Loretta Lynch... the Email Probe... and the Redacted Classified Index to the IG Report

After Inspector General Horowitz revealed during testimony that there is a still-classified appendix to the IG report on Hillary email probe, I started trying to nail down the facts... and, yeah, it was pretty much like nailing jello to a waterfall. So no conclusions or even speculation, just the few facts I could find, and I'm sharing here. I did find lots of assumptions, misinformation and disinformation. But what is obvious from both what has been reported, and what is being claimed around the internet (including right here on ATS), there's only two conclusions we can be sure of at this point: We don't know the whole truth and what we do know doesn't add up. The IG said he was working on getting the appendix de-classified so that congress members can see it; hopefully, it will be released in full to the public as well. But until that happens, this is what I've been able to confirm.

The still-classified appendix to the IG report was revealed during IG Horowitz's testimony before congress when Sen Kennedy (LA) asked IG Horowitz if his "classified index" does --

...contain or discuss an email that refers to a conversation allegedly between Attorney General Lynch and, uh, uh, a person by the name of Amanda Renteria?

The Senator's question presumes the existence of the classified index, but not the email/conversation; Horowitz' response affirms the existence of the classified index, as he states that he's not sure how much he can say publicly about it, but he does not affirm the contents of the email/conversation -- although he obviously knows what the Senator is referring to. The rest of the testimony regards getting the information declassified.

The senator does not ask and the IG does not say why the information is classified; I got the feeling the IG does not understand why it's classified. I have seen some reports that it is "law sensitive," indicating that it pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution, hence it cannot be released now. I have also seen a suggestion that it's classified for national security based on other information in the Russian intel report. But it seems to be speculation at this point. We don't really know unless and until it's released.

The only further public information we have about this email/conversation comes from the Washington Post from anonymous sources.

How a dubious Russian document influenced the FBI’s handling of the Clinton probe

So a couple things of note here is that the WaPo information is not confirmed, and this WaPo article is the only source for these (anonymous) claims. But according to WaPo's sources, the email/conversation in question comes from a Russian intel report the FBI received in March 2016, which states that an email from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to Leonard Benardo with the Open Society Foundation (founded by Soros) claimed that Lynch had told Renteria that the email probe wouldn't "go too far." Obviously, this is beyond even third-hand information... at this point, it sounds more like purple-monkey-dishwasher stuff.

WaPo reports that everyone involved not only denies they were part of a "deal," they deny even knowing each other. To be clear, DWS denies knowing Benardo and Benardo denies knowing DWS... Renteria denies knowing Lynch and Lynch denies knowing Renteria. And it would seem that Loretta Lynch is the ONLY ONE of the four who has been questioned about it by the FBI. DWS, Renteria and Benardo all say the FBI has never spoken to them about it.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me in this hypothetical is why Lynch would be talking to Renteria, rather than Podesta. Hillary didn't know Renteria very well (if at all) before hiring her in 2015. And neither did Podesta, Hillary's campaign manager and partner in crime going back decades. Lynch didn't know Renteria either. But Lynch sure knew Podesta. It seems to me that any such deal would have been a closely guarded secret known to only an absolute minimum of trusted people... It makes much more sense that this would be handled between Lynch and Podesta, very easily and quietly.

The scuttlebutt according to WaPo's sources who are "familiar" with the matter is that the FBI never really gave this intel any credibility anyway because they never saw or had any such email, and because it relied on too many levels of hearsay (i.e., Russia said that DWS said that Loretta Lynch said... you get the picture.) But somehow it is given enough credibility now to be classified at the highest level -- even from our congress critters. Huh??? Since Loretta Lynch is the only one of those who was a federal official at the time, in a position of public trust and the highest security clearance, it seems to me that Loretta is the one in the hot seat here. (And her boss of course!)

I don't know what to believe. There's something up with all this, but I sure don't know what. We'll have to wait for the release of the classified index for that. Hopefully very very soon... and hopefully we're a little more prepared for it now!

