Judge Cooper Probes Andrew DeFilippis’ Conspiracy Theory about “Worker Bees” in a “Cabal”

I’m certain that the hearing in the Michael Sussmann case the other day was not laugh-out-loud funny in real time. I’m certain that when Judge Christopher Cooper rules on what can and cannot come in, some of the conspiracy theory that John Durham is pursuing may come in to substantiate the motive he alleges Michael Sussmann had for allegedly hiding the existence of a client in a meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker. I also recognize that Durham may moot many of these issues by bringing one or several interlocutory appeals before the trial to buy time to continue to spin his conspiracy theories some more.

But when I was reading the part of the transcript pertaining to whether Durham will be able to introduce researcher emails at trial, I started laughing out loud when Judge Cooper said this:

You could call Mr. Joffe.

The comment came after the discussion earlier in the hearing about what kind of evidence Durham might present to prove that Sussmann had a privileged relationship with both the Hillary campaign and Rodney Joffe.

It came after the discussion about whether Durham should be forced to immunize Rodney Joffe or not. That discussion had a lot more nuance than reports I had seen, including that Cooper floated the idea of prohibiting any Durham questions to Joffe about the allegations — that he had Sussmann share information showing the use of a YotaPhone by someone who was sometimes in Donald Trump’s presence — that Durham claims would be the basis of a contract fraud charge against Joffe if the data actually were only available as part of a DARPA contract that didn’t already, for very good cybersecurity reasons, encourage the tracking of such things.

THE COURT: What if the Court were to grant your motion in limine to keep out the information that he provided later to the CIA, and all the YotaPhone stuff is not in the case? Do you believe that Mr. Joffe would — and seeing that that appears to be the basis of the government’s position that there is some continuing exposure, do you think Mr. Joffe would see fit to change his position?

And the hearing, and so therefore this discussion on the conspiracy theory, came before Cooper turns to adjudicating Durham’s bid to pierce privilege claims, a bid which — I have already noted — makes a solid case that Durham should immunize Joffe rather than Fusion GPS’ Laura Seago, whom he plans to call as a witness.

So between the time when Cooper considered ways to make Joffe’s testimony available to Sussmann and the time when he turns to Durham’s false claim that the only possible way of accessing testimony about communications between Joffe and Seago is by calling Seago, the judge noted that one way of accomplishing what Durham claims to want to accomplish, rather than by introducing hearsay emails, would be to call Joffe.

Cooper made the comment to lay out that, if Durham really wanted to present the mindset researchers had as they attempted to understand a DNS anomaly involving a Trump marketing server and Alfa Bank, he could simply call the researchers directly.

And these emails, regardless of the words of any particular one, you’re offering them to show that the researchers had concerns about the data, right? And so you’re offering them for the truth of that proposition, that the folks who were in on this common venture had concerns about the data that Mr. Sussmann wanted to keep in the dark and, therefore, did not reveal to Mr. Baker why he was there. And so, the truth of the emails is that we have concerns.

Now, you know, if that’s a — if that’s an acceptable basis — if that’s relevant, right, you could certainly call those researchers. You could call Mr. Joffe. They could testify about how — you know, what was going on in, you know, those few weeks in August or whenever.

So, A, you know, why do you need the emails? [my emphasis]

In response to that, Andrew DeFilippis tried to spin that the government wasn’t trying to introduce the emails for the truth, but to show the existence of what he claims amounts to a conspiracy. In doing so, DeFilippis described that the emails were critical to tie Joffe to the effort to collect the data.

All we’re saying is that the existence of that written record itself might have provided a motive for Mr. Joffe or Mr. Sussmann to tell the lie that we allege he did. Now, that is the government’s secondary argument. The principal argument we’re making, Your Honor, is that these emails show a back-and-forth that tie Mr. Joffe to the data that went into the FBI, that tie Mr. Joffe to the white papers that went into the FBI, and tie Mr. Joffe to the entire effort which, absent that —

THE COURT: Mr. Joffe or Mr. Sussmann?

MR. DeFILIPPIS: First Mr. Joffe. And the reason why that’s important, Your Honor, is, again, because the defendant is alleged to have lied about whether, among other things, he had a relationship with Mr. Joffe, an attorney- client relationship. [my emphasis]

Cooper’s response — Mr. Joffe or Mr. Sussmann — nodded to the fact that Sussmann’s state of mind, not Joffe’s, is what’s on trial. Though shortly thereafter, he noted that the charged lie wasn’t even an attempt to hide Joffe personally.

THE COURT: Well, let’s just — you know, words matter, and let’s just be clear. He wasn’t asked “Are you here on behalf of Mr. Joffe?” and said no. He didn’t say “I’m not here on behalf of Mr. Joffe.”

He said generally, allegedly, he’s not here on behalf of a client, so at this point I’m not sure how relevant Mr. Joffe actually is at the time of the statement.

Indeed, much later, Sussmann’s lawyer noted that there’s no contest Sussmann told Baker he had gotten the allegations from cybersecurity experts.

What do we know is undisputed? That Mr. Baker will testify that Mr. Sussmann said the information was from cyber experts, okay? Not whether it was a client or not, but it was from cyber experts.

Cooper’s discussion of Durham’s conspiracy theory continued through DeFilippis’ effort to acknowledge that he’s not alleging collecting political dirt is illegal — though it may be “improper” — and then admitting this is not a “standard drug case.”

I have not seen one case where the charge is not conspiracy and the alleged conspiracy in which the statements are being made in furtherance of it is not criminal or improper in any way. Would this be the first time?

MR. DeFILIPPIS: Your Honor, I think — so we would not expressly allege to the jury that it was criminal. There are aspects of it that may be improper.


And I think, Your Honor, that most — that this hasn’t come up often should not cause the Court to hesitate just because these facts are a bit different than your standard drug case or, you know, your standard criminal case.

And it continued to DeFilippis’ effort to describe why people whose actions preceded the alleged formation of a conspiracy and other people who expressed reservations about joining into this alleged conspiracy would be included in what Cooper dubbed “a cabal.”

THE COURT: Okay. So who was part of this joint venture, in your view?

MR. DeFILIPPIS: So, Your Honor, it would be three principal categories of people. We have the researchers and company personnel who supported Mr. Joffe once they were tasked by Mr. Joffe.

THE COURT: Okay, but they were just tasked. You’ve made the point yourself that some of them, you know, had concerns. Some of them had issues with the data. Some had concerns that what they were doing was proper or not until they were satisfied that it was.

MR. DeFILIPPIS: That’s true, Your Honor, but —

THE COURT: How are they members of this cabal?


