Quote:

---

As more Democrats have started to question why former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was never investigated for obstruction following a suspicious meeting with former President Bill Clinton, it appears the Senate Judiciary Committee has finally decided to act.

The Washington Times reported Friday that the committee has launched a formal investigation into Lynch’s attempts to shape the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton, and whether she mishandled classified information on her private email server.

According to the Times, the investigation has bipartisan support.

“Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.”

“Letters also went to Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria and Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell at the Open Society Foundations. Mr. Benardo was reportedly on an email chain from the then-head of the Democratic National Committee suggesting Ms. Lynch had given assurances to Ms. Renteria, the campaign staffer, that the Clinton probe wouldn’t “go too far."

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey said his suspicions about Lynch’s cozy relationship with the Clintons prompted him to unilaterally announce the close of the Clinton investigation last summer.

---

Quote:

---

According to Comey, Lynch leaned on him to soften his language when discussing the investigation, asking him to refer to the probe as a “matter,” mirror language used by the campaign, instead of as “an investigation.”

Comey also said the suspicious meeting between Clinton and Lynch raised questions about her objectivity that could’ve compromised the bureau’s integrity.

LANKFORD: Then you made a comment earlier a the attorney general, the previous attorney general asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails saying you were asked to not call it an investigation anymore. But call it a matter. You said that confused you. You can give us additional details on that?

COMEY: Well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we refused to confirm the existence as we typically do of an investigation for months. And was getting to a place where that looked silly because the campaigns we're talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security matters, things like that for what was going on.
We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it I wanted to know was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation. She said yes, don't call it that, call it a matter. I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter. You look back in hindsight, if I looked back and said this isn't a hill worth dying on so I just said the press is going to completely ignore it. That's what happened when I said we opened a matter.
They all reported the FBI has an investigation open. So that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning.

LANKFORD: You gave impression that the campaign was somehow using the language as the FBI because you were handed the campaign language?

COMEY: I don't know whether it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way it was describing that. It was inaccurate. We had an investigation open for the federal bureau of investigation, we had an investigation open at the time. That gave me a queasy feeling.

So who was obstructing or trying to interfere there?

Comey said that this troubled him greatly and convinced him, “I have to step away from the department if we’re too close this case credibly.”

As former Speaker Newt Gingrich noted earlier this week, even California Sen. Dianne Feinstein – the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee – had begun to wonder aloud why Lynch was being investigated. Gingrich said the absence of an investigation is a sign of Republican weakness.

“What’s amazing to me about the Republican passivity here is that Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said last week after Comey’s testimony ‘you know we really have to look into exactly what’s going on with Loretta lynch and with president Obama.' Now I was waiting for one of the intel chairmen in the House and Senate to get up and say they’re opening a new investigation into exactly what Loretta lynch said to Comey.”

Now we wait to see if the house and, more importantly, the DOJ follow suit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
STILL investigating. STILL nothing...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

---

Quote:

---

Loretta Lynch Plot Thickens As New Details Emerge Of Her Dealings With The Hillary Campaign

Last night we asked a very simple question about why the DNC has failed to cooperate with Russia investigators by handing over their infamous email server to either the FBI or Robert Mueller's team (see: DNC Server: Most Critical Evidence To Proving "Russian Hacking" Is Being Withheld From Mueller, Why?).

After all, if Russia did "hack the election", as we've been told 24/7 by CNN going on 8 months now, then the evidence could very well be on that server. Which prompted us to ask this very simple question:

All of which brings us back to our original question: If the DNC is in possession of actual tangible evidence that could prove once and for all that Russians hacked their servers and attempted to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton, why not share that evidence with investigators and enjoy the blissful vindication that its public release would provide?

We concluded by wondering whether the stonewalling from the DNC just might have something to do with this "purely coincidental' meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix and/or Loretta Lynch's 'assurances' to members of the Clinton campaign that the FBI's investigation (or, "matter" if you prefer) of Hillary Clinton "wouldn't go too far"? After all, if evidence of "Russian hacking" were on that server, so to would there be evidence of Lynch's transgressions...if they existed, of course.

But we're not the only ones wondering whether there's more to the Lynch story. According to an article in the New York Post, some testimony that Lynch offered under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year could come back to haunt her. In that testimony, Lynch said that she had "not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them."

That said, and as we've reported before, that statement seems to contradict reports that Lynch personally assured members of Clinton's campaign, potentially Amanda Renteria, that the FBI's investigation "wouldn't go too far"...more from the Post:

When former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified last year about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she swore she never talked to “anyone” on the Clinton campaign. That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether she spoke with Clintonworld about remaining attorney general if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has launched a bipartisan investigation into Lynch for possible obstruction of justice, recently learned of the existence of a document indicating Lynch assured the political director of Clinton’s campaign she wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former secretary of state.

Lynch’s lawyer says she is cooperating with committee investigators, who are seeking answers to several questions, as well as relevant documents. Among other things, they want to know if she or any of her Justice Department staff “ever communicated with Amanda Renteria,” who headed Clinton’s political operations during the campaign. Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify.

And then there is that inconvenient Comey testimony in which the former FBI director says that he was instructed by Lynch to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter" rather than what it actually was, an investigation.

Now, as The Post points out, there are new developments which would suggest that Comey confronted Lynch about the alleged communication with Amanda Renteria and promptly asked to leave.

