Jesse Watters Has WILDLY False Claim About Hillary Clinton
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 2 years ago • 75 commentsBy: Michael Luciano (Mediaite)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Michael LucianoFeb 14th, 2022, 10:24 pm Twitter share button <?php // Post Body ?>
Jesse Watters falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton paid hackers to plant fake evidence in an effort to show Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government. The Fox News host then used his mischaracterization of the filing to state as fact that Clinton had attempted to frame Trump.
On Friday, Special Counsel John Durhamfiled a motion alleging that Clinton hired a tech executive with legal access to non-public, non-private internet data, some of which was allegedly used in an effort to link Trump to Russia. That executive has elsewhere been confirmed to be Rodney Joffe.
Durham is investigating the probe into Trump that culminated in the Mueller Report, which found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia, but that Trump nonetheless welcomed the country's help during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Watters is certainly not alone among conservative media figures making sensationalistic and false claims about the filing, but the allegation that fake evidence was planted stands out. On Monday, he told his audience,
Durham's documents show that Hillary Clinton hired people who hacked into Trump's home and office computers before and during his presidency, and planted evidence that he colluded with Russia.
Yeah. You heard that right. Hillary broke into a presidential candidate's computer server and a sitting president's computer server, spying on them. There, her hackers planted evidence, fabricated evidence connecting Trump to Russia, then fed that doctored material to the feds and the media.
The problem is that Durham's documents don't show this - at all.
Instead, the filing adds some detail to the indictment of Michael Sussmann, who had requested a meeting with the FBI to present the agency with evidence he said suggested that Trump had colluded with Russia. Sussmann told the FBI at the time that he was not working for "any client," but Durham maintains Sussmann was actually working for the Clinton campaign. As a result, Sussmann was charged with making a false statement to the FBI.
Rather than an elaborate hacking scheme, Durham states that Sussmann and a tech executive had access to certain non-public Internet data and that the tech exec "exploited" this by passing on data to the Clinton campaign.
The filing further states,
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.)
FoxNews.com reported the story about the Durham filing on Friday, and noted Sussmann had repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign. Neither the Fox News story, nor Durham's motion contain any allegations of hacking, fabricating, or planting evidence.
Moreover, Durham hasn't brought hacking-related charges against anyone. Were he to do so, the matter would still have to be litigated in a court of law.
Watch above via Fox News.
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
Filed Under: Donald TrumpHillary ClintonJesse WattersJohn Durham Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post
Tags
Who is online
440 visitors
They haven't brought charges yet, but the White House was hacked, they don't use the term hacked they use exploited and mined. From what I have read in the filing looks like one maybe both, Sussman or the Tech guy is going to rat the Clinton Campaign out.
Good things come for those that wait.
Well goose, Sussman's response to Durham's motion tells a different story . It's a corker...
Here's a excerpt and it's footnote:
That is a polite legalese form of telling the Judge that Durham is willfully LYING.
If you need translation, that means that all this BULLSHIT alleging that they had 'infiltrated' the Trump WH [an allegation NOT in the motion] and 'spied' on Trump is innuendo fabricated by Durham for consumption by Trump and his deluded followers.
Durham may get a gold star from Trump et al but the Judge may not be very happy about Durham's intentional attempt at misleading the court.
There's more but I'll let you and yours read it for yourselves.
Microsoft Word - MAS -- Response to Conflicts Motion and Cross-Motion to Strike(129764749.12).docx (courtlistener.com)
Oh gee you got me there, I thought for sure Sussman was just going to throw his hands up and say "You Got Me".
It's not a matter of Bullshit or Lying or fabricated, did they(not Sussman) hack the EOP's internet or not.
Whoosh, right over your head.
BTFW, the answer to your question is NO and if you had read my comment, or the link, you would know that. Alas...
Why didn't you say the same thing about Mueller, who turned out to be a dud and 40 million dollar waste.
Really..... From the USA V Sussmann case 21-582
At least your sad comments are consistent goose.
I'm pretty sure that you could read that block quote 100 times and still not know what it means. I'd post links to informative websites that explain it, [deleted]
A dud?
Let's look at the numbers, shall we?
Mueller's group is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pleaded guilty.