MR. DeFILIPPIS: — just to distill it down as to each category of people. The thrust of this joint venture was that there was a decision and an effort to gather derogatory Internet-based data about a presidential candidate — about a presidential candidate among these folks. There were the researchers who began doing that, it seems, before Perkins Coie became fully involved, and there are emails we will offer that show that data was being pulled in late July and August. So the researchers were the engine of this joint venture in the sense that they were doing the work, and they were doing — and the emails make clear they were doing it for the express purpose of finding derogatory information in Internet data. So that’s one category. [my emphasis]

I mean, even ignoring the fact that the record shows these researchers were not, in fact, analyzing data for “the express purpose of finding derogatory information in Internet data” — indeed, if one actually cares about national security, their actions might be better understood as an effort to protect Donald Trump from his dishonest campaign manager with a history of laundering money from Putin-linked oligarchs through Cyprus — DeFilippis admitted right here that the research into the data preceded the moment when DeFilippis wants to make it criminal (but not criminal in “your standard drug case” sense).

But Durham’s frothy lead prosecutor wants to treat cybersecurity research as — in Cooper’s word! — a cabal.

DeFilippis then went on to call some of the top cybersecurity researchers in the US, who found and started trying to understand an anomaly on their own volition, “the worker bees who are bringing the data and funneling it into this effort.”

Maybe I have a twisted sense of humor. But I was guffawing at this point.

Judge Cooper, however, capped DeFilippis’ effort with the same question:

THE COURT: And assuming that I agree that it’s relevant, you could get that in by calling witnesses without the emails, correct?

Everything that DeFilippis wants to do — even before he wants to get Laura Seago (who, Sussmann attorney Sean Berkowitz revealed later, would testify that she doesn’t even know about key parts of DeFilippis’ conspiracy theory, starting with Christopher Steele’s involvement) to offer the non-unique testimony about her conversations with Joffe — is best done by calling Joffe as a witness.

I’m not the only one, it seems, who recognizes that some of what Durham wants to do actually depends on calling Joffe as a witness.

126 replies
  1. greenbird says:

    ho ho ho
    hardy har har
    foofaraw all around.
    thanks, marcy.

    and thanks for the RT on your TL re musician-celebrity-crook, too.

  2. JVO says:

    “existing” should be “existence”

    It seems to me that Durham has been thoroughly painted into a corner and there is no way that Durham should be able to get out of it. Tick-Tock, we’ll see.

  3. obsequious says:

    Thanks for your overview of the transcript yesterday.

    One question I had was if the case partially hinges on proof of a conspiracy, both in a lie to the FBI general counsel but also major fraud regarding the DARPA contract, why wouldn’t the judge rule in favor of piercing “privilege” for the sake of providing the actual evidence of the conspiracy?

    It seems like a low bar to get in camera evaluation of the so-called privileged communications.

    • emptywheel says:

      It doesn’t.

      He’s not charged with hiding a conspiracy. He’s charged with hiding two clients.

      • obsequious says:

        Sussmann is arguing that he wasn’t actually representing anyone when he went to the FBI with the DNS data.

        Evidence to prove specifically that Sussmann did indeed represent multiple others including Joffe and HFA could be hidden from the government because of a so-called attorney client privilege.

        Not piercing privilege would be a pretty extreme order from Judge Cooper because it gives legitimacy to the technique of involving a lawyer at some point in commiting a conspiratorial crime so that you’re safe from investigation and subpoenas.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, just a reminder that “obsequious” is a one trick troll. And one that doesn’t understand much of how trials or attorney/client relationships really work. He or she is making stuff up and pulling it out of their rear.

        • Peterr says:

          There’s nothing “so-called” about attorney-client privilege. It is a longstanding feature of the law.

          To pierce that privilege is also a longstanding feature of the law, but to do so requires clearing a high bar. Thus far, Durham has shown none of the evidence required to do so. He’s been big on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, as this post demonstrates, but not so big on actual evidence.

          But thanks for playing.

      • greenbird says:

        per Indictment, making One Charge:
        2016 Sep 19 did make []statement or representation []to the General Counsel of the FBI
        []that he was not acting on behalf of any client [.snip.]
        In violation of Title 18 USC 1001(a)(2)

  4. BobCon says:

    I’ve noticed that trolls are displaying typically embarassing confusion about the technical details of the case and they seem to think if they can say DARPA enough times they can get away with it.

    Since Durham’s team and the trolls appear to be closely linked, I found this post to be helpful in laying out where these people are screwing up:


    One meta-level issue is that the linked press articles help illustrate that the right wing media machine is struggling to get this case turned into a Benghazi-style affair for *political* beat reporters rather than more substantive reporters.

    Which may help explain why they’re trolling here as much as they are. I think it’s a sign they’re basically crying about their impotence and the unfairness that they’re not being taken with the seriousness they are sure the world owes them.

    But watch more banging on the D*r*p*a drum and see if they ever slip up and turn those letters into Deripaska.

  5. Peterr says:

    Marcy, this reads like a satire of Kafka’s Der Prozess. DeFilippis sounds as if he wants to treat Sussmann like Josef K, but (unlike Kafka) he’s the only one who thinks this way.

    This might explain your laughter. It certainly explains mine.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I was laughing too. But without the context I’ve gotten by reading Dr. Wheeler’s posts on this from the beginning, I wouldn’t have gotten the joke.

      “Your Honor, we merely seek to criminalize opposition research when Democrats do it. How is that a problem?”

      • Troutwaxer says:

        “The results of security research should not be reported to anyone in charge of security!’ (And if I understand correctly, the research Joffe was involved with was paid for by DARPA?) The charge against Sussman makes less-and-less sense every day!

  6. Silly but True says:

    It’s clear that Durham team believes other crimes occurred by others than Sussmann in what they’ve termed “the joint venture” and they clearly are proud of the reams of emails they — whoops, accidentally publicly filed. So why no more indictments? Probably they can’t or maybe they do know their prosecutorial theory is weak. Either one highlights unfairness of Sussmann left holding the bag.

    It strikes me how many problems for everyone else were caused by Joffe. Even assuming the noblest of motives for self-described “McCain Republican” Joffe. For some of these, DeFillipis’ characterization of being “improper” is at least an understatement.

    I routinely access confidential government data as part of government contracts; we’re set up with a perpetual access account on government systems, and it is absolutely clear as part of the clearance process that use of the data shall only be for the extent necessary to facilitate the scope of the contract. The access allows for some “browsing” so-to-speak but it would never cross my mind to do so. This is admittedly a non-binary spectrum issue though; there might be cases where they believe they have relevant information in system but might not know where and it falls on us to find it. So perhaps on one end is “you have access to do A, and you access A data and do A.” On other end might be the most extreme examples: someone checking State police records on ex’s new bf, use of Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Services Dir. allowing others to access Joe the Plumber’s file, IRS employees running celebrity’s searches because they can. These are all clearly improper and extreme examples. In all cases, common guidance suggests “mercenary” access is likely improper, and if you see something, the way to resolve it is through your agency-side manager. One wouldn’t, for example first bundle the private/confidential/classified data and run to media. That’s probably not generally the best way to resolve something.

