For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public.

When the C.D.C. published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65 two weeks ago, it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds, the group least likely to benefit from extra shots, because the first two doses already left them well-protected.

The agency recently debuted a dashboard of wastewater data on its website that will be updated daily and might provide early signals of an oncoming surge of Covid cases. Some states and localities had been sharing wastewater information with the agency since the start of the pandemic, but it had never before released those findings.

Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said.

Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control. Detailed, timely data on hospitalizations by age and race would help health officials identify and help the populations at highest risk. Information on hospitalizations and death by age and vaccination status would have helped inform whether healthy adults needed booster shots. And wastewater surveillance across the nation would spot outbreaks and emerging variants early.

Without the booster data for 18- to 49-year-olds, the outside experts whom federal health agencies look to for advice had to rely on numbers from Israel to make their recommendations on the shots.

Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”

Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.

Dr. Daniel Jernigan, the agency’s deputy director for public health science and surveillance said the pandemic exposed the fact that data systems at the C.D.C., and at the state levels, are outmoded and not up to handling large volumes of data. C.D.C. scientists are trying to modernize the systems, he said.

“We want better, faster data that can lead to decision making and actions at all levels of public health, that can help us eliminate the lag in data that has held us back,” he added.

The C.D.C. also has multiple bureaucratic divisions that must sign off on important publications, and its officials must alert the Department of Health and Human Services — which oversees the agency — and the White House of their plans. The agency often shares data with states and partners before making data public. Those steps can add delays.

“The C.D.C. is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization,” said Samuel Scarpino, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute. “The steps that it takes to get something like this released are often well outside of the control of many of the scientists that work at the C.D.C.”

The performance of vaccines and boosters, particularly in younger adults, is among the most glaring omissions in data the C.D.C. has made public.

Last year, the agency repeatedly came under fire for not tracking so-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated Americans, and focusing only on individuals who became ill enough to be hospitalized or die. The agency presented that information as risk comparisons with unvaccinated adults, rather than provide timely snapshots of hospitalized patients stratified by age, sex, race and vaccination status.

But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.

Ms. Nordlund confirmed that as one of the reasons. Another reason, she said, is that the data represents only 10 percent of the population of the United States. But the C.D.C. has relied on the same level of sampling to track influenza for years.

Some outside public health experts were stunned to hear that information exists.

“We have been begging for that sort of granularity of data for two years,” said Jessica Malaty Rivera, an epidemiologist and part of the team that ran Covid Tracking Project, an independent effort that compiled data on the pandemic till March 2021.

A detailed analysis, she said, “builds public trust, and it paints a much clearer picture of what’s actually going on.”

Concern about the misinterpretation of hospitalization data broken down by vaccination status is not unique to the C.D.C. On Thursday, public health officials in Scotland said they would stop releasing data on Covid hospitalizations and deaths by vaccination status because of similar fears that the figures would be misrepresented by anti-vaccine groups.

But the experts dismissed the potential misuse or misinterpretation of data as an acceptable reason for not releasing it.

“We are at a much greater risk of misinterpreting the data with data vacuums, than sharing the data with proper science, communication and caveats,” Ms. Rivera said.

When the Delta variant caused an outbreak in Massachusetts last summer, the fact that three-quarters of those infected were vaccinated led people to mistakenly conclude that the vaccines were powerless against the virus — validating the C.D.C.’s concerns.

But that could have been avoided if the agency had educated the public from the start that as more people are vaccinated, the percentage of vaccinated people who are infected or hospitalized would also rise, public health experts said.

“Tell the truth, present the data,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and adviser to the Food and Drug Administration. “I have to believe that there is a way to explain these things so people can understand it.”

Knowing which groups of people were being hospitalized in the United States, which other conditions those patients may have had and how vaccines changed the picture over time would have been invaluable, Dr. Offit said.

Relying on Israeli data to make booster recommendations for Americans was less than ideal, Dr. Offit noted. Israel defines severe disease differently than the United States, among other factors.

“There’s no reason that they should be better at collecting and putting forth data than we were,” Dr. Offit said of Israeli scientists. “The C.D.C. is the principal epidemiological agency in this country, and so you would like to think the data came from them.”

It has also been difficult to find C.D.C. data on the proportion of children hospitalized for Covid who have other medical conditions, said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’s Committee on Infectious Diseases.

The academy’s staff asked their partners at the C.D.C. for that information on a call in December, according to a spokeswoman for the A.A.P., and were told it was unavailable.

C.D.C. data. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published only a tiny fraction of the Covid data it has collected, including critical data on boosters and hospitalizations, citing incomplete reports or fears of misinterpretation. Critics say the practice causes confusion.

Ms. Nordlund pointed to data on the agency’s website that includes this information, and to multiple published reports on pediatric hospitalizations with information on children who have other health conditions.

The pediatrics academy has repeatedly asked the C.D.C. for an estimate on the contagiousness of a person infected with the coronavirus five days after symptoms begin — but Dr. Maldonado finally got the answer from an article in The New York Times in December.

“They’ve known this for over a year and a half, right, and they haven’t told us,” she said. “I mean, you can’t find out anything from them.”

Experts in wastewater analysis were more understanding of the C.D.C.’s slow pace of making that data public. The C.D.C. has been building the wastewater system since September 2020, and the capacity to present the data over the past few months, Ms. Nordlund said. In the meantime, the C.D.C.’s state partners have had access to the data, she said.

Despite the cautious preparation, the C.D.C. released the wastewater data a week later than planned. The Covid Data Tracker is updated only on Thursdays, and the day before the original release date, the scientists who manage the tracker realized they needed more time to integrate the data.

“It wasn’t because the data wasn’t ready, it was because the systems and how it physically displayed on the page wasn’t working the way that they wanted it to,” Ms. Nordlund said.

The C.D.C. has received more than $1 billion to modernize its systems, which may help pick up the pace, Ms. Nordlund said. “We’re working on that,” she said.

The agency’s public dashboard now has data from 31 states. Eight of those states, including Utah, began sending their figures to the C.D.C. in the fall of 2020. Some relied on scientists volunteering their expertise; others paid private companies. But many others, such as Mississippi, New Mexico and North Dakota, have yet to begin tracking wastewater.

Utah’s fledgling program in April 2020 has now grown to cover 88 percent of the state’s population, with samples being collected twice a week, according to Nathan LaCross, who manages Utah’s wastewater surveillance program.

Wastewater data reflects the presence of the virus in an entire community, so it is not plagued by the privacy concerns attached to medical information that would normally complicate data release, experts said.

“There are a bunch of very important and substantive legal and ethical challenges that don’t exist for wastewater data,” Dr. Scarpino said. “That lowered bar should certainly mean that data could flow faster.”

Tracking wastewater can help identify areas experiencing a high burden of cases early, Dr. LaCross said. That allows officials to better allocate resources like mobile testing teams and testing sites.

Wastewater is also a much faster and more reliable barometer of the spread of the virus than the number of cases or positive tests. Well before the nation became aware of the Delta variant, for example, scientists who track wastewater had seen its rise and alerted the C.D.C., Dr. Scarpino said. They did so in early May, just before the agency famously said vaccinated people could take off their masks.

Even now, the agency is relying on a technique that captures the amount of virus, but not the different variants in the mix, said Mariana Matus, chief executive officer of BioBot Analytics, which specializes in wastewater analysis. That will make it difficult for the agency to spot and respond to outbreaks of new variants in a timely manner, she said.

“It gets really exhausting when you see the private sector working faster than the premier public health agency of the world,” Ms. Rivera said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#43999571)

Also, women POC winning journalism awards has been meaningless since Nicole Hannah-Jones won the Pulitzer for the 1619 Project.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#44003396)

we'll be seeing a lot of that from the NYT over the next year as Durham exposes the Russian Collusion Fraud. remember that NYT journos won Pulitzers for investigative coverage of the Collusion that presumed that the Collusion was real and that never once pointed out the truth -- that it was obviously ginned up by HRC and Dems to get Trump. essentially, the NYT journos reported on the height and weight of Bigfoot, which plants Bigfoot likes to eat, and where Bigfoot has been spotted in the wild -- and they won Pulitzers for it even though Bigfoot isn't real.