This is a video of the exchange between Sen Kennedy and Horowitz during his testimony:

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

And for those who would prefer to read a transcript of the exchange, which picks up near the end of Senator Kennedy's questioning:

Inspector General: ...We found them and conservatively fast --

Senator: [Inaudible] stop you, I c-- 'cause I if I go now I can give you one more question.

Inspector General: Alright.

Senator: Um, your classified index--

Inspector General: Yes?

Senator: -- does it contain or discuss an email that refers to a conversation allegedly between Attorney General Lynch and, uh, uh, a person by the name of Amanda Renteria?

Inspector General: I'm not sure what I can say about that publicly given it's -- given the matter is classified, uh, so I would ask you if I could get back to you on that? I'm hesitant to say anything about it ab-- in a public forum about that.

Senator: Would you allow our chairman and our ranking member to see the classified index?

Inspector General: Oh, absolutely. In fact, what we are trying to do, Senator, is, uh, what ended up happening is because of the nature of the information in there it was classified at such a high level, by the intelligence community -- we don't make that decision -- by the intelligence community, that it limited even the members who can see it, as well as the staffs. And what we're doing right now is, and I, uh, asked the Deputy Attorney General's office to help facilitate this, is to go back to the intelligence community and let us know how we can address whatever caused this to be classified at that high level, so that we can make sure that we can write it a level and get it to the members. Including the qu-- ans-- question you raise promptly, and ther-- they told us they are doing that. We very much want the committee to see this information.

(end of video; total time: 1 minute 38 seconds)

it was classified at such a high level, by the intelligence community -- we don't make that decision -- by the intelligence community, that it limited even the members who can see it, as well as the staffs.

I'm not that up to date with US government structures.

Who is ( names / department ) the "intelligence community" ?

They seem to have a lot of authority , above Rosenstein's authority ?

a reply to: EartOccupant

I'm not that up to date with US government structures.

Who is ( names / department ) the "intelligence community" ?

They seem to have a lot of authority , above Rosenstein's authority ?

The "intelligence community" loosely comprises each and every government agency that investigates crimes. In this situation, he's probably referring to the FBI (the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and the DOJ (the Department of Justice), because those would be the agencies to investigate a domestic crime such as this. Other agencies would include the CIA (the Central Intelligence Agency), which investigates international crime, and the NSA (the National Security Agency).

I'm not sure it would be correct to say that any one agency or person has more or less authority necessarily. But neither am I sure who would have the final say about what is or is not classified. Maybe someone with more knowledge than I about the specifics can give us their insight into the matter.

ETA: Let me do better and correct myself here. According to Wikipedia:

The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities to support the foreign policy and national security of the United States.

So I guess it's not just limited to investigating criminal activity... and it's more than "loosely" as I termed it:

Member organizations of the IC include intelligence agencies, military intelligence, and civilian intelligence and analysis offices within federal executive departments. The IC is overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which itself is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who reports to the President of the United States.

Among their varied responsibilities, the members of the Community collect and produce foreign and domestic intelligence, contribute to military planning, and perform espionage. The IC was established by Executive Order 12333, signed on December 4, 1981, by U.S. President Ronald Reagan

My apologies for giving you bad information! I learned something new too -- glad I looked it up.

a reply to: Boadicea

His answer seems to express surprise by the level of the clarification.

I wonder if this is another case of hiding $70k conference tables? We know how dangerous that information can be.

You're on the right track. Obama/Jarrett designed the multi-faceted schemes. Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Brennan and others, carried it out. All the resistance from Rosenstein is to protect Obama/Jarrett. Jeff Sessions and prosecutor Huber are working QUIETLY to reveal it all, at the appropriate time.

a reply to: Boadicea

Tnx for the replay.

A little more clear now, something do comes to mind.

Edit: After your excellent addition.

I guess i have to see "members" as : If one agency calls it "off limit" it is accepted as , and other agencies ( in the same group ) do also not get to see it anymore.

That seems like a lot of power. I guess understandable in highly classified info, but also very vonurable for misusage from the inside.