    Whether Joffe’s scope included chasing down theories like he did or not, Joffe appears to have formulated a theory that he felt compelled to chase and he accessed the data to do it — starting with a crowdsourced effort of like-minded non-contract colleagues in similar situations to his.

    In doing so, Joffe:
    1. Probably was stretching his government contract service when he began focusing on campaigns in wake of Russia hack. The fact that Joffe was engaged with non-contract colleagues in crowdsourced review suggests at least the initial review was not specifically a contracted scope. Likewise once he stumbled on Alfa data as result of this crowdsourced effort and then developed a theory on Alfa traffic and became focused on using his contracted access to chase it through.
    2. Apparently instead of simply alerting his US government contract liaison; or US government-side access manager who gets him his access to White House, et. al., he then:
    A. distributed private/confidential/classified information gained from his contract access to:
    i. multiple media contacts for purpose of generating news stories;
    ii. multiple non-contract academics, a lot of whom then further distributed Joffe’s data, some even putting confidential/classified White House data and movement metadata on public websites;
    iii. presidential campaign personnel: Joffe distributed his data to campaign personnel;
    iv. Sussmann, for purpose of Sussmann to use his contacts at the three-letter agencies.

    In all this, Joffe’s summa bonem — “the highest good” — was probably to simply just sit down with Joffe’s government-contract case manager and report his theory.

    By all appearances, what motivated Joffe to even first start his “Republican review” that turned up the Alfa data was not any contracted term of his government work but rather a sense of higher noble duty to country. In this regard, would the better analogue to Joffe then be Natalie Mayflower Sours-Edwards?

    Sussmann also might have bought that noble purpose too. But a first sign of trouble for Sussmann should have been when Joffe, after being the one to first put Sussmann up to reaching out to FBI, came and said “You know that issue I had you alert the FBI about? Well you better have them hurry up because I also gave it to Lichtblau and he’s dropping a story about it even as we speak.”

    I don’t know about any of DeFillipis’ “joint venture” angle, but it’s Joffe who could probably have handled a number of actions better.

    • BobCon says:

      “a first sign of trouble for Sussmann should have been when Joffe, after being the one to first put Sussmann up to reaching out to FBI, came and said “You know that issue I had you alert the FBI about? Well you better have them hurry up because I also gave it to Lichtblau and he’s dropping a story about it even as we speak.”

      That’s not what happened. As this post from EW describes, at the time Lichtblau was pushing to publish, Sussman himself had been in touch with Lichtblau for a while, and it was Lichtblau who first reached out to Sussman. It was not Joffe going behind Sussman’s back and surprising Sussman right when the idiotic Times higher ups turned Lichtblau’s article into whitewash of Trump-Russia.

      • Silly but True says:

        I guess the key there in my mind is how Lichtblau first got it. Who engaged him?

        If Lichtblau got it first from Joffe only then I think Sussman’s “noble Patriot” defense stands untarnished.

        If Lichtblau got it first from Sussmann, or perhaps even from both Joffe & Sussmann, then I think my point stands: Sussmann should have at that point put brakes on media contact and let the FBI contact run it’s course rather than mobilize parallel efforts.

        • BobCon says:

          To clarify, they *tried* to get the Times to hold off on publishing, but Dean Baquet and unknown other editors decided to put Alfa Bank on the front page days before the election, except claiming it was debunked.

          In effect, the top echelon at the Times tipped off the existence of an ongoing investigation while telling the general public that Trump-Russia was debunked.

          It’s still hinky how this got so screwed up.

        • Silly but True says:

          I thought I had clarity on this part, got more confused today but then I think I have clarity again after going through the related EW articles.

          I initially thought Sussmann was just Joffe’s intermediary to CIA/FBI, but EW’e articles convinced me it was also Sussmann who initiated first contact with Lichtblau to farm the Times article that Sussman then weeks later tried to help kill. That is an interesting event in its own.

          I guess now I’m into deep dive on timing when Sussmann maybe first contacted Lichtblau to farm the story vs. when Sussmann first emailed Baker to set up the FBI meeting; I’m not sure I’ve seen reporting on hard dates on evolution of Lichtblau’s story though.

        • Rayne says:

          When you put it that way, it’s kind of hinky how Dean Baquet is stepping down as NYT’s executive editor *now*, effective June 2022.

          NYT’s Sulzberger said, “The Times has a longstanding practice of editors leaving the masthead at 65, which Dean wanted to honor given his strong belief that Joe was more than ready to fill his shoes.” So why didn’t Baquet leave last year when he turned 65 instead of this year only three months before his 66th birthday?

        • BobCon says:

          The explanation that Baquet wanted to leave when people were back in the building so he could say goodbye in person was so insulting considering he’s already moved to LA.

          One strong possibility is AG wasn’t happy about Kahn being the replacement and was desperately trying to find some hack to hire instead.

          But who knows, really. The delay combined with Baquet’s obvious disengagement at a minimum clarifies how weak AG is at the helm.

        • Silly but True says:

          EW reports this as: “ Sussmann met with Lichtblau, brought Marc Elias into the loop, who in turn brought Jake Sullivan in.”

          So, here it looks like Sussmann created the entire Lichtblau problem vs. FBI.

          If Sussmann thought there was problem, going to FBI is reasonable. Going to NYT in parallel, not so much.

      • Another dude from G-ville says:

        There is so much wrong with that entire post. Hardly any of it true and no point at picking it apart.

    • emptywheel says:

      You’re assuming Durham’s insinuations about the data are correct.

      They’re not, as far as I understand it.

      • Silly but True says:

        Yes, that’s fair point.

        I don’t think he will, but for this reason I actually do hope Cooper allows both sides to have their technical expert witnesses Duke it out over their sides’ DNS theories.

        That would go long way to establishing technical facts of the data that’s been missing: can it just not be validated vs. was it affirmatively proven to be fake or altered, etc. We’re surely never going to see the CIA’s work, but from technical standpoint it would be nice to see what Martin would be able to establish regarding Durham’s theories.

    • Riktol says:

      Do we know what the scope of the DARPA contract was?

      I think your implicit assumption is that the scope of Joffe’s access to the data was narrow and well defined. But if he was doing cybersecurity research, then it seems to me that his scope is likely to be broad and vague. My impression (and I might have got this wrong) is that he was doing blue skies research, not something more limited like searching for a known type of covert communication.

      You might be correct about him being out of lane by spreading the data around, but it seems plausible that for something requiring high level expertise, the contract might allow the involvement of outside experts on an as-needed basis (assuming there is also a vetting process). Those experts might also have an existing or prior relationship with DARPA or other agencies.

      My final thought is that if Joffe did indeed do something in breach of the contract, he hasn’t been charged for it (yet), and you’d think Durham would be all over that.

      • emptywheel says:

        Understand, it is JOFFE’s data, not DARPA’s, not USG’s, not Johnny D’s. It is private data, tracking events that are “public” to the Internet.

        • Silly but True says:

          Agree with the technical distinction but not all of the internet is public, though; not everyone gets the same access to all of the registrars’ registeries. Nor do all registries respond to everyone’s’ queries the same way.

          Joffe is able to see things you or I can’t as result of his access. And if you or I poke too hard to find it, we’re getting visits from FBI that Joffe’s contract allows him to avoid.

    • Fark Melt says:

      Late response (I’m only just now catching up).
      To respond to Silly’s tome (Hopefully I have edited enough so that replies are inline, and identifiable):

      > Whether Joffe’s scope included chasing down theories like he did or
      > not, Joffe appears to have formulated a theory that he felt compelled to
      > chase and he accessed the data to do it — starting with a
      > crowdsourced effort of like-minded non-contract colleagues in similar
      > situations to his.

      Where were you able to find that this is how it all went down? How do you know that Joffe started all of this?

      > In doing so, Joffe:
      > 1. Probably was stretching his government contract service when he
      > began focusing on campaigns in wake of Russia hack. The fact that
      > Joffe was engaged with non-contract colleagues in crowdsourced
      > review suggests at least the initial review was not specifically a
      > contracted scope. Likewise once he stumbled on Alfa data as result of
      > this crowdsourced effort and then developed a theory on Alfa traffic
      > and became focused on using his contracted access to chase it
      > through.

      How do you know all of this already? Where has anyone provided evidence that this was part of “Government Contract Service”? Note that Joffe is referred to as Tech-executive 1, and not “Originator x”, or “Researcher x”. If he originated this, wouldn’t HE be “Originator 1”?

      > 2. Apparently instead of simply alerting his US government contract
      > liaison; or US government-side access manager who gets him his
      > access to White House, et. al., he then:

      (Id. ¶ 2) What government side contract, or contract liaison? Durham seems to be claiming through real innuendo that there was access to sensitive private White House systems and/or data. But there has been no showing or evidence of that, and Marcy states below that the data all belonged to Joffe/his company and not the USG. You’ll have noted that Durham was “forced” to backtrack and spell out that there was no claim of accessing systems in the White House after his cowboy like statements in his ongoing walking indictments led TFG to call for Joffe’s treatment as a likely traitor? https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/17/durham-says-hes-not-responsible-for-the-calls-for-death/

      > A. distributed private/confidential/classified information gained from his
      > contract access to:

      Where does classified come into this? If there was anything classified I am pretty sure Durham would have been ALL OVER that already, and Joffe would be in Leavenworth by now.

      > i. multiple media contacts for purpose of generating news stories;

      ? Joffe? or Sussmann?

      > ii. multiple non-contract academics, a lot of whom then further
      > distributed Joffe’s data, some even putting confidential/classified White
      > House data and movement metadata on public websites;

      Once again, source[s]? Classified? What contract? What non-contract. Where do you find this?

      > iii. presidential campaign personnel: Joffe distributed his data to
      > campaign personnel;

      Once again, source[s]? I see you now do refer to Joffe’s data.

      > iv. Sussmann, for purpose of Sussmann to use his contacts at the
      > three-letter agencies.

      Indeed, it appears that Joffe went to his attorney to seek counsel. That’s all we know, unless you know more? Which is his right. And given the environment then, and what has come to pass, he did the right thing by going to his attorney.

      > In all this, Joffe’s summa bonem — “the highest good” — was probably
      > to simply just sit down with Joffe’s government-contract case manager > and report his theory.

      Sigh. What government contract?

  7. notjonathon says:

    So is Judge Cooper telling the prosecution to put up or shut up about Joffe? Sussman clearly thinks that Joffe’s testimony would be exculpatory, while Durham’s team tries to imply that it would be damaging to Sussman–but only if Joffe doesn’t, in fact, actually testify.

    • emptywheel says:


      He also may be gearing up to say the ONLY way they get their conspiracy theory in is if Joffe testifies–which is right, IMO. Joffe is the only witness that is critical to getting to Sussmann’s motive. And the only witness who can speak to how much Sussmann knew of the data collection.

      • EdwardB says:

        I am a prosecutor in a small rural county in Northern California, and if I were arguing in limines, and the judge were to poke at my proffer as Judge Cooper is recounted doing here, I would not be sanguine about my chances.

        • bmaz says:

          Right? And Cooper is poking. Keep in mind that Cooper clerked for Abner Mikva. He knows how to poke.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Mikva played a key role in my political life. His campaign for congress was the first one I volunteered on, as a teen too young to vote but full of idealism. That set the tone for my activism going forward: fight for noble candidates doomed to lose.

          (I think it was congress; could be misremembering due to time’s blur.)

      • Rugger9 says:

        I can’t help thinking that all of the gambits that DeFilippis has been trying will eventually get him sanctioned. If Joffe is the one witness to know anything about Sussman’s state of mind and yet DeF doesn’t call him, how is it possible that any juror is going to believe the case DeF lays out? Remember, Sussman only needs one to say not guilty when asked for their verdict but as this case stands Sussman will get all 12. I was a juror in a DUI case where the DA spent their time in irrelevant innuendo regarding a possible extramarital relationship with a witness but refused to call the one security guard witness that allegedly saw the driver in that car in that state of impairment. The bust came two hours later at a backyard party because the ‘car engine was warm’ but none of the jury bought the state’s explanation. It also didn’t help that the officer (since promoted to sergeant) that led the bust refused to admit to easily verifiable facts like how far it was from Cupertino to Santa Clara as well as being generally evasive. Not guilty in 20 minutes.

        As EW astutely notes and I’ve said as well, this is about publicity not prosecution, just like Hunter Biden’s laptop in contrast with Jared’s 2 billion dollar [alleged!] bribe. Digby’s posted a good summary last Monday, but there are much more obvious strings to pull with Kushner than HB.


        OT, the recent report about the drop in GDP was a complete surprise since none of the indicators that would normally herald such a change did so. I recall that the Department of Labor Statistics had some burrowed-in GQP types that would regularly release poor labor numbers to great Faux fanfare and just as regularly the numbers would be revised markedly upward within a couple of months (and not reported by the courtier press). I wonder if that is what we have this time as well, since GDP is not a number that should blindside anyone.

        • Scott Johnson says:

          It’s amazing how quickly the press went from INFLATION! to RECESSION! even though employment figures are still quite good.

          Reading the tea leaves, and getting completely off-topic, this might be what causes Biden to finally pull the trigger on student loan forgiveness. Such a move would be stimulatory in nature, and doing so during an overheated economy would be questionable public policy. But if the economy is slowing down, now is the time to strike.

