1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,390
    #61
  2. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    You’ll Never Believe It but Hillary Clinton Did Not, in Fact, Spy On Trump’s White House
    In less breaking news, Donald Trump remains a moron.
    [​IMG]
    By Bess Levin

    February 15, 2022
    [​IMG]
    Digital Colorization by Ben Park; By Scott Olson (Trump), Justin Sullivan (Clinton), both from Getty Images.

    Imagine, if you will, that a special counsel appointed by the federal government declared in a court filing that he had evidence that a major political figure—let’s call her Hillary Clinton—had paid spies to infiltrate the White House and run surveillance on Donald Trump in order to frame him as a foreign asset. The whole thing would be a big flipping deal! One for which there would be major, major consequences and far-reaching fallout. The country, nay, the world would be gripped by the story, and for good reason—a former candidate for office spying on the president? In the White House? That would be crazy! And you’re right—it would be crazy if something like that had actually happened. Which it didn’t, though unfortunately for reason, logic, and the concept of the truth, Donald Trump, Fox News, and various other deranged conservatives cannot be convinced of that.

    Yes, as you’ve probably heard, on Saturday the former president released a statement claiming “Special Counsel Robert Durham”—he meant to say “John Durham” but was apparently too angry to keep his Johns and his Roberts straight—had uncovered “indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia,” a “scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate” for which Trump suggested those involved should be executed but would settle for criminal prosecution. The problem? Neither Robert Durham nor John Durham nor anyone else for that matter had actually provided evidence of any such crime, let alone even suggested it.

    Per The New York Times:

    When John H. Durham, the Trump-era special counsel investigating the inquiry into Russia’s 2016 election interference, filed a pretrial motion on Friday night, he slipped in a few extra sentences that set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump. But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news—the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies.

    The latest example began with the motion Mr. Durham filed in a case he has brought against Michael A. Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer with links to the Democratic Party. The prosecutor has accused Mr. Sussmann of lying during a September 2016 meeting with an F.B.I. official about Mr. Trump’s possible links to Russia. The filing was ostensibly about potential conflicts of interest. But it also recounted a meeting at which Mr. Sussmann had presented other suspicions to the government. In February 2017, Mr. Sussmann told the C.I.A. about odd internet data suggesting that someone using a Russian-made smartphone may have been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.

    According to the filing, Sussmann had gotten his information from technology executive Rodney Joffe, whose company, Neustar, had performed server-related work for the White House. In Durham’s estimation, Joffe and his colleagues had “exploited this arrangement by mining [certain records] for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.” Fox News took this line from Durham’s filing and ran with it, claiming Durham had said he had found that the Clinton campaign had paid the technology company to “infiltrate” White House servers. The lack of similarly baseless claims from the mainstream media led Trump to declare “The press refuses to even mention the major crime that took place. This in itself is a scandal, the fact that a story so big, so powerful and so important for the future of our nation is getting zero coverage from LameStream, is being talked about all over the world.”

    Strangely, there wasn’t a lot of fact-checking going on down at Mar-a-Lago, but the actual reason that the “LameStream” media hadn’t covered the story was likely because, as the Times notes: (1) Sussmann’s conversation with the CIA had already been reported last October (2) Durham never once said anything about the White House being “infiltrate[d]” (3) the special counsel also never claimed the Clinton campaign had paid Joffe’s company and (4) perhaps most importantly, “the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era.” In fact, lawyers for the data scientist who helped develop the data analysis in question, say this happened during— wait for it—Barack Obama’s presidency.


    “What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” attorneys Jody Westby and Mark Rasch told the Times. “The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

    In other words, Trump and company got the whole thing hilariously, mortifyingly incorrect. But fear not: We’re sure they’ll issue a lengthy correction and heartfelt apology to the people whose reputations they impugned—and the ones Trump suggested should be put to death—in no time.