....by the intelligence community, that it limited even the members who can see it...

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Boadicea

His answer seems to express surprise by the level of the clarification.

Surprise that the Senator knew about it? That was the feeling I got. Or did you mean surprise at something else?

And it sure seemed that the Senator wanted to be sure he got this question asked. And on the record? Into the public knowledge? I don't know. But he was determined enough that he interrupted the IG's answer to his previous question in order to be sure he asked this question.

I wonder if this is another case of hiding $70k conference tables? We know how dangerous that information can be.

Nothing would surprise me at this point!!!

a reply to: carewemust

Definitely -- this ALL goes straight to Obama and his team (although I wonder if it's really more like Valerie and her team...). But I'm curious... do you think there ever was any such Russian intel? Or that Team Obama planted that info themselves, while blaming Russia, for a purpose? (I'm leaning toward the latter.)

a reply to: Boadicea

Very interesting, Bo.

The following document is an email chain from within the the DOJ with regards to the official response to the news reports.

JW-v-DOJ-Clinton-Lynch PDF - Judicial Watch - Judicial Watch (direct .pdf link)

Many of the paragraphs are redacted under FOIA exemption b (5):

(b)(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.

FOIA/PA Overviews, Exemptions, and Terms Overview of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

From the context of the conversation around the redacted paragraphs, it seems clear that much of the blacked out areas are revisions of the official statement.

Interestingly enough, one of the people in the aforementioned email chain is Peter J Kadzik:

Mr. Kadzik, 63 years old, serves as assistant attorney general running the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs, meaning he is the agency’s liaison with Congress. It is a political position, and he will leave the job in a week.

But Mr. Kadzik has spent recent months beset by hate mail—and some death threats, he said in an interview—after WikiLeaks published an email showing that in 2015 he alerted Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta about a congressional hearing and a court filing, both related to Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

In the email, Mr. Kadzik wrote to Mr. Podesta that he wanted to give him a “heads up.”

Justice Department Lawyer Says He Did Nothing Wrong - WSJ, June 12, 2017

Peter J Kadzik:

Employment History

1999- Dickstein Shapiro LLP
Revolving Door Personnel: (37) Partner Firm lobbying profileMajor Donor profile
1996-1996 Clinton for President
Revolving Door Personnel: (14) Advisor
1996-1996 Democratic National Convention Cmte
Revolving Door Personnel: (6) Natl Campaign Advisor
1992-1992 Presidential Transition Team
Revolving Door Personnel: (131) Member, Justice Cluster
1989-1992 National Lawyers' Council
Revolving Door Personnel: (1) Member
1988-1988 Michael Dukakis Presidential Campaign
Revolving Door Personnel: (4) Advisor
1987-1987 Task Force/Voting Rights & Voter Partic
Revolving Door Personnel: (1) Member
1984-1984 Mondale Ferraro Cmte
Revolving Door Personnel: (3) Asst Secretary
1978-1980 US Attorney's Office
Revolving Door Personnel: (110) Assistant US Attorney
1977-1978 US District Court for DC
Revolving Door Personnel: (51) Clerk

Revolving Door: Peter Kadzik - Opensecrets.org

Things that make you go, hmmm:

A drumbeat of lagging revenue and high-level departures caught up with one of Washington’s major law firms last week as Dickstein Shapiro closed its doors and went out of business, notifying current and former partners in a FedEx-delivered letter that the firm is unable to repay the financial stakes that partners had invested in the firm.

“I lost equity, as did all of their partners,” said Andy Zausner, who headed Dickstein Shapiro’s congressional practice before leaving for Greenberg Traurig in July. “I have not decided myself if I am going to do anything about it.”

Zausner did not disclose how much money he lost but acknowledged that it was substantial.

Dickstein Shapiro shuts its doors for good after revenue lags, lawyers defect - WaPo, February 17, 2016

a reply to: EartOccupant

Tnx for the replay.

You're very welcome!