          The GOP knows it, which is why we see useless chitchat about introducing bills in the Senate to take away the POTUS’ power to do so. Such bills aren’t going anywhere, of course, and seem to be little more than an attempt to spook Biden.

        • obsequious says:

          The money has to come from somewhere, which means expansion of monetary supply, and devaluing of the dollar and higher inflation.

        • Rayne says:

          That money which has to come from somewhere is called taxes, and we already know there are billions out there which haven’t already been taxed at an appropriate rate. The GOP is squealing about restraining Biden’s executive powers — unlike the unitary executive powers it’s failed to restrain when they hold the White House — because they know taxing billionaires is extremely popular and they don’t want to mention their own fucked up approval of Trump’s tax cuts or generally mention ‘axes-tay’ in any way.


        • SkippingDog says:

          If so, how do you account for higher inflation throughout the rest of the world now?

        • christopher rocco says:

          I am no economist, but it seems that when one disaggregates the data (consumer spending, federal spending, imports up, exports down because of strong dollar, etc.), a different picture emerges. There is no “stagflation,” no wage/price spiral, people still have money to spend for a little while longer, service sector is rebounding and unemployment is low. Crying recession seems like a non story in search of a clickable headline.

      • Artemis says:

        Could the judge tell the prosecution to give Joffe immunity only for the facts relevant to this case? It sounded like the judge asked the prosecution if they thought anything joffe did related to the Sussmann-FBI meeting was under investigation and they hinted maybe and then kept alluding to a criminal conspiracy. But it seemed as you said, that the judge would strongly prefer testimony over emails/hearsay. Does partial immunity exist and could the judge force it in order for Durham to get the conspiracy in?

        • Artmeis says:

          Looked it up and answered my own question. The judge could limit Joffe’s testimony to specific questions and then the immunity would only cover those questions. I can’t imagine Durham would agree to that though, since these relationships and data collection form the basis for his preferred, but uncharged conspiracy. Do you think the prosecution would be more likely to immunize Joffe or let their larger ambitions for this case fall away?

    • bmaz says:

      Not sure would do that. My favorite Joffe factoid is:

      In 1988, Joffe’s Clinton, Iowa-based firm, Merchandisers Warehouse Inc., was sued by the Attorney General of Iowa for its scheme to sell $10 plastic desktop clocks as five-foot “world-famous Bentley IX” mahogany grandfather clocks to consumers in Iowa for “$69.19 in shipping fees.” The firm, as well as its Beverly Hills-based parent corporation, Prize Redemption Warehouse, settled the suit with an agreement to refund $800,000 to more than 10,000 Iowan consumers.

      • Silly but True says:

        I hope for Iowans’s sakes that Joffe didn’t include a picture.

        Joffe indeed appears to have a shady side. In his award puff piece which is a deep dive into his cyber career:
        https://ww w.youtube.co m/watch?v=J-e3aO7rc0E

        Joffe himself clarifies his role as:
        “I’m not the smart guy in the room. I’m really teh dumb guy that carries the bags — but fortunately in those bags, I have a lot of money. So my role has really been carrying the bags of money to help whenever I can when folks in the (security) community want things.”

        Yes, along with the “smart guys” doing the work, you do need people like this who have a knack for wrangling them all together. But you have to beware of the money, being the root of things, etc. etc.

      • Rugger9 says:

        I’d agree with you on this one, and I suspect the defense would then point out that DeFilippis can’t prove state of mind with the other stuff he does want to include. There is a reason Judge Cooper asked that question and perhaps he’ll force DeF to put up or shut up by excluding the communications too since Joffe is readily available. However, IANAL so consider that a theory for now.

      • greenbird says:

        NOW !! only on ebay !! …
        ” The BENTLEY IX Five Foot Tall Grandfather Clock – eBay
        RARE The BENTLEY IX Five Foot Tall Grandfather Clock New discontinued. Free shp. $290.00.
        Free shipping Free shipping Free shipping.
        howard miller grandfather clock. $1,200.00
        + shipping + shipping + shipping.
        Bentley IX Grand Father Clock – Good Condition. $125.00
        + shipping + shipping + shipping. ”
        o, caveat – o, caveat – how sticky are thy minions …

        • bmaz says:

          Am totally offended by Joffe’s fraud scheme. The other part of me wonders who in the world in Iowa bought off on this nutso scam. Maybe they needed to be separated from a little of their money.

        • Peterr says:

          The last four winners of the GOP presidential nominating caucuses in Iowa were Donald Trump, Ted Cruz (with Trump and Little Marco nipping at his heels), Rick Santorum by a nose over Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee.

          In the Senate, Iowa has sent Chuck Grassley to DC for many many years, and Jodi Ernst now sits alongside him.

          But the icing on the Iowa cake is the eight term former US Representative Steve “What’s wrong with a little white supremacy?” King.

          I’d say there are plenty of folks in Iowa who are . . . receptive . . . to buying into nusto scammers.

        • madwand says:

          The Brooklyn Bridge is sold all over the world wherever it can be sold again and again and again. Trump is the master of this, only he comes from Queens and he’s the one really selling conspiracies.

        • DrAwkward says:

          Harold Hill had some success with similar business practices in River City. I picture budding young flugelhornists eagerly awaiting the arrival of their grandfather clocks on the Wells Fargo wagon, the better to tell if they really can flugel the Minute Waltz in 50 seconds.

        • SkippingDog says:

          Was in Mason City last year. Cute, down-at-the-heels little town with a nice park and multiple Music Man sites for those interested.

      • Glint Breightly says:

        By the way, although not mentioned in the blog, Judge Cooper also denied a motion filed under seal in February by Joffe. Too many gears were turning at this week’s hearing to list them all in one place, so here’s one more.

        Joffe had complained that Durham’s inclusion of the activities of “Tech Exec 1” in his filings with the court had led to his immediate outing in the media which spawned numerous listed hardships on his family and self.

        Cooper denied the motion because neither the name of Joffe himself or any companies he’s associated with were ever mentioned in Durham’s court filings.

      • oldoilfieldhand says:

        Those same 10,000 Iowan consumers, (Iowa marks) who purchased “five-foot “world-famous Bentley IX” mahogany grandfather clocks for $69.19 in shipping fees” once again retain the privilege of rendering first judgment for the people of the United States on the worthiness of Presidential candidates.

      • Fark Melt says:

        The state of the Internet wasn’t great in the 1980’s. I went back to look at the various Corporate registrations in Iowa and in Cali. I can’t easily reconcile the newspaper photocopies with the Corporate records: https://sos.iowa.gov/search/business/search.aspx
        Merchandisers Warehouse (the 1188451 one) shows Linda Marilyn Carella as the sole officer, incorporator, sole director, President and Secretary. No record of Joffe at all, which would seem to imply odd statements/reporting that Joffe was the President and Carella the Vice-President? No record of Prize Redemption Warehouse in CA. Opencorporates has some detail – shows Carella I’ve learned that Wikipedia entries created by “frothers” is sometimes inaccurate, or incomplete. Looking at the audit logs for the Wiki, I don’t see any edits from anyone looking like Joffe. Amongst other things, Joffe was running (and still seems to run) a legit direct mail/direct marketing computer service bureau since 1983 (American Computer Group/Whitehat). Maybe a client of theirs?

