Durham distances himself from Furor in Right-wing media through filings

WASHINGTON – John H. Durham, the Trump-era special counsel who is scrutinizing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, distinguished himself on Thursday from false reports by reporters. right-wing news agency. a petition he filed recently said Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid to spy on the servers of the Trump White House.

Citing a series of such reports on Fox News and elsewhere based on prosecutors’ February 11 filings, defense attorneys for a Democratic-linked cybersecurity attorney, Michael Sussmann, was charge special counsel included unnecessary and misleading information in the filings “obviously for the purpose of politicizing this case, creating media buzz and damaging the jury panel.”

In a filing on Thursday, Mr Durham defended himself, saying accusations of his intentions were “simply untrue”. He said he had “good and simple reason” for including information in the February 11 file that caused the firestorm, and denied responsibility for how some news outlets had interpreted and portrayed it. .

“If third parties or members of the media have unduly exaggerated, overstated, or misinterpreted the facts contained in the government petition, it does not detract from the cause,” he wrote. valid for the government to include this information”.

But even without admitting any problems with the way the records were made last week, Mr Durham said he would seal the records in the future if they contained “legitimate information that raises issues of privacy or other concerns may outweigh the assumption of public access to judicial documents. ”

Former President Donald J. Trump has seized on an inaccurate report to claim that there is now “irrefutable evidence” of a Clinton campaign conspiracy against him – and suggests that there is a need there must be executions. Mr. Trump, the host of Fox News and others also criticized mainstream journalists for not reporting on the intentional disclosure.

The dispute stems from a pre-trial motion in the case Mr. Durham brought against Mr. Sussmann alleging he made a false statement during a September 2016 meeting with the FBI. he relayed concerns about possible cyber links between Mr. Trump and Russia. The office later dismissed those claims as baseless.

Mr. Durham said Mr. Sussmann falsely told an FBI official that he had no clients, but was actually there on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and a technology executive named Rodney Joffe. Mr Sussmann denied ever saying it, while maintaining that he was only there on behalf of Mr Joffe – not the campaign.

Several sentences in the file recount a second meeting, in February 2017, where Mr. Sussmann presented various concerns about uncanny internet data and Russia to the CIA, stemming from the security researchers themselves. cybersecurity, who developed the suspicions he presented to the FBI.

At the CIA meeting, Sussmann shared concerns about data suggesting someone using a Russian-made smartphone may have connected to the network at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.

Mr. Sussmann got that information from Mr. Joffe. Court documents also say that Mr Joffe’s company, Neustar, helped maintain internet-related servers for the White House, and allege Mr Joffe – whom Mr Durham has not been charged with – and associates of the White House. he “exploited this. arranged” by mining certain records to gather derogatory information about Mr.

In the fall, The New York Times Sussmann’s CIA meeting report and the concerns he relayed about data indicating the presence of Russian-made YotaPhones – smartphones rarely seen in the US – near Mr. Trump and in the White House.

But over the weekend, conservative media outlets treated those sentences in Mr Durham’s filing as a new revelation while also significantly adding to what it had said. Mr. Durham, some newspapers incorrectly reported, said he had discovered that the Clinton campaign had paid Mr. Joffe’s company to spy for Mr. Trump. But the campaign didn’t pay his company, and the filing doesn’t say so. Several outlets also cited Mr. Durham’s records for using the word “penetration”, a word with no meaning.

Most importantly, coverage of Trump’s intentional spying on the White House is based on the idea that White House cyber data pertains to when Trump was president. But Mr. Durham’s records do not say when it was.

Attorney for a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped analyze Yota . data say on monday that the data comes from the Obama presidency. Mr. Sussmann’s lawyer said the same in a profile on Monday night complaining about Mr Durham’s behaviour.

Mr. Durham did not directly address that underlying fact dispute. But his explanation of why he included information on the matter in the previous filing implicitly confirms that Mr. Sussmann conveyed concerns about White House data that date back to before Mr. President.

The purpose of the previous filing was to ask the judge to consider potential conflicts of interest in Mr. Sussmann’s legal team. Durham included those passages, he wrote, in part because one of the potential conflicts was a member of the self-defense force who had worked for the White House “during relevant events in relation to” The White House.

The defense attorney in question is Michael Bosworth, who has Deputy White House adviser in the Obama administration.

On Thursday alone, Mr. Sussmann’s attorneys filed a petition a preprocessor motion ask a judge to dismiss the case.

They argued that even if Mr. Sussmann falsely stated at the FBI meeting that he had no clients – which they denied – it would not result in a “material” false claim, that is, one that affects to government decisions. The FBI was faced with a decision as to whether to open an investigation into the concerns he relayed at that meeting, and it would do so regardless, they said.

Mr. Durham has said that Mr. Sussmann’s alleged lie was concerning because the FBI knew he was operating “as a paid advocate for clients with political or business agendas”. agents may have asked additional questions or taken additional steps before opening the investigation. .

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/us/durham-right-wing-media-trump.html Durham distances himself from Furor in Right-wing media through filings

Fry Electronics Team

Fry Electronics.com is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@fry-electronics.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button