here, regarding the CDC concealment of key data so they could control narratives, the NYT should have been all over this the way Alex Bererson was -- on time, when it might have mattered to the public. the CDC holding back important info from the public is a huge story, especially if one believes that democracy dies in darkness or that all the news that's fit to print should be printed.

instead of having solid NYT and MSM coverage, we had Berenson being banned by social media mostly for saying things that the CDC itself would say a week or two later. (See, Ex. A ( https://twitter.com/CartlandDavid/status/1495412605669810180 ))

otoh, if a particular story might help libs, NYT will cover the story promptly or even precipitously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#43999875)

The only time the NYT “circles back” like this is with an agenda. Here, it’s most likely a continuation of the idea that Dems know they’re gigafucked in the midterms unless they lighten up on COVID, and stories like this are a piece of the propaganda puzzle to explain what changed that allows for the about face. In a week or two we’ll start seeing articles crunching “new” data we didn’t have before showing things aren’t that bad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#43999892)

note the irony of the Pulitzer Prize committee's observation that the stories were "deeply sourced." oh they were deeply deeply source for sure.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/20/the-absurd-russiagate-pulitzer-of-the-ny-times-and-washington-post/

OPINION

EDITORIAL

The absurd ‘Russiagate’ Pulitzer of the NY Times and Washington Post

By Post Editorial Board

February 20, 2022 11:13pm Updated

“For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest,” the citation from the Pulitzer Prize board begins, “that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the president-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.”

Except the journalism that the Pulitzers honored — a 2018 National Reporting prize shared by the Washington Post and the New York Times for reporting on Russiagate — did no such thing.

It led to a dramatic misunderstanding, suggesting that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to help sway the 2016 election — a grand conspiracy that we now know never existed.

Oh, it was “deeply sourced,” in that deep-state Democratic bureaucrats, furious that Trump had won the White House, were falling over themselves to talk anonymously to reporters.

And it was “relentlessly reported,” or at least just relentless, as the newspapers were obsessed with taking down the Trump administration.

Yet reading these pieces four years later, one is struck not only by how irrelevant they are, but how shlocky — tinged with a McCarthyist alarmism of a red under every bed. Two major newspapers that hold themselves up as the pinnacle of press freedom, the “truth dies in darkness” brigade and all that, pushed a conspiracy theory.

As a lesson in mass delusion, it’s worth going through the 20 stories that make up the Post and the Times’ award-winning series to show just how damaging they were: to the truth, to the newspapers’ reputations — and to America itself.

The Flynn saga

The first story in the contest entry is dated Feb. 9, 2017, from the Washington Post: “Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions.”

Michael Flynn, who was the incoming national security adviser, communicated with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition period between the election and the inauguration.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn exits a vehicle as he arrives for his sentencing hearing at US District Court in Washington on December 18, 2018.

REUTERS

President Barack Obama had sanctioned Russia for hacking — particularly accessing emails from the Democratic National Committee. Flynn had asked for Kislyak not to overreact, because the incoming administration had hoped for a “reset” of Russian relations (much as Obama had hoped for years earlier).

The Post does much hand-wringing over whether Flynn actually did anything wrong here. The story floats the Logan Act — “the law against US citizens interfering in foreign diplomacy” — but note it’s rarely enforced and, anyway, this is going to be Flynn’s job in just a couple months.

In fact, Michael McFaul, who served as US ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, defends the practice, saying he had Moscow meetings “in the weeks leading up to Obama’s 2008 election win.”

Hmm. Of course, that’s Paragraph 17, after Paragraph 2 said the communication was “interpreted by some senior US officials as inappropriate and potentially illegal.”

Those mysterious “some” are never named. An on-the-record rebuttal from a senior Obama official is treated less seriously than anonymous political enemies.

In this witch-hunt atmosphere, Flynn is accused of lying to FBI officials and Vice President Mike Pence, and he resigns, thinking that might end this whole distraction. But, of course, it doesn’t — Flynn is hounded for years until Trump pardons him in November 2021.