If you feel Mueller's investigation was a dud, you must feel Durham's investigation to be utterly, completely, irredeemably, incompetent.
Mueller indicted zero Americans for conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.
Just keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.
Telling the truth does help one sleep at night.
Repeat, "Mueller indicted zero Americans for conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election," and I'll bet you'll sleep better than you ever have.
The investigation showed however, that Flynn was indeed conspiring with the Russians for the Trump campaign. However he was indicted for lying to the FBI about it, before Trump pardoned him for being a good stooge.
So your statement is "technically" correct, but the investigation did show multiple cases of conspiring with Russia, just no specific indictments. But Durham's investigation isn't showing crap about anything.
Another dishonest statement. The investigation did not show Flynn conspired with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. Per Mueller " The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” I posted that to you just the other day. Yet here you are making false statements about it already.
o your statement is "technically" correct,
It's 100% correct.
But Durham's investigation isn't showing crap about anything.s.”
Lol. Than you aren't paying attention.
No, you are reading it through Barr colored glasses. Trump Jr. was found to have conspired with the Russians in the infamous Trump Tower meeting, but Mueller chose not to charge him because Jr. was too stupid to know he what he was doing was illegal.
Flynn was charged and pled guilty to lying to the FBI about ______? Please fill in the blank, and provide a link for your answer.
Conspired to do what and to what end. Wake up. It didn't turn out like you and the like minds wanted it to. He didn't charge him because it was a nothingburger. Ever hear the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? If it was against the law it was up to someone to do something and it this case that would have been Mueller even recommending charges. Reality. Get some.
I literally quoted Mueller.
ump Jr. was found to have conspired with the Russians in
First you claimed it was Flynn. Now it's supposedly Trump Jr. Read this quote from the Mueller report again "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". What part don't you understand? Why would you lie and claim that "Trump Jr was found to have conspired " when Mueller said the exact opposite?
lynn was charged and pled guilty to lying to the FBI about ______
Since it was your claim, provide the source that Flynn conspired with the Russians to interfered in the 2016 election. Don't be a weasel. Back up your claim.
No, they got nothing.
I see you left off the question mark and the end of my alleged "claim". How dishonest of you. How can a question be a claim?
see you left off the question mark and the end of my alleged "claim".
Lol.... No surprise you are trying to weasel out of what you wrote. I'll replay
Me 1.1.12: "Mueller indicted zero Americans for conspiring with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election,"
Your Response 1.1.13 "The investigation showed however, that Flynn was indeed conspiring with the Russians for the Trump campaign."
Are you confused about the difference between a question mark and a period?
So prove your claim that Flynn conspired with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election.
Oh spare my the details, since you consider the terms Approximately, provocatively, misleadingly legalese HA HA. I am sure Durham is shaking in his boots.
I did.
Take that supercilious bullshit elsewhere.
Well since he's admitted that he will be filing a motion in limine, it sure looks like he's afraid of something...
that would be the truth, that whatever they do, they just can't get Hillary LOCKED UP, butt looking more and more like Trump Fam,may get Knocked up in prison, but doubtful with their resources, but, onencan dream justice can prevail equally, three quarters of the time
If you'd watch some American news, you wouldn't have to ask.
Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor who resigned and pleaded guilty for misleading authorities over his ties to the Russian government
Of course nothing will prove it to someone who refuses to listen, so you can skip your "that doesn't prove anything". Flynn worked as an agent for the Russian government, that is indisputable.
Flynn worked as an agent for the Russian government, that is indisputable.
Lol. You keep saying demonstrably false things. Your own source doesn't claim he conspired with Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. Did you even read it?
Here's the actual indictment.
I'll explain this to you as simply as I can. He was indicted for lying to the FBI about a conversations he had AFTER the election with the Russian ambassador in which he asked the Russians not to vote against Israel in the UN. He was not charged with being a Russian agent, like you falsely claimed, and he was not charged with interfering in the 2016 election, which is what you were supposed to prove.
Please stop spreading false information.
Y , is that yours and the GOP's Job ?
Because it is fucking ignorant, that's Y.
Heb Tex , Oui' Agree on something! Now stop letting it be the 'Rights' overwhelming majority's claim to fame and get multiple independent sources for your news\, so asz you guys and girls, don[t look so damn lost all the time !