And it will press her to explain the discrepancy — along with why she reportedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with the document.

And then there is that meeting with Bill Clinton on that Phoenix tarmac that just happened to get noticed by a local reporter who just happened to be on scene.

After all the drama around the Clinton email investigation, which included multiple people being

---

Quote:

---

offered immunity and the revelation of what appeared to be numerous federal crimes committed by several people on Clinton's staff, wouldn't it be ironic if Obama's Attorney General were the only one to take the fall?

Scandal free administration indeed...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

---

Best post of the week.

---

Quote:

---

EXCLUSIVE: FBI Seized Smashed Hard Drives From Wasserman Schultz IT Aide’s Home

---

Quote:

---

FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation.

Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back, an individual whom FBI investigators interviewed in the case told The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.

An additional source in Congress with direct knowledge of the case, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, confirmed that the FBI has joined what Politico previously described as a Capitol Police criminal probe into “serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network” by Imran and three of his relatives, who had access to the emails and files of the more than two dozen House Democrats who employed them on a part-time basis.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

EXCLUSIVE: FBI Seized Smashed Hard Drives From Wasserman Schultz IT Aide’s Home

---

Apparently this Pakistani guy ... who was responsible for the security of far too many contractually-possible Congressional PCs ... may have been blackmailing the Congresspeople whose hard drives he was accessing.

Quote:

---

FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation.

Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back, an individual whom FBI investigators interviewed in the case told The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.

An additional source in Congress with direct knowledge of the case, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, confirmed that the FBI has joined what Politico previously described as a Capitol Police criminal probe into “serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network” by Imran and three of his relatives, who had access to the emails and files of the more than two dozen House Democrats who employed them on a part-time basis.

---

---

Quote:

---

Wasserman-Schultz IT Aide Arrested While Attempting To Flee Country, Charged With Bank Fraud

Just a day after reports emerged that the FBI had seized a number of "smashed hard drives" and other computer equipment from the residence Imran Awan, the IT aide of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, we learn that Awan has been captured at the Dulles airport while attempted to flee the country. According to Fox News, Awan has been charged with bank fraud.

Feds/USCP bust Hse IT staffer Imran Awan & charge him with multiple counts of bank fraud as part of Hse IT procurement scandal

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 25, 2017

Feds/USCP picked up Imran Awan at Dulles Aiport last night as he was "trying to leave the country." Has been arraigned. Surrendered passport

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 25, 2017



Inexplicably, or perhaps not, Awan has been kept on the payroll of former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz despite a rapidly escalating scandal that potentially involves multiple federal crimes.

Group of Hse Dems fired other Hse IT staffers probed by USCP. But Wasserman Schultz kept Awan on payroll. He was barred from Hse servers

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 25, 2017

Fox is told that Hse IT staffer Imran Awan is still on Hse payroll for moment under Wasserman Schultz.

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 25, 2017



Meanwhile, here is a list of the 30 other Democrats that had the Awans on their taxpayer-funded payrolls.

Some of the #Democrats who had Pakistani IT workers (currently under investigation) on their payroll. #AwanBrothers https://t.co/XvrJ6H1iW9 pic.twitter.com/gVjNkfqWH3

— Nick Short ???????? (@PoliticalShort) May 22, 2017



For those who have managed to avoid this story, which wouldn't be difficult given that the mainstream media has made every attempt to ignore it, the Pakistani-born brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan are at the center of a criminal investigation by U.S. Capital Hill Police and the FBI. Up until now, allegations of wrong doing have varied from overcharging taxpayers for congressional IT equipment to blackmailing members of Congress with secrets captured from the emails of their Democrat employers.

Just yesterday we learned that FBI agents reportedly seized a number of "smashed hard drives" and other computer equipment from the Awan's former residence in Virginia.
As background, Imran was first employed in 2004 by former Democrat Rep. Robert Wexler (FL) as an “information technology director”, before he began working in Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office in 2005.

The family was paid extremely well, with Imran Awan being paid nearly $2 million working as an IT support staffer for House Democrats since 2004. Abid Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, were each paid more than $1 million working for House Democrats. In total, since 2003, the family has collected nearly $5 million.

The staffer’s services were so important to congressional members, that on March 22, 2016, eight democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a letter, requesting that their staffers be granted access to Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). Of those that signed the letter were representatives Jackie Speier (CA) and Andre Carson (IN), the second Muslim in Congress, both of whom employed the Awan brothers.

The brothers were also employed by members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, such as: Jackie Speier (D-CA), Andre Carson (D-IN), Joaquín Castro (D-TX), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Robin Kelly (D-IL), and Ted Lieu (D-CA). Lieu has since openly called for leaks by members of President Trump's administration despite the fact that he may until recently have been under surveillance by a foreign entity.

One bombshell that has been all but ignored by the main stream media is that Imran Awan had access to Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s iPad password, meaning that the brothers also had direct access to the notorious DNC emails.

The brothers are accused of removing hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment from congressional offices, including computers and servers, while also running a procurement scheme in which they bought equipment, then overcharged the House administrative office that assigns such contractors to members.

Some congressional technology aides believe that the Awan’s are blackmailing representatives based on the contents of their emails and files, due to the fact that these representatives have displayed unwavering and intense loyalty towards the former aides.

Meanwhile, back in March the Daily Caller reported that the Awan brothers were essentially holding their stepmother in "captivity" in order to extort her for money she had stashed away in Pakistan.

Congressional staffers allegedly held their stepmother in “captivity” with violent threats in a plan to use her to access money stashed away in the Middle East. The staffers are suspected of using their positions to enrich themselves.



Days before U.S. Capitol Police told House members three Pakistani brothers who ran their computer networks may have stolen congressional data, their stepmother called Fairfax County, Virginia police to say the Democratic staffers were keeping her from her husband’s deathbed.



A relative described the woman’s life as being completely controlled by the brothers for months while they schemed to take their father’s life insurance.



The brothers — who as IT professionals for Congress could read House members’ emails — allegedly used wiretapping devices on their own stepmother and threatened to abduct loved ones in Pakistan if she didn’t give them access to money stowed away in that country.

Of course, if Republicans and/or members of the Trump administration hired foreign-born IT specialists who were suspected of committing a laundry list of federal crimes and then smashed a bunch of hard drives just before skipping town...we're sure the media would still gloss right over it in much the same way they're doing for the the Democrats in this instance.

---

Quote:

---

FBI General Counsel Reportedly Under Investigation For Leaks To Mainstream Media

FBI General Counsel James A. Baker is purportedly under a Department of Justice criminal investigation for allegedly leaking classified national security information to the media, according to multiple government officials close to the probe who spoke with Circa on the condition of anonymity.

This comes as Department of Justice Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he would soon be making an announcement regarding the progress of leak investigations. A DOJ official declined to comment on Circa’s inquiry into Baker but did say, the planned announcement by Sessions is part of the overall "stepped up efforts on leak investigations."

Three sources, with knowledge of the investigation, told Circa that Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation, but Circa has not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leaked.

A federal law enforcement official with knowledge of ongoing internal investigations in the bureau told Circa, "the bureau is scouring for leakers and there's been a lot of investigations."

The revelation comes as the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to contain leaks both within the White House and within its own national security apparatus.

Baker is a close confidant of former FBI Director James Comey, and recent media reports suggested he was reportedly advising the then-FBI director on legal matters following private meetings the former director had in February with President Trump in the Oval Office.

Baker was appointed to the FBI's general counsel by Comey in 2014 and has had a long and distinguished history within the intelligence community.

After working as a federal prosecutor in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice during the 1990s, he joined the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review In 1996, according to his FBI bio. ( https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/pressrel/press-releases/james-a
.-baker-appointed-as-fbis-general-counsel).

In 2006 Baker received the George H.W. Bush Award for Excellence in counter-terrorism—the CIA’s highest counter-terrorism award, according to his biography. During Baker's long and distinguished career he received the "NSA’s Intelligence Under Law Award; the NSA Director’s Distinguished Service Medal; and DOJ’s highest award— the Edmund J. Randolph Award."

He is a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a lecturer at Harvard Law School.

FBI spokeswoman Carol Cratty said the bureau would not comment on Baker and would not confirm or deny any investigation.

---

Quote:

---

House Judiciary Demands Special Counsel To Investigate Comey, Lynch, And Clinton

Roughly a month ago, we noted that Republicans might be well served to stop sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next Russia 'bombshell' to drop and actually go on the offensive against an 'investigation' that has obviously morphed into mass hysteria courtesy of free-flowing leaks from a conflicted "intelligence community" intent upon bringing down a presidency rather than finding out the truth. Here's what we said:

Of course, until someone within the Trump administration or Republican Party smartens up and calls for the appointment of a 'Special Counsel' to look into Hillary's email scandal, something that should have been done long ago, and not for retaliatory reasons but simply due to Comey's and AG Lynch's blatant mishandling of the investigation (a point which Deputy AG Rosenstein obviously agreed with), the Democrats have no reason to calm their mass hysteria. Then, and only then, do we suspect that Hillary might just be able to 'convince' her party to exercise some form of reasonable judgment.

Well, it seems that some folks on the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), seem to agree. As such, 20 Republican Representatives have sent a letter to Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein demanding the appointment of a Second Special Counsel to look into a laundry list of potential scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch and many others from the Obama administration.

We are writing to you to request assistance in restoring public confidence in our nation’s justice system and its investigators, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). While we presume that the FBI’s investigation into Russian influence has been subsumed into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, we are not confident that other matters related to the 2016 election and aftermath are similarly under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller. The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected. For this reason, we call on you to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Many Democrats and members of the Washington media previously called for a “special prosecutor” to investigate Russian influence on the election and connections with the Trump campaign. Not surprisingly, once you actually made the decision to appoint a special counsel, the calls for further investigations by congressional committees continued, focused on allegations that have heretofore produced no evidence of criminality, despite the fact that over a year has passed since the opening of the original FBI investigation. Political gamesmanship continues to saturate anything and everything associated with reactions to President Trump’s executive decisions, and reveals the hypocrisy of those who refuse to allow the Special Counsel’s investigation to proceed without undue political influence. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.

Among other things, the letter specifically highlights the inappropriate handling of the Clinton investigation by James Comey and efforts on the part of Loretta Lynch to obstruct justice in order to assist a political ally.

