Correction to the essay below: Lynch did not recuse herself. See https://caucus99percent.com/content/apology-caucus99percent-re-loretta-l...

A secret document that officials say played a key role in then-FBI Director James B. Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation has long been viewed within the FBI as unreliable and possibly a fake, according to people familiar with its contents.

In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary season, the FBI received what was described as a Russian intelligence document claiming a tacit understanding between the Clinton campaign and the Justice Department over the inquiry into whether she (sic) intentionally revealed classified information through her use of a private email server.

The Russian document cited a supposed email describing how then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had privately assured someone in the Clinton campaign that the email investigation would not push too deeply into the matter. If true, the revelation of such an understanding would have undermined the integrity of the FBI’s investigation.

In the supposed email, Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in private communication with a senior Clinton campaign staffer named Amanda Renteria during the campaign. The document indicated Lynch had told Renteria that she would not let the FBI investigation into Clinton go too far, according to people familiar with it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-dubious-rus...

Before I go any further, I must note that the authors of the story excerpted above, Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett, may have forgotten(?) that Jim Comey announced the close of the first investigation only because the head of the United States Department of Justice, which usually handles that kind of announcement, befouled herself and then had to recuse herself (and, apparently, her entire department).

Starting with paragraph one of the story: How secret could a document be if WAPO knows about it? We don't even know if the "people" referenced in paragraph one are with the FBI or the DNC or the DOJ or the Trump White House or none of the above. Will bots who once scoffed at stories attributed to "anonymous White House sources" when President Obama was in the WH buy this? (Of course they will! Because Hillary. For that matter, any leaks from Obama White House are already in the memory hole. Now, only Trump's White House ever leaked very much--and that says something very significant about Trump, or so says MSNBC.)

Note how much the writers waffle in the body of the story (in case this later blows up in their faces?) with terms like "say," "according to" "what was described" "claiming." However, studies have shown that many people read only headlines. And, in this case, we have not only a headline, but a video directly below it, with text superimposed. And, if that were not enough, the video has a caption, too. No fudging at all in what is likeliest to be read by most people--a slimy trick I've noticed from mass media again and again. (The authors of a piece like this are not typically involved in writing headlines, etc. or in layout.)

The FBI intends the "news" "reported" in this piece to defend Comey. Really? I thought someone was trying to make Comey look like an utter dolt. Wait: unreliable and only possibly a fake? You mean, if they had an authentic email to or from DWS saying Lynch promised not to do her duty, they'd deem it unreliable? Wowza.

In the second paragraph of the story: How would Russian intel or anyone, for that matter, know about a tacit understanding? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tacit; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/understanding Has Russian intel beaten all our 17 intelligence agencies to perfecting mindreading?

Also, I thought that the FBI inquiry was into Hillary's use of her private server, period. If Comey's charge from Obama or Lynch was really to investigate only whether Hillary intentionally revealed classified info, then this mess is even worse than I thought. https://caucus99percent.com/content/hillary-and-jim-and-bubba-and-loretta. Not to mention that Comey testified that he considers the importance of the person he's investigating! If looking only for intent to reveal wasn't truly his charge, then why the heck is this story written this way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States; http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret... http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-l... (Who knew the head of the FBI could wipe a federal law off the books? Usually, that takes either hundreds of (s)elected officials or five of nine Justices, appointed and confirmed by elected officials.)

BTW, did Hillary know that Huma was forwarding classified info to Weiner, who had no clearance? If not, who did Hillary think was printing out the stuff? And did the info get from Hillary's server into the wrong hands? I thought the official story was was that it had not. However, the wording used in this this story implies it did get into the wrong hands, but without intent on Hillary's part. Oh, well, nothing at all to see here, I Ass U Me. Moving on....

We get to paragraph three. What in the name of heaven is a "supposed email?" Are the WAPO authors claiming that the Rooskies created a fake email to plant with our intel and Comey was too dense ever to think that Russians know we spy on them? If he did know that, why would he not also know the Russians might spoof us? IOW, why would this supposedly shake him as much as this article claims?

An email indicates that Lynch shared with Renteria that Lynch was going to breach her own duty to the United States? And Comey did not even question Lynch, Renteria, DWS or anyone else named? Wowza. It doesn't matter how much they feds violate our Constitutional rights, we're not safe if this is the level at which our "intelligence" agencies function in a highly visible matter.

Oh, and why would a statement about Lynch in a document coming from Russian intel, hoax or not, compromise Comey's investigation? But especially when the FBI has, according to this account, supposedly "long" considered the document unreliable and the email a fake? Is Comey and his huge FBI really that easily distracted and that lousy at investigating, even this long after 911? If so, shouldn't they all be replaced, the head of the fish being only the first on the chopping block (or, in this metaphor, the cutting board)?

(Psst, raise your hand if you think the scenario in the paragraph about Renteria and Lynch and DWS quoted above could possibly be true. And, if it isn't true, then why did the DNC or Podesta never say that one or more of the emails never came to or from them? Didn't they want to tip the Russians know that Democrats know which emails they do and do not write and receive? My eyelashes are aching!)

I don't know what is true or false--who would, with all the nonsense coming out of the "least untruthful" liars in government who pass statutes allowing themselves to lie to us, ffs? But, I do know that ethically-impaired Obama, Lynch, Comey and Bubba all messed this up six ways to election day. (Funny how people who couldn't wait to sic an independent special counsel on the Donald stood down when it came to Hillary and don't even seem to remember that.) I also know that Comey expressed his own discomfort at Lynch's pro-Clinton conduct, even apart from the gobsmackingly inappropriate Tarmac Tête-à-tête between Lynch and Bubba.

Wait--Do we finally understand the claim that Russia "interfered with a US election?" Russia made Hillary use a private server, then made everyone from Obama to FBI agents mess up unbelievably badly? So, I guess they've not perfected not only mind reading, but also controlling the minds, motives and conduct of our federal officials, too! Well, at least I finally know why I am supposed to be terrified of Russia messing with our elections. With paranormal powers of that magnitude, they probably did make millions of us vote however they wanted, and we didn't even realize it! They're even worse than the NSA! Why, I oughtta....

O.K. I'll stop ranting and snarking about this journalistic exemplar, whose purpose seems to me to be to confirm the bs that Hillary lost only because of Comey's incompetence and/or bias. (The purpose could not have been informing us.)

Th-th-that's all, folks!

[video:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&... width:350 height:350]