    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-white-house-spying
     
    #62
  3. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,390
    Gotta know, when they want to argue semantics, that despicables are caught out redhanded.

    So apparently, using "nonpublic " server data to weaponize the FBI/DOJ to spy on a candidate for President and president is justified.

    Really?

    Forget the politics.

    Can anyone think this is even remotely ok?
     
    1. Scotchlass
      Like I predicted, when they're losing an argument, they begin parsing word's meanings.
       
      Scotchlass, Feb 17, 2022
    #63
  4. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Well if Trump really wanted national coverage of the Durham propaganda he just got it on NBC Nightly News. It started with Hillary Clinton's speech about the more trouble Trump is in the more they try to attack her. And then jumped in with both feet exposing the Durham filing for what it is. A laughable and impotent attempt to try and create a false narrative.
     
    #64
  5. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,390
    Yeah, with every despicable panic post shooter is more convinced that Clinton/DNC are truly fucked.

    And they have no one to blame but themselves.
     
    #65
  6. latecomer91364

    latecomer91364 Easily Distracte

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    53,003
    Hillary should have stayed silent. Before she spoke up, there was ZERO coverage of the language in Durham's filing on mainstream media.
     
    #66
  7. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,390
    You know what, @anon_de_plume ?
    Shooter has come to realize that not only do you lack the ability to participate in adult conversation, you are the biggest whiny complainer.

    But take some comfort in knowing that Shooter is doing all he can to get the safe space reopened.
     
    1. anon_de_plume
      And you spew bullshit, there's no conversation to be had with someone who incessantly lobs insults.

      Good on you! You just proved, like all your other proofs, that you got nothing but insults.

      And it is also interesting to note that this post isn't connected to anything I said, you just expect others to figure it out for themselves.

      Have a nice night, troll!
       
      anon_de_plume, Feb 18, 2022
      stumbler likes this.
    2. ace's n 8's
      Speaking about the safe space, the Insulation company called and relayed the message that the padding for the corners is on back order, it's sitting somewhere in the Pacific Ocean waiting to be unloaded...it's out of their hands.
       
      ace's n 8's, Feb 18, 2022
    #67
  8. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,390
    Butt hurt and triggered again!

    @conroe4

    Really getting out of hand.
     
    #68
  9. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    #69
  10. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,390
    Of course nothing points directly to Hillary Clinton. According to durham it was the clinton campaign that paid to get the "nonpublic" data.

    "It is a big deal and it constitutes probable cause for believing that people in the Clinton campaign were certainly involved in dirty politics. Whether they crossed the line to criminality – let’s not rush to judgment.”

     
    1. stumbler
      You said Hillary would be indicted. Are you willing to admit you are wrong like you said you would?
       
      stumbler, Feb 18, 2022
    2. shootersa
      Oh cmon. the wheels of justice grind slow but fine.
      It's been 24 hours.
      Are you willing to admit you were wrong about Trump?
      Jesus
       
      shootersa, Feb 18, 2022
    #70
  11. ace's n 8's

    ace's n 8's Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    60,616
    The use of googlemotherfucker eludes you tourist?
     
    #71
  12. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Dem lawyer slams Durham court filing — and demands the case be dismissed

    Sarah K. Burris
    February 17, 2022


    [​IMG]
    Official portrait.


    Lawyer Michael Sussmann has become the villain in the probe by special counsel John Durham, and he's fighting back in a new court filing. Donald Trump’s former attorney general, Bill Barr, appointed Durham to investigate the origins of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    Sussmann was the lawyer for the Democratic Party after it was hacked by Russian-affiliated hackers. In a court filing last week, Durham lodged a slate of claims about Sussmann that sent the right-wing media into a tizzy. Most have misconstrued the filing to say that Trump was spied on by Hillary Clinton. The reality is that Sussmann believed that the former Office of President Barack Obama was spied on sometime between 2014 and 2017, and reported it to the CIA on Feb 8, 2017.

