CIA Gives Trump Huge Win for Lawsuit, Concludes Hillary Clinton’s Russia Data Is Not Technically Possible

President Donald Trump is suing Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and several of their Democratic allies for smearing him with false ties to Russia.

He is seeking more than $72 million in total for legal fees and other damages Trump has suffered.

“Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty,” Trump’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida, states.

The filing says:

The Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby serves his suit against the Defendants, Hillary R. Clinton, HFACC, Inc., the Democratic National Committee, DNC Services Corporation, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias,

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robert E. Mook, Phillipe Reines, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr,

Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd., Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar, Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Andrew McCabe,

John Does 1 through 10 (said names being fictitious and unknown persons), and ABC Corporations 1 through 10 (said names being fictitious and unknown entities) and alleges as follows:

In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy.

Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.

The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data sources – are so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison.

Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust.

They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would be used to trigger an unfounded federal investigation and ignite a media frenzy.

Enter Special Counsel John Durham and his latest Friday night filing.

Durham has revealed that the CIA concluded the Trump-Russia data was not “technically plausible.”

The prosecutor also says the data was found to be “user-created and not machine/tool generated, contained gaps, conflicted with itself,” and did not “withstand technical scrutiny.”

Trump is alleging conspiracy in his lawsuit and one of the few defenses Hillary  Clinton and her team have is that “the data is the data.”

However, if the CIA is right and it was fabricated, (Durham makes clear he has not come to that conclusion but the CIA did) it seems Trump is well on his way to proving the conspiracy in court.

Durham’s filing says:

At a minimum, however, the Government does expect to adduce evidence at trial reflecting (i) the fact that the FBI and Agency-2 concluded that the Russian Bank-1 allegations were untrue and unsupported and

(ii) the primary bases for these conclusions, including the particular investigative and analytical steps taken by these agencies.

(For example, while the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated, Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not“withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.” The Special Counsel’s Office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard.)

Durham’s filing also says he has witnesses that will refute Hillary’s lawyer’s defense. If so would he make a deal? That is probably the only way they will get to Hillary and remember, Biden and Hillary, do not have the best relationship. He’s still pissed everyone backed Hillary in 2016.

Durham’s filing says: “Nor does the defendant’s attempt to distance himself factually from the origins of the purported data and allegations aid his argument. As an initial matter, the Government has already proffered to the Court and/or expects to offer at trial considerable evidence that the defendant – a former DOJ cyber lawyer who identified himself as an expert in privacy, cybersecurity, and technology law – was involved in and/or aware of the data’s origins.

For example: Days before his meeting with the FBI, the defendant emailed Researcher-2 – the author of one of the relevant white papers and one of the primary researchers who analyzed the Russian Bank-1 allegations – stating that they had a mutual friend, referring to Tech Executive-1.

Also in mid-September 2016, Researcher-2 left a voicemail for the defendant at his office seeking to speak with him.

If called as a witness, Researcher-2 would testify that soon thereafter, he spoke with the defendant and raised concerns about whether the data concerning Trump and Russian Bank-1 was being unlawfully collected and used.

Reflecting sufficient awareness of the data’s origins to opine on the issue, the defendant assured Researcher-2 that the data had, in fact, been lawfully collected and used.

Researcher-2 would testify, in particular, that the defendant stated that the data was collected under contracts for what is described as “passive DNS” collection, and that the use of the data complied with principles of “informed consent.”

Researcher-2 would further testify that he understood the defendant to be familiar with the “corporate sources” of the relevant data.

Billing records demonstrate that in September 2016, the defendant billed the Clinton Campaign for “drafting” a “white paper,” which, in context, referred to the Russian Bank-1 white paper—reflecting that the defendant had enough familiarity with the data and relevant subject matters to assist in crafting the relevant analysis.

Testimony at trial will further establish that during his meeting with Agency-2, the defendant described the relevant Russian Bank-1 and Russian Phone Provider-1 data as “private collection,” distinguishing it from Government-collected data.

SHARE:
join telegram

READERS' POLL

Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By David Hawkins

David Hawkins is a writer who specializes in political commentary and world affairs. He's been writing professionally since 2014.

Subscribe
Notify of

Recommended

2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x