Quote:The FBI had little problem leaking “unverified" dirt from Russian sources on Donald Trump and his campaign aides – and even basing FISA wiretaps on it. But according to the Justice Department’s inspector general, the bureau is refusing to allow even members of Congress with top security clearance to see intercepted material alleging political interference by President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch.

That material – which has been outlined in press reports – consists of unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...ynch_.html

Come on guys, this is a YUGE story. We finally know what Soy Boy Comey was referencing:

Quote:True or false, the material is consequential because it appears to have influenced former FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to break with bureau protocols because he didn’t trust Lynch. In his recent book, Comey said he took the reins in the Clinton email probe, announcing Clinton should not be indicted, because of a “development still unknown to the American public” that “cast serious doubt” on Lynch’s credibility – clearly the intercepted material.

And I thought this was significant:

Quote:That material – which has been outlined in press reports – consists of unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

If I'm reading that right, and I believe I am, this was information the Russians had on hand but was never released by them. That, in and of itself, raises all sorts of questions, no?

(06-26-2018 10:32 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Come on guys, this is a YUGE story. We finally know what Soy Boy Comey was referencing:

Quote:True or false, the material is consequential because it appears to have influenced former FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to break with bureau protocols because he didn’t trust Lynch. In his recent book, Comey said he took the reins in the Clinton email probe, announcing Clinton should not be indicted, because of a “development still unknown to the American public” that “cast serious doubt” on Lynch’s credibility – clearly the intercepted material.

And I thought this was significant:

Quote:That material – which has been outlined in press reports – consists of unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

If I'm reading that right, and I believe I am, this was information the Russians had on hand but was never released by them. That, in and of itself, raises all sorts of questions, no?

There would be other sources that could verify it.

(06-26-2018 11:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:32 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Come on guys, this is a YUGE story. We finally know what Soy Boy Comey was referencing:

Quote:True or false, the material is consequential because it appears to have influenced former FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to break with bureau protocols because he didn’t trust Lynch. In his recent book, Comey said he took the reins in the Clinton email probe, announcing Clinton should not be indicted, because of a “development still unknown to the American public” that “cast serious doubt” on Lynch’s credibility – clearly the intercepted material.

And I thought this was significant:

Quote:That material – which has been outlined in press reports – consists of unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

If I'm reading that right, and I believe I am, this was information the Russians had on hand but was never released by them. That, in and of itself, raises all sorts of questions, no?

There would be other sources that could verify it.

And?

I hate to admit it, but I don't think any sitting AG is going to go after a predecessor unless there is a cold body and they are holding the gun.

(06-26-2018 11:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  I hate to admit it, but I don't think any sitting AG is going to go after a predecessor unless there is a cold body and they are holding the gun.

Then Trump needs a new AG, otherwise the rule of law in America definitely is toast.

And again, this story begs so many serious questions. No one wants to take a stab at them?

(06-26-2018 12:09 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 11:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  I hate to admit it, but I don't think any sitting AG is going to go after a predecessor unless there is a cold body and they are holding the gun.

Then Trump needs a new AG, otherwise the rule of law in America definitely is toast.

And again, this story begs so many serious questions. No one wants to take a stab at them?

More from the Swamp. Sessions is up to his elbows in swampy water. That's why he recused himself and why he's been a roadblock to answers that we want and can't get.

Focus on this:

Quote:That material – which has been outlined in press reports – consists of unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

If true, what are the possible implications?

she's such a dirty girl.

(06-26-2018 01:38 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Focus on this:

Quote:That material – which has been outlined in press reports – consists of unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

If true, what are the possible implications?

If you think Sessions would go after a prior AG (and I don't) its conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Its basically what Nixon did with the plumbers. He was trying to kill the investigation.

(06-26-2018 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 01:38 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Focus on this:

Quote:That material – which has been outlined in press reports – consists of unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

If true, what are the possible implications?

If you think Sessions would go after a prior AG (and I don't) its conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Its basically what Nixon did with the plumbers. He was trying to kill the investigation.

I see the question of whether or not Sessions would go after Lynch as a completely separate issue from the information itself and what it could mean in the long run.

Here are my thoughts after first establishing what I think are a couple of "givens". Others may disagree with my "givens", and that's fine. I was hoping to see some discussion here.

