Obozo's Watergate??

The shit just racheted up a whole level.  But you almost certainly didn't hear about it-- because the national media has determined that you shouldn't know.

Aurelia Fedenisn was an investigator working for the State Department’s inspector-general.  She'd found evidence that State Dept employees and contractors were involved in a long list of illegal activities, including demanding money or sex from foreigners seeking U.S. visas, illegal drug use and underage sex.

She reported her findings to her bosses at State but nothing happened--they ignored her.  Convinced this wasn't an accident--that the people in charge were actively covering up the misconduct--she went public, and retained a Dallas law firm, Schulman & Mathias.  The firm's office is in a Dallas high-rise office building (that'll make sense a bit later).

On June 30th someone broke into that firm and stole all three of its computers.

The thieves ignored an unlocked office across the hall from the law firm and didn't take valuables such as silver bars that were in plain sight.  The did use a hammer to break into a couple of locked metal filing cabinets.

Another intriguing detail is that the thieves didn't simply jimmy the door to the law office.  Instead they entered a large vacant space next door that was being remodeled, and cut through a non-alarmed interior wall.  This suggests a *lot* of surveillance and planning, and again suggests this wasn't just an opportunistic crime.

Interestingly, the building’s security cameras captured footage of the suspected burglars entering and leaving the offices.  The cameras were easily visible, yet the burglars made no effort to cover their faces or disable the cameras.  Were they just amateurs too stupid to recognize the cams?  Or were they unconcerned because they knew they wouldn't be prosecuted even if caught?

The fact that the thieves a) ignored valuable loot; b) passed up an unlocked office; c) knew they could cut through a wall of an empty office next door; and d) weren't concerned enough to conceal their faces from the security cameras makes it pretty obvious that this wasn't the typical burglary for cash or valuables.  A rational adult would conclude that the target was the information contained on the law firm's computers.  But information about what?

Attorney Schulman said the only other cases he was involved with were local and "rather stale." 

Keeping in mind that the attorney may be using this to divert attention from a different case, one logical theory is that someone at State wanted to know the details of what whistleblower Aurelia Fedenisn had told her attorneys.  If that's true, all the anomalies make sense.

Oh, my liberal friends will say, this couldn't have been a government job because the government would *never* hire burglars so amateurish as to not cover their faces (ignoring the alternate reason).  But the folks in government who come up with these ideas ARE amateurs:  let me remind you that a document on the White House website, purporting to be a scan of a paper document alleged to be the birth certificate of one B.H. Obama, actually consisted of ten layers of built-up cut-and-pastes--proving it was not only a forgery but a very amateurish one.  So you can shove that line of argument ("couldn't be gummint cuz they're way too smart!") right up your ass.

Oh, and for my liberal relatives who will be absolutely certain this is a story concocted by da eeeebil folks at Faux News, here's a different link:  It's to the magazine "Foreign Policy"--hardly a right-wing outfit.

Here's another link to the story, from the Dallas Morning News.  The most significant thing in this story is the information that the crooks entered the building *twice*--8:30 in the evening and then again at 3:30 a.m. the next morning.  Again shows this was not a quick "target of opportunity" burglary but one very carefully planned.