What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

His work around the opiate crisis is pretty interesting too. Effectively being used as the pr guy for it.

The fake news story is wherever you read that. Quoting the Sussman counter motion to strike is ridiculous because he is a proven liar with every reason lie.

“Special Counsel John Durham on Thursday said that there is "no basis" to "strike" any part of his recent filing, despite a motion from Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to do so.”

I don’t think business insider can make up its mind. In this recent article it says that trump definitely wasn’t spied on, but in an earlier article they do mention this:

”Durham's filing said some of the internet data that was mined was connected to two Trump buildings in New York City, the executive office of the president (EOP), and an unrelated Michigan hospital company that had also interacted with the Trump server.

It added that Joffe had access to this data because his employer had a set of "dedicated servers" for the White House as part of a "sensitive arrangement" in which it provided DNS resolution services to the White House.”

Joffe abused a sensitive arrangement to gather information on Trump for the purposes of using it against him. If this isn’t spying then I missed the day we all redefined the word ‘spying’.

In fact in the motion from last Friday this is what Durham says exactly:

”tech executive 1(Joffe) and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s dns data and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

What exactly have I or anyone else misinterpreted about that statement? Is that not spying technically but the same in practise?

So many outlets are so quick to say that Durham has ‘ missed the mark’ or that right wing news misunderstood Durham entirely without explaining what the hell they mean. Yes Durham said in the most recent filing that some media outlets may have got it wrong but he never specified. I guess interpret it as you please.

The dishonesty around here is at a level I’ve never quite witnessed before. Maybe it’s just attempts to gaslight, as you have no argument to say that what Durham alleges isn’t spying other than insults and links with titles of ‘ no Durham didn’t allege spying’ articles with proof of no such thing. Give me a quote or something.

Durham said: the government's motion isn't undermined even if the media has 'overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts'

Thats what I was referring to when I said you can interpret it as you please, and the left wing media have certainly interpreted as they please.

The factual background read:(this can’t be overstated or understated as they are Durhams own words)

• The defendant (Michael Sussman) is charged in a one-count indictment with making a materially false statement to the FBI, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 (the 'Indictment').  
• As set forth in the Indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016 – less than two months before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election – the defendant, a lawyer at a large international law firm ('Law Firm-1') that was then serving as counsel to the Clinton Campaign, met with the FBI General Counsel (James Baker) at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. 
• The defendant provided the FBI General Counsel with purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank ('Russian Bank-1'). 
• The Indictment alleges that the defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive ('Tech Executive-1 - identified as Rodney Jeffe) at a U.S.-based Internet company ('Internet Company1'), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign. 3. 
• The defendant's billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign ('Campaign Lawyer-1').  
• The Indictment also alleges that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Tech Executive-1 had worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. 
• In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract. 
• Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish 'an inference' and 'narrative' tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain 'VIPs,' referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign. 5. 
• The Government's evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system ('DNS') Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump's Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States ('EOP'). 
• (Tech Executive-1's employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.) 6. 
• The Indictment further details that on February 9, 2017, the defendant provided an updated set of allegations – including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating to Trump – to a second agency of the U.S. government ('Agency-2'). 
• The Government's evidence at trial will establish that these additional allegations relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic that Tech Executive-1 and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump's New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider. 
• In his meeting with Agency-2, the defendant provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol ('IP') addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider ('Russian Phone Provider-1'). 
• The defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. The Special Counsel's Office has identified no support for these allegations. 
• Indeed, more complete DNS data that the Special Counsel's Office obtained from a company that assisted Tech Executive-1 in assembling these allegations reflects that such DNS lookups were far from rare in the United States. For example, the more complete data that Tech Executive-1 and his associates gathered – but did not provide to Agency-2 – reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Provider-1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses. 
• Fewer than 1,000 of these lookups originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower. In addition, the more complete data assembled by Tech Executive-1 and his associates reflected that DNS lookups involving the EOP and Russian Phone Provider-1 began at least as early 2014 (i.e., during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office) – another fact which the allegations omitted. 7. 
• In his meeting with Agency-2 employees, the defendant also made a substantially similar false statement as he had made to the FBI General Counsel. In particular, the defendant asserted that he was not representing a particular client in conveying the above allegations. 
• In truth and in fact, the defendant was representing Tech Executive-1 – a fact the defendant subsequently acknowledged under oath in December 2017 testimony before Congress (without identifying the client by name)

That you can’t have a discussion on this thread without multiple people trying to gaslight you that’s it’s all in your head, or you’re a secret trump follower, or a reader or right wing troll sites is just ridiculous.

First Durham was not to be trusted, then there was no report, now it’s being misinterpreted, all the time avoiding the content of what Durham said. Trump really wrecked the minds of many people, they can’t think properly anymore.