durham. Garland has let Durham continue. This is not political.

 

While I agree with you 99% of the time, this time I do not. Even if Durham deserved it, there is no way Garland could fire him without causing a very huge outcry. Garland has shown himself to be very averse to allowing any of his actions to be seen as political. In fact, he is being criticized for being a bit too averse to that type of criticism.

I'm not saying that Durham deserves to be fired (nor that he deserves to be retained), but even if he did, Garland would only do it under the most glaringly negative circumstances. He effectively cannot fire Durham except for utterly gross lawlessness.

And let's not forget that Durham was appointed by the ultra-corrupt William Barr specifically to do all he could to cast doubt on the entire Russia investigation. That was his charge. It was not to find the truth per se. It was an effort to defend Trump via the use of the DOJ as Trump's advocate. I find that to be corrupt in and of itself.

It IS political. That's why he was appointed.

 

Durham's investigation has now lasted 1.5 times as long as Mueller's producing one ludicrous charge that will eventually be thrown out.

 

He was appointed because there were lies associated with the allocation for the warrant on Carter Page. One DOJ attorney doctored evidence. And, in this instance, Sussman did not tell the truth that he represented the Clinton camplaign. Nor maybe he believed he was representing Joffe on this matter, but he bilked the Clinton Campaign. And that is worthy of investigation. Also, he may be involved in data hosting/traffic for third party servers, but the data is not Joffe’s to do with with what he wants. This is fraught with problems. I don’t want my law firms “pings” given to third parties who may want to know who we communicate with. Our relationships with clients are confidential. Now, extend that to this situation. What do you think Joffe’s defense to this is? “I did what my lawyer told me.” OK, so who was Sussman’s principal in this. Joffe? The Clinton Campaign? And who was he serving?. He told Baker. But he told Baker that he was not representing the campaign. Then why did he charge the campaign? Because the FBI acted on his information. And it was material. Because it creates a defense for Joffe. Not just because the FBI investigated the allegations. The FBI likely would have anyway. But, it at least had to pass the information up the line to consider.

 

Durham is distancing himself from the right wing absurdity and says he may have future filings be made under seal if this is what the MAGA cult will do with them.

Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing

 

Baker should have to so testify. I will wait to evaluate until the evidence is public. There are other issues being investigated. As is evident from the filings. They may not be criminal, but this is a classic example of where laws may need to be passed to address these scenarios. And, my comments are not limited to this case. Durham has an investigation ongoing.

 

What I post is not based on the “right wing media” and political frenzy. It is based on factual details that raise questions for me that have nothing to do with that idiocy, which is designed to try to make the Trump acolytes look like victims and argued for wrongdoing they isn’t there. This is a very small slice of the Russia investigation conducted by the FBI, and later, Mueller and the Senate. But, it is necessary. There were abuses in the Carter Page warrant. And there isn’t enough “out there” about this piece yet. All of which were done by members of the GOP or GOP controlled committees.

 

As I have said multiple times here and elsewhere, there are all kinds of problems with all things FISA and always have been. It's just suddenly certain people care because it has affected their orange god or those in his orbit.

 

Sorry luvtruth, but in the credibility department duchen has you beat hands down.

You almost had me with your first two paragraphs, but starting with “and let’s not forget” you went right back to your msnbc roots.

 

A bunch of Right leaning outlets got out ahead of themselves and did not take the time to talk with cyber security experts to get an understanding of what Durham's filing actually meant. They saw the word "exploited" and ran with a misreading reading of what that meant in this instance.

 

Hillary said the word “malice” one time out loud, and even the author of the Durham report immediately distances himself from the Durham report.

QOP: The clown show of clown shows.

Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing