Durham, under pressure to wrap up Investigation, could 'punt' to after Election Day: source

#226
#226
BowlBrother85 said:
It's the kind of misrepresentation, that Fox News hosts have used in the past to label the Mueller probe/Russia-Trump collusion investigation as a "hoax" or as "fake news."

Fox News falsely claimed that the John Durham court filing alleged that the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign paid for intel collected by a 3rd party cyber security contractor (Neustar). The Durham filing doesn't say that at all.

As @NorthDallas40 points out, it's still very possible that the 2016 Clinton campaign acted inappropriately by soliciting opposition intel on Donald Trump collected by Neustar, but by already getting such an important component of this story so wrong, they have made it impossible to take anything else they report on this matter seriously. Fox News has completely botched this story. It's every bit as sloppy, partisan and unprofessional as what they have accused CNN of doing in the past.
Click to expand...


The problem is that they wanted to be true so desperately that they read way too much into that filing. It just didn't say what they thought it did. What they wanted it to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#227
#227
lawgator1 said:
The problem is that they wanted to be true so desperately that they read way too much into that filing. It just didn't say what they thought it did. What they wanted it to say.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're celebrating? Someone unlawfully took information off a server and sold/gave this information to Clinton's lawyer. I suppose that you could argue that her lawyer did this without her knowing, but you'd look far more foolish than you already do normally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and UT_Dutchman
#228
#228
tnmarktx said:
I have no idea what you're celebrating? Someone unlawfully took information off a server and sold/gave this information to Clinton's lawyer. I suppose that you could argue that her lawyer did this without her knowing, but you'd look far more foolish than you already do normally.
Click to expand...


You are doing it again.
 
#233
#233
tnmarktx said:
Which is?
Click to expand...
The Durham court filing does not allege that either Hillary Clinton or anyone working on behalf of her campaign, paid for opposition intel that had been obtained through Neustar's authorized access to White House and Trump Tower servers.
 
#234
#234
BowlBrother85 said:
The Durham court filing does not allege that either Hillary Clinton or anyone working on behalf of her campaign, paid for opposition intel that had been obtained through Neustar's authorized access to White House and Trump Tower servers.
Click to expand...
It alleges that Sussman, her lawyer paid or solicited information that was obtained unlawfully. The authorized access became unlawful when the information was obtained. That's exactly what the filing states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#235
#235
tnmarktx said:
It alleges that Sussman, her lawyer paid or solicited information that was obtained unlawfully. The authorized access became unlawful when the information was obtained. That's exactly what the filing states.
Click to expand...
That is not true. The information was not obtained unlawfully. Neustar had authorized access to those servers. Also, the Durham court filing does not allege that the Clinton campaign paid for any intel.
 
#236
#236
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. The information was not obtained unlawfully. Neustar had authorized access to those servers. Also, the Durham court filing does not allege that the Clinton campaign paid for any intel.
Click to expand...
If you're paid to maintain a server that does not mean you are paid to steal information off the server. That's what happened. Maintaining a server does not equal taking information from it and giving it to another party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, NorthDallas40 and ButchPlz
#237
#237
tnmarktx said:
If you're paid to maintain a server that does not mean you are paid to steal information off the server. That's what happened. Maintaining a server does not equal taking information from it and giving it to another party.
Click to expand...
Fundamental.

Edit: To clarify, the galaxy brain you responded to apparently used to work at a bank. Ask him what happens if an individual charged with maintaining or handling bank data accidentally lets some loose. Now ask what happens if they do it on purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and UT_Dutchman
#238
#238
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. The information was not obtained unlawfully. Neustar had authorized access to those servers. Also, the Durham court filing does not allege that the Clinton campaign paid for any intel.
Click to expand...
Now if Sussman had told the individual that took the information off the server that he wanted no part of the information that was illegally taken off the server, you'd have a valid argument.
 
#239
#239
lawgator1 said:
No, and you both know what the mischaracterization is on this.
Click to expand...
Oh I do. I’ve already addressed it too. Durham’s filing stands on its own merits. A Clinton surrogate received information from a government contractor who abused their access privileges and stole information which was provided to a political rival. That is Durham’s filing.

We also know the Clinton campaign at the same time used that information as well as the discredited Steele Dossier to falsely lay the groundwork for the false Russia collusion campaign that led to the Mueller witch-hunt.

That is it. And your vague non specific denials can’t change that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tnmarktx
#240
#240
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. The information was not obtained unlawfully. Neustar had authorized access to those servers. Also, the Durham court filing does not allege that the Clinton campaign paid for any intel.
Click to expand...
The access was not unlawful. The theft of information they didn’t own is indeed unlawful.
 
#241
#241
tnmarktx said:
If you're paid to maintain a server that does not mean you are paid to steal information off the server. That's what happened. Maintaining a server does not equal taking information from it and giving it to another party.
Click to expand...
That doesn't change the fact that the intel was lawfully accessed. There wasn't illegal infiltration involved. The question here, concerns whether or not intel was disseminated which wasn't also publicly available information. It is important to note that the Clinton campaign did not pay for any of this potential opposition intel.
 
#242
#242
tnmarktx said:
It alleges that Sussman, her lawyer paid or solicited information that was obtained unlawfully. The authorized access became unlawful when the information was obtained. That's exactly what the filing states.
Click to expand...
Basically correct. They abused their access privileges and took something they did not own. It’s fundamentally akin to IP theft
 
#243
#243
BowlBrother85 said:
That doesn't change the fact that the intel was lawfully accessed. There wasn't illegal infiltration involved. The question here, concerns whether or not intel was disseminated which wasn't also publicly available information. It is important to note that the Clinton campaign did not pay for any of this potential opposition intel.
Click to expand...
You are fundamentally wrong in your assertion. Access privileges do not make theft of digital property magically legal.
 
#244
#244
BowlBrother85 said:
That doesn't change the fact that the intel was lawfully accessed. There wasn't illegal infiltration involved. The question here, concerns whether or not intel was disseminated which wasn't also publicly available information. It is important to note that the Clinton campaign did not pay for any of this potential opposition intel.
Click to expand...
It was illegal to take the information. It was illegal for anyone from the campaign to take the information. The information apparently was taken because it was used to aid in the creation of a false narrative between Trump and Russia.
 
#245
#245
NorthDallas40 said:
The access was not unlawful. The theft of information they didn’t own is indeed unlawful.
Click to expand...
Right. At issue, is whether or not non-publicly available information was disseminated through this authorized access to the servers in question. However, links to the Clinton campaign are going to be difficult to prove if this information wasn't paid for.
 
#247
#247
BowlBrother85 said:
However, links to the Clinton campaign are going to be difficult to prove if this information wasn't paid for.
Click to expand...

Allegedly, the individual that gave the stolen information to Sussman was promised a high level cyber security job if Clinton had won.
 
#248
#248
BowlBrother85 said:
Right. At issue, is whether or not non-publicly available information was disseminated through this authorized access to the servers in question. However, links to the Clinton campaign are going to be difficult to prove if this information wasn't paid for.
Click to expand...
So the “hell we didn’t know this obviously private information which our political rival would no way in hell give to us willingly” defense rings hollow. They knew they shouldn’t have it. They may not be prosecuted for it but absolutely nobody thinking clearly can think they thought it would be ok to have it. And that’s just as damning to her future political plans as a criminal indictment everyone knows it’s disingenuous
 
#249
#249
NorthDallas40 said:
So the “hell we didn’t know this obviously private information which our political rival would no way in hell give to us willingly” defense rings hollow. They knew they shouldn’t have it. They may not be prosecuted for it but absolutely nobody thinking clearly can think they thought it would be ok to have it. And that’s just as damning to her future political plans as a criminal indictment everyone knows it’s disingenuous
Click to expand...
It is dirty politics. No doubt about it.
 
#250
#250
NorthDallas40 said:
You are fundamentally wrong in your assertion. Access privileges do not make theft of digital property magically legal.
Click to expand...
And again, in every contract I've had, even if you have "privilege" to access something, that "privilege" only applies if you are accessing the data for your work. The moment you access the data for something not explicitly relevant to your work, you are in violation of your contract and/or the law, whether you happen to have the access credentials or not. It's all conditional. This is basic stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and tnmarktx
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top