Conservative media also skewed what the dossier said. For example, Mr. Durham’s file never used the word “infiltrate”. And he never claimed Mr. Joffe’s company was paid for by the Clinton campaign.
More importantly, unlike the report, the filing never said that the White House data that came under scrutiny dated from the Trump era. According to attorneys for David Dagon, a data scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology who helped develop Yota analytics, the data – the so-called DNS logs, which are records of when computers or smartphones prepared to communicate with servers on the Internet – came from the presidency of Barack Obama.
“What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong,” said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, both attorneys for Mr. Dagon. “Cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge, all the data they used was non-private DNS data from before Trump took office. Trump.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for Mr Joffe said that “contrary to allegations in this recent filing”, he was apolitical, did not work for any political party and had legal access under contract to work with d others to analyze DNS data. — including from the White House — in an effort to track down security breaches or threats.
After Russians hacked White House and Democrat networks in 2015 and 2016, it continued, cybersecurity researchers were ‘deeply concerned’ to find data suggesting Russian-made YotaPhones were near the countryside Trump and the White House, therefore “prepared”. a report of their findings, which was later shared with the CIA”
A spokesman for Mr Durham declined to comment.
Mr Durham was tasked by then-Attorney General William P. Barr to navigate the Russia wrongdoing probe in May 2019 as Mr Trump escalated his claims he was the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy. But after nearly three years, he has not developed any cases against high-level government officials.
Instead, Mr Durham developed two cases against people associated with outside efforts to understand Russia’s election interference who advanced unproven, and sometimes flimsy or later refuted, suspicions about alleged links with Mr. Trump or his campaign.