I have tried to follow and keep up with your work. The chronology of events has been lost on me, and what has already been known, and what may be new info found in these latest docs is unclear to me. Nevertheless, I read through this latest production, and my general takeaway is that Crowdstrike reversed its original assessment early on, conceding the hack was an inside job. The FBI believed the hack was an inside job and was coordinating with Sussman to search the DNC office. SSCI Senator Reed, had a whistleblower feeding him and the FBI info on the leak. Wasserman was pissed she wasn't personally notified, and for whatever reason, counterintelligence didn't think it was a good idea for it to be present during her briefing. Someone was theorizing the hack, or something related to it, was intended to benefit Hillary. And a related, or at least parallel investigation was occurring involving White House "influence" on media reports, but there is nothing substantive on this in the docs. I'm hoping you can provide some context. What of all of this has been publicly known. Is any of this new? As much as I want to know what is behind the redactions, I am curious why they offered up what they did.
I have tried to follow and keep up with your work. The chronology of events has been lost on me, and what has already been known, and what may be new info found in these latest docs is unclear to me. Nevertheless, I read through this latest production, and my general takeaway is that Crowdstrike reversed its original assessment early on, conceding the hack was an inside job. The FBI believed the hack was an inside job and was coordinating with Sussman to search the DNC office. SSCI Senator Reed, had a whistleblower feeding him and the FBI info on the leak. Wasserman was pissed she wasn't personally notified, and for whatever reason, counterintelligence didn't think it was a good idea for it to be present during her briefing. Someone was theorizing the hack, or something related to it, was intended to benefit Hillary. And a related, or at least parallel investigation was occurring involving White House "influence" on media reports, but there is nothing substantive on this in the docs. I'm hoping you can provide some context. What of all of this has been publicly known. Is any of this new? As much as I want to know what is behind the redactions, I am curious why they offered up what they did.
Go get ‘em! You are doing a great job! Thank you so very much!!