    Relaying excerpts from Sussmann's filing from Thursday, legal analyst Marcy Wheeler quoted that Sussmann says that at no point in the Durham filing does Durham say that Sussmann's claim was false.

    "The only decision the FBI was trying to make was the decision whether to commence an investigation," the filing says.

    READ: RNC's censure of Cheney and Kinzinger is 'even more disturbing' than people realize – according to this conservative

    A footnote explains, "The possibility of a false statement influencing the initiation of a government investigation in Hasen (at issue here) stands in stark contrast to the much more common occurrence of a false statement possibility influencing an ongoing investigation (not at issue here)."

    Wheeler pointed to what she believes was the most substantive points in the filing, that Durham's indictment explains that FBI General Counsel Jim Baker and Bill Priestap, who was previously the assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, knew the information that Durham says Sussmann hid from the FBI. Sussmann claimed that he was there not representing a client, but then billed the Clinton campaign for the time for the meeting.

    This is the reason that Durham indicted Sussmann, claiming he lied to the FBI. Trump and the GOP appear to believe that if the FBI knew a Clinton lawyer was making the claims it could have influenced their decision to investigate.

    "Moreover, even the Indictment's own allegations undermine any claim that the false statement could have been material. The Indictment alleges that the FBI 'might have' taken 'additional or incremental steps' had it known of Mr. Sussmann's purported clients. But there is no reason the FBI would have acted differently if it learned of Mr. Sussmann's supposed relationship with the Clinton Campaign. The FBI was already aware of what the Indictment described as the 'political nature of his work,'" says the Sussmann filing.

    Comparing Sussmann's claim against Baker's deposition on Oct. 2018 to a Congressional committee, it's clear that the two men had a “personal relationship," and that's why Baker took the meeting. He said that he immediately gave the information from Sussmann to investigators because he was "quite concerned."

    "At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton herself could have publicly handed over the Russian Bank-1 Information and the FBI would still have investigated it. And if Mr. Sussmann had not met with Mr. Baker and Newspaper-1 published its article as anticipated... the FBI surely would have initiated its investigation then as well," the filing continues.

    You can read the full filing here and Wheeler's take here.

    https://www.rawstory.com/john-durham-sussmann-dismissal-filing/
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    #72
  13. conroe4

    conroe4 Lake Lover In XNXX Heaven

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,759
    We need to reopen the safe space, but I have a temporary solution.

    [​IMG]

    Hand them a tunnel.
     
    1. shootersa
      Uh oh
       
      shootersa, Feb 18, 2022
    #73
  14. CS natureboy

    CS natureboy Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    27,442
    One Part of Michael Sussmann's Motion to Dismiss Will Have You Laughing out Loud
    By Bonchie | Feb 17, 2022 9:00 PM ET



    [​IMG]
    (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

    If you’ve been following the John Durham investigation the last several weeks, there’s been more than a fair bit of news. On Saturday, Durham dropped a filing directly implicating Hillary Clinton in a scheme to monitor Donald Trump’s DNS traffic in an attempt to tie him to Russia. In the aftermath of that, Michael Sussmann, a Clinton lawyer who is already under indictment for lying to the FBI, filed a motion to dismiss the prosecution against him.


    Sussmann’s argument for dismissal essentially boils down to the idea that his lying about who he was working for when he brought the debunked Alfa Bank story to the FBI ended up being immaterial to any investigation launched. As I explained in my write-up on it, that’s a highly questionable contention riddled with issues.

    Yet, I missed one part of the filing that will have you laughing out loud. In trying to make the case to dismiss the charge against him, Sussmann’s lawyers actually cited Peter Strzok and the Lawfare Blog.

    https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland...smiss-will-have-you-laughing-out-loud-n523955

    Those that followed the saga between the FBI and Donald Trump will know exactly why this is so funny. Strzok is a disgraced former FBI agent who was once the lead investigator for Robert Mueller’s witch hunt. He was forced to step down from that role after text messages between him and his mistress (then FBI lawyer Lisa Page) were revealed showing him denigrating Trump and talking about taking down the former president. Eventually, Strzok was fired for cause for his corruption and misdeeds.