  8. Jared Shoemaker Jr says:

    Hi, big time fan. Something I’ve been trying to understand because I’m not a lawyer and maybe I missed this in a previous post but why does Rodney Joffre need to be immunized? What did he do illegally that would require that or is this a Durham tactic

    • emptywheel says:

      Durham has entertained a number of theories. The current one is that because researchers involved in the YotaPhone research were, AMONG OTHER THINGS, working on a DARPA contract for which Joffe provided data, doing the YotaPhone research was a breach of contract.

      • Jared Shoemaker Jr says:

        But that doesn’t seem to warrant federal criminal charges or am I missing something.
        That seems more a civil issue

    • Scott Johnson says:

      The SP has long suggested, though not without any precision, that Joffe has some criminal exposure, in particular due to his work with Sussmann and on this particular matter generally. Joffe, like many in the cybersecurity biz, has a bit of a checkered past, and has made it known that without immunity from prosecution, he will plead the Fifth if called.

      It is suspected by many here, and by Sussmann’s lawyers, that this state of affairs is deliberate–that Joffe’s testimony would be more beneficial to the defense, and that by hanging the threat of prosecution over Joffe’s head, Durham is making a key defense witness unavailable.

      Sussmannn’s defense team is of course wise to this, and is demanding that Joffe be given immunity for his testimony so that he may be deposed or called to the stand, and would have excellent grounds to ask for dismissal if it is not given. Since the indictment does not allege that Joffe is a co-conspirator (even if an unindicted one) for the prosecution to nonetheless treat him as a potential suspect is problematic. Sussmann, like any criminal defendant, is entitled to have witnesses for his defense, and for the prosecutor to threaten a potential defense witness with prosecution is foul play.

      • arj says:

        “Like many in the cybersecurity biz, has a bit of a checkered past.”

        Oh baloney. You could say the same about real estate, sports, or banking… or about any field for that matter. Nearly everybody I know and work with in the “cyber biz,” and especially those involved in research, are ethical and “patriotic,” however you choose to define that term.

        • Purple Martin says:

          I dunno…I spent 30 years in “the cybersecurity biz” and “many” is … not unfair.

          That’s not “most” mind you, but we had a rep for a somewhat stodgy reliability and a number of times were asked to come in and check what someone the client had hired earlier on claims of once being a darkside hacker who turned to the light, had really been doing.

          Most often, they had simply misrepresented their capabilities but every few years we ran into a situation that called for law enforcement involvement. In the same vein, it was interesting following Sidney Powell’s and Mike Lindell’s ‘spies and hackers,’ which was pretty much the same story.

        • Rayne says:

          Johnson has been sucked into or is propelling a lazy trope about hackers which he conflates with information security professionals. It’s a false stereotype used so frequently that it was a topic in a sci-fi/fantasy fiction literature course at University of Michigan.

        • Leoghann says:

          There is another trope that I believe Durham and his faithful “team” have working in high gear. That is that anyone who has ever worked with #CrookedHillary or the DNC is guilty, guilty, guilty. And looking from where I am, if Durham can concoct the charges he has against Sussman, he might choose to attack anyone else involved in similar manner.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Well yes, Leoghann, that appears to be the “conspiracy” he is trying to “prove”–meaning further gaslight already credulous RW misinformation consumers.

  9. joel fisher says:

    As usual, I’m smarter after reading EW than before. One thing your excellent, blow by blow coverage of this evidentiary battle brings out is how important it seems to Sussman to keep Durham from embarrassing himself by bring up the whole “since-the-dossier-was-phony-there-was-no-collusion” conspiracy theory. Seems like a better theory for Durham would be to run from Trump and pretend he doesn’t exist. If the jury sees hears, say, findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, they’ll start looking at Durham like he’s wrapped in tinfoil. In that context, Sussmann looks like the patriot he is.

  10. bawiggans says:

    It seems that the researchers’ inclusion in Durham’s conspiracy hinges on their being incompetent or professionally dishonest. It should not be a heavy lift for the defense to establish that the researchers were asked to investigate a technical anomaly that on the face of it could have national security implications. Who could resist that? Did the researchers know up-front that it was dubious? Would Joffe have risked having his bomb, if that’s what he knew it to be, defused and discredited by world-class experts? Do the emails demonstrate that this team was so craven or so biased for Hillary that Joffe could safely assume that they would risk their professional reputations by vouching for a fabrication that could not stand up to their own scrutiny? I doubt that the emails Durham wants to substitute for the testimony of the actual people involved can support such characterizations of those people and it’s pretty obvious why he doesn’t want to subject them to cross-examination.

    • bmaz says:

      If you have ever dealt with Perkins Coie, they are generally not that incompetent. And they have a very robust conflicts search section.

      • gmoke says:

        Mebbe Rep Katie Porter can recommend the Perkins Cole “very robust conflict search section” to McKinsey as McKinsey certainly seems to need one.

    • Silly but True says:

      “It should not be a heavy lift for the defense to establish that the researchers were asked to investigate a technical anomaly that on the face of it could have national security implications. Who could resist that? Did the researchers know up-front that it was dubious?”

      You’d think it’s that simple. But FWIW, as cautionary example #1,324,348 of proper use of emails, one of Durham’s accidentally leaked docketed exhibits is the gem from Joffe’s lead researcher Manos Antonakakis of the Georgia Institute of Technology which read :“the only thing that drives us is that we just don’t like [Trump].”

      Antonakakis isn’t charged, nor can it be suggested that he was speaking for all the researchers or as direction given to him by Joffe.

      One can write that email if one absolutely feels a need to but for crying out loud, then delete it instead of sending it. The world is like 30 years into widespread consciousness of not sending stupid emails like that.

      • Brian says:

        Hey Rayne,
        I don’t know what ID to comment under. I have logged previous comments. Few, but probably under multiple email addresses, maybe none distinctive. Exceptionally common given name, no strong go to avatar

        [You’ve posted comments here under “Brian ed,” “brian ed,” “beddy,” and “Brian.” If you’re not crazy about any of these pick a name you can easily remember which is distinctive and stick to it here forward so the community gets to know you. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • Brian says:

        Hey, can you source that gatech email?
        These are emails made public by mistake/on purpose and then removed?


        • Silly but True says:

          I’m not reading any motives into the public docketing; mistakes happen.

          The recent exhibits were the original emails at heart of the privilege hearing.