\
I don't have a fucking clue as to what you are attempting to say here.
Perhaps just using English in a normal manner would help people understand what passes as gibberish to many of us here.
is it gibberish cause i was in agreement with you >>> ?
Your agreeing with me or disagreeing with me has zero to do with it being gibberish.
Perhaps SAYING you agree with me without all the childish word play would have conveyed that MUCH more effectively than a word salad does.
Flynn actually worked as an agent for the Turkish government.
"Disgraced Trump adviser Mike Flynn admits he worked as a “foreign agent” for the Turkish government"
What he lied about was the inappropriate and potentially illegal discussions about sanctions and other policies with the Russian Ambassador in December 2016 before Trump was inaugurated and before Flynn was the national security advisor.
Flynn clearly lied about the conversations he had with the Russians because he knew that they could be considered a violation of the Logan Act. He later plead guilty because the evidence of his lies were overwhelming. The whole push by conservatives to sweep it under the rug and claim he was "framed" and other such rhetorical bullshit is just pure conservative fantasy. It's not surprising however, if they can imagine up a nefarious 'deep state' then they can spin reality so that a man who violated the Logan act and lied about it then plead guilty multiple times is actually the victim. I'm almost curious as to how conservatives have managed such a feat of dexterity as to view Flynn as a victim when having such a belief clearly requires one to stuff their head up their own ass.
yea, but do word salads ever leave you with a feeling of satiety ?
Nope, they are always unsatisfying.
I usually consider it a lack of a coherent argument.
it's most likely in their genetic makeup. That, and their heads, asz both are in their Jeans, with wedgies , cause Trump was the hammer (head) that drove that wedge Deep, and was appropriately nicknamed that Cheetoe De Jesus that did jamb toes, with cheese from down under not Australia, while his phat ass jiggled like jamb when a stormy did sea an image reflected grotesque, way worse than a Monica Blew dress, a tune hummed, Australian style, down under, a White House Desk
No one with a brain in their head is surprised by right wing medias lies about this story. We have seen it all before.
On Friday night, Special Counsel John Durham filed a pretrial motion on possible conflicts of interest by the lawyer representing Michael Sussmans, a cybersecurity lawyer Durham has charged with allegedly lying to the FBI . But he also "slipped in a few extra sentences that set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump," Charlie Savage writes in Monday's New York Times .
Trump and allied media organizations say Durham's filing, as Fox News' Brooke Singman put it in a widely cited early report , shows that lawyers for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign "paid a technology company to 'infiltrate' servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an 'inference' and 'narrative' to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia." Those claims were repeated Monday on Fox News' daytime news and prime time opinions shows .
"But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news," the conclusions "based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation," Savage writes . Gabriel Malor, a lawyer who writes for several conservative media outlets, lays out a few specific points on Durham's filing, including that it never uses the word "infiltrate" or accuses the Clinton campaign of ordering Sussmans or anyone else to pass the tech company's analysis of DNS data to the FBI or CIA.
Savage summarizes the competing narratives from Durham and the cybersecurity experts who compiled the contested DNS data, adding that the right-wing mischaracterizations "involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time — raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims." Lawyer Marcy Wheeler, who writes at Emptywheel , has a lot more detail about Durham's filings and Kash Patel's involved role in this story.
We're still waiting on those indictments on the Obama administration!!
So this is what's behind all the hair on fire seeds we've seen lately about the Clinton Campaign "spying" on the trmp campaign and his administration.
Gee...I really thought some people were smarter than this. Even I could decipher what's actually going on. I may have had to read it 2 or 3 times, but I understand what's going on
According to certain posters - "First the media ignored the story and now they are fighting it."
Ignored what?
Are fighting what?
pffft, this week's right wing circle-jerk theme for the brain dead morons that believe the alt-media bullshit.
Didn't Trump "lock her up"?????
Wait, what she isn't locked up!!! /s
Jesse's Rachel, Don, Chris imitation aside this may be a semi interesting development. Time will tell for sure, if there are actual indictments made it will get more interesting.
What I find semi interesting is the MSM has tried to ignore this story for a few days and now seem to be actively trying to debunk it.
What is a bit boring is Fox is doing their spin and CNN and MSNBC are doing their spin. In other words business as usual.
It is not time to make the popcorn but maybe soon. As Rachel would say "Watch this Space"
Here's the rub, the statute of limitations has expired on those 'events', and Durham KNOWS it.
So, all Durham did was sling mud with no intention or ability to prosecute the unsubstantiated and fallacious allegations.
When he's done with his 'investigation', he set himself up for a lucrative position in a RW think tank or PAC.
You may be right. I have not seen that reported anywhere but I have not watched it that closely. I tend to wait to pass judgement on any news report that starts with "bombshell" until more facts are in, if they ever materialize..
The federal statute of limitations is 5 years. All of the BS that Durham spewed are about events that occurred Feb. 9, 2017 at the latest, over 5 years ago now.
Of course, he could try to fabricate an 'ongoing conspiracy' but he has NO evidence of a conspiracy. If he DID, he would have and should have filed an indictment against SOMEONE for conspiracy. He hasn't.
He may want to review what's been happening in jurisdictions all over the country with lawyers who knowingly make filings that they cannot support with evidence.
Sussman's response requests that Durham's entire 'Factual Background' be stricken from the record and states that Sussman's lawyers intend to voir dire jurors about their exposure to RW media and Trump's characterization of the unsubstantiated story line in Durham's motion.
If what you say is true it is a good thing I haven't taken the popcorn out of the cupboard yet and it reinforces my "wait and see" attitude with anything I see on cable "news".
If anyone believes anything that comes from any media source today concerning Hillary, Trump or any of their associates, needs his brain tuned by by a good head shrinker...
That includes the abject deniers on both sides... as well as the finger pointers...
The real deal isn't going to be played out in the media... ever...
See I knew that the days and days of Fox bloviation on this subject, including their articles seeded here, was all bullshit...
Waaaaay too many people think what they see on Fox, MSNBC or CNN is news when in reality they have only one or two actual news shows between them all.
You do realize that the quoted part means all broadcasters?
Probably not from within the Fox-hating bubble.
A couple Clinton campaign rats have flipped on da bitch. She is epically screwed.
"Paid hackers". Lets see the receipts, bank drafts, money orders, wire transfers. As they say, "Follow the money."
A report on Faux News isn't true? Shocking!
Trump Jr is on video linking daddy to Russia when he stated they get plenty of money from them.
Not necessary to 'fabricate' ties or links concerning the Trump's and Russian interests. They do exist. Trump has been on the 'foreign money dole' for at least three decades.
Yet more unsubstantiated bullshit.
Trump's ties to foreign money sources is well-documented. Any attempt to claim that isn't so is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Of course, some refuse to educate themselves even when provided with sources documenting the evidence, instead, dismissing it out of hand without bothering to look further. Some our fine friends right here on NT are known to dismiss sources of evidence without having read it, as hard as that is to believe.
What are you defending?
IF you have evidence that Trump "has been on the foreign money dole" for at least 3 decades---SHOW IT.
Otherwise I'll just assume it is yet more unsubstantiated bullshit.
I hope one day you can tell the differences between someone asking for proof for wild-assed, unsupported claims and someone defending someone accused of such things.
Why can't you prove your scurrilous claims?
Every time in the past that I have recommended or referred you to sources, your immediate response has ALWAYS been to say that the source I provide is bullshit and you refuse to read it.
LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF.
[deleted]
Furthermore, the quote in your comment is NOT from me, yet you always act so offended when you believe someone is misquoting you or addressing someone else's comment when responding to you.
You have clearly confused me with someone else.
You made the claim. All I am doing is asking for proof. I had no earthly idea it would cause such trouble.
If you can't (or won't) provide proof, then I have my answer.
It is unsubstantiated bullshit.
[Deleted]
Never. I'm fully aware of how you have always conducted yourself.
Your petty personal little insults don't bother me.
I know when you're reduced to that that you have nothing better.
No kidding. I know who wrote that.
I quoted it so that there could be absolutely no mistake on your part what I was talking about and asking proof for specifically.
I wish there wasn't a need to explain that concept to you.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Doesn't he also have a big bank loan from their banks?
Strange that zero of Hillary's past campaign officials have spoken up in her defense s/
or been indicted