1) The information may be unverified at this point (at least as far as we know), but the FBI and IG are certainly treating it seriously having classified it as "TS/SCI," which stands for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information. Comey also took it seriously, seriously enough to have doubts about Lynch, get a very cold reception in her office when he asked her about the subject, and then using it as one of the principal reasons for usurping her powers over the investigation according to the article linked.

2) The FBI claims that Russians hacked the DNC server stealing emails and then passed those emails (through a third party) to Wikileaks in order for Wikileaks to release them causing problems for the Cankles Campaign ahd helping Trump.

Now, when the article says the material consists of: unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation., what does that like mean to you?

To me, I doubt they're talking about recorded coversations but likely means the information intercepted is written, perhaps in the form of actual emails. In fact, the article states: One of the intercepted documents revealed an alleged email from then-DNC Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz to an operative working for billionaire Democratic fundraiser George Soros. It claimed Lynch had assured the Clinton campaign that investigators and prosecutors would go easy on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee regarding her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. Lynch allegedly made the promise directly to Clinton political director Amanda Renteria.

The next question is, if such an email exists from Wasserman Shultz, who was head of the DNC, was this email part of those stolen by the Russians from the DNC and then passed on to Wikileaks? I doubt it because it would most certainly have been released with the rest of the emails to damage Cankles, no? That is the narrative afterall for the entire "Russia hacked the DNC to help Trump" drumbeat. Makes me wonder if the email might not be something hacked from Cankles' basement server itself, which would be hugely embarrassing to her (and possibly put her in further legal jeopardy) after claiming the only thing missing were yoga and wedding emails.

Then I ask, if the Russians had this information, why would it not have been released along with everything else the Russians released via Wikileaks? Doesn't make sense that they'd release the emails showing the DNC and Cankles Campign conspired to screw the Bern, but not release this. Could this not cast doubt on whether the Ruskis actually hacked the DNC as the FBI claims?

I don't embrace conspiracy theories easily, really, I don't. But there are so many questions surrounding this whole mess, coupled with the FBI's dishonestly, that it just all makes me wonder.

I don't think he (sessions) can even think about touching it until the mueller investigation is over.

(06-26-2018 03:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't think he (sessions) can even think about touching it until the mueller investigation is over.

I understand what you're saying, but then that's the problem, no? Letting political implications dictate investigations.

(06-26-2018 03:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't think he (sessions) can even think about touching it until the mueller investigation is over.

Why not? Clinton's crime is separate from the Russia conspiracy charade.

(06-26-2018 04:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 03:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't think he (sessions) can even think about touching it until the mueller investigation is over.

Why not? Clinton's crime is separate from the Russia conspiracy charade.

Mueller's investigation is basically over the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Once no collusion is found and there aren't any charges brought on whatever they try to dig up, there would be less of an air of 'retribution' or going after the previous administration's members.



Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-26-2018 09:01 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote: implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

(06-26-2018 03:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't think he (sessions) can even think about touching it until the mueller investigation is over.

Sessions has been a huge disappointment. I think he wanted the job too badly, and that seldom works well.

(06-26-2018 12:09 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 11:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  I hate to admit it, but I don't think any sitting AG is going to go after a predecessor unless there is a cold body and they are holding the gun.

Then Trump needs a new AG, otherwise the rule of law in America definitely is toast.

And again, this story begs so many serious questions. No one wants to take a stab at them?

I’ve got a question on this:

So how much was Russian Special Agent Trump getting paid for this?
Hmmmmmmm???


Ok, f’reals, I wonder if the Bueller probe gets in to this?

(06-26-2018 11:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  I hate to admit it, but I don't think any sitting AG is going to go after a predecessor unless there is a cold body and they are holding the gun.

I don't see this situation as materially different. The crime--subverting our democracy--is only slightly less severe, if that, and the connection is pretty clear.

Again, whatever evidence is there, thin as it may be, it was serious enough to alter Comey's thinking about how the Cankles investigation was to be handled, and it's serious enough that the FBI has classified the information as top secret.

The fact that Cankles lost the election anyway should not be used as an excuse for not investigating what would be, if true, a major scandal in American political history.

There needs to be an investigation.