Obama involvement just distraction re:Hillary emails?

Hello ATS, this is my first thread, so bear with me.

I’ve been reading through most, if not all, threads here regarding Emailgate, drawing conclusions only to have other members post first and beat me to it. I have sat on this particular theory for a few days waiting for someone else to bring it up and hash it out on here, but alas, it appears it is my turn.

Albeit lazy, I generally wait for the internet to do the hard work and pick out the important facts from the documents leaked or released from various sources. However, for some reason I felt extremely compelled to personally read the latest batch of documents released by the FBI.
(FBI Vault, Hillary Clinton 3 of 3)

I notice the media and everyone else seems totally wrapped up in Obama’s involvement in this matter (one of the things I assumed from the beginning, so not really a surprise to me when it came out Obama used psuedonym in emails with Clinton). However, the part I found interesting is unrelated and I wonder if the intention was for us to be distracted by Obama’s involvement in order to hide a potentially bigger revelation.

Although the documents are heavily redacted and some parts make little sense without the blanks filled in, one paragraph jumped off the page at me. Let me bring this particular paragraph to your attention. (this can be found on page 12 of the full 189 page document, second paragraph)

Though the name has been redacted the context shows this is from the Combetta interview:



What I take away from this is that “someone” not affiliated with the Clinton Camp instructed “someone else” [Combetta] to send an archive of previous emails as well as forward all future messages sent to Huma and Hillary’s clintonemail.com accounts to their new @hrcoffice.com accounts which were NOT hosted or administered by PRN, on some server managed by an unknown party, for purposes unknown. This also states that the Clinton Camp was not privy to this request.

To me, that’s kind of a big deal.

I did a little digging, thinking maybe I was missing some obvious details about switching IT companies or the like. I have looked at numerous timelines (Source 1, Source 2) and can’t find anything that occurred that might match up to this event. Yes, there is mention of them being given new email addresses, but that isn’t the crux of the situation. They knew that was happening. Nowhere have I seen anything that mentions this specific detail about the unknown server or the mysterious request made unbeknownst to the Clinton Camp other than this interview with Combetta.

IF I AM MISTAKEN, PLEASE CORRECT ME!

That brings us to my theory. I mulled over different possibilities for WHO might make such a request and WHY. Although most names I came up with didn’t fit, either physically (too many letters) or logically (obviously it’s not Pagliano or Mills, etc.) I did come across one possibility, and it may be a stretch, but at the same time it potentially makes sense, in my opinion.

Ladies and Gents of ATS, I present you my Photoshopped speculation of how this paragraph would look if it were not redacted: (email addresses left redacted because it’s not really relevant to my point)



Maybe it’s a crazy idea, but hey, we’re on ATS for this kind of stuff, right?
What are your thoughts?

Where Soros and corruption are concerned...anything is possible.

I'll put forward another name to fill the boxes...Valerie Jarrett.

a reply to: lane24

George Soros can be replaced with barack obama. Don't know if that hinders or helps, but same number of letters in first and last names.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: IAMTAT

Doesn't fit space-wise, but good suggestion logically!

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: lane24

George Soros can be replaced with barack obama. Don't know if that hinders or helps, but same number of letters in first and last names.

Cheers - Dave

I agree. They are completely interchangeable . In a lot of ways
I would put a LOL on this , but it is so dangerous it is not funny at all.

originally posted by: lane24
a reply to: IAMTAT

Doesn't fit space-wise, but good suggestion logically!

Ah...good point. Size matters.
I think your idea has even more merit....considering the space within the omit boxes.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Oooh that does fit really nicely, however, I was hesitant to put that name in because of how he is referenced in other paragraphs of this document set. For instance, in Huma's interview notes they refer to him as "the President" instead of by name.

Could be Cheryl Mills.

a reply to: queenofswords

No, too short of a name and she's considered part of the Clinton Camp..

a reply to: lane24

I appreciate all the work you did .
s&F

originally posted by: lane24
a reply to: queenofswords

No, too short of a name and she's considered part of the Clinton Camp..

I thought he was referencing the space where George Soros' name is. Cheryl Mills = 11 letters +1 space ....
George Soros = 11 letters and 1 space.

But, yeah, I guess she might have still been in the Clinton camp in some capacity, although by then she had started the BlackIvy Group. She left the State Department in Jan. 2013 and started the BlackIvy Group shortly after that.

a reply to: queenofswords

That would apply if it were a fixed-width font (where each letter takes up the exact same number of pixels).
In the font used an "I" takes up far less space than an "O" for example.

Good point about her employment at the time though... I hadn't taken that into consideration.

a reply to: lane24

for any of this to make sense, soros would have to have an interest in america.
all his money is in china at the minute, if you bothered looking anything up which you havent, so what benefit would he gain from clinton winning office?
trumps idiotic tariffs help china in the much bigger global market, maybe get some facts, read some news rather than peoples biased guesswork.

also, aren't adlibs funnier if you put something like fart in rather than who zerohedge make out to be the bogeyman?

a reply to: lane24

Very interesting theory, you certainly could be on to something.

Let's take a closer look at her domain and see if anything shakes out there, shall we?

Domain Name: HRCOFFICE.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1861043969_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: www.godaddy.com...
Update Date: 2016-05-25T01:25:52Z
Creation Date: 2014-06-01T01:21:14Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-06-01T01:21:14Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Reseller: Google Inc.
Domain Status: ok www.icann.org...
Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
Registrant Name: Nick Merrill
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 2540 Massachusetts Ave NW
Registrant Street: Apt 307
Registrant City: Washington
Registrant State/Province: District of Columbia
Registrant Postal Code: 20008
Registrant Country: US

ICANN WHOIS

Nick Merrill:

Experience

U.S. Department of State
Office of Strategic Communications
U.S. Department of State
August 2009 – Present (7 years 2 months)

Strategic Communications
DoS
2009 – 2012 (3 years)

LinkedIn

Interesting, very interesting.

Riffing off of information in the WHOIS:

Pearl Merrill Institute For Children Inc
2540 Massachusetts Ave Nw 307, Washington, DC 20008

nonprofitfacts

It has $0 listed for all of it's financial stats.

Look who is hosting her new email server:

Lookup IP Address Location For IP: Hrcoffice.com
Continent: North America (NA)
Country: United States IP Location Find In United States (US)
Capital: Washington
State: California
City Location: Mountain View
Postal: 94035
Area: 650
Metro: 807
ISP: Google
Organization: Google
AS Number: AS15169 Google Inc.

Time Zone: America/Los_Angeles

ip-tracker

lane, if you are unfamiliar with why Google hosting Hillary's new email server might be relevant, I will let MME explain; she went down that track in another thread we had earlier in the year.

Anyway, not sure if any of this info helps your thread but I figured I'd drop it in here in case someone else were able to make something of it.

Fantastic 1st thread, btw!



Upon further rumination of the idea, I'm going to have to shoot it down.

I say this is because George Soros is not the type of person who does his own dirty work. And having Hillary Clinton's emails forward to a different domain unbeknownst to Hillary certainly qualifies as "dirty work."

Now, that's not to say the Obama pseudonym story isn't a distraction, just that I don't think it's a distraction from Soros.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

First of all, thanks for the warm welcome. If I hadn't been a lurker for so long I'd almost be offended by your tone, but I have seen your replies on other threads and can tell that's just your nature to be condescending and not add any actual content to the topic being discussed.

I have done research which leads me to believe that Soros absolutely has interest in our government. If he has no benefit to Clinton winning then why is he the largest donor to her campaign? (and this source)

He's already pulling the puppet strings:

A new discovery from the WikiLeaks DNC email cache exposes George Soros issuing orders to Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State, and a follow up investigation reveals that Clinton carried out his instructions to the letter.

source

Oh, and this doesn't help:
Top 10 Reasons George Soros is Dangerous
Oh wait, or is that considered "other people's biased guesswork"?

