Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Wikileaks’

Jerome Corsi Files Criminal Complaint Against Mueller Team


Reported By Randy DeSoto | December 3, 2018 at 12:00pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/jerome-corsi-files-criminal-complaint-mueller-team/Jerome Corsi

In this Oct. 7, 2008, file photo, Jerome Corsi, right, arrives at the immigration department in Nairobi, Kenya. (AP Photo)

Conservative author Jerome Corsi filed a “criminal and ethics” complaint against special counsel Robert Mueller on Monday, alleging his team threatened prosecution if Corsi refused to provide false testimony against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Fox News reported the 78-page complaint, filed with the Department of Justice and the DOJ’s inspector general, stated “Dr. Corsi has been criminally threatened and coerced to tell a lie and call it the truth.”

The filing also calls for the removal of Mueller and his prosecutors for their misconduct.

“Special Counsel Mueller and his prosecutorial staff should respectfully be removed from his office and their practice of the law and a new Special Counsel appointed who respects and will obey common and accepted norms of professional ethics and the law and who will promptly conclude the so-called Russian collusion investigation which had been illegally and criminally spinning out of control,” the document reads.

According to his complaint, Mueller’s team wanted Corsi to testify to acting as a liaison between Trump campaign associate Roger Stone and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. The filing reads that Mueller’s office “knowingly and deceitfully threatening to charge Dr. Corsi with an alleged false statement,” unless he gives them “false testimony” against Trump and others.

Corsi announced last week on multiple media outlets that he would not sign Mueller’s agreement calling for him to plead guilty to one count of perjury.

“They can put me in prison the rest of my life. I am not going to sign a lie,” the 72-year-old told CNN.

According to a court filing by Mueller’s team, Corsi wrote in a short email to Stone in July 2016, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”

“Time to let more than (Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta) to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton),” “The Obama Nation” author added. “That appears to be the game hackers are now about.”

Corsi explained to Fox News host Tucker Carlson last week that he had fully cooperated with Mueller’s investigators, turning over his computer and cellphone, but he initially forgot about the email, until it was brought to his attention. He amended his statement to Mueller’s team in September, which they accepted without complaint, but prosecutors changed their tune after they determined, he “could not give them what they wanted,” according to Corsi.

“They do this what I call a perjury trap,” Corsi told Carlson. “They ask you a question. They have material they won’t show you. You’ve forgotten about. They say, ‘You’ve just lied,’ because this email you’ve forgotten about 2016 proves your current memory is wrong. It’s a memory test.”

In a statement on Monday, his attorney Larry Klayman charged Mueller with “effectively seeking to overthrow a duly elected president” through coercing false testimony.

“This rogue government tyranny perpetrated by a Special Counsel and his prosecutorial staff, which is designed to effectively overthrow a duly elected president by coercing and extorting false testimony from Dr. Corsi and others, cannot be permitted in a civilized society,” he said.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued last week that Mueller’s probe is creating crimes rather than uncovering past ones, and that the “devastating” report against Trump he will write will be based on people “who have lied.”

“Virtually all of his indictments and pleas come from people who he got to lie in front of investigators by setting perjury traps for them,” Dershowitz told Fox News host Sean Hannity. He added, “(A)nd the other ones have to do with financial dealings unrelated to the president. Where’s the beef? Where’s the crime?”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

REPORT: DNC Staffer Seth Rich ‘Leaked…to WikiLeaks’ — DNC or Clinton Team is BLOCKING Investigation


Posted by http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/ on May 16, 2017

If you don’t remember this case here is a quick refresher:

Seth Rich was a staffer for the DNC and was gunned down July 10th on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home. The police reported it as a possible mugging even though his wallet and cell phone were still on him.

Now several sources are saying Seth was providing leaked info to WikiLeaks.

According to Fox News: A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report — generated within 96 hours after DNC staffer Seth Rich’s murder — detailing the contents Rich’s computer said he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time.

“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.

The revelation is consistent with the findings of Rod Wheeler, a former DC homicide detective and Fox News contributor and whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case. Rich was shot from behind in the wee hours, but was not robbed.

“My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” Wheeler said. “I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sits on his computer on a shelf at the DC police or FBI headquarters.”

Reportedly 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between DNC leaders, from January 2015 – May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21.

On July 22, just 12 days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to show top party officials conspired to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont from becoming the party’s presidential nominee. That controversy resulted in Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as DNC chairperson. A number of Sanders supporters refused to back party nominee Hillary Clinton, and some subsequently formed groups to work against Clinton and the party.

After Seth Rich died WikiLeaks offered a reward for any information behind his death. Julian Assange never confirmed nor denied Seth was working with the organization.

370d3db700000578-3732239-image-a-2_1470779813552

Wheeler believes powerful forces are preventing the case from a thorough investigation.

“My investigation shows someone within the D.C. government, Democratic National Committee or Clinton team is blocking the murder investigation from going forward,” Wheeler told Fox News. “That is unfortunate. Seth Rich’s murder is unsolved as a result of that.”

