trump (convicted felon, defamer, insurrectionist, contemnor, and rapist - $537M)

[RTH10260]

Trump Server Mystery Produces Fresh Conflict
Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman
Thu, September 30, 2021, 8:22 PM

Then presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at the campaign news conference where he directly appealed Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails and make them public, in Doral, Fla., July 27, 2016. (Todd Heisler/The New York Times)
Then presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at the campaign news conference where he directly appealed Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails and make them public, in Doral, Fla., July 27, 2016. (Todd Heisler/The New York Times)
WASHINGTON — The charge was narrow: John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the Trump administration to scour the Russia investigation, indicted a cybersecurity lawyer this month on a single count of lying to the FBI.

But Durham used a 27-page indictment to lay out a far more expansive tale, one in which four computer scientists who were not charged in the case “exploited” their access to internet data to develop an explosive theory about cyberconnections in 2016 between Donald Trump’s company and a Kremlin-linked bank — a theory, he insinuated, they did not really believe.

Durham’s version of events set off reverberations beyond the courtroom. Trump supporters seized on the indictment, saying it shows that suspicions about possible covert communications between Russia’s Alfa Bank and Trump’s company were a deliberate hoax by supporters of Hillary Clinton and portraying it as evidence that the entire Russia investigation was unwarranted.

Emails obtained by The New York Times and interviews with people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss issues being investigated by federal authorities, provide a fuller and more complex account of how a group of cyberexperts discovered the odd internet data and developed their hypothesis about what could explain it.

At the same time, defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Durham’s indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation for the odd data they had uncovered — and still do.

The Alfa Bank results “have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today; reports that these findings were innocuous or a hoax are simply wrong,” said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist and one of the researchers whom the indictment discussed but did not name.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-server ... 53334.html

[p0rtia]

So TFG's team is accusing that other folks “'exploited' their access to internet data to develop an explosive theory ... — a theory, he insinuated, they did not really believe."

Uh huh.

This isn't even a case of "pot, meet kettle." I mean, Durham is literally doing in his report the thing he is accusing his targets of doing.

[jcolvin2]

I mean, Durham is literally doing in his report the thing he is accusing his targets of doing.

This was EmptyWheel's conclusion as well:
EmptyWheel Article re Durham Sussman 2021-10-01

[Slim Cognito]

That’s what I thought but I felt I Shirley had it wrong.

[Kendra]

I think it was yesterday CNN had Andrew McCabe on to talk about this. I wish I'd paid closer attention and/or my memory was better

McCabe's take was kind of like instead of continuing with what he was supposed to be doing (investigating the FBI), this new tactic was more like he was looking out for the FBI.

[noblepa]

Doesn’t matter that he wasn’t in uniform. The DOD regulation draws a both a smudgy line and a fairly bright line: You can go to rallies in civilian clothes, but you cannot “participate” (whatever that means, presumably it’s more than merely attending, so, smudgy), and you definitely cannot “speak” (that’s pretty clear).

I’m of two minds about this (well, maybe a mind and a half). Military members should be permitted to attend partisan political rallies, and they shouldn’t be permitted to speak. But when a military member is put in the spot by a former president to come up and speak, should he be punished for that? Is the member supposed to embarrass the former president by declining?

Ordinarily I’d say no. Except that, and this is where he loses me, he either managed to let trump or his handlers know he was there, or he came by invitation. I mean, the likelihood that trump recognized him in the crowd is zero. So I wouldn’t be heartbroken if the Marines stomped on him a little for this.

Here’s the regulation. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... 34410p.pdf

Agreed. At best, he made an error in judgement.

If he went let the Trump crowd know he was there, with the intent of participating, then he should be punished, but not too harshly. Maybe an official reprimand. Maybe just probation.

If he Trump invited him, he showed poor judgement in accepting the invitation. He should have know that Trump would call on him.

OTOH, he's a relatively low ranking enlisted man. While I believe that the UCMJ implicitly includes the adage that "ignorance excuses no crime", I'm not sure that he could realistically be expected to be fully aware of this regulation and its ramifications.

[Patagoniagirl]

I got the feeling the issues was that this soldier perhaps was not the soldier who lifted the baby over the wall.

[p0rtia]

I think it was yesterday CNN had Andrew McCabe on to talk about this. I wish I'd paid closer attention and/or my memory was better

McCabe's take was kind of like instead of continuing with what he was supposed to be doing (investigating the FBI), this new tactic was more like he was looking out for the FBI.

Durham was introduced as a "good guy" when he was picked to do this investigation/smear-campaign. A thought that was supported by over a year of nothing-burgers. Apparently not. Memories of those who that Barr was an "institutionalist" and a "good guy."

[Maybenaut]

I got the feeling the issues was that this soldier perhaps was not the soldier who lifted the baby over the wall.

Well, there are two issues. He wasn’t allowed to speak at all, and in doing so he violated a general regulation. And if, in speaking, he took credit for something some other Marine did, that just makes his speaking at the rally all the worse.

[Uninformed]

The Marine Corps says LCpl Clark was not the marine in the widely shown video of a baby being pulled over the wall at Kabul airport.

[Frater I*I]

/facepalm

Not only is he a "brother" to me, but we live in the same city....

[neonzx]

A trumpazie lied? And he's a Marine? The few, the proud... lying ass fuckers. Disgrace to the uniform.

Our country is doomed.

[bill_g]

A little stolen valor shouldn't come as a surprise in Trump's World.

[bill_g]

Another questionable source.

Oh look, Mini-Me is stretching her 15 minutes for all it's worth.

[Uninformed]

I have a totally unfounded suspicion that the marine the DFO called upon may have been involved in the videoed event, or a perhaps similar occurrence, and the DFO was happy to give that impression.

[Kendra]

Donald Trump's lawyers told a federal court today that Facebook's terms of service "do not apply to governmental entities, including Plaintiff, as the Forty Fifth President of the United States."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.77.0.pdf

[much ado]

Donald Trump's lawyers told a federal court today that Facebook's terms of service "do not apply to governmental entities, including Plaintiff, as the Forty Fifth President of the United States."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.77.0.pdf

Ha. Ha. Ha. That's funny. Who does he hire for lawyers? Trump must have told them to argue that.

[jez]

Umm... didn't he sign up for and use a personal account? Not an "official governmental" account that is curated by a government lackey?

[tek]

Ignoring for the moment the argument that nothing applies to "government entities" ...
I do not understand how any lawyer can argue with a straight face that an individual is a "government entity"

But IA definitely NAL

[bob]

Ha. Ha. Ha. That's funny. Who does he hire for lawyers? Trump must have told them to argue that.

There two signatures and six additional names at the end of his response.

Eight attorneys said, "this isn't so dumb that I'm quitting."

[much ado]

Ha. Ha. Ha. That's funny. Who does he hire for lawyers? Trump must have told them to argue that.

There two signatures and six additional names at the end of his response.

Eight attorneys said, "this isn't so dumb that I'm quitting."

All these attorneys are representing Donald J. Trump, which seems to lower the bar on how dumb they are willing to appear.

[Suranis]

There is always a new person looking to get a name for themselves and then fining that does not include a salary.

I think if someone looked back at the list of names of his representation in these lawsuits, there would me a very long line of people not getting paid.

[Frater I*I]

Ha. Ha. Ha. That's funny. Who does he hire for lawyers? Trump must have told them to argue that.

There two signatures and six additional names at the end of his response.

Eight attorneys said, "this isn't so dumb that I'm quitting."

Not really, eight of them see the chance to bend the knee and kiss the ring and maybe, Zee Furher will give them the endorsement for the political office they want to run for...

[Gregg]

Doesn’t matter that he wasn’t in uniform. The DOD regulation draws a both a smudgy line and a fairly bright line: You can go to rallies in civilian clothes, but you cannot “participate” (whatever that means, presumably it’s more than merely attending, so, smudgy), and you definitely cannot “speak” (that’s pretty clear).

I’m of two minds about this (well, maybe a mind and a half). Military members should be permitted to attend partisan political rallies, and they shouldn’t be permitted to speak. But when a military member is put in the spot by a former president to come up and speak, should he be punished for that? Is the member supposed to embarrass the former president by declining?

Ordinarily I’d say no. Except that, and this is where he loses me, he either managed to let trump or his handlers know he was there, or he came by invitation. I mean, the likelihood that trump recognized him in the crowd is zero. So I wouldn’t be heartbroken if the Marines stomped on him a little for this.

Here’s the regulation. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... 34410p.pdf

Agreed. At best, he made an error in judgement.

If he went let the Trump crowd know he was there, with the intent of participating, then he should be punished, but not too harshly. Maybe an official reprimand. Maybe just probation.

If he Trump invited him, he showed poor judgement in accepting the invitation. He should have know that Trump would call on him.

OTOH, he's a relatively low ranking enlisted man. While I believe that the UCMJ implicitly includes the adage that "ignorance excuses no crime", I'm not sure that he could realistically be expected to be fully aware of this regulation and its ramifications.

I disagree. Stomp him into little bitty pieces and sweep them up with a dust buster. There is currently a Lt Col. in jail because he lost his cookies in a tiktok or something like and he sure as hell belongs there, too.

For the Marine, this should be the end of his career, and maybe a less than honorable but the press would have kittens so he'll probably get and Article 15 and told he can't have any cake for a weekend. The Lt Col, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. MFer is a Field Grade Officer and you can be damn sure that if some 2LT went viral calling him a dumbass, it would be a former 2LT and a Court Martialed one at that. Privates can't tell Sergeants to piss off, Sergeants can't tell Officers to piss off and Officers can't tell Civilian Authority to piss off. That's something so fundamental to how the military works that no one who ever wore a uniform can not understand it, and maybe no one who didn't serve can get how obvious that is.

Me? Just a dumb Lt, but I say phuck 'em both and let 'em rot.

I can't recall who our military lawyer is, but tell me I'm wrong if I am, if maybe a little more unforgiving than the system is in real life.

[keith]

I can't recall who our military lawyer is, but tell me I'm wrong if I am, if maybe a little more unforgiving than the system is in real life.

I think one of the members you quoted in your post is 'our military lawyer'. Just sayin'.