A total of three of the 20 articles in the Pulitzer package are about Flynn, but what did we learn that broadened our understanding? Flynn told the Russian ambassador exactly what Trump was saying to Russia publicly: He wasn’t interested in escalating tensions between the two countries.

Russia, Russia, Russia

For a while there, if any member of Trump’s orbit ate borscht, it was front-page news, and a few are included in the entry.

“Sessions spoke twice to Russian envoy,” the Post reports on March 2, 2017. “Undisclosed On Forms, Kushner Met 2 Russians,” the Times says on April 7 of that year.

Good Lord! Was it a notorious scheme to hack the election?

Well, no, Jeff Sessions was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee when he met with the Russian ambassador. Jared Kushner hosted the Russian ambassador and the head of a Russian bank one month before Trump took office. These officials wanted what they always want, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans — to push their interests in front of the people in power. Kushner and Sessions met with officials from plenty of other countries, but only Russia warrants a mention.

The Times and Post treat these meetings with maximum raised eyebrows, even though, again, on-the-record sources say there is nothing unusual about them.

Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump long called “Russiagate” a big hoax.

REUTERS

The tower meeting

The subject of so many Rachel Maddow monologues was the infamous Trump Tower meeting between some Russians and members of the Trump family.

Donald Trump Jr. arranged the meeting, enticed by what a Russian lawyer promised was inside information on Hillary Clinton. Three stories in the Pulitzer pack cover this, starting with “Russian Dirt on Clinton? ‘I Love It,’ Donald Trump Jr. Said.”

Trump Jr. was catfished. The lawyer had no dirt, she just wanted to lobby for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, a US law that allows for the sanctioning of individual Russians.

The Times gives us every cough and spit of the meeting, and an account about how Trump Sr. wrote his son’s press statement. But it never — and still hasn’t — reported that the meeting was anything but what Trump Jr. said it was. There was no collusion.

The dossier

Much of what drove the “narrative” that Trump was a Russian agent was a Clinton campaign-funded dossier by Christopher Steele that we now know was a collection of rumors, innuendos and lies.

The Pulitzer entry at first tries to pump up the dossier as a road map to a federal investigation.

On March 1, 2017, the Washington Post writes: “FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier: Arrangement fell apart but shows bureau found his inquiry credible.”

The Post never quotes anyone saying the dossier is credible. It hardly quotes anyone by name.

Washington Post

People walk by the One Franklin Square Building, home of the Washington Post newspaper, in downtown Washington.

AP

Of course, we now know that the FBI couldn’t stand up anything Steele said. FBI agent Peter Strzok, for instance, wrote that “recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.”

By the end of 2017, when it’s obvious nothing in the dossier is true, the Times helps the intelligence community cover its tracks.

On Dec. 31, 2017, in the last story in the Pulitzer entry, the Times claims, “Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry,” stating it was George Papadopoulos, not the dossier, that fueled the FBI investigation.

Papadopoulos was a minor adviser to the Trump campaign when he met with a mysterious Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud. Mifsud claimed to Papadopoulos that Russia had Hillary Clinton’s emails. Papadopoulos later says he believes Mifsud was a setup, and FBI Director James Comey agrees, calling him a “Russian agent.”

In May 2016, Papadopoulos goes drinking with Alexander Downer, Australia’s top diplomat in Britain, and repeats the gossip: Russia has Clinton’s emails.

Papadopoulos doesn’t have the emails. He is not working to get the emails. But the Times claims that Downer tells American officials and “the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.”

What is the Times’ source for this? It doesn’t say.

But even in this story, the dossier seems to loom larger than Papadopoulos’ drunken boasts. It says that “a team of FBI agents traveled to Europe to interview Mr. Steele in early October 2016,” before the election, but doesn’t talk to Papadopoulos until January 2017. If he was the “impetus,” why take so long?

Much like Flynn, Papadopoulos is never accused of or charged with conspiring with Russia. Instead it’s lying to the FBI about his meeting with Mifsud. He serves 12 days in prison and is pardoned by Trump.

The thumbsuckers

The Times and Post both include one story of a type familiar to their readers. The 10,000-word pieces that make grand statements and boasts like, “The paper spoke to 117 people over the course of five months,” to back up their assertions.

