(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.