What was described by some of the Trump cult as a "nothingburger" just became Russian filet mignon
The background is that John Durham, a special counsel APPOINTED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION to investigate Trump's ties to Russia gave a 75 page indictment for one charge of lying to the FBI.He explained that the lie, was that the individual said he was not working on behalf of anyone in reporting the linkage between a Russian linked bank and Trump's server. And he went on to say, that the 4 cyber scientists who did the research didn't actually believe there was conspiracy and that the Bank server was used for advertising.
Well, it turns out, that the bank server in question was NOT used for advrtising and the communications was not only consistent with a back-channel communication method, but is the most likely function. The person who was recently indicted, claims that he was not serving as an agent of anyone and instead was acting on good faith because of the findings of the 4 cyber research experts.
Indeed, this may actually result in more charges against Trump.
Rear it all for yourself from The New York Times. That's right, from some fly-by-night tiny political propaganda site, but the single most highly reputable site in investigative reporting;.
Today from The New York Times;
In response to:
Trump Server Mystery Produces Fresh Conflict
Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman
Thu, September 30, 2021, 2:22 PM
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.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
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
Trump Server Mystery Produces Fresh Conflict
Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman
Thu, September 30, 2021, 2:22 PM
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.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
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
(Continued in my next comment below)
Comments (11)
In it, there is a dog at one location, which was known to reliably bark furiously at any passers by close to his location. In that instance there were no reports of the dog barking around the time in question, leading to the conclusion that no one had passed by that location.
Now consider 3.5 years and around $30 million dollars, paying for teams of hyper-partisan lawyers and prosecutors in the Mueller Russia, Russia probe... when it came time for the drooling incompetent Mueller to show his cards...
NOTHING.
Under those conditions... arguably the most investigated man in human history... if there HAD been something... ANYTHING... they would have been shouting it from the rooftops.
Guess what Jim, that dog did not bark.
The dishonest Republican majority in the Senate made it clear,
that no matter what the evidence showed,
that they would try every excuse they could to not approve the impeachment.
Rut-ROH!
funny that on that same day of the law firm subpeonas, another NY mag issues a story of things falling apart, reported by cnn,,etc.
the pattern hasn't changed. real investigations move ahead and the lamestream media keep the sheep baited.
Not going to happen. Wishful thinking...lol
Not going to happen. Wishful thinking...lol
Legal minds in Washington are already in the process of making it happen.