    To now see him cited as an authoritative voice in this filing, as if he’s not incredibly biased against the Durham probe, which exists to look into one of the investigations Strzok helped spearhead, is hilarious. To then have it be an article Strzok wrote for the Lawfare Blog, an outlet that spent years spreading disinformation about Trump and Russia (including the infamous Steele Dossier) makes it all the worse.

    But even moving past the absurdity of the sourcing here, the claim supposedly bolstered by citing Strzok is also ludicrous. It’s essentially saying that even if Sussmann lied to the FBI, he shouldn’t be prosecuted because it might discourage other sources from bringing the bureau information in the future.

    In other words, let’s have two systems of justice where former government apparatchiks like Sussmann can break the law without punishment — you know, just in case. That’s the same type of nonsense we heard during the Carter Page FISA scandal, in which some argued that punishing the wrongdoers would harm future investigations, with the thought being that FBI agents should be given leeway, up to and including lying to a FISA court to target an American citizen.

    If the judge assigned to this case were to dismiss the charges against Sussmann on such grounds, it would be yet another gutshot to the credibility of the various government institutions in play here, including the judiciary itself. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does, I’m not sure how trust could ever be regained.
     
    #74
  15. ace's n 8's

    ace's n 8's Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    60,616
    Standard hack fuck semantics...listen up here now and allow me to dumb this down for you....Durham was appointed to perform an investigation by AG Barr, the investigation was performed, with the evidence out in the light of day now, it will be given to the Judicial Branch of the Government, and I bet a dollar to a fucking donut, mother fuckers will be singing like a church choir prior to sitting in a court room....Hillary is getting indicted, as the rest will as well.
     
    #75
  16. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Durham is spooked his case is going to be dismissed. His false propaganda ploy blew up in his face. And leaves Traitor Trump and treasonous conservative/Republicans with more shit on their faces.

    John Durham distances himself from far-right interpretation of his court filings: report

    Bob Brigham
    February 18, 2022


    [​IMG]
    Official portrait.

    The Fox News effort to hype a filing by Trump DOJ special counsel John Durham was undermined as the prosecutor "distanced himself on Thursday from false reports by right-wing news outlets that a motion he recently filed said Hillary Clinton’s campaign had paid to spy on Trump White House servers," The New York Times reports.

    Durham defended himself in a filing on Thursday.

    “If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information,” he wrote.

    Trump has suggested people should be executed based on the far-right interpretation of Durham's filings.

    READ: Trump will end up 'in a orange jumpsuit' after 'legal showdown': biographer

    The newspaper reported conservative media has significantly embellished what was actually written in Durham's filing.

    "Mr. Durham, some outlets inaccurately reported, had said he had discovered that the Clinton campaign had paid [Rodney] Joffe’s company to spy on Mr. Trump. But the campaign had not paid his company, and the filing did not say so. Some outlets also quoted Mr. Durham’s filing as using the word 'infiltrate,' a word it did not contain," the newspaper explained. "Most important, the coverage about purported spying on the Trump White House was premised on the idea that the White House network data involved came from when Mr. Trump was president. But Mr. Durham’s filing did not say when it was from. Lawyers for a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped analyze the Yota data said on Monday that the data came from the Obama presidency. [Michael] Sussmann’s lawyers said the same in a filing on Monday night complaining about Mr. Durham’s conduct."