          But Durham actually quoted it in Sussmann’s original speaking indictment on top of pg. 14.

          You can find copy at DoJ:
          http s://ww w.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download

  11. Doug Fir says:

    Along with the incredibly detailed, thoughtful and incisive analyses, Dr Wheeler’s illustrating how conspiracy cases can be carefully built, as in the J6 conspiracy prosecutions, as opposed to how they shouldn’t be built, as in Durham’s current project. Great compare and contrast!

    Many thanks to Dr Wheeler and all the others here who help make this an intelligent respite from internet stoopidity.

  12. Dopey-o says:

    IANAL, so here comes a stupid question. What if the whole “DNS anomaly” tying Alfa Bank to Trump’s campaign is nothing? Some intern in Alfa Bank’s IT department misconfigured the email server, there was no attempt at surreptitious communication, Sussman et al heard hoofbeats and misidentified them as a Siberian zebra? (Out of an abundance of caution…)

    So Sussman takes a fictitious warning to the FBI? If I sincerely believe Lee Harvey Oswald is planning to shoot Joe Biden, and I go to the FBI, am i now a criminal?

    Now if Durham, like me, understands that the DNS anomaly is just noise, why would he go to such extensive lengths to punish Sussman? To discourage future whistleblowers? To spread disinformation about the Evil Democrats in advance of the 2024 elections?

    My paranoid side wants to believe that Alfa Bank was distributing crypto-currency to GOP cut-outs and showed clear Russian interference. But that isn’t realistic. Maybe Durham doesn’t believe the Alfa Bank matter is just a will-o-the-wisp, but what if he’s just performing kabuki for Barr and Barr’s RWNJ pals?

      • Dopey-o says:

        I wanted to know what this unholy gathering of Federalists, Opus Dei true-believers and RWNJs have been planning. Durham is too experienced to think he can prove or disprove Alfa Bank’s role, so why is he expending time, money and his retirement years on something of possibly no consequence?

        And yes, my nym is my clear admission that I don’t understand the situation we have been thrust into.

  13. Scott Johnson says:

    Why not call witnesses? That seems to be an easy one.

    The defense cannot cross-examine emails.

      • Scott Johnson says:

        I might have misunderstood what is going on here, but it seems like the SP wants to introduce possibly out-of-context emails, and spin them as incriminating, WITHOUT calling the authors of those emails to the stand. Which is consistent with trying to gin up a conspiracy theory for public consumption (which seems to be what this case is about), but with trying to solve and prosecute an actual crime.

        The judge seems to be at least somewhat wise to what is going on.

        • Silly but True says:

          For clarity, Joffe may be under threat from 18 U.S.C. 1031, “which involves defrauding the government in connection with procurement and contract matters,” and has statute of limitations longer than 5 years.

          This peril would have to call under Durham team’s theory that Joffe somehow misused the DARPA contract.

        • Xboxershorts says:

          I am still unclear on how the Yotaphone data fits in with this Alfa Bank/Trump.org email system DNS data.

        • Silly but True says:

          Joffe’s DNS queries included a Russian Yotaphone. Sussmann then relayed Joffe’s teams’ findings to counterintelligence officials at the C.I.A. in February 2017. The findings included data suggesting that a YotaPhone — a Russian-made smartphone rarely seen in the United States — had been used from networks serving the White House, Trump Tower, and Spectrum Health, a Michigan hospital company whose server had also interacted with the Trump server.

        • timbo says:

          He may also be on the hook for lying to FBI and other US government agencies and representatives. It’s really not clear. The point is that Durham is using that lack of clarity to apparently gin up a case against Sussmann. This appears to be an attempt by Durham and other Twisslering lackies, etc, to silence all oppo researchers that might look into the technical aspects of much of the corruption that the GOP et all undertake with foreign and domestic players.

  14. Cosmo Le Cat says:

    MR. DeFILIPPIS: [T]he defendant is alleged to have lied about whether, among other things, he had a relationship with Mr. Joffe, an attorney- client relationship.

    EW wrote that shortly later, referring to Sussmann, Judge Cooper said:

    He said generally, allegedly, he’s not here on behalf of a client, so at this point I’m not sure how relevant Mr. Joffe actually is at the time of the statement. He wasn’t asked “Are you here on behalf of Mr. Joffe?” and said no. He didn’t say “I’m not here on behalf of Mr. Joffe.”

    EW wrote that much later in the hearing Sussmann’s lawyer said:

    Mr. Baker will testify that Mr. Sussmann said the information was from cyber experts, okay? Not whether it was a client or not, but it was from cyber experts.

    My question is whether this case is about whether Sussman had an attorney-client relationship with Joffe and whether Sussmann went to Baker on behalf of Joffe in that capacity and then, allegedly, lied to Baker by saying he was not there on behalf of a client. I am confused because I thought the case was about whether Sussmann was there on behalf of others connected to the Clinton campaign or other Democratic party operatives. I also thought this case would simply come down to whether the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baker truly specifically and accurately recalls that Sussmann said he was not there on behalf of a client, while Sussmann’s defense is simply that he didn’t say that or, alternatively, if he did say that it was true. I would appreciate having my misunderstanding corrected.

    • emptywheel says:

      The case comes down to two things.
      1) Whether Durham has proof that Sussmann said what Durham alleges he said. He did–at least in a text the day before (though in some ways that will make it easier to sow doubt on Sussmann’s part, bc Baker knows Sussmann says it but won’t be able to say he said it on the 19th in addition to the 18th).

      2) Whether Sussmann meant by saying, “no client” that he had no client or that he had no ask from a client.

      • OldTulsaDude says:

        Wouldn’t the issue be whether or not he was directed to act by a client? That’s how I understood his response, that he was not sent by any of his clients. Proof to the contrary would have to come from a client, then, would it not? Or can a circumstantial case be built out of e-mail scraps if you twist hard enough?

        • timbo says:

          This. Durham and Barr at others want to >scare off< other potential oppo researchers by the potential of being involved in long, drawn-out prolonged cases exactly like what Durham is doing to Sussman here. And apparently, it bothered neither Barr or Durham that by doing so they may be endangering US national security, etc.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        What happened to materiality? If I were on that jury, I would be wondering–hard–about that.

  15. Savage Librarian says:

    Well, with the worker bees lingo, I took a trip down memory lane to Romper Room. Who remembers the Do Bees and the Don’t Bees? And Mr. Music? And the theme song?

    Here’s a hint:

    “A boat named “Pop Goes The Weasel” competed in the Durham Regatta in June 1852, but it was in December of that year that “Pop Goes The Weasel” first came to prominence as a social dance in England. A ball held in Ipswich on 13 December 1852 ended with “a country dance, entitled ‘Pop Goes the Weasel’, one of the most mirth inspiring dances which can well be imagined.”


