Former Tech Exec and Hillary Campaign collaborator Rodney Joffe has issued a statement attempting to explain what he was up to in monitoring President Elect Donald Trump’s internet communications.
Joffe's statement is an world-class exercise in non-denial denialism.
Whether he was authorized to access the DNS data, and whether or not there was a legitimate "national security threat" (and by whose reckoning?) he had no authority to go sharing that data with an attorney working for Hillary's campaign.
His statement conspicuously ignores that latter point, which is the only point that matters. He is knocking down a straw-man argument, while distracting everyone from the meat of the matter.
Thanks, very nice. It fits with, but goes further than, what I'm suggesting here: the involvement of people associated with the EOP. At a guess, what we may be seeing here is an infrastructure for political spying that was set up during the first Obama term and being passed on for Hillary's use. The idea being perpetual Dem admins based on this operation.
I think the GSA transition services group is next in Durham's cross hairs. Further, Sussman's attorney reply and now Joffe's are only doing a disservice to their defense IMO. Widburg's (sp?) article yesterday re: Bongino's comments about Ruemmeler suggest Sussman will be left withering on the vine at Latham Watkins. Can't wait. Cherry coke and popcorn time soon.
I'm sure GSA has already been interviewed; if it's the responsible agency they'd have the contracts that Durham's office would need to review to determine the contractual responsibilities and limits of access Neustar regarding any data from EOP, Trump Tower, and Trump's NYC apt.
If not, they wouldn't have a clue as to what Joffe was up to.
I am delighted to learn we have public-spirited individuals willing to investigate surreptitiously even a sitting President of these United States if there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election”. Of course one would not undertake this without being duly predicated, as it would even violate the rights of any citizen from unwarranted searches and seizures under the Bill of Rights. I assume in short order this predication will be spelled out for us, although I was disappointed by Mueller not being able to exonerate even as he couldn't convince me there was any predication justifying his investigation. There does seem to be predication for examining Biden's ties to China and the Ukraine, thanks to Hunter, and given the possibility of America coming into conflict over the Ukraine and Taiwan this does pose some urgency.
At first glance, this seemed like a glaring dichotomy: Mr. Joffe is apolitical but was coordinating and meeting with Clinton campaign lawyers.
After about five days of watching this story develop, one would think both Joffe and HRC could come up with better responses than those they have made public. My guess is they don't know how to respond because they don't know how much Durham has - and knows.
I am quite surprised he responded in public at all. Who was his audience? To what benefit? Ordinarily I would think there is no advantage for someone who is under investigation to make public statements of any substance. Doesn't any information volunteered in public effectively equate to being made under oath, from a legal perspective?
Who is representing Joffe? Perhaps his lawyers are coordinating with Sussman's lawyers, if they are not the same lawyers, which is probably the reason a statement was released. Offense as the best defense can be self-defeating.
If only Durham had a wiretap order for Sussman and Joffe's communications.
I wonder if Durham is the real deal or whether it's all for show? Many believe the latter, but if that is so, why is he even bothering to go through the motions? He could have just quietly faded away after Nov 2020. I've also heard that theory that he pops up every time HRC appears to be making a comeback, egged on by Team Obama. Who knows?
If you follow Emerald or Empty Wheel you're gonna be in for a let down. Durham has no more than 4 or 5 attorney's working on this... so many tentacles to cover... no SOL for conspiracy charges either.
Could Durham be dragging it out because we are seeing the tip of the iceberg, and we might even expect revelations from other sources in a far-reaching effort to root out corruption from Washington?
I would also counsel don't hold your breath. I would further say it is impossible to predict whether we will see indictments, unprecedented legal measures or wholesale capitulation and cooperation to restore a government of the people, by the people and for the people. No leaks, while frustrating, is a very good sign.
And how would you suggest we take our country back when all Washington seems to have been in on the plot? I choose to believe we do have people who are capable of pulling it off and are actively working on this, but don't ask me how or when. It helps that I don't see our current ruling class as terribly bright, but they do make up for it in arrogance.
Bebe; do you assume Brennan was familiar with Joffe then? If so, is it because of the extent going back as far as 2014? I assume Brennan was in his Director role then (can't recall). If your assumption is true, could be huge. Wow now that I think more about it. Can you say conspiracy?
Joffe's response - a non-denial denial - brings back memories of Watergate era.
I suppose his statement falls into "the more things change, the more they remain the same" category.
Which is just another way of saying "there is nothing new under the sun" Eccl 1:9
It would appear that Mr. Joffe has been a con man since the 80s. Paul Sperry presents a good bio of him in this RCI article.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/02/17/the_checkered_past_of_the_fbi_computer_contractor_who_spied_on_trump_816761.html
Thanks!
Joffe's statement is an world-class exercise in non-denial denialism.
