THREAD re Joffe's Deposition h/t @FOOL_NELSON@RyanM58699717 1/ While Joffe's claims at time of deposition he expects investigation will be over in a few weeks, apparently they said the same thing several months ago.
2/ Joffe refused to be interviewed and has not testified before the grand jury.
3/ And asked to interview him about a year ago. (the dep is from 2/11.
4/ Also subpoeaned b/f grand jury and invoked the 5th and for documents sought.
4/ Subpoena came after request for interview, but unclear how long after. Also, apparently some "memory issues" Joffe is claiming.
5/ (Sorry two 4's there.). Strange that Joffe claims A/P re business ownership? @McAdooGordon any thoughts?
6/ Claimed 5th for whether he talked to April, Manos, or Dagon, or Sussmann; Sussmann no longer represents. Joffe no longer affiliated w/ Neustar which TransUnion acquired (Joffe retired 9/19). Joffe claimed 5th on names of those at Neustar worked with him re DNS.
7/ Joffe pled 5th re whether experted in DNS data and what access he had to DNS data.
8/ Pled 5th on names. But strangely not Centerline?
9/ Interesting since he used that email. Later acknowledge it but seems to setting up point that just b/c an email uses the centergate domain doesn't mean it comes from him. Also refuses to admit he uses another email:
10/ Interesting:
11/ So more names on off list. Refuses to say if he worked with GA Tech or provided DNS
11/ Several more names mentioned some 5th other no. Refuses to discuss any work re DNS and also re policies re sharing data.
12/ (Dang I need to learn to count). Interesting another data exchange mention that's not Ops-Trust
13/ Interesting where they think April got data:
14/ Alfa's attorney then asked wheren Neustar shares DNS data and Joffe discuss 3 situations. Second (re customers) had no details provided. And pleaded 5th on company giving to researchers but then gave some texture.
15/ List of names now w/ does he know or pleds the 5th. Interesting he didn't plead 5th on Vixie since Vixie allegedly review report per reporting? Took 5th on Simpson, Sussman, Fritsch, Fusion, Seagos (Fusion employee), Perkins, Elias, didn't know: Jake Berkowitz or Baumgarten
THREAD: I am absolutely THRILLED the @WSJ is now digging into the details of the Alfa Bank data sharing here. h/t @McAdooGordon. Authors @ByronTau@dnvolz hit several key points that I reported on earlier but also missed several leads. 1/ wsj.com/articles/durha…
2/ They report on emails from GA Tech Right to Know (which I believe I was first reporter to obtain), but miss some of details elaborated on here in piece w/ assist by @Techno_Fogthefederalist.com/2021/11/17/ema…
3/ For those interested in the actual emails showing timing of the contract with DARPA.
10/ And what is most striking to me is how the "guardians of the internet" wanted to sell their story when they owned it in Slate & The New Yorker. WHY was that so different than how Durham put it in indictment?
11/11 I emailed one of big-wigs at Ops-Trust and got no response. And lawyers for Joffe, Tea Leaves, & Georgia Tech researchers ignored my requests for comment. So I guess we will have to wait to parse @charlie_savage spin & clean-up.
THREAD: Interesting (and potentially huge) discovery from Durham filings. Today's piece provides the details. Here are highlights. 1/ @FDRLSTthefederalist.com/2022/02/23/let…
2/ Durham's discussion of origins of Alfa Bank hoax and data mining differ significant from Slate's original discussion of how the tech folks discovered Trump's supposed secret communication network with the Russian bank. AND differs significantly from how The New Yorker told it
3/ The New Yorker's story was in 2018 and "Max" i.e. Joffe was the source. If you re-read Slate & The New Yorker & compare to what Durham said, the versions differ greatly.
2/ ICYMI I addressed the request to strike @FDRLSTthefederalist.com/2022/02/17/spe… today and note that the standard doesn't seem met b/c no prejudice--voir dire can take care of that.
3/ Durham's team makes that point here while also noting that it didn't file in bad faith etc.
BREAKING: Michael Sussmann's attorneys file Motion to Dismiss.
2/ This was to be expected. More later as about to do a hit on election integrity.
3/ Just finished quick read, lawsplainer will be forthcoming but in short: This motion seeks dismissal by arguing the facts alleged in the indictment EVEN IF TRUE do not state a crime. In other words, Sussmann did not commit a crime by lying to FBI 's Baker.