The Times gives us “The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election.”

It details various Facebook pages and hashtags used to push propaganda. It lays out some examples, but strains to convince the reader that this was the key to Trump’s victory.

“Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign,” it says.

A hundred thousand dollars?? The Clinton and Trump campaigns spent a combined $81 million on Facebook ads.

The New York Times Building in New York.

The New York Times building in New York.

AFP via Getty Images

The Times itself comes to the rather weak conclusion that “the fakery may have added only modestly to the din of genuine American voices in the pre-election melee, but it helped fuel a fire of anger and suspicion in a polarized country.”

Yet on Dec. 14, 2017, the Post counters with an opinion piece masquerading as news: “Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked.”

“The result is without obvious parallel in US history,” the Post claims, “a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president — and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality — have impaired the government’s response to a national security threat.”

SEE ALSO

US President Joe Biden (R) and Russian President Vladimir Putin arrive for a US-Russia summit at Villa La Grange in Geneva

Biden, Putin agree in principle to meet — if Russia doesn’t invade Ukraine

It’s hard to see how it was “impaired” when economic sanctions weren’t lifted. The government’s response was exactly the same when Putin invaded Crimea under Obama. The Post is just galled that Trump won’t publicly criticize Putin.

Then we get this doozy: “Trump’s stance on the election is part of a broader entanglement with Moscow that has defined the first year of his presidency.”

Well, that’s the way the press defined it. Trump spent very little time on Russia, and spent most of his political capital on issues such as the southern border. It was the press’s obsession driving the story, not his actions toward Russia.

Finally, the key sentence: “But overall, US officials said, the Kremlin believes it got a staggering return on an operation that by some estimates cost less than $500,000 to execute and was organized around two main objectives — destabilizing US democracy and preventing Hillary Clinton, who is despised by Putin, from reaching the White House.”

Side note here: People forget that the DNC hack was mostly about people other than Clinton. The one who paid the biggest price was Donna Brazile, because the emails revealed she was sharing upcoming debate questions with Clinton and lost her job over it.

Russia was almost certainly behind that hack. And they bought that whopping $100,000 worth of Facebook ads.

But did they “destabilize” US democracy? There were no indications of vote fraud. There wasn’t a coup. It was destabilized, in the eyes of the Post, because Clinton didn’t win. And was that really “prevented” by Russia, or was it Hillary’s historic unpopularity and lack of interest in Wisconsin that lost the election?

The press has become so blinkered that it doesn’t see that this sentence isn’t factual — it’s a stunning assertion based on little but vague “US officials,” the same people you probably saw railing against Trump on CNN.

The ‘coverup’

Donald Trump is about as subtle as an elephant walking through a store full of crockery. So it’s no surprise that stories like “President asked intelligence chiefs to deny collusion” (May 23, 2017, Post), “President Shifts Rationale For Firing FBI Director, Calling Him a ‘Showboat’ ” (May 12, Times), “Trump Admitted Dismissal At FBI Eased Pressure” (May 20, Times) are part of the entry.

But what do they prove? Comey admitted in congressional testimony that he told Trump he wasn’t under investigation. Trump wanted him to say it publicly; Comey refused.

Trump fires Comey, and yells at everyone investigating because he’s sick of the press claiming he won the election because of Russia.

SEE ALSO

With Donald Trump long out of office and the Omicron variant on the decline, it’s time for our friends on the left — the ones reportedly still fretting about going to crowded parties or a grocery store — to find a new bogeyman.

The hysterical woke can’t cope with post-Trump, post-COVID world

It didn’t look good politically. But it was also a pretty lousy coverup, as an independent investigation was appointed. And that inquiry, by Robert Mueller, showed Trump wasn’t colluding with Russia. No investigation before or since by the press has shown the Trump campaign was involved in the DNC hack or knew it was going to happen. The reason for Trump’s behavior was obvious then and now: He was furious.

A whole lotta nothing

The Times and Post turned Russiagate into a soap opera, but for all the Sturm und Drang, the series didn’t prove anything.

The Pulitzer was awarded for “further[ing] … the understanding of Russian interference … [and] its connections to the Trump campaign, the president-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.”

But there is no connection made in any of these stories between interference and anyone in Trump’s orbit.

The papers chronicle Russia’s spending during the election, such as it was, then stitch together a collection of anecdotes about people in Trump’s orbit talking to Russians.

Yet no one claims Flynn, Sessions, Trump Jr., Kushner or Trump himself knew anything about Russian hacking or ad spending before it happened — and certainly weren’t involved in making it happen. Papadopoulos hears about the possibility that the Russians have Clinton’s emails, but isn’t involved.

The rest is stories about Trump railing against the press and officials who harp on Russia. These also offer no evidence of cooperation between Putin and Trump, and since not much changes between the two nations, no one says what “benefit” Putin gets from a Trump presidency.

Of course, the Mueller report, released in 2019, blew it all away. After a full investigation, there was no “collusion.” All the smoke and mirrors used by the Times and Post and their anonymous briefers to turn ambassador meetings into Kremlin plots add up to nothing.

Yet the damage had been done. The liberal media had “destabilized US democracy” more than Russia ever could, by feeding left-leaning Americans a constant, false narrative that their president was a sleeper agent. Whatever your feelings about Donald Trump, it should disturb you that political opponents and bureaucrats who hated him could so easily weaponize the press to undermine the government from within.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

This Pulitzer Prize makes a mockery of the idea that journalism speaks truth to power, as it shows how the press was manipulated by the powerful. “Our republic and its press will rise or fall together,” Joseph Pulitzer once said. For the sake of both, rescind this award given in his name.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#44005593)

The Clinton campaign’s plot to politically assassinate Trump

There were crimes on a Watergate scale — but they were not committed by the former president

February 18, 2022 | 12:00 am

durham

Hillary Clinton (Getty)

Written by:

Peter Van Buren

Facebook

Twitter

There is a word for secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors to use against them.

According to the latest court filing by Special Counsel John Durham, the Hillary Clinton campaign surreptitiously and likely illegally reached into protected White House and Trump communications data to try and show some link between Trump and Russia. The Clinton campaign during the election hid from FBI, CIA and the media that it was the source of the information gathered. Durham doesn’t use the word “spy,” but that in no way changes what happened.

The recent filing relates to Durham’s September indictment of Michael Sussmann, an attorney who represented the Clinton campaign while at the Perkins Coie law firm. Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI at a September 2016 meeting when he presented documents claiming to show internet communications between Trump and Russia-based Alfa Bank. The indictment says Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was presenting this information as a good citizen, purposely hiding his ties to Clinton. The allegations about the bank were false.

Related Stories

The left’s Nicene Creed

Hanging up the MAGA hat

Why the Trump toilet story stinks

What Mitch McConnell knows about January 6

The conservative case for reparations?

The new filing is at its heart legal housekeeping, asking that a waiver be considered to allow Sussmann to retain his current law firm. A potential conflict of interest exists because Sussmann’s representative works for a law firm which also represents others Durham may be going after, and may have been involved in the larger events under investigation, perhaps as witnesses. While that is interesting in itself, what is newsworthy are broader details of what really happened around Russiagate that potentially point to crimes on a Watergate scale.

The filing says tech company Neustar executive Rodney Joffe (who was also a law client of Michael Sussmann) worked with the indicted Clinton campaign lawyer to access “dedicated servers for the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).” Joffe then “exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

Joffe also “enlisted the assistance of researchers at a US-based university” (likely Georgia Tech) who had access to “large amounts of internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.” This would have been how Joffe got access to data from Trump’s private computers. “[Joffe] tasked these researchers to mine internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” he added. “In doing so, [Joffe] indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”

Some nerd stuff. Remember metadata, the info about a communication Edward Snowden showed us the NSA gathers? This is like that. Metadata shows, among other things, when and where a communication started, and where it ended up. DNS data, a kind of metadata, comes from a Domain Name System. When you use a smartphone or type www.spectatorworld.com into your browser, it contacts a DNS server, which translates those English words into the numbers the internet actually runs on.