    The song had varying lyrics over the years and continents, but one lesser known stanza that may have some relevance today is:

    “Johnny Bull, he makes his brag,
    He can whip the whole creation,
    Why don’t he take Sebastopol,
    By Pop goes the weasel.”


    • Eureka says:

      Well, I remember these Doobies:

      But what a fool believes he sees
      No wise man has the power to reason away
      What seems to be
      Is always better than nothing
      And nothing at all keeps sending him…

      “What A Fool Believes”
      M. McDonald and K. Loggins

      • Leoghann says:

        I can say, without the slightest doubt, that those lyrics were not covered in Romper Room.

    • Rayne says:

      Wow. Flashback triggering, the Do Bees and the Don’t Bees memory.

      Had no idea there was any link to Crimea with Pop goes the weasel.

    • Leoghann says:

      I don’t remember “Pop Goes the Weasel,” either the 1852 or 1952 version, being part of Romper Room. But I do remember:

      I always do what’s right.
      I never do anything wrong.
      I’m a Romper Room Doooo Beeeeee,
      A Do Bee all day long!

      [It’s a curse.]

      • Eureka says:

        Egads. No offense to anyone’s nostalgia should said exist, but this sounds like a televised indoctrination camp. Vibe reminds me of a show, or ubiquitous ad, within one of the Halloween sequels — actually a plot device whereby faithful viewers’ heads would explode to be eaten by ? reptiles vs. aliens or some such come 31 Oct. / parasynopsis / quality film review

        I did however have a generational hand-down jack-in-the-box that cranked to the weasel tune. Come to think of it that Halloween thing had its own creepy melody …

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      SL, who besides you would come up with this? No one, that’s who!

      I’m actually glad my censorious parents refused to let us watch Romper Room.

      • Savage Librarian says:

        Leonardo DiCaprio told Dave Letterman that he was on Romper Room, but they kicked him off. Yesterday I was talking with one my brother’s friends. He told me he had never met anyone like him. I said that people said that about me and my other brothers, too. My mother often said that she did not raise us, we raised ourselves. Maybe it was just too much Romper Room!

  16. rosalind says:

    OT: something i discovered traveling this week w/out my own internet connected device: using the hotel computer, if i clicked on a twitter link inside one of marcy’s tweets in the “tweet” box on the EW homepage, it brought up the twitter page and i could then search and read posts without being logged on. something i did not know you could do.

    if you don’t have a twitter account and would like to have access to read others’ posts, give it a try.

    • civil says:

      It’s easy to read people’s tweets on the web without having a Twitter account, just by treating their account URL like any other webpage URL (e.g., https://twitter.com/emptywheel/ ) Depending on your browser, it may periodically ask you to log in, but you can get around that. You can use Twitter’s search mechanism without an account, though depending on what you’re looking for, it can be simpler to use a domain-limited Google search. If you’re not familiar with those, type “site:__” in the search terms, and fill the blank in with the domain that you want to limit the search to, which could be quite broad, such as site:gov to find government results, or could be fairly narrow, such as site:emptywheel.net/2022 if you’re trying to find something you read here in the last few months.

    • Eureka says:

      Another thing you can do to read tweets scrolling anyone’s TL is to get past what tw calls the carousel — that block of topics/people to follow that appears after the first several tweets. It’s arriving at that carousel that triggers the demand to log in to read so-and-so’s tweets (in my exp.). Read to there, get the popup that blocks reading without an acct./login, refresh to reload page, then scroll down quickly to pass that middle chunk before it loads and see the rest.

      • Troutwaxer says:

        I open Twitter pages in a private window. I only have a problem if someone has marked the content as “adult.”

        • Eureka says:

          Yeah they’ve been increasingly doing that with lots of the war content (adult labeling).

          I generally have no problem either, but lately around this time of the week tw +/- ad/misc-tracker-blocker add-ons change their scripts such that this new problem occurs for all content/general TL scrolling such that you have to primate your way around it until the scripts-races catch up with each other.

          Relatedly, note to folks who can’t see the embedded tweets box on EW: that IME is due to your browser’s blocker add-ons so they would need to be turned off for this site.

  17. Geoguy says:

    I have been reading tweets for a while from the “tweet” box on the EW homepage. It works well on a computer but is pretty awful to the point of not working on my mobile devices. Of course I am prompted to create an account which I don’t have.

    • Rayne says:

      Thanks for the feedback. We’ll take it under consideration when a redesign is scheduled.

      As an alternative to opening a Twitter account, may I suggest bookmarking these emptywheel member accounts in a mobile browser:


      You should be able to open each one individually to read updates. There are news or feed readers which may also help you follow a consolidated list of Twitter accounts.

        • Rayne says:

          His account doesn’t appear to be locked at the moment to me. I’m logged out and I can read his tweets from a browser tab.

        • Leoghann says:

          When I first saw Rayne’s list of Twitter accounts, I followed them all. The next day, I hit a link to a tweet of yours that was in the sidebar display, and it said you had limited the people who could see your tweets, which in Twitterese means I was blocked. Since I hadn’t done anything that might be deemed offensive–hadn’t made any comment at all on your tweets, that told me you weren’t accepting followers.

        • Leoghann says:

          It was weird. Before, I could access your posts just fine. But the day after I clicked that Follow button, I was blocked. And I’ve had a Twitter account for years. If it makes a difference, my handle starts with LM and ends with a lower-case r.

    • skua says:

      I often get no Tweets box at all for EW on Android device.

      (And when I do get Tweets box and go to one of the excellent Tweets there seems to be periods of obstacles made by Twitter, like twitter pop-ups, being told to login, not being able to click thru from one Tweet to another, and having a viewed account show me a limited number of tweets and not be able to see more of their tweets. These “features” may be location-specific experiments by Twitter.)

  18. Thomas says:

    I note Cooper’s skepticism about this uncharged “conspiracy.”
    It seems Durham charged Sussman just so the rightwing press could constantly repeat that Sussman brought evidence that Trump was tied to the Russians to the FBI and that he “lied.”
    Aha! So he was LYING when he told the FBI that Trump was connected to the Russians! AHA!
    The juvenile idiots that believe Fox News or the other professional liars aren’t going to delve any further than that, and the cynical, mendacious, manipulative liars in the criminal Republican Party have no other aim here but to accuse someone else who investigated their backstabbing crimes as a “liar.”

  19. Spencer Dawkins says:

    Dr. Wheeler,

    “Maybe I have a twisted sense of humor. But I was guffawing at this point”

    There are very few attributes you and I share (for starters, you’re way more intense and way better organized than I am), so I am HONORED to share this one.

    I don’t know how Cooper keeps from giggling, at this point.

    Are we hitting the point where Durham and his crack team are keeping the investigation open because they have realized they’ll never work in the legal profession again, after this investigation concludes?

Comments are closed.