Will these investigators be able to find who was responsible for this shooting? Or is it as Wheeler states that larger powers will keep that from happening?

What do you think will happen?

The Russians Hacked Democrats’ Plans to Cheat in the General Election, Too


Reported by Joel B. Pollak | 23 Apr 2017

The Times’ investigative report suggests that a U.S. intelligence agency managed to intercept some of what Russian hackers were stealing — and that one document, “described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.”

According to the Times, Comey feared that Lynch — who had insisted the Clinton probe be referred to as a “matter” and not as an “investigation,” and who suggested it the investigation was not criminal when, in fact, it was — would declare the case closed, and then Russian hackers would leak the document to undermine the FBI’s image of independence.

The Times notes: “Mr. Comey’s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation, one they say helps explain his decision-making.” And if a local news reporter in Phoenix had not caught Lynch meeting with former President Bill Clinton, she might have succeeded in sheltering the Clintons even more effectively than she had.

When Comey’s letter to Congress about the re-opening of the investigation was revealed on October 28, it changed the contours of the presidential race — arguably by uniting reluctant conservatives around Donald Trump’s candidacy.

Breitbart News was in the room when Trump announced the news to thousands of supporters in New Hampshire:

In July 2016, a batch of emails from the Democratic National Committee released by Wikileaks, and said by U.S. intelligence agencies to have been obtained most likely by Russian hackers, revealed collusion between senior party officials and the Clinton campaign to thwart the insurgent candidacy of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Now, according to the Times, another hacked document, purportedly stolen by Russians, may have revealed collusion between the former Attorney General and the Democrats to ensure Hillary Clinton’s victory in the general election.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

The first paragraph has been updated to clarify that the Times report was referring to Comey’s announcement last year.Read More Stories About:

 

BREAKING: WIKILEAKS Calls BULLSH*T On Comey’s ‘TESTIMONY’


Posted by CLASHDAILY.COM | Published on March 21, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2017/03/breaking-wikileaks-calls-bullsht-comeys-testimony/

Hey James, are you ready to put your accuracy record up against Wikileaks?

Comey stood up and said that emails on Republicans were not released during 2016.

rethink-move-son

He’s being called out as a liar. And Wikileaks is offering proof. And whatever you think of Wikileaks’ practices — they’ve not been proven wrong yet.

Comey, on the other hand, has been SPECTACULARLY wrong.

When you follow that link, you’ll see something that looks like this:

screen-shot-2017-03-21-at-11-56-15-am

And if you look WAAAAAY up in the top corner, you’ll see this:

screen-shot-2017-03-21-at-12-01-59-pm

Don’t take our word for it. There’s a lot of fake news out there. Follow the link yourself. Either the one in the tweet, or (if you prefer) this one here. And then decide for yourself which one is fake.

Does anyone know whether someone in Comey’s position is permitted to lie to Congress?

The Question WE would love to get to the bottom of is this: Is Comey that Arrogantly dishonest?  Or is he a superior breed of incompetent?  Or is he actually Corrupt?

IF ANYONE KNOWS, IT’S JULIAN: Assange Discloses His Informant and They’re NOT Russian


waving flagPosted on December 15, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/anyone-knows-julian-assange-discloses-informant-theyre-not-russian/

It’s been disclosed that the election interference did not come from Russian hacks, but rather an insider leak. Julian Assange has claimed this over and over again before election day. Will people finally start believing him?

Craig Murray, who has served as an intelligence analyst, a British ambassador to Uzbekistan and chancellor of the University of Dundee, dropped a bombshell clarification about the ongoing furor of U.S. election hacks, saying he knew first-hand who breached the computerized walls – and it wasn’t a Russian.

It also wasn’t a hack, Murray said, in a piece on his blog entitled The CIA’s Absence of Conviction.” (See article below)

Rather, it was a leak, he said – something that’s completely different and a nuance the media’s failing to note.

Zero Hedge had the story:

“Murray, wrote yesterday: ‘As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. …

“‘I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“In other words, Murray – a close friend of Julian Assange – says he knows for a fact that there were no hacks at all … instead, an American insider leaked the information to Wikileaks.”

partyof-deceit-spin-and-lies

**********************************************************************************

The CIA’s Absence of Conviction

URL of the original posting site: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/


I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.AMEN

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.

It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.

In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.

More Evidence

Julian Assange Releases Statement on U.S. Election


waving flagWritten by Philip Hodges

URL of the original posting site: http://eaglerising.com/38280/julian-assange-releases-statement-on-u-s-election/

assange

Depending on what political party you identify with, you’ll either love WikiLeaks or abhor them. And people’s opinions of the organization changes depending on which political leaders are getting exposed. If the Bush administration is getting exposed, then liberals champion the group and whistleblowers in general, and conservatives decry the group as a terrorist organization and label the whistleblowers “traitors.”

But if WikiLeaks exposes the Obama administration, or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, it’s the other way around. All of a sudden the liberals who had previously championed the group, hate the group and want Assange “brought to justice” for crimes against humanity. And predictably, conservatives cheer his cause.