Your stated rationale for recommending Director Comey’s termination as FBI Director was his mishandling of former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation and associated public disclosures concerning the investigation’s findings. We believe this was the correct decision. It is clear that Director Comey contributed to the politicization of the FBI’s investigations by issuing his public statement, nominating himself as judge and jury, rather than permitting career DOJ prosecutors to make the final decision. But many other questions remain unanswered, due to Mr. Comey’s premature and inappropriate decision, as well as the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to respond to legitimate Congressional oversight. Last week, the Republican Members of this Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department, asking for responses to those unanswered inquiries. These questions cannot, for history’s sake and for the preservation of an impartial system of justice, be allowed to die on the vine.

As we referenced above, Democrats and the mainstream media called for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate any Russian influence on President Trump’s campaign. Their pleas were answered, but there are many questions that may be outside the scope of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. This was clear following Mr. Comey’s recent testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, which ignited renewed scrutiny of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the actions she took to mislead the public concerning the investigation into the Clinton email investigation. Last year, this Committee inquired repeatedly about the circumstances surrounding that and other matters, but our inquiries were largely ignored.

During his testimony, Mr. Comey referenced a meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Comey raised concerns about Ms. Lynch’s conduct, and questioned her independence, stating:

"At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, ‘I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly."

And here is the full list of things the "Second Special Counsel" would be instructed to investigate:

1. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation;

2. The shadow cast over our system of justice concerning Secretary Clinton and her involvement in mishandling classified information;

3. FBI and DOJ’s investigative decisions related to former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation, including the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to potential Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel and possibly others;

4. The apparent failure of DOJ to empanel a grand jury to investigate allegations of mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and her associates;

5. The Department of State and its employees’ involvement in determining which communications of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates to turn over for public scrutiny;

6. WikiLeaks disclosures concerning the Clinton Foundation and its potentially unlawful international dealings;

7. Connections between the Clinton campaign, or the Clinton Foundation, and foreign entities, including those from Russia and Ukraine;

8. Mr. Comey’s knowledge of the purchase of Uranium One by the company Rosatom, whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation, and what role Secretary Clinton played in the approval of that sale that had national security ramifications;

9. Disclosures arising from unlawful access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer systems, including inappropriate collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign;

10. Post-election accusations by the President that he was wiretapped by the previous Administration, and whether Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to unlawfully monitor communications of then-candidate Trump or his associates;

11. Selected leaks of classified information related to the unmasking of U.S. person identities incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community, including an assessment of whether anyone in the Obama Administration, including Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Susan Rice, Ms. Samantha Power, or others, had any knowledge about the “unmasking” of individuals on then candidate-Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both;

12. Admitted leaks by Mr. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations between Mr. Comey and President Trump, how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of a special counsel, and whether any classified information was included in the now infamous “Comey memos”;

13. Mr. Comey’s and the FBI’s apparent reliance on “Fusion GPS” in its investigation of the Trump campaign, including the company’s creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Trump, that dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 election, whether the FBI paid anyone connected to the dossier, and the intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS and its affiliates; and

14. Any and all potential leaks originated by Mr. Comey and provide to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

Seems the gauntlet has officially been thrown down...what say you Mr. Sessions?

---

Quote:

---

FOIA Dump Reveals Collusion Between Lynch, FBI And Media To Bury Bill Clinton Meeting

Back on June 29, 2016, Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, tried to convince us that the following 'impromptu' meeting between herself and Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport, a private meeting which lasted 30 minutes on Lynch's private plane, was mostly a "social meeting" in which Bill talked about his grandchildren and golf game. It was not, under any circumstances, related to the statement that former FBI Director James Comey made just 6 days later clearing Hillary Clinton of any alleged crimes related to his agency's investigation.

HERE IS LORETTA LYNCH, LYING HER ASS OFF ABOUT THE MEETING

But, according to a new DOJ FOIA dump just released by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), it looks increasingly as if nothing reported about this "social meeting" between Lynch and Clinton was grounded in fact...shocking, we know.

First, the new FOIA documents seemingly confirm that the FBI and DOJ simply lied in response to the ACLJ's initial FOIA request filed back in July 2016. Here is what the ACLJ was told at the time after sending requests to both the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ asking for any documents related to the Clinton-Lynch plane meeting:

No records response to your request were located

That said, documents released today by the ACLJ reveal several emails between FBI and DOJ officials concerning the Lynch/Clinton meeting primarily related to how they should go about explaining the train wreck that had just been unwittingly played out on live television courtesy of a local Phoenix affiliate station. Here is a recap from ACLJ:

The documents we received today from the Department of Justice include several emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the meeting. One with the subject line “FLAG” was correspondence between FBI officials (Richard Quinn, FBI Media/Investigative Publicity, and Michael Kortan) and DOJ officials concerning “flag[ing] a story . . . about a casual, unscheduled meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the AG.” The DOJ official instructs the FBI to “let me know if you get any questions about this” and provides “[o]ur talkers [DOJ talking points] on this”. The talking points, however are redacted.

Another email to the FBI contains the subject line “security details coordinate between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?”

On July 1, 2016 – just days before our FOIA request – a DOJ email chain under the subject line, “FBI just called,” indicates that the “FBI . . . is looking for guidance” in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting. The discussion then went off email to several phone calls (of which we are not able to obtain records). An hour later, Carolyn Pokomy of the Office of the Attorney General stated, “I will let Rybicki know.” Jim Rybicki was the Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to FBI Director Jim Comey. The information that was to be provided to Rybicki is redacted.

Also of note several of the documents contain redactions that are requested “per FBI.”

It is clear that there were multiple records within the FBI responsive to our request and that discussions regarding the surreptitious meeting between then AG Lynch and the husband [were] the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation reached the highest levels of the FBI.

Then comes a series of emails between DOJ officials and several mainstream media outlets that appear to reveal collusion to effectively 'kill the story."

The first such email involves a Washington Post writer who tells the DOJ's Director of Public Affairs that he's hoping to "put it [the story] to rest."


From: Zapotosky, MAtt Washpost
ToL Newman, Melani UPA [DOJ]; Lewis, Kevin OPA [DOJ]
Hey Melanie and Kevin, And chance you could give me a call for another hopefully quick conversation on the AG-Clinon meeting? My editors are still pretty interested in it [bu] I'm hoping I can put it to rest by answering just a few more questions about how the meeting came about.

REPLY: Will give you a call now- Melanie



The next email came from Mark Landler of the New York Times who almost apologizes for even inquiring about the Lynch/Clinton meeting saying that he had been "pressed into service" to write about the topic.

Landler, Mark (NYT)
Hi Melanie,
I'm a White House correspondant at the NYT and [I'm so sorry for doing my job but ] I've been pressed into service to write about the questions be raised by the Attorney General's meeting with Bill Clinton Could you let me know what DoJ and AG have said specifically about this meeting, and whether she believes it constitutes a direct conflict of interest; ginve the email investigation?,

inally, there is an email from a DOJ staffer who was tasked to bird-dog how far this story (of the meeting) might spread:

I sent the transcript and link to the news clip to the FOX producer. He had already tracked down the video from the presser. He actually thinks they may not run anything on it today, but will keep me posted. He doesn't think its news. I also talked to the ABC producer, who noted that they aren't interested even if FOX runs with it. - Melanie Newman, Dir Pub Affairs, DOJ

Can you imagine all of the stuff we would have learned over the past 8 years if the press pursued the Obama administration and/or the Clinton investigation with even 1/10th of the vigor with which it is currently pursuing Trump?

And, not to make too much of a point of Obama's cozy phalanx of HOJ protectors but ...












-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

Quote:

---

Loretta Lynch Communicated With DOJ Officials Using Grandmother's Name As Alias

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Real, secret misdeeds,

Quote:

---

FOIA Dump Reveals Collusion Between Lynch, FBI And Media To Bury Bill Clinton Meeting

Back on June 29, 2016, Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, tried to convince us that the following 'impromptu' meeting between herself and Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport, a private meeting which lasted 30 minutes on Lynch's private plane, was mostly a "social meeting" in which Bill talked about his grandchildren and golf game. It was not, under any circumstances, related to the statement that former FBI Director James Comey made just 6 days later clearing Hillary Clinton of any alleged crimes related to his agency's investigation.

HERE IS LORETTA LYNCH, LYING HER ASS OFF ABOUT THE MEETING

But, according to a new DOJ FOIA dump just released by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), it looks increasingly as if nothing reported about this "social meeting" between Lynch and Clinton was grounded in fact...shocking, we know.

First, the new FOIA documents seemingly confirm that the FBI and DOJ simply lied in response to the ACLJ's initial FOIA request filed back in July 2016. Here is what the ACLJ was told at the time after sending requests to both the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ asking for any documents related to the Clinton-Lynch plane meeting:

No records response to your request were located

That said, documents released today by the ACLJ reveal several emails between FBI and DOJ officials concerning the Lynch/Clinton meeting primarily related to how they should go about explaining the train wreck that had just been unwittingly played out on live television courtesy of a local Phoenix affiliate station. Here is a recap from ACLJ:

The documents we received today from the Department of Justice include several emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the meeting. One with the subject line “FLAG” was correspondence between FBI officials (Richard Quinn, FBI Media/Investigative Publicity, and Michael Kortan) and DOJ officials concerning “flag[ing] a story . . . about a casual, unscheduled meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the AG.” The DOJ official instructs the FBI to “let me know if you get any questions about this” and provides “[o]ur talkers [DOJ talking points] on this”. The talking points, however are redacted.

Another email to the FBI contains the subject line “security details coordinate between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?”

On July 1, 2016 – just days before our FOIA request – a DOJ email chain under the subject line, “FBI just called,” indicates that the “FBI . . . is looking for guidance” in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting. The discussion then went off email to several phone calls (of which we are not able to obtain records). An hour later, Carolyn Pokomy of the Office of the Attorney General stated, “I will let Rybicki know.” Jim Rybicki was the Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to FBI Director Jim Comey. The information that was to be provided to Rybicki is redacted.

Also of note several of the documents contain redactions that are requested “per FBI.”

It is clear that there were multiple records within the FBI responsive to our request and that discussions regarding the surreptitious meeting between then AG Lynch and the husband [were] the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation reached the highest levels of the FBI.

Then comes a series of emails between DOJ officials and several mainstream media outlets that appear to reveal collusion to effectively 'kill the story."

The first such email involves a Washington Post writer who tells the DOJ's Director of Public Affairs that he's hoping to "put it [the story] to rest."


From: Zapotosky, MAtt Washpost
ToL Newman, Melani UPA [DOJ]; Lewis, Kevin OPA [DOJ]
Hey Melanie and Kevin, And chance you could give me a call for another hopefully quick conversation on the AG-Clinon meeting? My editors are still pretty interested in it [bu] I'm hoping I can put it to rest by answering just a few more questions about how the meeting came about.

REPLY: Will give you a call now- Melanie



The next email came from Mark Landler of the New York Times who almost apologizes for even inquiring about the Lynch/Clinton meeting saying that he had been "pressed into service" to write about the topic.

Landler, Mark (NYT)
Hi Melanie,
I'm a White House correspondant at the NYT and [I'm so sorry for doing my job but ] I've been pressed into service to write about the questions be raised by the Attorney General's meeting with Bill Clinton Could you let me know what DoJ and AG have said specifically about this meeting, and whether she believes it constitutes a direct conflict of interest; ginve the email investigation?,

inally, there is an email from a DOJ staffer who was tasked to bird-dog how far this story (of the meeting) might spread:

I sent the transcript and link to the news clip to the FOX producer. He had already tracked down the video from the presser. He actually thinks they may not run anything on it today, but will keep me posted. He doesn't think its news. I also talked to the ABC producer, who noted that they aren't interested even if FOX runs with it. - Melanie Newman, Dir Pub Affairs, DOJ

Can you imagine all of the stuff we would have learned over the past 8 years if the press pursued the Obama administration and/or the Clinton investigation with even 1/10th of the vigor with which it is currently pursuing Trump?

And, not to make too much of a point of Obama's cozy phalanx of HOJ protectors but ...












-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
That's funny ... I like Trey Gowdy. Have you ever heard him question anyone? He's a real prosecutor: He never asks a question that he doesn't already know the answer to, he's not there to grandstand, but every point is designed to "build a case", and the case is supremely, logically airtight.

You should listen to him sometime. He's a master.

-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

---

Quote:

---

Rep. Franks Predicts Awans Will Get Immunity For "Significant, Disturbing Story" About Wasserman Schultz

Last week the Washington Examiner reported that Hina Alvi, the wife of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's now-infamous former IT staffer Imran Awan, had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to return to the U.S. where she currently faces charges of conspiracy and bank fraud. The deal with prosecutors mandates a return to the U.S. during the "last week of September 2017" and is structured so that she will not be arrested in front of her children.

Now, if you're the cynical type, then it might have struck you as somewhat odd that Alvi would agree to return from Pakistan, the place to which she successfully fled specifically to avoid the charges she now seems to be embracing.

But, at least according to Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) who appeared on Fox News recently, there may be more to Alvi's return than meets the eye as he predicts that the Awans could be working on a broader immunity deal with prosecutors in return for a "significant" and "pretty disturbing" story about Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“I don’t want to talk out of school here but I think you're going to see some revelations that are going to be pretty profound. The fact that this wife is coming back from Pakistan and is willing to face charges, as it were, I think there is a good chance she is going to reach some type of immunity to tell a larger story here that is going to be pretty disturbing to the American people.”

"I would just predict that this is going to be a very significant story and people should fasten their seat belts on this one."

Of course, this follows speculation that surfaced last week suggesting that even if the Awans were originally acting to protect/extort Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that may have all changed on April 6, 2017 when Imran seemingly led U.S. Capitol Police directly to her laptop. Per The Daily Caller:

A laptop that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has frantically fought to keep prosecutors from examining may have been planted for police to find by her since-indicted staffer, Imran Awan, along with a letter to the U.S. Attorney.

U.S. Capitol Police found the laptop after midnight April 6, 2017, in a tiny room that formerly served as a phone booth in the Rayburn House Office Building, according to a Capitol Police report reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group. Alongside the laptop were a Pakistani ID card, copies of Awan’s driver’s license and congressional ID badge, and letters to the U.S. attorney. Police also found notes in a composition notebook marked “attorney-client privilege.”

The laptop had the username “RepDWS,” even though the Florida Democrat and former Democratic National Committee chairman previously said it was Awan’s computer and that she had never even seen it.

The laptop was found on the second floor of the Rayburn building — a place Awan would have had no reason to go because Wasserman Schultz’s office is in the Longworth building and the other members who employed him had fired him.

DWS's story on the now-infamous laptop has 'evolved' over the months...originally it was apparently her laptop back when she decided to threaten the U.S. Capitol Police Chief but later, after he stood his ground, DWS backtracked saying she had never seen the laptop and it never belonged to her.

Wasserman Schultz used a televised May 18, 2017 congressional hearing on the Capitol Police budget to threaten “consequences” if Chief Matthew Verderosa did not give her the laptop. “If a member loses equipment,” it should be given back, she said.

Verderosa told her the laptop couldn’t be returned because it was tied to a criminal suspect. Wasserman Schultz reiterated that, while Awan was a suspect, the computer should be returned because it is “a member’s … if the member is not under investigation.”

She changed her story two months later, claiming it was Awan’s laptop — bought with taxpayer funds from her office — and she had never seen it. She said she only sought to protect Awan’s rights. “This was not my laptop,” she said August 3. “I have never seen that laptop. I don’t know what’s on the laptop.”

For those who missed DWS threatening the cops for a laptop that apparently didn't even belong to her...it's good entertainment.

So what say you...big nothing burger or are the walls closing in on DWS?

---

Quote:

---

Discovery Of Another Democratic "Secret Server" May Have Prompted Imran Awan's Firing, Report

The mysterious case of Imran Awan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz's now indicted former IT staffer, continues to grow more interesting by the day. As we've noted before, Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, have so far only been charged with bank fraud and conspiracy though new allegations of wrongdoing seemingly surface on a daily basis.

Now, the latest revelation comes via an exclusive report from The Daily Caller which suggests that Awan may have been fired only after Capitol Police discovered a "secret server" being housed by the House Democratic Caucus.

A secret server is behind law enforcement’s decision to ban a former IT aide to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the House network.

Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations. The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation, the senior official said.

Data was also backed up to Dropbox in huge quantities, the official said. Congressional offices are prohibited from using Dropbox, so an unofficial account was used, meaning Awan could have still had access to the data even though he was banned from the congressional network.

Awan had access to all emails and office computer files of 45 members of Congress who are listed below. Fear among members that Awan could release embarrassing information if they cooperated with prosecutors could explain why the Democrats have refused to acknowledge the cybersecurity breach publicly or criticize the suspects.

According to the DC, the "secret server" was discovered when California Congressman, and chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Xavier Becerra asked to have his server wiped clean (you know, like with a cloth) in advance of his departure to take his new seat as Attorney General of California.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Discovery Of Another Democratic "Secret Server" May Have Prompted Imran Awan's Firing, Report

The mysterious case of Imran Awan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz's now indicted former IT staffer, continues to grow more interesting by the day. As we've noted before, Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, have so far only been charged with bank fraud and conspiracy though new allegations of wrongdoing seemingly surface on a daily basis.

Now, the latest revelation comes via an exclusive report from The Daily Caller which suggests that Awan may have been fired only after Capitol Police discovered a "secret server" being housed by the House Democratic Caucus.

A secret server is behind law enforcement’s decision to ban a former IT aide to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the House network.

Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations. The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation, the senior official said.

Data was also backed up to Dropbox in huge quantities, the official said. Congressional offices are prohibited from using Dropbox, so an unofficial account was used, meaning Awan could have still had access to the data even though he was banned from the congressional network.

Awan had access to all emails and office computer files of 45 members of Congress who are listed below. Fear among members that Awan could release embarrassing information if they cooperated with prosecutors could explain why the Democrats have refused to acknowledge the cybersecurity breach publicly or criticize the suspects.

According to the DC, the "secret server" was discovered when California Congressman, and chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Xavier Becerra asked to have his server wiped clean (you know, like with a cloth) in advance of his departure to take his new seat as Attorney General of California.

---

They're all crookeder than a dog's hind leg. But I digress.

MORE AT http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-13/discovery-another-democratic-
secret-server-may-have-prompted-imran-awans-firing-repo

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

As more Democrats have started to question why former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was never investigated for obstruction following a suspicious meeting with former President Bill Clinton, it appears the Senate Judiciary Committee has finally decided to act.

The Washington Times reported Friday that the committee has launched a formal investigation into Lynch’s attempts to shape the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton, and whether she mishandled classified information on her private email server.

According to the Times, the investigation has bipartisan support.

“Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.”

“Letters also went to Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria and Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell at the Open Society Foundations. Mr. Benardo was reportedly on an email chain from the then-head of the Democratic National Committee suggesting Ms. Lynch had given assurances to Ms. Renteria, the campaign staffer, that the Clinton probe wouldn’t “go too far."

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey said his suspicions about Lynch’s cozy relationship with the Clintons prompted him to unilaterally announce the close of the Clinton investigation last summer.

---

Because... why??

Quote:

---

According to Comey, Lynch leaned on him to soften his language when discussing the investigation, asking him to refer to the probe as a “matter,” mirror language used by the campaign, instead of as “an investigation.”

Comey also said the suspicious meeting between Clinton and Lynch raised questions about her objectivity that could’ve compromised the bureau’s integrity.

LANKFORD: Then you made a comment earlier a the attorney general, the previous attorney general asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails saying you were asked to not call it an investigation anymore. But call it a matter. You said that confused you. You can give us additional details on that?

COMEY: Well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we refused to confirm the existence as we typically do of an investigation for months. And was getting to a place where that looked silly because the campaigns we're talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security matters, things like that for what was going on.
We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it I wanted to know was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation. She said yes, don't call it that, call it a matter. I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter. You look back in hindsight, if I looked back and said this isn't a hill worth dying on so I just said the press is going to completely ignore it. That's what happened when I said we opened a matter.
They all reported the FBI has an investigation open. So that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning.

LANKFORD: You gave impression that the campaign was somehow using the language as the FBI because you were handed the campaign language?

COMEY: I don't know whether it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way it was describing that. It was inaccurate. We had an investigation open for the federal bureau of investigation, we had an investigation open at the time. That gave me a queasy feeling.

So who was obstructing or trying to interfere there?

Comey said that this troubled him greatly and convinced him, “I have to step away from the department if we’re too close this case credibly.”

As former Speaker Newt Gingrich noted earlier this week, even California Sen. Dianne Feinstein – the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee – had begun to wonder aloud why Lynch was being investigated. Gingrich said the absence of an investigation is a sign of Republican weakness.

“What’s amazing to me about the Republican passivity here is that Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said last week after Comey’s testimony ‘you know we really have to look into exactly what’s going on with Loretta lynch and with president Obama.' Now I was waiting for one of the intel chairmen in the House and Senate to get up and say they’re opening a new investigation into exactly what Loretta lynch said to Comey.”

Now we wait to see if the house and, more importantly, the DOJ follow suit.

---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-23/senate-judiciary-committee-op
ens-probe-loretta-lynch

---

Quote:

---

Donna Brazille Accuses Clinton Campaign Of "Rigging" Primary

"When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign."

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

...On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.

When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.

***

Right around the time of the convention the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.

***

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.

“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”

I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary’s campaign had taken it another step.

I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?

I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.

I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.

When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Is this The Swamp or the Deep State?


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I understand the Deep State to be the bureaucratic lifers in the federal govt. Non elected types who " run the country ", regardless of who wins elections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And Elizabeth Warren agrees it was rigged

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-book/index.ht
ml?sr=twlead110217donna-brazile-dnc-book0446PMVODtop

Considering that Donna Bazile fed Hillary the debate questions ahead of time, it's hardly honest of her to NOW portray herself as somehow unbiased. Truly, something has turned: The deep state is jettisoning Hillary, and the rats are jumping off.

---

True, it was rigged towards Clinton. She took control of the DNC in the primary before she was nominated. You're not supposed to do that. While we are learning more of the details regarding this, and learning more on just how fucked up the demarcates are, it's not new. We saw reporting on this in real time.

Quote:

---

While we are learning more of the details regarding this, and learning more on just how fucked up the demarcates are, it's not new. We saw reporting on this in real time. -THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

While we are learning more of the details regarding this, and learning more on just how fucked up the demarcates are, it's not new. We saw reporting on this in real time. -THUGR

---

LINKS PLEASE.

---

Holly shit stupid. Is there anyone else here who remembers discussing how the election was rigged against Bernie Sanders in real time. Or how Wassermann was helping Clinton do just that? If so chime in please. SIG, I used to say you were dumber than a box of rocks. Now I see that was an understatement. Shit, you probably started your own links about this crying foul.

Do you want to deny that now ? Links, all in caps says you. Two words SIG, STUPID and DISHONEST says I.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There were allegations that some state primary votes were rigged.

THIS is about the written agreement between the Hillary campaign and the DNC, which basically gave her control of the DNC in exchange for fundraising. That means that more than a few state primary votes might have been rigged, it involves the transfer of monies from state resources to Hillary, mailers, polling, get-out-the-vote campaigns, and all of the resources of the party central committee were at Hillary's disposal.

This isn't allegation, this is evidence which- if followed up- will reveal the whole scope of the Hillary campaign rigging.

---

Apparently you didn't understand what was happening in real time. I guess you thought it would be good to post about the primary rigging to distract from all the negative news that was being printed about your guy, Trump.

I on the other hand understood in real time what that meant. Some of the details may have eluded me but rigged says it all. I also hated Hillary as a candidate in real time. However the choice between her and Trump was demonstrable in that Trump as President would be disastrous.

Now, to the bigger point dummy. Sanders was not a democrat. He was an independent and the democratic party owed him nothing. He attempted to hijack the democratic parties nomination process for personal gain. At the time his could not get nominated to anything on a national scale as an independent. Right or wrong, Clinton an actual democrat, blocked him from doing so. Maybe he should have tried running as a Republican.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
There once was a gal named Loretta
And to her boss Barack she swore no vendetta
"I'll also not charge your Sec. of State
But I will make Bill wait
On the tarmac so late
'Cause the prick thinks he's a mo' betta jet-setta!"

---

Quote:

---

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

---

Quote:

---

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested.

---

Quote:

---

I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

---

Quote:

---

I also hated Hillary as a candidate in real time. However the choice between her and Trump was demonstrable in that Trump as President would be disastrous.

---

Quote:

---

AWAN CASE: DNC Lawyer Scrambling To Block Evidence From Hidden Laptop Tied To Wasserman Schultz
A lawyer for former DNC IT staffer Imran Awan is scrambling to block evidence found on a hidden laptop which may contain proof of a massive spy ring operating at the highest levels of Congress, in what may be the largest breach of National Security in U.S. history.

Awan, a Pakistani national, worked for dozens of Democratic members of Congress along with his wife, two brothers and a friend. Following the publication of DNC emails by WikiLeaks in the lead-up to the 2016 election, Congressional investigators discovered that the Awans had a secret server being housed by the House Democratic Caucus backed up to an offsite Dropbox account.

“For members to say their data was not compromised is simply inaccurate. They had access to all the data including all emails. Imran Awan is the walking example of an insider threat, a criminal actor who had access to everything,” –Daily Caller

According to a briefing, “all five of the shared employees system administrators collectively logged onto the [House Democratic] Caucus system 5,735 times, or an average of 27 times per day,” despite only one of them being authorized to do so.

The Awans were banned from the House IT network on February 2, 2017 after being named in a criminal investigation – however they continued to work in the building for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz until Imran Awan’s arrest at Dulles Airport trying to flee the country in late July. Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, were charged with conspiracy and bank fraud in relation to a real estate transaction.

The laptop in question was tucked away in a tiny room formerly used as a phone booth on the second floor of the Rayburn House Office Building late one night in March, only to be found by Capitol Police just after midnight on April 6, 2017 along with notebooks marked ‘attorney client privilege,’ letters addressed to the US Attorney of DC regarding Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and several forms of identification. Based on the contents of the backpack, some believe Awan wanted the laptop to be found.

---