    Read the full report.

    https://www.rawstory.com/special-counsel-john-durham-backtracks/
     
    #76
  17. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    There has been a really interesting little side bar to the Durham false propaganda piece. War between the main stream media and the right wing false propaganda noise machine and echo chamber. It was pretty easy to tell this was actually all just a pre planed propaganda ploy to try and grab the headlines from Traitor Trump going down just by the way the entire right wing false propaganda noise machine and echo chamber put it on full blast. And also the way they attacked the MSM for not echoing their lies. Which is one of their favorite ploys and usually works. But there were two differences this time. One being the Trump scandals are just too big and too numerous. But two, and more importantly, even if the press has not been covering the phony Durham clown show like the right wing false propaganda noise machine is not that they are ignorant of it and can't see what's really going on. So this time instead of falling in line and repeating the lies the MSM fought back. And maybe because this one was just a sitting duck to blow clear out of the fucking water. The lies the right wing false propaganda noise machine were pushing were just too big and vicious and the proof they were lies was just too obvious and easily proven. So its pretty much been a slaughter within a slaughter.

    And its been both hilarious and very rewarding to watch unfold.


    New York Times’ Charlie Savage Requests Retraction From Washington Examiner Over Piece Bashing His Durham Coverage
    By Alex GriffingFeb 18th, 2022, 12:25 pm
    126 comments

    upload_2022-2-18_12-5-12.png
    [​IMG]

    New York Times national security and legal reporter Charlie Savage demanded a retraction Friday from the Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll, who published an article this week titled, “Charlie Savage is the reason no one trusts journalists.”

    Savage, who won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2007, wrote in a tweet: “Dear @conncarroll (@dcexaminer’s commentary editor), Your Feb 15 column not only went out on a limb, but you also got unnecessarily personal. Now that Durham’s filing has confirmed that the EOP data was Obama era, I respectfully request a retraction./1”

    He followed that up with a second tweet, “Please also address telling your readers I hid that Sussmann had Democratic ties (“Savage wants to hide the ball, calling Sussmann merely a ‘cybersecurity lawyer’”) when I actually described him as “a cybersecurity lawyer with links to the Democratic Party.” Thank you.- Charlie/2.”

    Charlie Savage
    @charlie_savage

    ·
    Feb 18, 2022
    Replying to @charlie_savage
    Dear @conncarroll (@dcexaminer's commentary editor), Your Feb 15 column not only went out on a limb, but you also got unnecessarily personal. Now that Durham's filing has confirmed that the EOP data was Obama era, I respectfully request a retraction./1
    [​IMG]
    washingtonexaminer.com
    Charlie Savage is the reason no one trusts journalists
    If you want to know why trust in journalism is at an all-time low, look no further than the latest apologia written by Charlie Savage of the New York Times.

    [​IMG]
    Charlie Savage
    @charlie_savage

    Please also address telling your readers I hid that Sussmann had Democratic ties (“Savage wants to hide the ball, calling Sussmann merely a ‘cybersecurity lawyer’”) when I actually described him as “a cybersecurity lawyer with links to the Democratic Party.” Thank you.- Charlie/2
    7:53 AM · Feb 18, 2022

    Carroll, the Examiner’s commentary editor, responded with a simple message, “please do show me where the Durham filing says all the EOP data used by Sussman only monitored Obama.”

    Charlie Savage
    @charlie_savage

    ·
    Feb 18, 2022
    Replying to @charlie_savage
    Dear @conncarroll (@dcexaminer's commentary editor), Your Feb 15 column not only went out on a limb, but you also got unnecessarily personal. Now that Durham's filing has confirmed that the EOP data was Obama era, I respectfully request a retraction./1
    [​IMG]
    washingtonexaminer.com
    Charlie Savage is the reason no one trusts journalists
    If you want to know why trust in journalism is at an all-time low, look no further than the latest apologia written by Charlie Savage of the New York Times.

    [​IMG]
    Conn Carroll
    @conncarroll

    please do show me where the Durham filing says all the EOP data used by Sussman only monitored Obama.
    8:02 AM · Feb 18, 2022


    Savage’s first tweet and Carroll’s reply appear to be over these two paragraphs in Savage’s article in the New York Times from Feb. 14, which Carroll then uses as part of his argument to claim journalists are not trustworthy.