A lot of people don’t seem to understand that Assange doesn’t identify with any major U.S. political party. He’s not American. He’s an outsider. His goal has always been to expose top-level corruption, regardless of which countries or political parties are involved. And he’s had to pay a price for that.

As a publishing organization, they don’t hire hackers to steal other people’s computer documents and emails. WikiLeaks is a place for whistleblowers. They publish only what they’re given.

In other words, if someone inside the Trump campaign wanted to expose the campaign’s corruption and send a ton of emails to WikiLeaks, they would have published it. The only reason WikiLeaks published Podesta’s emails and the DNC emails was that someone felt the need to blow the whistle anonymously. So far, no one’s felt the need to do the same thing with the RNC or the Trump campaign. That doesn’t mean that Julian Assange must be pro-Trump. It just means that no one’s come forward seeking to out Trump.

It’s important to keep in mind that if our media networks truly were “fair and balanced” and objective and unbiased, there would be no need for a group like WikiLeaks.

Here’s a statement on the U.S. election released by Julian Assange:

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fulfills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.

In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.ATTA BOY

BREAKING: FBI Reopens Case Against Hillary And Her Email Coverup! [Scroll down for UPDATE]


waving flagPublished by Clash Daily on October 28, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/breaking-fbi-reopens-case-hillary-email-coverup/

The wheels just fell off Hillary’s campaign bus. She went from ‘coasting to victory’ to ‘full damage control mode’ with JUST ONE TWEET. Hillary’s attempted political assassination and smooth ride into high office just hit a ‘YUGE’ roadblock. If you were thinking it would take a ‘miracle’ for Trump to catch Hillary?

The FBI investigation of her email is back in play.

jason

Was this because the alternative media held them up to scrutiny? Was it because the rank-and-file agents didn’t appreciate being thrown under the political bus? Was it Wikileaks? Was it because OBAMA was emailing her private server?

It’s too soon to say. But whatever the reason an email from Comey, addressed to Congress now opens with the lines “I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.”

You will remember that earlier this year, Comey (with certain Clinton Foundation connections) did NOT recommend the DOJ press charges on Hillary. He was criticized for inventing the ‘Hillary’ defense.

comey-letter-to-congress

There is now new evidence. Comey was not willing to say more about the nature of that evidence in this email.

Could THIS New York Post story be related to the announcement?

In a May interview with FBI agents, an executive with the Denver contractor that maintained Clinton’s private server revealed that an underling didn’t bleach-clean all her subpoenaed emails, just ones he stored in a data file he used to transfer the emails from the server to Clinton’s aides, who in turn sorted them for delivery to Congress.

The Platte River Networks executive, whose name was redacted from the interview report, said PRN tech Paul Combetta “created a ‘vehicle’ to transfer email files from the live mailboxes of [Clinton Executive Services Corp.] email accounts [and] then later used BleachBit software to shred the ‘vehicle,’ but the email content still existed in the live email accounts.”

..Unless one of Clinton’s aides had the capability to log in to the PRN server as an administrator and remove a mailbox, her archived mailboxes more than likely still reside somewhere in that system. And they may also materialize on an internal “shared drive” that PRN created to control access to the Clinton email accounts among PRN employees. PRN has been under FBI order to preserve all emails and other evidence since the start of its investigation last year.

Clinton’s missing “personal” emails may also be captured on a Google server. According to FBI notes, Combetta “transferred all of the Clinton email content to a personal Google email address he created.” Only the FBI never subpoenaed Google to find out.

UPDATE: The ‘Weiner’ Connection

From the Washington Post:

The emails were found on a computer used jointly by both Weiner and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Adebin, according to a person with knowledge of the inquiry. Federal officials have been examining Weiner’s alleged sexually suggestive online messages with a teenage girl. The link to the Weiner probe was first reported by the New York Times.

Comey’s announcement appears to restart the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s server, which previously ended in July with no charges. The explosive announcement, coming less than two weeks before the presidential election, could reshape a campaign that Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has been leading in public polls…

…An FBI spokesman on Friday declined to elaborate, and a spokesman for Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch declined to comment. A Clinton campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Comey provided no details about the unrelated case that resulted in the finding of the new emails. A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the emails were “numerous” and that they are not related to hacks of recent Democratic Party institutions or the emails that have been released in recent days by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

The official said once informed of the find, Comey felt an obligation to inform Congress, since he had previously told lawmakers the investigation had been completed. As a technical matter, however, the Clinton investigation was never formally closed, the official said.

Abedin, who has worked for Clinton since the 1990s, is vice-chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign. She exchanged thousands of emails with Clinton while serving as her deputy chief of staff at the State Department. She, like Clinton, used an email address routed through the private server. She announced in August that she was separating from Weiner following a report in the New York Post about a Weiner sexting incident.

ClashDaily reported that Anthony Weiner was sexting a 15-year-old girl, and an investigation was ongoing in both New York and North Carolina.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: