The Washington Post is reporting on collusion between Russia, the US Attorney General, the Clinton Campaign, George Soros and James Comey, with each playing a different role related to a particular document of supposed Russian Intelligence. It is a very unusual source for the Post, a document critical of any Democrat, let alone the inner circle of power in 2016. The motivation for doing so, with the natural exclusion an obligation to truthfully inform the public in the case of the Washington Post, must be significant. They don’t generally report anything critical of their political comrades. Are they merely setting up another piece or multiple pieces of disinformation, perhaps more protection for the guilty Democrats? They wrote on May 24th:
“Current and former officials have said that document played a significant role in the July decision by then-FBI Director James B. Comey to announce on his own, without Justice Department involvement, that the investigation was over. That public announcement — in which he criticized Clinton and made extensive comments about the evidence — set in motion a chain of other FBI moves that Democrats now say helped Trump win the presidential election.
But according to the FBI’s own assessment, the document was bad intelligence — and according to people familiar with its contents, possibly even a fake sent to confuse the bureau. The Americans mentioned in the Russian document insist they do not know each other, do not speak to each other and never had any conversations remotely like the ones described in the document. Investigators have long doubted its veracity, and by August the FBI had concluded it was unreliable.
The document, obtained by the FBI, was a piece of purported analysis by Russian intelligence, the people said. It referred to an email supposedly written by the then-chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and sent to Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by billionaire George Soros and dedicated to promoting democracy.
The Russian document did not contain a copy of the email, but it described some of the contents of the purported message.
In the supposed email, Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in private communication with a senior Clinton campaign staffer named Amanda Renteria during the campaign. The document indicated Lynch had told Renteria that she would not let the FBI investigation into Clinton go too far, according to people familiar with it.
Current and former officials have argued that the secret document gave Comey good reason to take the extraordinary step over the summer of announcing the findings of the Clinton investigation himself without Justice Department involvement.
Comey had little choice, these people have said, because he feared that if Lynch announced no charges against Clinton, and then the secret document leaked, the legitimacy of the entire case would be questioned.”
Somehow one email supposedly sent by Russians was sufficient to counter the tens or hundreds of thousands sent by Clinton and justify, in the backwards brain of James Comey the idea that she should be let of f the hook?
Shouldn’t it, if anything, have motivated him to investigate Lynch, Wasserman Shutlz, Soros, and the other players in addition to Clinton, not just to call the whole thing off?
Maybe this is one of those things that Congress might want to ask the corrupt former FBI Director about if and when he comes before their committees, his insistence on not finding a crime where many clearly existed and his own reasons for adopting that position.
From the moment the bureau received the document from a source in early March 2016, its veracity was the subject of an internal debate at the FBI. Several people familiar with the matter said the bureau’s doubts about the document hardened in August when officials became more certain that there was nothing to substantiate the claims in the Russian document. FBI officials knew the bureau never had the underlying email with the explosive allegation, if it ever existed.
Yet senior officials at the bureau continued to rely on the document before and after the election as part of their justification for how they handled the case.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.