DNS is like a phone lookup; you want to speak with Mom, who the phone knows only as 212-555-1212. Same thing for email, TikTok, anything online. If you have access to DNS data, such as Joffe did, you know who the White House and Trump were communicating with. DNS data is a road map and if you have enough of it, patterns, such as perhaps regular communication with Russia, emerge. That’s why the NSA does the same thing against its enemies or competitors.

The Clinton people got access to all this information via a private contractor, Joffe’s Neustar, which provided the actual DNS servers to the White House. Durham wrote, starting in July 2016, that Joffe’s company “exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.” In quid pro quo, and despite a fraud-laden past, Joffe was offered a top cybersecurity job in the future Clinton administration.

The data gathering on the Trump campaign began while Obama was still in office (and the EOP portion could have been to establish a baseline of “normal” White House-Russia communications) and continued into February 2017, after Trump took office and all attention turned to impeachment. Having failed to stop his campaign, the data was lined up to aid in driving him out of the White House.

But no one stole or hacked the data, right? Not so fast. Contractors working on sensitive data systems do not own the data they see. Their scope of usage is very specific to the job they were hired to do. It does not include exploiting high-security government contracts for political purposes and personal gain. Sort of like your doctor, who knows your medical information but cannot just share it with his brother who sells life insurance.

Indictments by Durham against Joffe are sure to be coming. It is also curious that FBI and CIA did not question where Sussmann got his data, given that it could have only come from White House servers. In addition, if researchers at Georgia Tech who were being paid by the US government via a DARPA grant were freelancing the data they collected to help the Clinton campaign smear Trump, that would be another area Durham will be looking into.

But back to Michael Sussmann, the Clinton lawyer. As he tried to get the FBI interested in the Trump-Alfa Bank tale in September 2016, Sussmann went to the CIA (“Agency-2”) on February 9, 2017 and “provided an updated set of allegations — including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating to Trump.”

Sussmann also “claimed lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House.” Durham says this is unsupported, though as recently as October the New York Times was still defending it. The Durham filing also maintains Sussmann lied again to CIA about having any affiliation with his paying clients Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

So call it what you will — spying, hacking, infiltrating, a rebut to “but her emails” — but here is what it is: Durham asserts Neustar, on behalf of the Clinton campaign, gathered data likely illegally and certainly surreptitiously from White House and Trump computers, seeking a connection to Russia. Lawyer Michael Sussmann, hiding his connection to Clinton and Joffe, brought false conclusions drawn from this data to FBI and CIA (and perhaps the DOJ inspector general) in hopes they would turn their enormous resources toward investigating Trump. The con worked with the FBI.

This would mean Hillary and her lawyers masterminded a coordinated electronic conspiracy against Trump when he was a candidate and later president, while simultaneously perpetuating the dossier hoax. As with the dossier, everything Clinton peddled was fake. There was no pee tape, no payoffs from Putin, no connection to Alfa Bank and no Russian-made smartphones.

But this is not a fake scandal. Durham has potentially uncovered the most destructive political assassination attempt since Kennedy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#44005598)

Human cattle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#44006637)

It’s much worse. CDC selectively disclosed manipulated data. Remember the 95% effective, 99% of hospitalized were unvax?

If you look at UK data, unvax are LESS likely to be infected by a factor of two.

Oh, and let’s not forget the one piece of data that, until a month ago, CDC had and did not disclose. That is natural immunity works, and works better than vax, and vaccinating the previously infected provides no or even negative benefit.

But that’s not what CDC said, they said everyone needs a vax, two vax, a booster too. They knew. I have been saying they have had the data. When the Kentucky study came out, I called it. When the hospitalized with Covid like symptoms study came out, I called it. They went through the whole country and every data set they had to find things to tell the story they wanted.

And then they started leaking something that looks like the truth, but only AFTER SCOTUS dinged the mandate for workers (but not for healthcare workers).

Let’s see the real data on side effects from the vax. It exists in some form. One more shoe needs to drop.

This is one of the biggest frauds in this country’s history. People need to hang.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#44000959)

In other words they're going to "oopsie, lose all the data."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5036410&forum_id=2#44001139)