    In the piece titled, “Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track,” Savage wrote:

    Most important, contrary to the reporting, the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. According to lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped develop the Yota analysis, the data — so-called DNS logs, which are records of when computers or smartphones have prepared to communicate with servers over the internet — came from Barack Obama’s presidency.

    “What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, both lawyers for Mr. Dagon. “The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

    All of this goes back to the indictment special counsel John Durham filed against Democratic lawyer Micheal Sussman last September, that he lied to the FBI in an effort to mislead federal investigators to look into possible ties between Donald Trump and Russia. The latest news regarding Durham’s filing has to do with court filings to that indictment alleging Sussman obtained non-public data from the White House and Trump’s servers – albeit not in an illegal manner.

    Savage, in his effort to debunk the right-wing narrative that Clinton spied on the Trump White House, is reporting that Durham’s filing actually is regarding data taken from the Obama White House, while Trump was running for president.

    Carroll writes of Savage’s reporting:

    If the “data” used by Sussmann in the CIA meeting was not “from the Trump era,” then why does the indictment say Sussmann claimed the data showed “Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House?”

    Carroll goes on to quote from Savage’s paragraphs above and concludes, “Of course, this statement is completely irrelevant to the new allegation in Durham’s filing.”

    As for Savage’s second complaint, regarding how Sussman is referred to by Savage, Carroll does seem to be off-base. As Savage points out, Carroll wrote this in his piece, regarding Sussman:

    For Savage, Sussmann is not a highly partisan lawyer who has served the Clinton Foundation and was a partner at Perkins Coie, counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. No Savage wants to hide the ball, calling Sussmann merely a “cybersecurity lawyer.”

    This is the third paragraph of Savage’s article:

    The latest example began with the motion Mr. Durham filed in a case he has brought against Michael A. Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer with links to the Democratic Party. The prosecutor has accused Mr. Sussmann of lying during a September 2016 meeting with an F.B.I. official about Mr. Trump’s possible links to Russia.

    While the first request from Savage is harder to parse out, especially given the complexities of Durham’s filing and media spin surrounding it, Savage’s second claim, which Carroll did not address, appears to be pretty straightforward.

    In the meantime, however, the Washington Examiner is continuing to go after Savage’s reporting in the New York Times. In the latest round of coverage, Savage wrote an article, “Durham Distances Himself From Furor in Right-Wing Media Over Filing.”

    The article centered around Durham stating in a filing that, “If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information.”

    The Examiner’s Byron York, was quick to turn Savage’s argument around, writing, “It does not seem to have occurred to the New York Times that the New York Times might be one of those media outlets that either overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted the facts in Durham’s filing.”

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-y...miner-over-piece-bashing-his-durham-coverage/
     
    #77
  18. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,390
    Durham is "spooked"?
    That sounds racist, stumbler.


    Durham isn't "spooked".
    He's pissed that his filing in the Sussman case has gone viral. As he said, "If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information."

    You know what he's saying here, Stumbler?
    He's saying he filed the information in the Sussman case, and the information contained there should not be misinterpreted and used for other agendas.

    Which raises Durham's reputation for Shooter. Unlike the myriad trump investigations, there have been no leaks, no "sources familiar with the situation" experts spewing shit, no wild speculation based on what Nancy Antoinette is wearing this week. And Durham intends to keep it that way until he finishes and gives his findings to the AG.
     
    1. anon_de_plume
      There have been no leaks because there is nothing to leak.
       
      anon_de_plume, Feb 18, 2022
    #78
  19. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,390
    Of course not.
    No evidence that Hillary paid to get "non public" information off of white house servers hoping to bring down the trump administration.
     
    #79
  20. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324



    Just seriously and literally I cannot stop laughing over this. Here's your own OP on this thread. I think I will go get some alcohol and party over this one because you just made my week.





     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    #80