What would Soros not stand to gain by having control over the leader of the United States?

And why are you bringing Trump into this? Unrelated.

Also, I'm pretty sure my research also shows it's madlib, not adlib. But you said I was bad at research, so...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Wow. Lots of interesting info there! Thank you so much for your contribution.

I knew Soros was kind of a long shot for the same reason you outline. He's not going to make that call himself, he's certainly got someone who would do it for him. However, my original fascination with this paragraph still stands. Who ordered this and why?

a reply to: lane24

However, my original fascination with this paragraph still stands. Who ordered this and why?

Oh, I'm with you on that. This particular excerpt is intriguing and certainly seems to have the implication of subterfuge in it's wording. Hence my interest and so I started poking around a bit; you never know what will you'll turn up when you start looking.

So it looks like an employee at the State Department (who started in 2009 when Hillary did and is still employed there, while Hillary was there worked in "Strategic Communications" ) set it up for her, they also have a non profit with the same last name registered to the same address; which looks to be an apartment.

Is that setting any flags off for anyone?

PEARL MERRILL INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN INC
EIN:
Employer Identification Number (EIN) is a nine digit number assigned by the IRS to identify a particular organization's account.
52-2330453
In Care Of:
In Care Of Name is the person (officer, director, etc.) to whose attention any correspondence should be directed.
% REBECCA BEAUREGARD
Address:
last known address the organization provided to the IRS
2540 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW 307
WASHINGTON DC 20008-2843

irsexempt.com

Rebecca Beauregard:

Meanwhile, Rebecca Beauregard was hired as director of government relations. Beauregard was the mayor of Cranbury, N.J., and her Beltway experience includes a stint as staff director to the House Select Committee on Aging’s housing subcommittee.

CDF got some free publicity during the Democratic presidential candidate debate in South Carolina in January. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), touting her experience working on poverty issues, told about how she eschewed the legal world after graduating from law school to work for CDF and Marian Wright Edelman, its founder.

youthtoday article from 2008

Also, one last thing of note. When searching the address, I came across a site hosted in a foreign country which I am loathe to name in the open, but I will say there is a nuclear treaty with that country with which Obama has caused some drama. If you want a more clear answer, pm me but I'm hesitant to discuss it in the thread.

Anyway, I might be making more of this than there is, this is ATS after all.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Ok I looked a little further and have come up with the following details... not sure it gets us anywhere though:
-There's basically zero information online regarding Pearl Merrill Institute for Children Inc (short of it being a non-profit and the contact person is Rebecca Beauregard Source
-Rebecca Beauregard lists a current position as President of Pearl Merrill Institute (2003-present) LinkedIn
-Rebecca "Becky" Beauregard is Nick Merrill's mother Source
-Nick Merrill lives with his mother at the address used to register the domain hrcoffice.com
-The domain hrcoffice.com was registered less than a month after the Benghazi Committee was formed, but 4 months after Clinton left the State Department

WHY would Nick Merrill use his personal/mother's address to register a domain for his boss?

My revised theory is that the "someone" who contacted Combetta and controlled the new server was a Google employee, so I have little hope in filling in the blank now. However, I do think this excerpt still merits further investigation.

a reply to: lane24

Good Show!

I do find this odd, and I hope MME comes in with what she has about Hillary's connection to Google, I can't recall her path, but she sound that Google was indeed financially tied with Clinton and had a special relationship with them.

CESC is a good track to begin looking down I think. I will be away for a bit so won't be able to poke around. Will check in and see what else you, or anyone else uncovers.

This is a really good thread! Thank you for bringing this to our attention!

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I think you must be confusing me with someone else because I have no clue what you could be referring to!