I guess i have to see "members" as : If one agency calls it "off limit" it is accepted as , and other agencies ( in the same group ) do also not get to see it anymore.

That makes sense and sounds reasonable. Although in the last few days of Obama's term, Obama had everyone sharing everything across the intelligence agencies -- at least anything and everything "Trump." It was a free for all at that point. I'm pretty sure one of these days we'll learn Obama's dirty reason for doing that as well. Probably to cover up someone's specific guilt. For example, maybe to hide a leaker? Much harder to track down leakers when that info was known by many as opposed to a few. That's just one possibility.

That seems like a lot of power. I guess understandable in highly classified info, but also very vonurable for misusage from the inside.

It is a lot of power with much room for abuse. That's why I think full transparency is the best option. Give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and we'll figure it out.

a reply to: Boadicea

In the video, it seems the IG seemed surprised by the ' high' classification level.

I, uh, asked the Deputy Attorney General's office to help facilitate this, is to go back to the intelligence community and let us know how we can address whatever caused this to be classified at that high level, so that we can make sure that we can write it a level and get it to the members. Including the qu-- ans-- question you raise promptly, and ther-- they told us they are doing that. We very much want the committee to see this information.

Doesn't seem he expected that level of classification.

a reply to: Boadicea

Give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and we'll figure it out.

Amen.

a reply to: Boadicea

While this is all interesting, the sad truth is we will never know what was/is going on. But if you guys want to keep looking into this I will keep reading your thoughts. It is good reading but I still know nothing will ever come to light. Us commoners are not ever worth the strings that the puppets get played with. And those same strings pull both sides. “Divide and conquer” my dear friends.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: carewemust

Definitely -- this ALL goes straight to Obama and his team (although I wonder if it's really more like Valerie and her team...). But I'm curious... do you think there ever was any such Russian intel? Or that Team Obama planted that info themselves, while blaming Russia, for a purpose? (I'm leaning toward the latter.)

So far, the intel traces back to the British SIS, who the Obama admin were using to "launder" the Russian collusion info so it appeared legitimate. Steele has offered no evidence to prove that legitimate Russian sources provided any of his info.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Indeed!

But we have to be alert if there might be hope Persons, actions to make it better, recognize them.

Second.

We all now power corrupts and perverts, mo matter witch side or belief.
That does not mean that a very, very good shake up in those pathetic and wrong fields of corruption and perverion is always welcome, no matter the sides.

Yess, that will leave much to be diseired. I know.

That's next.


EO likes to hope.

a reply to: Boadicea

Nicely constructed OP. Thank you!!!

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks for the links, J&C -- much appreciated! Although my puter didn't like the JW link at first... froze me up and I had to reboot. Got it loading now though and looking forward to reading it (even with the redactions). I may comment further at that point...

Mr. Kadzik is quite the busy boy. The incestuousness of what we're learning is encouraging to one extent though because it means the Criminally Corrupt Critters Club may not be as big as I feared.

a reply to: Boadicea

Makes no sense to make and keep something like that classified unless there is something to the claim IMO.

Based on everything we know, the Obama Admin was trying every possible thing to minimize the Clinton Server/email crisis. We see it in the changing of the gross negligent in the letter to Lynch telling Comey to call it just a matter.

a reply to: loam

Doesn't seem he expected that level of classification.

Gotcha -- thank you. Agreed. He doesn't seem to understand why it's classified either, saying he has asked the intel community how they can make it acceptable for release. It seemed he didn't expect it to be classified.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Boadicea

While this is all interesting, the sad truth is we will never know what was/is going on. But if you guys want to keep looking into this I will keep reading your thoughts. It is good reading but I still know nothing will ever come to light. Us commoners are not ever worth the strings that the puppets get played with. And those same strings pull both sides. “Divide and conquer” my dear friends.

Never say never!!! As long as you keep reading and keep paying attention, you're still part of the solution. And that's what gives me hope. The corrupt critters count on cover of darkness. Their biggest enemy is the light of public attention. At some point, if enough people pay attention, the scales will tip in our favor...