Whether he was authorized to access the DNS data, and whether or not there was a legitimate "national security threat" (and by whose reckoning?) he had no authority to go sharing that data with an attorney working for Hillary's campaign.
His statement conspicuously ignores that latter point, which is the only point that matters. He is knocking down a straw-man argument, while distracting everyone from the meat of the matter.
The smell of panic is is in the air ...
I dunno. I think he's drawing attention to major issues and questions.
More on this from J.E.Dyer: https://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2022/02/16/and-there-it-is-important-distinction-regarding-the-surveillance-at-issue-in-the-sussmann-case/
Thanks, very nice. It fits with, but goes further than, what I'm suggesting here: the involvement of people associated with the EOP. At a guess, what we may be seeing here is an infrastructure for political spying that was set up during the first Obama term and being passed on for Hillary's use. The idea being perpetual Dem admins based on this operation.
I think the GSA transition services group is next in Durham's cross hairs. Further, Sussman's attorney reply and now Joffe's are only doing a disservice to their defense IMO. Widburg's (sp?) article yesterday re: Bongino's comments about Ruemmeler suggest Sussman will be left withering on the vine at Latham Watkins. Can't wait. Cherry coke and popcorn time soon.
I'm sure GSA has already been interviewed; if it's the responsible agency they'd have the contracts that Durham's office would need to review to determine the contractual responsibilities and limits of access Neustar regarding any data from EOP, Trump Tower, and Trump's NYC apt.
If not, they wouldn't have a clue as to what Joffe was up to.
I am delighted to learn we have public-spirited individuals willing to investigate surreptitiously even a sitting President of these United States if there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election”. Of course one would not undertake this without being duly predicated, as it would even violate the rights of any citizen from unwarranted searches and seizures under the Bill of Rights. I assume in short order this predication will be spelled out for us, although I was disappointed by Mueller not being able to exonerate even as he couldn't convince me there was any predication justifying his investigation. There does seem to be predication for examining Biden's ties to China and the Ukraine, thanks to Hunter, and given the possibility of America coming into conflict over the Ukraine and Taiwan this does pose some urgency.
/sarc to the max! ....What is this "predication" of which you speak? .... sigh
It must be there, no? Without it they wouldn't dare.
Do I have to say (sarc)? It kills the impact.
"A particular health care provider" ???
I've never seen a reason given for that.
Was that Trump's healthcare provider?
The "apolitical" part was particularly amusing.
More importantly, why didn’t he urgently report it to the Secret Service? Once President-elect, they became the primary protectorate of DJT.
by "they" you mean no one.
At first glance, this seemed like a glaring dichotomy: Mr. Joffe is apolitical but was coordinating and meeting with Clinton campaign lawyers.
After about five days of watching this story develop, one would think both Joffe and HRC could come up with better responses than those they have made public. My guess is they don't know how to respond because they don't know how much Durham has - and knows.
Look at his G/T teammates and their rhetoric... nothing apolitical about that. This response of his is shallow and not well thought out.
I am quite surprised he responded in public at all. Who was his audience? To what benefit? Ordinarily I would think there is no advantage for someone who is under investigation to make public statements of any substance. Doesn't any information volunteered in public effectively equate to being made under oath, from a legal perspective?
It was dumb to respond.
What’s that thing that people say. Stop digging?
Who is representing Joffe? Perhaps his lawyers are coordinating with Sussman's lawyers, if they are not the same lawyers, which is probably the reason a statement was released. Offense as the best defense can be self-defeating.
If only Durham had a wiretap order for Sussman and Joffe's communications.
True, dat! LOL
I wonder if Durham is the real deal or whether it's all for show? Many believe the latter, but if that is so, why is he even bothering to go through the motions? He could have just quietly faded away after Nov 2020. I've also heard that theory that he pops up every time HRC appears to be making a comeback, egged on by Team Obama. Who knows?
If you follow Emerald or Empty Wheel you're gonna be in for a let down. Durham has no more than 4 or 5 attorney's working on this... so many tentacles to cover... no SOL for conspiracy charges either.
"I was just following orders."
Could Durham be dragging it out because we are seeing the tip of the iceberg, and we might even expect revelations from other sources in a far-reaching effort to root out corruption from Washington?
I would also counsel don't hold your breath. I would further say it is impossible to predict whether we will see indictments, unprecedented legal measures or wholesale capitulation and cooperation to restore a government of the people, by the people and for the people. No leaks, while frustrating, is a very good sign.
And how would you suggest we take our country back when all Washington seems to have been in on the plot? I choose to believe we do have people who are capable of pulling it off and are actively working on this, but don't ask me how or when. It helps that I don't see our current ruling class as terribly bright, but they do make up for it in arrogance.
Bebe; do you assume Brennan was familiar with Joffe then? If so, is it because of the extent going back as far as 2014? I assume Brennan was in his Director role then (can't recall). If your assumption is true, could be huge. Wow now that I think more about it. Can you say conspiracy?